Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

Well at least it'll mix things up to have a third family in the mix. Just having it go alternating rounds of Bushes and Clintons would get boring pretty fast

it would also be extraordinarily difficult given that there are no other contenders in the families. I mean, there is Chelsea, and that's it. And on the Bush's side, well, Jeb!'s ship has long since sailed.

Political dynasties are older then the Kennedys. Older then the Roosevelts. I don't know why people keep arguing it's magically new shit.
So Politico published two articles on Clinton and Trump, respectively, examining their paths to victory. In a nuthsell, they argue Trump's path to victory is relatively narrow and focuses on flipping currently blue states in the Rust Belt, while Clinton's is much wider and will focus on defending Democratic territory. If Clinton can hold currently blue areas, she only needs one swing state to win. Alternately, since Clinton seems to be winning swing states by a fair margin (bearing in mind polling hasn't really kicked off yet), she could afford to lose a few blue states if she sweeps the swing states.

One thing that is worth noting is that Trump is considered to be running a very poor ground game, and is betting on personal charm (he argued to Politico that what won Obama his races was not Obama's solid ground-game, but his personal appeal). Clinton is instead running a traditional campaign, and will probably try to recreate what worked in the Obama campaign. In addition, Trump will probably not have as many of the resources on the ground that another republican campaign would, since he isn't working with the RNC currently, while Clinton obviously is working with the DNC.

What do you guys think? Do you agree? Are the campaigns trying to do the right thing? Are Trump's campaign's faults going to sink him?

[Loud Whispers]

1. Awesome
2. I'm neutral
3. No
4. No

Also I think I have glimpsed a look at Mainiac's life, I dared to comment on a TyT video about the Bernie Revolution and everyone started calling me a $hillary Mercenary

Which admittedly sounds pretty radtacular

Of note in that article

Clinton allies also note that Trump is an “organization-lite” candidate who is driven by message, but, they argue, that is a risky strategy for getting out people who typically don’t vote.

They should not take it for granted that Trump won't succeed here, all political forecasts that weren't irl shitposts could not predict that Trump would have even made it this far, yet all the things that should have resulted in his campaign ending made him more powerful

“Never in modern history have we seen two nominees who have an unfavorable rating over 50 percent,” said Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster in Washington. “We’re truly in uncharted waters trying to use history to determine what’s going to happen in this campaign.”

Ahahaha the majority of voters hate BOTH choices given

Those close to his campaign privately say Trump’s pronouncements about turning some strongly Democratic states is essentially an old-fashioned head fake — an effort to raise money while forcing Clinton’s team to spend its own defending safe territory.

Yeah he tends to run his Campaign like military ones, this is probably a sneaky ruse that Clinton should not fall for

[mainiac]

They should not take it for granted that Trump won't succeed here, all political forecasts that weren't irl shitposts could not predict that Trump would have even made it this far, yet all the things that should have resulted in his campaign ending made him more powerful

Sometimes predictions fail.  You can't just go hide in a corner and suck your thumb everytime they fail.  Sometimes they fail a lot and you need to re-examine the way you are making predictions.  But just because one prediction about Trump failed doesn't mean we should completely throw in the towel.

"Trump's ground game sucks" is a much less audacious prediction then "Trump will flame out and fall like so many candidates last time".  For one thing it's much more straightforward.  The comparative dynamics of a crowded field are hard to assess.  It's really easy to see if Trump's ground game sucks.  You go to offices and count the volunteers.  You count the number of offices.  They can be objectively quantified in the present.

[Shadowlord]

Hillary's running a 50-state strategy not because she needs to compete in every state, but because she recognizes the need for a Congress she can work with (and the marvelous opportunity Trump is giving the Democrats), among other reasons.

See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-democratic-party_us_57645313e4b015db1bc95fd3

“The 50-state strategy worked. It gave us the majorities in the House and the Senate, and then it was abandoned because Obama chose to go with OFA [Organizing For Action], which did not work, and the DNC scaled way back on it,” Dean, a supporter of and consultant to Clinton’s campaign, told HuffPost. “But I’m very pleased it is going to be rebuilt. I think they totally get that her legacy depends on having a Democratic Congress and that she has to start now.”

[Loud Whispers]

Sometimes predictions fail.  You can't just go hide in a corner and suck your thumb everytime they fail.  Sometimes they fail a lot and you need to re-examine the way you are making predictions.  But just because one prediction about Trump failed doesn't mean we should completely throw in the towel.

