2016 Presidential election campaign 3

568 posts / 0 new
Last post
josh

NorthReport wrote:
">http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/pro-trade-democrats-call-labors-bl...

An opinion piece masquerading as a news article.

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

There are too many angry people, primarily angry white males, in the USA for it to heal

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politic...

Sean in Ottawa

The real story is the massive fraud the political leadership on both sides have created. Americans who are not wealthy have been snowed for generations and things have been getting worse. It was inevitable that sooner or later someone would come up with fascist tactic blaming "outsiders" for the misery. It was only a matter of time before someone would go after Muslims and Mexicans for all the reasons middle America is without hope.

To be truthful I worry that we are not imune to this in Canada. The Conservatives here had significant support for this type of vision and that may increase. I fear that if the Liberals start to keep their promises to Aboriginal peoples a Conservative leader may focus on that (blaming the economy for the spending that is required. Truth and logic won't matter. We may not be as seriously infected as the US with this but there is certainly a danger if the economy gets worse.

The Liberals fraud of a tax cut could make things worse as people earning in the $15,000 to $45,000 range who are struggling could be persuaded to look right instead of left for help. Some of those people may not be particularly well educated and may have biases that can be built on by a hateful personality. Don't think it cannot happen here.

The unlikely coalition between a following of angry, poorly educated low income earners searching for someone to blame and wealthy Conservatives is a potent one. There are many people who are struggling with low incomes in Canada who would never be fooled by this kind of garbage but you don't need to add many from that income group to get a significant political volume. Right wing Conservatives start around a third of the vote here and don't tend to get much in this income group so  add a few deluded angry low income working poor white people who are open to racism and you can bring that 1/3 up to a governing size coalition. When the shine starts coming off the Liberals this could be a threat. This is another reason the NDP has to have an articulate leader who can answer this.

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:
There are too many angry people, primarily angry white males, in the USA for it to heal
">http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politic...

 

This is a potential threat here as well. For now they are all happy with Trudeau but if he does not deliver to them, they will raise irrational propaganda that has a racist bent to it here. It could happen here.

It is essential that people talk about racism, inequality here.

NorthReport

But it does not matter as nothing Trump does will turn off his support

What does matter is getting out the vote and early voting a starts within a few weeks

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/05/politics/trump-tweets-classified-confident...

NorthReport
Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:
But it does not matter as nothing Trump does will turn off his support What does matter is getting out the vote and early voting a starts within a few weeks
">http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/05/politics/trump-tweets-classified-confident...

What does not matter?

NorthReport

The Democrats cannot control what Trump says or does but they can control working on getting out the Democratic vote

NorthReport

Trump Tests Climate Change Denial Against Public Opinion, Real-World Impacts

Large majorities in key swing states want to regulate carbon dioxide.

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-climate-change-denial-public-opinion-imp...

NorthReport
NorthReport

How Donald Trump Lost His Mojo

Flailing on race and immigration, his campaign in chaos, the candidate who made a brilliant farce of the election is now finding the joke is on him

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/how-donald-trump-lost-his-...

 

NorthReport

How Donald Trump Lost His Mojo

Flailing on race and immigration, his campaign in chaos, the candidate who made a brilliant farce of the election is now finding the joke is on him

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/how-donald-trump-lost-his-...

 

NorthReport

Trump is campaigning in Mississippi and Clinton is leading in Texas by 1% today. That tells me this is going to be a major blowout for the Democrats so it is quite appropriate to begin calling the Democratic nominee "Landslide Hillary". It is mindboggling to even think that Trump could be running for President.  What I have been learning about him makes me think he is much more suited for the next available jail cell.

NorthReport
Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

How Donald Trump Lost His Mojo

Flailing on race and immigration, his campaign in chaos, the candidate who made a brilliant farce of the election is now finding the joke is on him

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/how-donald-trump-lost-his-...

 

Huh? How do you square this with the reports that he has drawn even in the polls? This is not a couple polls but a trend over the last couple weeks.

