|
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. |
On September 07 2016 00:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 00:12 Doodsmack wrote:On September 07 2016 00:03 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 06 2016 23:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON – On the night of this spring’s Florida primary, the pastor giving the invocation at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago victory party prayed: “Lord, give Mr. Trump the power to rise above the GOP establishment.”
Turns out the prayer worked. Not only did Trump win the Republican presidential nomination, but two months later, on May 18, Trump signed a deal with the Republican National Committee giving him access to a top-notch fundraising operation after not having had one at all through the primaries.
That same day, Trump’s campaign, now set to receive tens of millions of dollars of other people’s money, finally sent five- and six-figure checks to Trump’s properties for events that had happened months earlier. Meaning that the GOP establishment had not only been defeated, it was now actually paying for that March 15 victory party attended primarily by members of Trump’s Palm Beach country club.
In all, just shy of $1 million went out the door on May 18. More than $600,000 of that went to Trump-owned businesses, with $423,000 of it going to Mar-a-Lago alone, which hosted that March 15 party, an earlier one on March 1 and a news conference on March 11.
It’s unclear from Federal Election Commission filings what other expenses, if any, that payment covered ― it is listed as “facility rental/catering,” and the resort does not appear to have hosted any other campaign events. Trump’s campaign would not provide an explanation. Had Trump instead chosen to hold those events at the nearby West Palm Beach Marriott, he likely would have spent no more than $45,000 for all three, based on its estimates for catering the number of people who attended his parties.
What’s more, the two-month delay in reporting those expenses may have violated Federal Election Commission rules, which require an expense to be disclosed in the same reporting period ― in Trump’s case, in the same month ― as it was incurred, said a campaign finance law expert.
“It doesn’t look right, even if it is legal,” said Paul S. Ryan from the Campaign Legal Center watchdog group. He called Trump’s heavy spending on his own properties “unprecedented” and said the timing of the payments is curious. “Any way you slice it, this level of self-dealing looks bad,” he said. “It looks like a candidate who is pocketing donors’ money.”
Increased scrutiny of Trump’s spending patterns could not come at a worse time for the developer-turned-reality-TV-star-turned-presidential nominee. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has announced that she and her party raised $143 million in the month of August, a figure that could dwarf the amount pulled in by Trump and the RNC.
Both anti-Trump Republicans and RNC members supporting Trump said most GOP donors probably don’t know the details about how Trump’s campaign is spending their money.
“I think they’re only vaguely aware,” said Florida strategist Rick Wilson. “It’s Putinesque.”
“It’s such a scam,” added Stuart Stevens, a top aide to 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
One RNC member and GOP donor, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to antagonize the nominee, offered this joking defense of Trump’s propensity to spend campaign dollars at his own properties: “Great business guy.” Source It's sad that, just like straight up lying about what it takes to become a Syrian refugee, this news will not change a single person's view of Trump one iota. I wouldn't say "not a single person". Presumably there's some amount of undecided voters right now. News like this helps to make Hillary's corruption problem a wash, because Trump's not too far behind her. Nah, because the Trump corruption/money funneling has been outlined time after time by now and thus doesn't get seized on by the media to any significant degree. I doubt it reaches undecided people. At this point the story is so played out I'm not sure if funneling money straight into his bank accounts would even be that newsworthy.
Whatever Trump's doing in that regard doesn't play well because it's small potatoes compared to what the Clintons have been up to.
|
I'm extremely unimpressed with democrats' attacks on Trump. Attacks on Clinton seem significantly more pointed and relentless. I wonder if democrats are waiting until the first debate, then making a huge push against Trump depending on how debates go. I still can't decide how I think the debates will go. I don't think Trump will be allowed to give non-answers, especially on issues of foreign policy.
|
On September 07 2016 00:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 00:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 07 2016 00:12 Doodsmack wrote:On September 07 2016 00:03 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 06 2016 23:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON – On the night of this spring’s Florida primary, the pastor giving the invocation at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago victory party prayed: “Lord, give Mr. Trump the power to rise above the GOP establishment.”
