|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Interesting perspective on Clinton vs Trump. I think it paints a very accurate picture of how Clinton really will take some hits from Trump's attack, at least as they are currently understood. I can't help but wonder if Clinton actually benefits from Bernie's little attempt at trying to be remembered as some kinda MLK. By doing all he can to become a part of history, he may actually be giving democrats and Clinton the time they need to actually prepare for Trump.
At the end of the day, are we really going to say Trump is invincible? That his attack style would defeat any politician in any circumstance? I don't think so. I think there is an answer the Clinton campaign can come up with to stay afloat long enough to win the presidency. I think it's possible the Clinton campaign can severely diminish the effectiveness of Trump's strategy.
In a lot of ways, could we make comparisons to styles that certain players established in BW/WC3/SC2? Obviously very different scenarios, but consider times when a certain player played a certain build/style VERY well. A style completely conceived themselves and that they and only they could really push the knife in. Everyone could pull the style off, but this player is the one cleaning out a grand finals 4-1. I would argue Trump has managed to find a particularly potent style in a period of time where the "meta" strongly favors his type of style. I would also argue that there *is* a way to fight this.
I also think it is possible that Bernie and Barrack yelling as loud as they can against Trump could brute force Clinton into the whitehouse. If Clinton and the DNC are willing to give Bernie whatever he wants, I think they have a clear path to the whitehouse. I think worst case scenario is that Bernie doesn't come around and basically sits out the general election. If that happens, I think Clinton is disadvantaged against Trump and that the Clinton camp will need to find a hard counter of sorts against Trump's media blast.
|
Trump is invincible in the way that those who currently support him will continue to do so regardless of attacks again himself or his plans. To support him you already need to blind yourself to so many obvious signals that adding more neon lights is not going to help.
In the same vein it is very hard for Trump to actually improve, those who don't agree with him are unlikely to have a change of heart and switch support to him because there are so much obvious problems with him.
The key to beating Trump isn't in fighting him. It is in ensuring that people actually go out to vote against him. The general election is not like the Republican primary. The loonies are not the majority.
|
For Clinton, I favor the strategy of focusing on boring policy, and avoiding fights/engagement with Trump. In a war of media or charisma, Hillary will lose; on policy she wins. I read some recent info about how hillary tends to be viewed poorly as a candidate, but well when she's just being a policy wonk (including when Sec of state). She's not a natural politician, so she shouldn't fight on that ground.
On another note: currency:
Should we put MLK jr on something? I guess all the bills are taken atm, but it'd be nice to put him on something.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I agree - I've seen Hillary do pretty well when she's talking about issues, but other than that she comes off as pretty unlikable and I could see Trump brute forcing through her if it devolves into Trump-style debating. If she were to knock off her identity politics bullshit (and get a better FP, but what Americans actually care about that?) then she'd be a much more acceptable candidate in my eyes.
|
Trump's strategy seems to boil down to bait the Clintons into making a mistake. I don't think they will though, they aren't amateurs like the stable of Republicans that Trump dispatched.
I'm imagining Trump trying to play gotcha with Clinton on Benghazi and Clinton being snarky and telling him she's gone through 8 hours of hearings and several investigations by people who can actually find Libya on a map.
|
It won’t be as effective as a lot of arm chair political experts believe. It grabs headlines and the WWE style of attack ads entertains the base. But the voters that they are looking to convert are not moved by endless attack ads. Most of the time they back fire pretty hard unless there is some real substance behind the attack. Bringing up the emails and Benghazi is not going to change any minds at this point.
|
On May 17 2016 01:07 Plansix wrote:
It won’t be as effective as a lot of arm chair political experts believe. It grabs headlines and the WWE style of attack ads entertains the base. But the voters that they are looking to convert are not moved by endless attack ads. Most of the time they back fire pretty hard unless there is some real substance behind the attack. Bringing up the emails and Benghazi is not going to change any minds at this point.