The whiplash from the Trump is gaining to Trump is doomed articles published daily is getting tiresome. So what is your explanation for all this?

I think that the election is too close to call with two dreadful leaders each trying to lose and succeeding but only one can really lose in the end.

 

NorthReport

It is one lie, after another lie, after another. At least enough of the USA voters don't want this sleaze for their leader

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pam-bondi-trump-never-spoke-clarif...

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

At least enough of the USA voters don't want this sleaze for their leader

No evidence that this is true. Campaign still a way out and it is not beyond impossible for him to win.

 

Doug Woodard

How the great paradox of American politics holds the secret of Trump's success:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/07/how-great-paradox-americ...

This writer realizes somethat many don't: the importance of identification in politics. What is it that we believe, want to believe, or can pretend that we are a part of?

Sean in Ottawa

Doug Woodard wrote:

How the great paradox of American politics holds the secret of Trump's success:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/07/how-great-paradox-americ...

This writer realizes somethat many don't: the importance of identification in politics. What is it that we believe, want to believe, or can pretend that we are a part of?

An interesting point and more universal than the US.

This can explain why Trudeau got away with the great tax fraud of 2015 -- where people were delighted that there was a middle class tax cut, the journalists actually did a fairly good job spelling out that most were not getting it but so great was the aspiration to be middle class that people just refused to understand that any (however flawed) definition of the so called middle class did not apply to them.

It meant facing a definition of middle class that they were not part of.

This dynamic was so strong that the population did not even call out Trudeau on the fact that it was his definition not theirs that was to blame. Middle class is this notional idea that captures people earning from in some cases as low as $25k all the way up to the 1%. To define it as the top 10% (except the top half of the top 1%) is something the Liberals have still gotten away with. It remains an odd thing that a wealthy PM could tell millions of Canadians that they were not part of the middle class, or only barely part of it, and get away with it. But that is what happened. Now we have all filed our taxes and people still aren't noticing.

NorthReport

The only polls that matter now are the individual swing state polls.

Yesterday Trump was campaigning in red state Mississippi and where was Clinton? Texas, that's correct red state Texas. And the main newspaper in Dallas, yes Dallas, Texas this morning just threw their support to Clinton. 

The only logical reason I can think of for Trump campaigning in Mississippi is to try and show a lot of people at his rally.

If Trump is in trouble in Mississippi it will be more than a landslide, it will be a total wipeout. 

I'm ordering my "Landslide Hillary" button now. 

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

Yesterday Trump was campaigning in red state Mississippi

Don't pay too much attention to that, his schedule has no rhyme or reason. He goes to a lot of deep blue states as well.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

There is speculation that Trump's campaign rallies in places like Washington State, where he has not the remotest chance of winning, are actually intended to build the audience for the Trump 24/7 Hate Network, which he plans to start after he loses the election.

NorthReport

I suppose some of  the haters are bailing on Fox News so someone will have to employ them.

NorthReport
NorthReport

Some of the dumbest politicians on the planet invited Trump to Mexico

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/world/americas/mexico-finance-minis...

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

The only polls that matter now are the individual swing state polls.

Yesterday Trump was campaigning in red state Mississippi and where was Clinton? Texas, that's correct red state Texas. And the main newspaper in Dallas, yes Dallas, Texas this morning just threw their support to Clinton. 

The only logical reason I can think of for Trump campaigning in Mississippi is to try and show a lot of people at his rally.

If Trump is in trouble in Mississippi it will be more than a landslide, it will be a total wipeout. 

I'm ordering my "Landslide Hillary" button now. 

Some of those polls have tightened as well and there is still lots of time -- particularly if an event occurs like:

-- revelations we have not seen before regarding Clinton are possible

-- serious economic news like employment or stocks could shake people up

Trump is the angry candidate -- anything provoking anger could have an impact

NorthReport

This is a helpful website for students of USA politics.

Ballotpedia Logo

https://ballotpedia.org/Main_Page

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

It's a long campaign. Each candidate goes through good and bad periods. Trump has his bad times earlier and Clinton is having hers now. I have enough confidence in the American voters that I'm still ordering my "Landslide Hillary" button.

