I’m very curious as to the polls after Friday’s tape release. I know how politicians are reacting, but I want to know how likely voters are reacting. No so much those that were already decided on other candidates, but Trump supporters and undecideds. How many of the Trump supporters care - even enough to just not vote for Trump (not voting for anyone)?
Yes, yes, and, and…there are probably millions of women out there who’ve had to deal with this shit, or know someone who has.
His base won’t budge at all, but I suspect we’ll see him collapse to near 40% and perhaps under. If he dips below 40, it’s completely over. And it may even be over for the GOP if that happens - and I don’t mean just this election.
Red wine hangover.
You just hand waved away about half the electorate. And that’s assuming you are correct in your assessment. Let’s hope HRC doesn’t make the same mistake.
There was also a snippet in there about Wall Street Bankers being the best source for writing regulatory reform of the financial system.
I think the thing that angers me most about this is what kind of holy hell would be wrought if Obama was caught doing a tiny modicum of stuff that Trump had done?
The transcripts are more evidence for the notion that Clinton has political positions that she doesn’t support in private. John Mace quoted the relevant portions up thread. It’s more evidence that Clinton is untrustworthy, which is a major factor cited by voters for not liking her.
While I’m glad the three of you do not think there is anything damaging in the transcripts (because I also support Clinton), that doesn’t mean that this revelation won’t cause Clinton to lose a significant amount of votes. That is, if this were a normal election. But when you have “grab her by the pussy” dominating the news, the details of this transcript might not even make a dent.
He might not have lived to see Election Day 2008.
Oops. I read that post as “body temp”, not “room temp”. But then again…
The Trump video doesn’t tell us anything completely new about Trump either, given all of his previous statements to Howard Stern and elsewhere. But it does feed into and expand the notion of him as an entitled, depraved misogynist who feels like his fame and wealth give him free reign to do whatever he wants with whomever he wants. This also plays on to his apparent tax strategy that wealthy people can do whatever they want, particularly since they have unique access to politicians who can shape the tax code in their favor.
The Clinton speech portions don’t tell us anything completely new about Clinton, but like with Trump’s current issues, they reinforce the narrative that Clinton is a typical lying politician who will entirely change her positions based on whomever she is speaking to. Since she likely was very much thinking of her presidential ambitions when she gave the speeches shortly after leaving the SecState position, it is mind-boggling that she would even say in a speech that she has public positions and private positions on issues, given how it sounds. Her biggest weakness is the perception that she is not trust-worthy and this plays into that precisely. Even if she did mean (and she likely did) that any space between her public and private positions on issues would be merely degrees or shades of rhetoric and not necessarily mirror opposites, it still undermines her platform and the promises she made in shifting positions during her primary campaign with Bernie.
But like you said, given that they are written emails that are more policy and strategy-centric than Trump’s recordings, they are not as damaging to Hillary. But they are still somewhat damaging, especially given her previous struggle to win Bernie and undecided voters and preventing them from simply voting third party or staying home.
Gotta admit, Condi Rice got a laugh out of me: “Donald Trump should not be President. He should withdraw. As a Republican, I hope to support someone who has the dignity and stature to run for the highest office in the greatest democracy on earth.”
If I were a politician trying to actually get stuff done, I would have a private opinion and a public opinion that would not be identical.
That would guarantee that you would never get anything done, regardless of which side of the political divide you were on.
When reciting her qualifications for presidency, she can earnestly include the fact that she is (thankfully) over 35 years old, and therefore presumably somewhat safe from his advances.
This is so obviously not true, that it’s not worth discussing. There is likely not a single politician in the history of the United States who didn’t have private views that were not public.
The polls are great for this time of the cycle with early voting starting.
Florida, early voting starts Oct 24–Nov 6 - currently blue, 68.7 % for Hillary taking the state.
North Carolina, early voting begins Oct 20. currently blue, 64.9% for Hillary taking the state.
Without these states, or a nuclear strike on Hillary’s campaign, Donald can’t win.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer, biggest newspaper in Ohio, has endorsed Hillary: In the matter of our endorsement for the president of the United States of America... - cleveland.com
Please explain.
I agree. And I don’t see how having different public/private views makes you “untrustworthy.”
Actually, Trump is an example of a person who makes no distinction between public/private views and who doesn’t understand that it’s not necessary or advisable to blurt out every single thing that comes into your head. He would do well to keep his private opinions private. Won’t happen.
Robert De Niro wants to punch Donald Trump in the face (video at link, SFW-ish (no profanity just politics))
Jon Voight wants everyone to know that he’s a jackass like Mr. Trump.
You don’t see how lying makes a person untrustworthy?
Yes, Trump is worse. That was not the question. The question was what did the HRC e-mails reveal that is bad.