Turns out the prayer worked. Not only did Trump win the Republican presidential nomination, but two months later, on May 18, Trump signed a deal with the Republican National Committee giving him access to a top-notch fundraising operation after not having had one at all through the primaries.
That same day, Trump’s campaign, now set to receive tens of millions of dollars of other people’s money, finally sent five- and six-figure checks to Trump’s properties for events that had happened months earlier. Meaning that the GOP establishment had not only been defeated, it was now actually paying for that March 15 victory party attended primarily by members of Trump’s Palm Beach country club.
In all, just shy of $1 million went out the door on May 18. More than $600,000 of that went to Trump-owned businesses, with $423,000 of it going to Mar-a-Lago alone, which hosted that March 15 party, an earlier one on March 1 and a news conference on March 11.
It’s unclear from Federal Election Commission filings what other expenses, if any, that payment covered ― it is listed as “facility rental/catering,” and the resort does not appear to have hosted any other campaign events. Trump’s campaign would not provide an explanation. Had Trump instead chosen to hold those events at the nearby West Palm Beach Marriott, he likely would have spent no more than $45,000 for all three, based on its estimates for catering the number of people who attended his parties.
What’s more, the two-month delay in reporting those expenses may have violated Federal Election Commission rules, which require an expense to be disclosed in the same reporting period ― in Trump’s case, in the same month ― as it was incurred, said a campaign finance law expert.
“It doesn’t look right, even if it is legal,” said Paul S. Ryan from the Campaign Legal Center watchdog group. He called Trump’s heavy spending on his own properties “unprecedented” and said the timing of the payments is curious. “Any way you slice it, this level of self-dealing looks bad,” he said. “It looks like a candidate who is pocketing donors’ money.”
Increased scrutiny of Trump’s spending patterns could not come at a worse time for the developer-turned-reality-TV-star-turned-presidential nominee. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has announced that she and her party raised $143 million in the month of August, a figure that could dwarf the amount pulled in by Trump and the RNC.
Both anti-Trump Republicans and RNC members supporting Trump said most GOP donors probably don’t know the details about how Trump’s campaign is spending their money.
“I think they’re only vaguely aware,” said Florida strategist Rick Wilson. “It’s Putinesque.”
“It’s such a scam,” added Stuart Stevens, a top aide to 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
One RNC member and GOP donor, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to antagonize the nominee, offered this joking defense of Trump’s propensity to spend campaign dollars at his own properties: “Great business guy.” Source It's sad that, just like straight up lying about what it takes to become a Syrian refugee, this news will not change a single person's view of Trump one iota. I wouldn't say "not a single person". Presumably there's some amount of undecided voters right now. News like this helps to make Hillary's corruption problem a wash, because Trump's not too far behind her. Nah, because the Trump corruption/money funneling has been outlined time after time by now and thus doesn't get seized on by the media to any significant degree. I doubt it reaches undecided people. At this point the story is so played out I'm not sure if funneling money straight into his bank accounts would even be that newsworthy. Whatever Trump's doing in that regard doesn't play well because it's small potatoes compared to what the Clintons have been up to.
it also has to do with standards and expectations. A public official who devotes her life to serving others vs a business man.
|
On September 07 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm extremely unimpressed with democrats' attacks on Trump. Attacks on Clinton seem significantly more pointed and relentless. I wonder if democrats are waiting until the first debate, then making a huge push against Trump depending on how debates go. I still can't decide how I think the debates will go. I don't think Trump will be allowed to give non-answers, especially on issues of foreign policy.
debates are all about optics, not about policy. Clinton has been dodging press conferences until now because she doesn't want to appear defensive, but trump can easily control her optics during the debate. She can respond like her usual robotic self and appear crooked/corrupt, or be defended by the moderator/dodge and it will still make her look bad. Win/Win for trump.
|
On September 07 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm extremely unimpressed with democrats' attacks on Trump. Attacks on Clinton seem significantly more pointed and relentless. I wonder if democrats are waiting until the first debate, then making a huge push against Trump depending on how debates go. I still can't decide how I think the debates will go. I don't think Trump will be allowed to give non-answers, especially on issues of foreign policy.
