Oh, shit! Are we gonna invade Gallipoli?
He’s hamstrung unless he’s willing to give up a shitload of power and abandon the Hastert rule, and why would he do that? I wouldn’t hold my breath. I think not having a shutdown or a debt limit game of chicken will end up being “a lot of progress.”
Plus, they have already made the down payment.
You laugh. Let’s see how this whole Erdigan thing plays out.
I think this 538 bit from July helps fleash out better what I am tryng to express than I can. The G.O.P. has increasingly become “older, whiter, and less educated” than the country overall and some within it understand the existential crisis that they face:
Yes there are those in the GOP having that epiphany.
Now again, I do not know how that will play out. Those potentially repudiating Trump are a diverse crowd themselves and will only share both being labelled as Clinton collaborators by those who want Trump to win or at least Clinton to lose no matter what the cost. Those who do not are making the bed that they need to lie in. What factions will have what power in the future?
Not completely, obviously, but enough where they will be a gadfly rather than an utter roadblock to progress as they are today (at least in the Senate and White House). I cite twin trends: the increase in urbanized populations, and the similar increase among the nonreligious.
Yes we have a double problem. #1 is Trump, which is resolvable frankly. The second is the GOP policy of obstructionism. What to do, what to do…
If that happens, it could destroy the Republican Party. Because women make up more than 50% of the electorate. Sure, some women would participate in that. But maybe, possibly, not enough.
The central challenge of the GOP has been to persuade the middle class to vote against their economic interests. Fomenting inter-ethnic strife has been one method of jacking up the base. But I suspect that vulgar gender based attacks on Hillary could turn a lot of voters off, in a way that racist attacks do not. Or maybe I’m wrong: if Trump secures less than 35% of the vote, maybe that means that some will draw a line at racist fog horning.
Gee, where did Urbanredneck go? Somebody want to check under the couch? The thunder seems to have scared him.
If he “deserves” it–if it is accurate–and if counterarguments are noted, where they exist… what’s unfair?
He’s probably reading a different site and muttering about a liberal echo chamber on Straightdope. Because, you know, it is supposed to be an upright, white christian moral silent majority in the country, and you and me are the extremists shouting good people down and pushing unpopular ideas. Like the gamer buddy who defriended me last month said, “You democrats just want to make everyone be like you”.
Good point. The down ballot races are important, and she should help them as much as she is able, but the bulk of the responsibility for those properly falls on the actual candidates in those races. She can only do so much for them, and providing an anti-Trump standard for them to rally around might be the best strategy available to her.
It will need to be up to the other Democrats to tie the down ballot Republican brand to Trump.
Can you provide a short list of “favorable” facts regarding Trump that the WaPo has failed to print?
(The “favorable” facts regarding Trump that I have seen presented by Faux News have tended to fall into the categories of either “actually unfavorable,” (though presented as favorable by the Trump machine), or lies. What has WaPo refused to present?)
I think she let her “attorney making an opening statement” side take over, to wonderful effect.
Did you read this WaPo story about Hillary’s speech?
Here’s the header and lede:
Tit for tat. He said, she said.
Hillary gave a detailed indictment of Trump’s racist statements, actions, and connections. Trump responded by calling her a bigot. And this was how the WaPo played it.
I think Hillary’s indictment of Trump’s racism will be effective in some states but I could even see it potentially having a ho-hum or even an adverse reception in other states. I think she would do well to point it out at opportune times but I would not make this a centerpiece of her campaign attack. I think she has pretty much locked up the minority vote. What she’s going after now are white moderates, who have a range of views on using the race card.
Hillary’s advantage over Trump is that she is not Trump. She is a plodding, relatively boring candidate. She is the answer to Trump’s outrageous forms of political excitement. She does not want to get into a gutter war with Trump, because that type of fight, even if she’s right, is one she stands great risk of losing.
I’m actually warming to the idea of Hillary going with a republican minority, provided that they lose enough seats. Yes, there will be intense partisan bickering and maybe even rumblings of impeachment, but I doubt that the republicans escape this election unscathed.
But I fully expect republicans to continue uniting behind the #stopHillary banner and this may well be their undoing. Think of it as the Obama and Bill Clinton terms in the reverse. Bill and Barack entered with majorities and lost them within two years, with their reelections in doubt until a few months before the election. Maybe instead we could have republican obstructionism creating the opposite effect, motivating voters to show up and eject the GOP.
The speech was clearly in response to Trump’s attempt to attract more moderate white voters by claiming he is not as much a racist as it seems. So it was not addressed to minorities primarily, but I’m sure calling Trump out helps. Trump comes across as very White Man’s Burden to me - let Donald fix everything for you savages - but that may be too subtle for most so a direct counterattack is good.
As for your second point, her strategy of just playing his own words in her attack ads is not getting into the gutter, but pointing out that he has been in it all campaign.
I agree that Trump has earned the racist label, but calling your opponent a racist - fairly or not - is a provocative charge and one that will elicit emotional reactions among various segments of the electorate. In a sense, it’s getting into the gutter of American political discourse. I don’t think that is where her advantages lie. Besides, as we’ve already seen, Trump is just going to give it right back and literally fabricate his own charges of racism. Again, Clinton is trying to win over white voters who are in the political center, meaning they occasionally lean left, and occasionally lean right.
Fie to that.
As the Jewish people can tell you, never again they should be quiet. (and black people and the Hispanics -When is Trump going to denounce Arpaio?) Because it always starts with words.
And the Jewish people have also a beef with Trump for him going into the gutter, not only with words, but it is impossible to not notice the kind of supporters he is getting. It is really silly, if not dangerous to not pay attention to the efforts by Trump to normalize bigotry in America.