EPTOn July 22 2016 00:40 BisuDagger wrote:
Unless Dems chant "Lock her up" or Bernie streaks across the stage.
Unless Dems chant "Lock her up" or Bernie streaks across the stage.
I'd pay money to see that... blurred out on my television screen.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4379
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46686 Posts
I'd pay money to see that... blurred out on my television screen. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 22 2016 00:34 On_Slaught wrote: There's that lovely spin I was waiting for. I bet you also think there is no such thing as bad press. The folks over at Five Thirty Eight were discussing just that. That things like Chris C. mob trial of Hillary play well for their base, but will likely be viewed in a negatively to the larger electorate. That negative attacks rarely have a positive boost for the candidate issuing them. I don’t think doubling down on the attacks will pan out without details of the platform or something beyond “Hillary bad”. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 22 2016 00:34 On_Slaught wrote: There's that lovely spin I was waiting for. I bet you also think there is no such thing as bad press. When it comes to Trump, that's more or less true. The public clearly judges him by a different set of rules. But more importantly, there's a long history of convention SNAFU's turning out to be very unimportant because the presidential candidates themselves gave good performances at the end. There are going to be a lot of people tuning in tonight to see what Trump says and does. If he knock his speech out of the park, I think that he'll come out of this fine. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On July 22 2016 00:33 Seuss wrote: I've heard it compared to Marc Anthony's speech. If you look at the words it seems innocuous enough at first, but how the words are said matters significantly. There's a way to say what Cruz said that makes it clear he's supporting Trump, and there's a way to say it that makes it clear he isn't. He went with the latter. I mean, "vote your conscience" has been Anti-Trump language for a while-it's possible his campaign doesn't know that though because they're total ass at research. Or they might have seen it as a striking opportunity to try to...bring in the last anti-Trumpers...by doing exactly what the anti-Trumpers hate about the Trump campaign...maybe? | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
More and more people are starting to see it. Citigroup upped the odds of a trump presidency to 35%,their charts show a slow but steady decline for Clinton over the past few months. And now Michael moore also thinks that trump is going to win. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/21/_michael_moore_i_think_trump_is_going_to_win.html Put some money on trump today,i am that confident and the odds are very attractive still. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 22 2016 01:14 Mohdoo wrote: Anyone else feel like the DNC is kind of at an advantage by being able to just adopt their rhetoric to everything the RNC says? I don't think the DNC will get the viewership Donald gets, but the message, I expect, will be more convincing and sound a lot more reasonable. I agree. The DNC has a better chance of reaching independent voters and people outside their base by avoiding the WWE style back stabbing and drama. I doubt it will be the social media sensation, but I don’t think that translates in to results. Big on the internet =/= big in reality. Edit: Thanks Moore. You are doing what needs to be done. Scare the shit out lazy Democrat voters who think there is no chance. Because the threat is real. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On July 22 2016 00:55 pmh wrote: The republican convention has been a huge success,the spirit to win is clearly there. More and more people are starting to see it. Citigroup upped the odds of a trump presidency to 35%,their charts show a slow but steady decline for Clinton over the past few months. And now Michael moore also thinks that trump is going to win. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/21/_michael_moore_i_think_trump_is_going_to_win.html Put some money on trump today,i am that confident and the odds are very attractive still. "The spirit to win." Like putting up a speaker who you know is not going to endorse the candidate, so you can boo him off the stage? This isn't the primary and Trump has nothing to gain from belittling Ted Cruz. This convention has "the spirit for revenge and drama," nothing else. And only a person capable of supporting Trump would bet on a presidential election. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On July 22 2016 01:23 Plansix wrote: I agree. The DNC has a better chance of reaching independent voters and people outside their base by avoiding the WWE style back stabbing and drama. I doubt it will be the social media sensation, but I don’t think that translates in to results. Big on the internet =/= big in reality. Yeah, an interesting data point: girlfriend's mom is a relatively conservative person who is likely to sway one way or the other during elections. Raised catholic in a small town and that whole deal. She's not a huge Clinton fan, but she looks at Trump and essentially doesn't believe he should even be there. She looks at the RNC and is like "what in the world are you even doing". I understand that a lot of people are like "NO BRAKES! THIS SHIT IS WILD AND THIS IS JUST HOW IT IS!", but there are a ton of people who are really just like "No, but really, what the hell". I imagine a lot of people are wondering what the fuck is going on. They'll watch the DNC and be like "at least it's not completely and totally insane". I think a really, really large number of people are skeptical of this entire election and are just waiting for the dust to settle. In my eyes, each convention is both party's ways of saying "yo, this is what we've got and what we believe". It is fair to judge Trump's plans by his convention. Similar deal with Clinton. Am I wrong in thinking a great deal of Americans just want someone to keep the lights on and keep things pretty much decent? | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On July 22 2016 01:31 ZasZ. wrote: "The spirit to win." Like putting up a speaker who you know is not going to endorse the candidate, so you can boo him off the stage? This isn't the primary and Trump has nothing to gain from belittling Ted Cruz. This convention has "the spirit for revenge and drama," nothing else. And only a person capable of supporting Trump would bet on a presidential election. I bet on the election. Now's the time to buy, payout for Clinton win is pretty good right now. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 22 2016 01:32 Mohdoo wrote: Am I wrong in thinking a great deal of Americans just want someone to keep the lights on and keep things pretty much decent? No, you're right, but you have to keep in mind that there is a large and growing number of people who have been disenfranchised by the current order that Hillary represents. This is where Trump's base of support truly comes from. | ||