I think that the problem with the Democrats' attacks on Trump is that they're overreaching, both in terms of content and volume.
|
On September 07 2016 01:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm extremely unimpressed with democrats' attacks on Trump. Attacks on Clinton seem significantly more pointed and relentless. I wonder if democrats are waiting until the first debate, then making a huge push against Trump depending on how debates go. I still can't decide how I think the debates will go. I don't think Trump will be allowed to give non-answers, especially on issues of foreign policy. I think that the problem with the Democrats' attacks on Trump is that they're overreaching, both in terms of content and volume.
What do you think is the right way to attack Trump?
|
On September 07 2016 00:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 00:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 07 2016 00:12 Doodsmack wrote:On September 07 2016 00:03 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 06 2016 23:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON – On the night of this spring’s Florida primary, the pastor giving the invocation at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago victory party prayed: “Lord, give Mr. Trump the power to rise above the GOP establishment.”
Turns out the prayer worked. Not only did Trump win the Republican presidential nomination, but two months later, on May 18, Trump signed a deal with the Republican National Committee giving him access to a top-notch fundraising operation after not having had one at all through the primaries.
That same day, Trump’s campaign, now set to receive tens of millions of dollars of other people’s money, finally sent five- and six-figure checks to Trump’s properties for events that had happened months earlier. Meaning that the GOP establishment had not only been defeated, it was now actually paying for that March 15 victory party attended primarily by members of Trump’s Palm Beach country club.
In all, just shy of $1 million went out the door on May 18. More than $600,000 of that went to Trump-owned businesses, with $423,000 of it going to Mar-a-Lago alone, which hosted that March 15 party, an earlier one on March 1 and a news conference on March 11.
It’s unclear from Federal Election Commission filings what other expenses, if any, that payment covered ― it is listed as “facility rental/catering,” and the resort does not appear to have hosted any other campaign events. Trump’s campaign would not provide an explanation. Had Trump instead chosen to hold those events at the nearby West Palm Beach Marriott, he likely would have spent no more than $45,000 for all three, based on its estimates for catering the number of people who attended his parties.
What’s more, the two-month delay in reporting those expenses may have violated Federal Election Commission rules, which require an expense to be disclosed in the same reporting period ― in Trump’s case, in the same month ― as it was incurred, said a campaign finance law expert.
“It doesn’t look right, even if it is legal,” said Paul S. Ryan from the Campaign Legal Center watchdog group. He called Trump’s heavy spending on his own properties “unprecedented” and said the timing of the payments is curious. “Any way you slice it, this level of self-dealing looks bad,” he said. “It looks like a candidate who is pocketing donors’ money.”
Increased scrutiny of Trump’s spending patterns could not come at a worse time for the developer-turned-reality-TV-star-turned-presidential nominee. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has announced that she and her party raised $143 million in the month of August, a figure that could dwarf the amount pulled in by Trump and the RNC.
Both anti-Trump Republicans and RNC members supporting Trump said most GOP donors probably don’t know the details about how Trump’s campaign is spending their money.
“I think they’re only vaguely aware,” said Florida strategist Rick Wilson. “It’s Putinesque.”
“It’s such a scam,” added Stuart Stevens, a top aide to 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
One RNC member and GOP donor, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to antagonize the nominee, offered this joking defense of Trump’s propensity to spend campaign dollars at his own properties: “Great business guy.” Source It's sad that, just like straight up lying about what it takes to become a Syrian refugee, this news will not change a single person's view of Trump one iota. I wouldn't say "not a single person". Presumably there's some amount of undecided voters right now. News like this helps to make Hillary's corruption problem a wash, because Trump's not too far behind her. Nah, because the Trump corruption/money funneling has been outlined time after time by now and thus doesn't get seized on by the media to any significant degree. I doubt it reaches undecided people. At this point the story is so played out I'm not sure if funneling money straight into his bank accounts would even be that newsworthy. Whatever Trump's doing in that regard doesn't play well because it's small potatoes compared to what the Clintons have been up to.
