He can’t do this. I watched some of his rally last night, I forget where it was, but he was reading bullet points or whatever, instead of winging it, and the crowd was confused.
He has to at least maintain the same level of vitriol, or people are either going to stop showing up at his rallies, or they are going to turn on him at them.
Remember when that old lady at a McCain town hall said she heard Obama was a Muslim, and McCain replied (I’m paraphrasing), “No ma’am, you don’t have to be afraid of him.” And got shrieks of “NO!” and booed in response?
He can conceivably still run red meat rallies while also running ads where he comes off as sane, but the press coverage of the rallies will cancel out the ads.
I don’t think another terror attack will help him. He fucked up the last one. He’ll fuck up the next one by saying it’s time for a holy war.
Yeah, I think you’re exactly spot on here. He’s probably going to say and do things to make sure that he can use the GOP machine in swing states, so he’ll endorse people and occasionally try to use a few bullet points. He’ll try not to smear the war dead anymore – he at least knows that’s a boundary now.
But he’s going to say even more outrageous shit than ever. He’s now gone beyond abandoning NATO and talking about abandoning Japan as well. Dumb prick doesn’t seem to understand that without Japan, it’s going to be difficult to mount any kind of political and military resistance to China, which he seems to love banging on about. He’ll probably say we need to end all immigration and propose an immigration control act. He’ll probably tell everyone that he intends to ignore civil liberties and that he’ll sue any publication that defames him – oh wait, he’s already doing that. Whatever…he’ll find ways to outdo himself.
And wouldn’t you know it, right on cue, Hillary Clinton has done exactly that. She struggled in an interview to put the emails behind her, and then she said she ‘short circuited’ in front of a large crowd of supporters. And if that’s not enough, she promised to raise taxes on the middle class – an obvious gaffe and not what she intended to say but still, it feeds a perception.
So let’s go through what we said Trump needed to happen 24 hours ago:
He needs to get back on message and be a serious candidate. Check.
He needs Hillary to fumble. Check.
He needs national security to be an issue again. Could easily happen.
To the Washington establishment that long ago left Trump, yeah, it’s more proof that Trump is a buffoon. To some guy in Toledo, Ohio or Scranton, Pennsylvania…maybe it’s poetry.
That is not so. She said she was going to raise taxes on the middle class…unless my hearing has gotten so bad that I need hearing aids (which is possible). At minimum, it sure sounded like she said what Trump’s campaign suggested she said. The transcript says otherwise, but the audio is what people will hear and that is what will be played in Manafort’s ads.
I would have to say that while I do understand what you are saying, you are still ignoring that we are outside the Republican sandbox. Sure, there are many in there, but the rest of the people in the park are the ones that will notice that indeed Trump has another thing coming if he thinks that most Americans will fall for that ruse when the media is also reporting on how deceptive and a liar Trump is on this one.
If Trump said, “I’m going to adopt a Muslim ban” and someone cut it to say “I’m going to adopt a Muslim” would anyone buy it? No, because everybody knows it’s the opposite of what he stands for.
Poor enunciation, misspeak, bad audio or flat out not what she said, it doesn’t matter. It’s amazing how delusional some people are getting.
Every politically active democrat or left-leaning supporter already predisposed to support Clinton knows that’s the opposite of what she stands for. But when we’re dealing with swing voters, in a country where people don’t even know how a bill becomes law, or who their own congressional reps are, or where the Pacific Ocean is…
Do I think it’ll be a major factor in the race? No, I don’t. I only responded to point out that she sometimes has a problem of stinking it up in front of crowds and in interviews. She’s not a telegenic candidate. So while this one gaffe won’t be an issue, the larger inability to connect with voters without appearing stilted or Al Goreish…will be a lingering source of concern.
And I’ve no idea why you’re calling this delusional. Remember, this is the land in which:
George W Bush won not once but twice over clearly more educated candidates.
Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor of our most populous state.
Jesse Ventura became governor of Minnesota.
And lest we forget, Donald Trump defeated 15 politically experienced candidates, including senators and governors.
It just goes to prove that this is a very weird election year, with a lot of voters, on the right and the left, hungering for some kind of change. And Trump is a media star while Clinton is kind of plodding as a candidate. Think about it too that Trump should have been sunk many months ago in the primaries with all the stuff that he’s said and here he is as the Republican nominee. So I don’t necessarily blame Clinton for not being further ahead and Trump for not being even further behind
However, I don’t get why people are still supporting Trump when it’s obvious he goes against most of the Republican Party on domestic and foreign affairs and he doesn’t have a clue on most of his policies (especially relations with our allies). I guess many Republicans just don’t want to vote for Clinton, and the leadership is afraid of pissing off Trump’s supporters. I think it’s also likely they feel they can’t risk Supreme Court choices and maybe feel they still have sway over Trump on nominating their choices (or he’s holding it over their heads)
The support for Trump doesn’t make sense to us because we base our voting behavior on data, facts, and objective truths. But that’s not necessarily how your next door neighbor sees the world.
isn’t any more realistic if Dems throw that accusation than when Trump does. Otherwise it’s a matter of degree depending whether it has be ‘change the election from where it is now to Trump wins’ all by itself.
There could be a sudden big drop in the stock market 1987 style, small probability but would boost narrative that the mixed signals of the economy are a Potemkin Village to the extent viewed strictly positively. But that’s never likely in any given 3 month period and moreover it’s basically too late now for a bad debt driven crisis in the US to threaten the financial system 2008 style: those things don’t appear instantly from nowhere but rather arise as problems people see but aren’t sure how badly they’ll turn out, it was clear there was a housing/mortgage problem in the US from 2007, a huge market, just not clear how bad it would be. The comparable situations now are outside the US, like Italy’s banking system and Chinese debt in general. But while sudden panics could happen in those places, it would only directly transmit to US risk markets (like the stock market). Three months isn’t enough time for them to undermine the assets of US banks enough to threaten the system like 2008.
A big terrorist attack could shake things up. It like a financial crisis would harm Clinton on the implicit theme of her campaign that things are going well with Obama (though she’s also an ‘agent of change’ a tension which might be more of a problem for her if Trump was running a better campaign). However a deep crisis might also scare more people away from somebody like Trump as leader to step into it. It’s hard to say.
I don’t see how a damaging leak can be excluded if we don’t know what there is to leak. Clinton deleted a lot of emails which weren’t recovered, but not necessarily before hackers got them. She said they are not relevant. If you take her word, end of story…but I don’t see why anyone would given her history (OK w/ me if you say Trump is still worse, but it’s spin or naivety to say she’s an honest person IMO). But of course there might be nothing very damaging left to leak about Clinton.
A strong/weak debate performance by Trump/Clinton, relative to expectations, would obvious help/hurt but I think that’s also unlikely to be a major factor, unlikely the other way around also.
This. I remember about a month and a half ago a poll(apologies I can’t remember where,showed 64% of all Americans thought Trump was “unqualified to be President” and that was before he started publicly insulting the family of a fallen war hero and encouraging Putin to hack the US.