It was a tweet purportedly sent by Donald Trump calling one of Clinton’s advisors (a Mexican or Hispanic woman, I believe) a chihuahua. It turned out to be from an impostor.
What… How the hell is this an answer? You post constantly hyperventilating about Hillary losing all those precious fragile white voters, and when someone asks you to go into detail on your beliefs, THIS is your completely dismissive reply?
Humor us. Tell us the blindingly obvious.
Good point, and if you are right then I think it worked. When pressed on these comments, the standard response by Hillary and her surrogates has been to admit that “half” maybe wasn’t the best word to use but then double down on the assertion that Trump is empowering bigots, xenophobes, etc., using facts and logic. I was dismayed that her “Alt-right” speech in Reno a couple of weeks ago did not seem to get the attention it deserved and become part of the national dialogue, but this second attempt seems to be more successful.
Come on, give us a hint!
I realize that you remain fixated on Louisiana but first - no she could not have slammed the door on him at any point. The lead she had after the one-two of a very successful convention and then Trump’s self-inflicted harm caused by attacking the Kahns was not sustainable. The media’s focus on raising “questions” about her is where her unfavorable rise comes from; not from her lack of photo-op handing out Play-Do.
I know I keep repeating this but the race is fairly stable. Aggregators like 538 call it currently Clinton +3.7 in polls-only and 4.0 in Nowcast. Wang not much different with a meta-margin of Clinton +3.6. Heck, Rasmussen’s latest was Clinton +4.
Closer than Clinton +5ish that I see as the long term stable center? Yes but not so far off. Nothing that Clinton can do will “put it away” in any lasting way much more than that. Trump could push it some transiently with particularly egregious comments but even then it will settle back. Poll numbers will be fickle going up and down around that stable center. Clinton doing one more or less campaign appearance that the media does not report on discussing another aspect of her plans and why she is the best choice has little impact.
So what to do? Every action you take is an opportunity cost of the action you do not take.
To no small degree the actual margin will be based on who comes out to vote on election day. Trump is depending on non-college educated White males voting in greater numbers than ever before, and it could happen. Clinton is spending bookoo bucks on her state of the art get out the vote infrastructure in critical states.
So in addition to her many appearances, and preparing hard for a solid debate performance, she is raising the money to fund that GOTV infrastructure. Don’t raise the money and you don’t have that as extensively or as completely developed. That infrastructure being fully formed and completely implemented does not impact her poll numbers right now but it can, fairly reliably, deliver a couple of points in those potentially close states on election day. So yes, she needs to spend some significant time raising the money that allows for that.
That is how she is trying to “put it away” … by methodical execution of a complete game plan.
As to the “deplorables” line … she said that the half of Trump’s supporters who are bigots are deplorable. What? Bigots are not deplorable? Those who are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it” are not deplorable? They are hard-working Americans who deserve respect? No. They are not.
Yeah, half may be the wrong number. Maybe it’s 80%. Maybe 60%. Probably not less. I think she was being too politically correct in portraying half of them as not bigots, as good people, “people who feel that government has let them down … desperate for a change … people we have to understand and empathize with” … but her call.
Says who? Name one president who slammed the door in August. Not even the Reagan landslide was apparent in August.
Eh, I’m somewhere between asahi’s hyperventilating panic* and some of y’all’s blithe dismissals*. Was this a backbreaking mistake that is going to cost her the election? Nah, I doubt it.
But IMO it was a stupid blunder that helps her in no way, shape or form. I think it will cost her more than it helps. Hopefully not by much, but it was best avoided - honestly is not always the best policy :).
- Expressions used for effect, not intended to convey actual depth of feeling by posters involved :D.
The other aspect of raising and spending money now, beyond the massive GOTV machine, is pointed out in this Forbes article focused on the more traditional media campaign.
Not talking about the commercials running right now (although the bits in the article about which shows have gotten the big buys is interesting) but this:
Did you notice no one is talking about the email water torture any more?
Trump is the American Brexit. People will be saying until the eve of the election, “He can’t win.” They will be saying that his voters are a bunch of idiots and uneducated lowlifes clutching to religion and race." Trump may be oscillating somewhere between -5 and +1 throughout the rest of the campaign. The averages might put Clinton at +4. But guess what: if on November 8, Trump has the benefit of the last upswing in the vote…we’re living with it for 4 years, and we’re probably living with the consequences for 4 decades at minimum.
So you’ve said. Repeatedly. Notwithstanding the fact that the “Brexit can’t win” was more public perception than polling reality, none of what you’ve said, again repeatedly, answers any of the specific questions on this page.
This. (Thanks for clarification) Except it was Joy Reid of MSNBC, an African American.
You’re going to wait until after the election to tell us, aren’t you?
Question now is her VP candidate, what with all internet buzz about what they say Kaine did to his brother. Nobody knows how these things get started.
Really. Polling on Brexit was pretty much dead even. The numbers said it was close and often had Leave in the lead. The pundits and bettors were saying otherwise.
In any case you seem to have missed the meaning of my post.
While I am far more confident of a Clinton win than you are I am also very much of the belief that Team Clinton needs to execute in a manner that leaves as little to chance as possible. Locking up the critical state media markets for the critical time immediately before the election well in advance, having state-of-the-art GOTV infrastructure in place in those states, is more how you do that than having a few photo-ops.
Sorry about that, I looked at your post for about a millisecond, got distracted, and when I came back to the page again it was gone and all I remembered was a female name so I put myself in the shoes of someone trying to frame Trump for calling someone a chihuahua as an ethnic slur and came up with Amanda Renteria.
The undecideds will decide this election. They are white, and they lean right.
I went to Google news and couldn’t find a single thing about Kaine’s brother. Illuminate me?
Book of Genesis.
They are White. That much is true. The leaning Right part? Any basis for that belief?
Because as I’ve linked to in another thread as a group they are mostly “from a demographic — younger voters — that’s more inclined to back her, and in some surveys have a slightly less negative view of her than of Trump …”
Of the possibilities: they vote and break for Clinton; they vote and break for Trump; they vote and vote for Johnson or Stein; they just stay home - the least probable is that they vote and vote for Trump. I’d place they just stay home as the one the most will do but if the polling appears close some will vote against the one they dislike more, and that is Trump.