Yeah, part of me wonders what % of the population that enjoys this political circus are going to at one point be like "Ok, so about being president". I wonder if, as the election grows closer, people are going to be a bit more firm about what exactly it means to be a presidential candidate.
|
People who enjoy the political WWE of 24/7 attacks and back and forth are a tiny fraction of the people who vote in the general election. And that group is actively turned off by the endless back and forth created by the political entertainment networks. It’s the problem with for profit news that are forced to cater to smaller audiences, it distorts a lot of what is happening. Just like how we will see polls showing the race is neck and neck right up until the election, which may be a total blow out.
|
When judging the efficacy of the attacks, you have to take a step back and look at the overall theme: "Crooked Hillary." The danger for the Clintons is that this theme is something that a majority of people already believe to one degree or another (see all of those polls showing what percentage of people think Hillary is dishonest/a liar). Because of this, Trump doesn't have to get mired down in the details of something like the "email scandal" or "Benghazi" to score points. He can just generally throw them out there to reinforce his theme, along with all of the other available illustrations of dishonesty/corruption. Not one of these items is enough to score a knockout on its own, but cumulatively, they paint a very unflattering picture.
|
|
|
Pls no white guy for trump as vp.
If it has to be one then paul ryan is the only one I can think of that would not destroy his changes.
Should preferably be an afro american women, am still rooting for Condoleezza rice.
Else either a women or a anfro American male,preferably not to old.
Trump doesn't need a young vp to appeal to young voters,he can do that himself but picking an old dude would still be bad.
All the old white dudes mentioned now,they could be good picks for the administration but running as vp I don't see it working.
Andelson did officially endorse trump now I thought,quiet a surprise to me but I guess andelson is being pragmatic here, recognizing that if he wants to have any influence later he has no other option.
Trump baiting out Clinton to make a mistake, its an interesting perspective.
Trump is in a comfortable position now,beeing exactly where he wants to be he doesn't have to do anything for some time.
With the race being more or less even it feels like its Clintons time to make a move, she has lost ground against trump compared to a few months ago that she has to make up somehow. For now trump can sit back and wait for possible openings to attack and mistakes from Clinton,but he can not wait forever off course.
Just hope trump wont ruin it with his vp pick but I don't think he will, curious now who Clinton will pick.
Has to be a young person I feel, but no clue who would be good.
Trump nicknaming his opponents is very childish tbh, but I have to admit it seems very effective for now.
Why don't the democrats coin some nickname for trump, it doesn't have to be harsh. Beeing funny is good enough.
Just something childish that will stick with the less enlightened voters.
|
That argument holds true for Trump as well. It is easy to paint him as dishonest and incompetent. The theory that Clinton has more baggage than him is pretty questionable. I have serious doubts the general election voters are going to look past Trump's issues, but get all bent out of shape over Clinton's.
|
Someone tried nicknaming him.
Dangerous Donald just makes him sound sexier.
Dangerous Don.
|
I think one of the problems that the Republican candidates had with Trump is none of them had a leg to stand on with regards to experience and policy; up till Trump happened, they were able to maintain a polite fiction with regards to that stuff. They had little choice but to get into the mud with him and fight him on his terms.
Sexy is not a word I'd use to describe an overweight 69 year old with a bad hairpiece. I prefer Warren calling him dodgy donald
|
I read last week that the Hillary camp had settled on "Loose Cannon" Trump. Though it fits, I'm not sure that the label will have the intended effect.
|
I don’t think nick names are going to anyone anywhere, GOP or DNC. It just seems like a silly exerciser that some marketing experts believe will get traction.
|
I've heard the "loose cannons tend to misfire" and "shooting from the hip means you shoot yourself in the foot", but I don't think it's an epithet.
I'm curious to see what sort of ads and material the Trump campaign will be putting out. I've seen some of the shots the Hillary campaign has been firing and I thought they were decent. There was a story today about how the Trump campaign is refusing to hire vendors who helped with #NeverTrump.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I'm gonna go with Tiny Hands Trump if we need a nickname for him.
|
On May 17 2016 01:48 Plansix wrote:
I don’t think nick names are going to anyone anywhere, GOP or DNC. It just seems like a silly exerciser that some marketing experts believe will get traction.
Given the body count in the GOP primary, you may want to reconsider. Cruz will never be known as anything other than Lyin Ted.
|
On May 17 2016 01:55 LegalLord wrote:
I'm gonna go with Tiny Hands Trump if we need a nickname for him.
I prefer the focus was away from his trademark name.
Daffy Donald
Doofus Donald
etc...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