Oh and what HAVE they been up to? Do tell the class, please.
|
On September 07 2016 01:22 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm extremely unimpressed with democrats' attacks on Trump. Attacks on Clinton seem significantly more pointed and relentless. I wonder if democrats are waiting until the first debate, then making a huge push against Trump depending on how debates go. I still can't decide how I think the debates will go. I don't think Trump will be allowed to give non-answers, especially on issues of foreign policy. debates are all about optics, not about policy. Clinton has been dodging press conferences until now because she doesn't want to appear defensive, but trump can easily control her optics during the debate. She can respond like her usual robotic self and appear crooked/corrupt, or be defended by the moderator/dodge and it will still make her look bad. Win/Win for trump.
It doesn't have to be a win/win. I watched like one or two debates between Sanders and Clinton and while Clinton did annoy me with some things I still thought she won the debates because her "boring" or "robotic" answers sounded more reasonable than whatever Sanders had to say. She didn't convince me to like her but she managed to convince me that she would be a better leader than her opponent. I think she can do the same with Trump.
|
Well the Trump Foundation has bribed two state AG's and has ??? in actual charity work vs the Clinton Foundation has taken money from some less-than-stellar people and has well-connected, influential donors with access to State (because they're well-connected, influential people, so a bit of a tautology there) and is a highly rated charity with very well-known initiatives and impacts across the globe. But y'know, same thing. Or the Clinton Foundation is worse. Whatever.
|
On September 07 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm extremely unimpressed with democrats' attacks on Trump. Attacks on Clinton seem significantly more pointed and relentless. I wonder if democrats are waiting until the first debate, then making a huge push against Trump depending on how debates go. I still can't decide how I think the debates will go. I don't think Trump will be allowed to give non-answers, especially on issues of foreign policy.
I wouldn't be to concerned. Rising to the front page of CNN or the internet as a whole doesn't do a lot of Clinton right now. They are targeting voters in specific states, rather than trying to beat Trump at his own game of grabbing national headlines.
There is also a risk of over doing it. They are starting to ramp up right now, since labor day is over. But they don't want to bombard people with attacks to the point where they tune it out.
|
On September 07 2016 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 01:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm extremely unimpressed with democrats' attacks on Trump. Attacks on Clinton seem significantly more pointed and relentless. I wonder if democrats are waiting until the first debate, then making a huge push against Trump depending on how debates go. I still can't decide how I think the debates will go. I don't think Trump will be allowed to give non-answers, especially on issues of foreign policy. I think that the problem with the Democrats' attacks on Trump is that they're overreaching, both in terms of content and volume. What do you think is the right way to attack Trump?
That's a good question. I'm not really sure, because nothing that I've seen really has worked so far. The attacks on his competence don't work because people don't care about that beyond a very minimal threshold. And it's not like Hillary is a shining example of competence, either. Likewise, attacking Trump's honesty doesn't work because Hillary is popularly perceived as a bigger liar than he is.The "Trump's a racist" angle doesn't work because it's not well-grounded in truth. Attacking Trump's policies doesn't work because Trump actually has a popular set of policies in his platform. I suspect that the best angle is to attack Trump's temperament and paint him as a crazy man, but the problem with this angle is that Trump can rebut it simply by carefully managing his image (like he did last week on his trip to Mexico and in his subsequent speech in Arizona). Reagan successfully rebutted similar charges in 1980 doing the same thing.
Long story short, I don't know what the proper message is. However, I do think that the current strategy of the Democrats and major media to throw everything at the wall isn't working. At some point, it all becomes white noise. They need to pick a surgical attack and ride it.
|
the major media strategy is working, it's getting them views, which is their goal.
|
On September 07 2016 01:46 Plansix wrote:
There is also a risk of over doing it. They are starting to ramp up right now, since labor day is over. But they don't want to bombard people with attacks to the point where they tune it out.
