Like Evil Economist noticed, that was an example of nutpicking.
Yes, it would be interesting to see all go to pot. But those that follow discord should be aware that the saying of “may you live in interesting times” is not a blessing but a curse.
Interestingly, Trump is literally an internet troll.
Oh, if only he limited his trolling to the Internet…
Early polling suggests Hillary won the first debate: Poll: Hillary Clinton wins first presidential debate
Here’s CNN’s fact-checking: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/26/politics/fact-check-presidential-debate/index.html
I actually think this debate performance is a good rejoinder to charges that Hillary is an awful candidate.
She’s not a great candidate – she’s not very good on the stump, and she has tons of baggage. But she’s very, very sharp in the debates, and that’s an important part of a campaign.
She’s not an awful candidate – she’s just not a great one, and 2 of the Democratic Party’s last 4 nominees for President were historically great candidates. She’s probably better than Gore and Kerry, and both of them came very, very close to winning.
Better than Kerry, by miles and miles and miles. I think Gore was actually better though, and he did win in the sense of “if the election wasn’t a giant cockup he would have been President.”
Clinton’s an interesting case though, because I think she’s lesser than the winning Dems, but greater than the losers. Which is why it’s close, I guess.
Al Gore said in one post-2000 speech, “As I learned from many years in politics, you win some, you lose some… and then there’s that little-known third option.”
To the extent Gore made it close, it wasn’t about his quality as a candidate but his campaign strategy. Distancing himself from a popular President was just such a bad, bad choice. Clinton’s doing the right thing even though Obama is a lot less popular than Bill. When you’re trying to succeed a President of your own party you have to portray his Presidency as something that would want to be celebrated and continued.
Her problem is lack of a unifying message other than “it’s my time”. Trump does have a message, a very clear one. This might be the first time that a candidate with a muddled message beats one with a clear message.
I think Kerry, while not perfect by any stretch, is vastly underrated as a candidate. We’re talking about how strong Hillary is in debates: well, that was one of Kerry’s notable strengths, eviscerating Dubya that year.
But back to the topic of Hillary.
Her campaign has released a very strong new ad. This made me cry, both as a father of daughters and as a Democrat who loves a strong ad for my team: “Daughters”
This NYT article is yet more catnip, although I can imagine how it might look a little biased to some Republicans, given that it’s in the straight news section rather than op-ed:
For a hardened political junky who didn’t even support this candidate 8 years ago, you sure cry a lot over her campaign messaging.
Did you watch the “Daughters” commercial link he posted?
No. Does one of the daughters die of some women’s disease?
Watch it. Then get snarky.
Absent some articulated reason to watch it, no thanks. Otherwise I assume it says electing Hillary is good for girls and leave it at that.
I am a political junkie, but I’m not necessarily hardened emotionally. I got very weepy over Obama in '08. Now it’s women’s turn, and that also makes me emotional. We live in amazing and inspiring times.
Noted BTW that you’ll argue over the ad, but not spend thirty seconds watching it. :rolleyes:
Ok, I quickly broke down and took a look. Seen it already. Another fine example of Clinton’s pre-fact checked negative ad campaign. I stand by my previous snarky comment.
That commercial is only possible because we live in a time when someone making such shitty comments became a major party presidential candidate. I don’t find that inspiring.
Well, yeah. What’s your point?
It think the intent of the commercial is not to “inspire” but to reveal Trump’s shitty comments about women from his own lips as a deterrent to voting him into the Presidency. I mean, it’s not like someone accused him of saying this stuff-- it’s him saying it.
When it is November 7th and you see the screenshots and graphs of newspaper endorsements, it is going to be absolutely brutal.
The Arizona Republic, a newspaper that has never endorsed a Democrat since its founding since 1890, has endorsed Hillary Clinton.
The commercial is effective with females, especially in my house (sample size: 2).
This Vox article argues that the clumsily added-on Machado remarks at the very end of the debate was timed specifically to send Trump off the deep end. Today, there happens to be no fewer than three feature pieces on the woman in two separate continents: the NYT, the Guardian, and Cosmopolitan… the last with the very same reporter that pissed off Ivanka two weeks ago.
All the articles push Hillary’s message and he just walked into the trap.