"Trump's ground game sucks" is a much less audacious prediction then "Trump will flame out and fall like so many candidates last time".  For one thing it's much more straightforward.  The comparative dynamics of a crowded field are hard to assess.  It's really easy to see if Trump's ground game sucks.  You go to offices and count the volunteers.  You count the number of offices.  They can be objectively quantified in the present.

This was all the predictions, all the time, straight up till even after Cruz was mathematically eliminated

I'd say that's a bit more than one bad prediction

[mainiac]

I'd say that's a bit more than one bad prediction

You are counting different people predicting the same thing as different predictions?  I am not.

[Cthulhu]

Also I think I have glimpsed a look at Mainiac's life, I dared to comment on a TyT video about the Bernie Revolution and everyone started calling me a $hillary Mercenary

Bernie supporters live under a reality deflection field.  I'm pretty sure most of the people on /r/s4p think they're gonna indict hillary any day now and hand the nomination to bernie.

[mainiac]

there but for the grace of god...

[Wolfhunter107]

They should not take it for granted that Trump won't succeed here, all political forecasts that weren't irl shitposts could not predict that Trump would have even made it this far, yet all the things that should have resulted in his campaign ending made him more powerful

Trump had two advantages working for him in the primary that he won't have in the general election. The first is that the primary was extremely crowded, with 11 candidates at the start of the Iowa caucuses, meaning that while there were some candidates capable of beating Trump,  the spoiler effect was working against them, allowing Trump to consolidate power before they could. The second is that the average voter in the Republican primary is much more conservative than the average general election voter. He'll find that they are much less friendly demographic.


As for the Trump campaign's lack of a ground game, I think that it's a major issue, but it's only the second worst issue that they're facing. That dubious honor goes to Donald Trump and his inability to keep his mouth shut. The last two weeks are a pretty good proof of that.

[FearfulJesuit]

It's true that the average GOP voter is more conservative than the average general election voter, but Trump wasn't the most conservative GOP candidate. I think people too easily take his xenophobia, bluster, and mouth-breathing base as evidence that he's an ultra-conservative, and...he isn't, not by the standards of the current American political spectrum (that would be Cruz).

That said, Trump may be heralding the start of a realignment along more populist lines, where the party line for the American Right de-emphasizes laissez-faire economics and evangelical moralism in favor of isolationism and xenophobia.

[Shadowlord]

His economic plans have been identical to standard Republican trickle down plans, though - aside from the mercantilism, of course. Common sense - one of Trump's favorite things - tells us that this would bring a massive economic collapse first, then eventually bring factories back, but also raise prices on cheap consumer goods massively. Also, nobody would buy our consumer products if we tried to export them, and everything we do export would be hit by retaliatory tariffs.

P.S. Who knows, that might even not be wrong.

[Powder Miner]

He hasn't advertised trickle down at all. He has literally just offered everything people want to hear, there is not a laissez faire plan of any sort
or a coherent plan of any sort

[mainiac]

He hasn't advertised trickle down at all. He has literally just offered everything people want to hear, there is not a laissez faire plan of any sort
or a coherent plan of any sort

Those campain websites they constantly mention are real websites with real information: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

Income Tax Rate	Long Term Cap Gains/ Dividends Rate	Single Filers	Married Filers	Heads of Household
0%	0%	$0 to $25,000	$0 to $50,000	$0 to $37,500
10%	0%	$25,001 to $50,000	$50,001 to $100,000	$37,501 to $75,000
20%	15%	$50,001 to $150,000	$100,001 to $300,000	$75,001 to $225,000
25%	20%	$150,001 and up	$300,001 and up	$225,001 and up

The other information is not conveniently displayed in the graph
-No alternative minimum tax
-No inheritance tax
-Corporate tax rate changed to flat 15% rate
-Personal corporate income tax rate  changed to flat 15% rate
-One time repatriation of overseas earnings at 10% rate
-Tax overseas earnings at 15% after one time repatriation
-Typical meaningless boilerplate about corporate tax code simplification (although curiously not the typical boilerplate about income tax code simplification)
-Those within the 10% bracket will keep all or most of their current deductions
-Those within the 20% bracket will keep more than half of their current deductions
-Those within the 25% bracket will keep fewer deductions
-Charitable giving and mortgage interest deductions will remain unchanged for all taxpayers.

Oh and this is "revenue neutral" of course. 

[Wolfhunter107]

Apparently someone tried to grab a gun from a police officer working security at a Trump rally yesterday. It's not confirmed yet, but we may have had the first assassination attempt of this election.

[Orange Wizard]

What kind of subpar assassin needs to steal his equipment from the security guards?