You think that the Left has been holding back? They fired literally everything that they had at Trump last month. I can't recall ever seeing such a focused effort by the Democrats and media to take a guy down.
|
My guess is that the Democrats will use the first debate (T-20 days) to really define Trump and then hit him with ads reinforcing that afterwards. Right now they're just stoking the general feeling that Trump's kind of dodgy and bigoted, but they'll build on that foundation when it makes sense to and make sure that negative sentiment about Trump peaks right around when people start voting (including early voting).
|
On September 07 2016 01:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 01:46 Plansix wrote:
There is also a risk of over doing it. They are starting to ramp up right now, since labor day is over. But they don't want to bombard people with attacks to the point where they tune it out. You think that the Left has been holding back? They fired literally everything that they had at Trump last month. I can't recall ever seeing such a focused effort by the Democrats and media to take a guy down.
Yes. Trump's business history alone is worth a week of nightly news coverage. He was a dumpster fire before he ever tried to run for president. As the election gets close and the less politically engaged start to pay attention, the attention to Trump's long history of being terrible is only going to increase.
|
Have we talked about the Obama dutente spat at all?
|
On September 07 2016 01:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:On September 07 2016 01:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm extremely unimpressed with democrats' attacks on Trump. Attacks on Clinton seem significantly more pointed and relentless. I wonder if democrats are waiting until the first debate, then making a huge push against Trump depending on how debates go. I still can't decide how I think the debates will go. I don't think Trump will be allowed to give non-answers, especially on issues of foreign policy. I think that the problem with the Democrats' attacks on Trump is that they're overreaching, both in terms of content and volume. What do you think is the right way to attack Trump? That's a good question. I'm not really sure, because nothing that I've seen really has worked so far. The attacks on his competence don't work because people don't care about that beyond a very minimal threshold. And it's not like Hillary is a shining example of competence, either. Likewise, attacking Trump's honesty doesn't work because Hillary is popularly perceived as a bigger liar than he is.The "Trump's a racist" angle doesn't work because it's not well-grounded in truth. Attacking Trump's policies doesn't work because Trump actually has a popular set of policies in his platform. I suspect that the best angle is to attack Trump's temperament and paint him as a crazy man, but the problem with this angle is that Trump can rebut it simply by carefully managing his image (like he did last week on his trip to Mexico and in his subsequent speech in Arizona). Reagan successfully rebutted similar charges in 1980 doing the same thing. Long story short, I don't know what the proper message is. However, I do think that the current strategy of the Democrats and major media to throw everything at the wall isn't working. At some point, it all becomes white noise. They need to pick a surgical attack and ride it.
Nothing you've seen had worked? Is it magic that his favorabiliity is so low?
|
Don't call people names right before meeting with them? It leads to them canceling the meeting, because fuck that would be awkward.
|
On September 07 2016 01:18 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 00:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2016 00:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 07 2016 00:12 Doodsmack wrote:On September 07 2016 00:03 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 06 2016 23:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON – On the night of this spring’s Florida primary, the pastor giving the invocation at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago victory party prayed: “Lord, give Mr. Trump the power to rise above the GOP establishment.”
Turns out the prayer worked. Not only did Trump win the Republican presidential nomination, but two months later, on May 18, Trump signed a deal with the Republican National Committee giving him access to a top-notch fundraising operation after not having had one at all through the primaries.
That same day, Trump’s campaign, now set to receive tens of millions of dollars of other people’s money, finally sent five- and six-figure checks to Trump’s properties for events that had happened months earlier. Meaning that the GOP establishment had not only been defeated, it was now actually paying for that March 15 victory party attended primarily by members of Trump’s Palm Beach country club.
In all, just shy of $1 million went out the door on May 18. More than $600,000 of that went to Trump-owned businesses, with $423,000 of it going to Mar-a-Lago alone, which hosted that March 15 party, an earlier one on March 1 and a news conference on March 11.
It’s unclear from Federal Election Commission filings what other expenses, if any, that payment covered ― it is listed as “facility rental/catering,” and the resort does not appear to have hosted any other campaign events. Trump’s campaign would not provide an explanation. Had Trump instead chosen to hold those events at the nearby West Palm Beach Marriott, he likely would have spent no more than $45,000 for all three, based on its estimates for catering the number of people who attended his parties.