 

NorthReport

Trump caught a break last nite but I doubt it will be repeated.

Matt Lauer Loses the War in a Battle Between the Candidates

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/arts/television/matt-lauer-presidentia...

NorthReport

A bit late perhaps but better late than never. How many people though will even see the retraction? Nowhere near as many as that saw the originate message. The damage is done.

AP deletes Clinton Foundation tweet

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/09/ap-deletes-clinton-founda...

NorthReport

The Trump Blitz Begins

The GOP nominee is finally—relentlessly—arguing that Clinton is unfit for office.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-blitz-begins-1473375660

NorthReport
NorthReport

If Mitt Romney endorsed Phil Johnson would that give him the 15% support required to get into the debates
And if Johnson got into the debates who would he hurt the most Clinton or Trump

Cody87

NorthReport wrote:
If Mitt Romney endorsed Phil Johnson would that give him the 15% support required to get into the debates And if Johnson got into the debates who would he hurt the most Clinton or Trump

For the first question, probably not. But the second question is very interesting. I could argue both sides, but probably more convincingly that he would hurt Trump more than Clinton.

Although I perceive the Democrat vote to be softer this election than the Republican vote, I don't see as many soft Democrats switching to the Libertarian party as soft Republicans who might. I think Gary Johnson is more ideologically similar to Clinton, but traditionally the Libertarians are closer to the Republicans. Most voters identify along party lines first, and then later evaluate their candidate and the other candidates through a lens of confirmation bias. This means that more Republicans than Democrats would entertain the thought of a Libertarian ticket.

Now, in theory, this could work both ways - the assumption above is that Johnson would win votes, as opposed to lose them. Libertarian voters would also be more likely to consider going Republican than Democrat. But at the end of the day, I just don't see Johnson having that many votes to lose. As with the Green party in Canada, expect the Libertarians (and U.S. Greens) to poll well until election day but to underperform at the ballot box as these voters will break for one of the major parties. The only question is who the voters who were parking with either of those minor parties end up breaking to.

The Democrat campaign is out of the Clinton's control. The Republican campaign is almost entirely in Trump's control. Let me be very clear in my meaning here. There are many things which could negatively effect the Clinton campaign and there is nothing that can be done by the Democrats to stop it (snarky aside: maybe they manage to off Assange and get lucky on the other stuff). Any one of the scandals that are currently circling Clinton and just barely being held at bay could sink her campaign. Conversely, the only thing that can sink the Trump's campaign is Trump himself - and it's looking increasingly unlikely that he will. 

Under such circumstances, Trump is much more likely to get more of the soft Libertarian voters - especially since he better represents Libertarian values than Gary Johnson does. Anything that prevents those voters from switching to a major party is a relative loss to Trump, who will get the majority of the switchers. So, presuming a reasonable debate performance by Gary Johnson, his inclusion in the debates would probably hurt Trump more than the Clinton.

If it seems strange that I haven't talked about either Clinton or Trump's performances, it's because they probably won't matter. If they do matter, it is Trump who will benefit from low expectations for himself and high expectations for Clinton. Even after all the evidence to the contrary, people actually believe Trump is stupid. There are a few foreseeable ways Trump could overwhelmingly win the debates, and the more time he and Clinton talk the better (for him). A third party candidate of any stripe will reduce the scrutiny of Clinton and reduce his opportunity to exceed expectations.

I'll ignore any conjecture about the health of the specific candidates and how Johnson's presence would benefit any specific candidates who might have less than stellar health as I don't want to stray into conspiracy theory territory. But if, only hypothetically speaking of course, a candidate was sick and had trouble...I don't know...speaking or standing for extended periods of time (for example), then that (hypothetical!!) candidate with the (theoretical) health issues might benefit from an additional candidate who would both draw attention away and who would reduce the amount of talking each candidate was required to do.

So most likely, I would expect Johnson in the debates to hurt Trump more than Clinton.

NorthReport

Pages