|
Cowboy24
94 Posts
What happened last night was a game of political chess between two masters. Cruz gets pity points from his base, scored "standing on principle" points from the #NeverTrump National Review types, but did risk pissing off some of the Trump base. Trump has to deal with fallout from Cruz's lack of endorsement and giving the media the excuse they need to ignore the substance of his platform, but he also got Cruz being booed on a national stage for refusing to endorse him. The image sent is that the majority of the party supports Trump. Neither of them came out ahead, or behind. It was pretty much a draw, maybe a little in Cruz's favor because his wife was "attacked" again. The rest of the night and the convention have been non-stop home-runs for Trump. His family came off extremely well, most of the speakers were at least on-point, and a few (Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Marcus Luttrell, Pat Smith, Jamiel Shaw, Mike Pence) were each of them fatal to Hillary. Together they represented the most damning political indictment I've ever seen. Also, I heard a rumor(?) that they are getting Trayvon and Mike Brown's mothers to speak at the DNC? If they do, calling it right now, Hillary doesn't break 40%. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On July 22 2016 01:42 Cowboy24 wrote: Also, I heard a rumor(?) that they are getting Trayvon and Mike Brown's mothers to speak at the DNC? I fucking hope not. That is not an issue that wins voters. It is pandering to people who are already on board. BLM is not well viewed right now after the police deaths, whether that view is justified or not. I would like the DNC to not use crying mothers for a few votes they already have. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46686 Posts
 http://www.mormonpress.com/lying_liars_who_lie_2016_edition | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 22 2016 01:32 Mohdoo wrote: Yeah, an interesting data point: girlfriend's mom is a relatively conservative person who is likely to sway one way or the other during elections. Raised catholic in a small town and that whole deal. She's not a huge Clinton fan, but she looks at Trump and essentially doesn't believe he should even be there. She looks at the RNC and is like "what in the world are you even doing". I understand that a lot of people are like "NO BRAKES! THIS SHIT IS WILD AND THIS IS JUST HOW IT IS!", but there are a ton of people who are really just like "No, but really, what the hell". I imagine a lot of people are wondering what the fuck is going on. They'll watch the DNC and be like "at least it's not completely and totally insane". I think a really, really large number of people are skeptical of this entire election and are just waiting for the dust to settle. In my eyes, each convention is both party's ways of saying "yo, this is what we've got and what we believe". It is fair to judge Trump's plans by his convention. Similar deal with Clinton. Am I wrong in thinking a great deal of Americans just want someone to keep the lights on and keep things pretty much decent? Yes. People are not that complex. People value stability and government that addresses their problems. As much as people rail against the government and claim they hate it, they prefer it try and fail than do nothing. Most voters are not single issue voters or deep into the debate of how big government should be. They just want shit to work. And right now they are getting ignored. I am not 100% convinced the Democrats can bring it, but they have in the last two elections. Clintons camp has pushed some big ideas that might catch on, like an amendment to the Constitution itself to address citizen united and campaign finance. That one is a long shot, but it one of the biggest issues for most voters. They might be in the mood for a long shot. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 22 2016 01:45 Mohdoo wrote: I fucking hope not. That is not an issue that wins voters. It is pandering to people who are already on board. BLM is not well viewed right now after the police deaths, whether that view is justified or not. I would like the DNC to not use crying mothers for a few votes they already have. Hahaha, yep. It would be a horrible, horrible mistake to fly the BLM flag at the Democrat convention. That said, they're so out of touch that I think that they'll do it. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 22 2016 01:45 Mohdoo wrote: I fucking hope not. That is not an issue that wins voters. It is pandering to people who are already on board. BLM is not well viewed right now after the police deaths, whether that view is justified or not. I would like the DNC to not use crying mothers for a few votes they already have. I can think of a number of better options to address that specific issue, including like any other parent of a shooting victim. But that has to be some cooked up rumor. Maybe they can get the Dallas Police chief to speak. That man is amazing. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On July 22 2016 01:42 Cowboy24 wrote: a few (Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Marcus Luttrell, Pat Smith, Jamiel Shaw, Mike Pence) were each of them fatal to Hillary. Together they represented the most damning political indictment I've ever seen. That's a no. Only if you already agreed with everything they said including harboring the fear they pander to would you make such a statement. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On July 22 2016 01:53 xDaunt wrote: Hahaha, yep. It would be a horrible, horrible mistake to fly the BLM flag at the Democrat convention. That said, they're so out of touch that I think that they'll do it. I'm not sure that Trayvon and Mike Brown's mothers are necessarily "flying the BLM flag". And there's the whole black voter turnout thing. | ||
| ||