What’s more, the two-month delay in reporting those expenses may have violated Federal Election Commission rules, which require an expense to be disclosed in the same reporting period ― in Trump’s case, in the same month ― as it was incurred, said a campaign finance law expert.
“It doesn’t look right, even if it is legal,” said Paul S. Ryan from the Campaign Legal Center watchdog group. He called Trump’s heavy spending on his own properties “unprecedented” and said the timing of the payments is curious. “Any way you slice it, this level of self-dealing looks bad,” he said. “It looks like a candidate who is pocketing donors’ money.”
Increased scrutiny of Trump’s spending patterns could not come at a worse time for the developer-turned-reality-TV-star-turned-presidential nominee. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has announced that she and her party raised $143 million in the month of August, a figure that could dwarf the amount pulled in by Trump and the RNC.
Both anti-Trump Republicans and RNC members supporting Trump said most GOP donors probably don’t know the details about how Trump’s campaign is spending their money.
“I think they’re only vaguely aware,” said Florida strategist Rick Wilson. “It’s Putinesque.”
“It’s such a scam,” added Stuart Stevens, a top aide to 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
One RNC member and GOP donor, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to antagonize the nominee, offered this joking defense of Trump’s propensity to spend campaign dollars at his own properties: “Great business guy.” Source It's sad that, just like straight up lying about what it takes to become a Syrian refugee, this news will not change a single person's view of Trump one iota. I wouldn't say "not a single person". Presumably there's some amount of undecided voters right now. News like this helps to make Hillary's corruption problem a wash, because Trump's not too far behind her. Nah, because the Trump corruption/money funneling has been outlined time after time by now and thus doesn't get seized on by the media to any significant degree. I doubt it reaches undecided people. At this point the story is so played out I'm not sure if funneling money straight into his bank accounts would even be that newsworthy. Whatever Trump's doing in that regard doesn't play well because it's small potatoes compared to what the Clintons have been up to. it also has to do with standards and expectations. A public official who devotes her life to serving others vs a business man.
Even if you try to define business ethical standards as lower than those of a public official (which makes no sense since Trump is running to be a public official anyway and so therefore should be held to those same standards), Trump repeatedly failed to meet ethical standards as a businessman.
|
On September 07 2016 02:07 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 01:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2016 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:On September 07 2016 01:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm extremely unimpressed with democrats' attacks on Trump. Attacks on Clinton seem significantly more pointed and relentless. I wonder if democrats are waiting until the first debate, then making a huge push against Trump depending on how debates go. I still can't decide how I think the debates will go. I don't think Trump will be allowed to give non-answers, especially on issues of foreign policy. I think that the problem with the Democrats' attacks on Trump is that they're overreaching, both in terms of content and volume. What do you think is the right way to attack Trump? That's a good question. I'm not really sure, because nothing that I've seen really has worked so far. The attacks on his competence don't work because people don't care about that beyond a very minimal threshold. And it's not like Hillary is a shining example of competence, either. Likewise, attacking Trump's honesty doesn't work because Hillary is popularly perceived as a bigger liar than he is.The "Trump's a racist" angle doesn't work because it's not well-grounded in truth. Attacking Trump's policies doesn't work because Trump actually has a popular set of policies in his platform. I suspect that the best angle is to attack Trump's temperament and paint him as a crazy man, but the problem with this angle is that Trump can rebut it simply by carefully managing his image (like he did last week on his trip to Mexico and in his subsequent speech in Arizona). Reagan successfully rebutted similar charges in 1980 doing the same thing. Long story short, I don't know what the proper message is. However, I do think that the current strategy of the Democrats and major media to throw everything at the wall isn't working. At some point, it all becomes white noise. They need to pick a surgical attack and ride it. Nothing you've seen had worked? Is it magic that his favorabiliity is so low?
Yet he's still competitive in the race, with multiple polls now showing him taking a lead?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
