General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 76

LBJ’s Ad Men: Here’s How Clinton Can Beat Trump

Interesting article. It'll be interesting to see how brutal the attack ads will get during this election.

 

Somehow stopped getting notifications to this thread and missed 20 pages. Just got caught up again.

I really appreciate hearing some of the different viewpoints on this thread. This is coming from a white upper middle class American who grew up in an environment where hard line right-wing capitalism was the moral and just perspective. To follow conversations that don't view capitalism as a be-all, end-all has been extremely refreshing and partly responsible for a huge shift in how I see the world. So thank you all.

 

The public is weird. Remember the GOP debate where like halfway in Cruz and Rubio were like fuck it, let's fire back at trump. Then the next day people said that was a turn off. As in, only trump is allowed to bring low blow attacks but no one can dare say anything about him. Makes me think of grade school when one obnoxious class clown is tolerable but when everyone else does it, the others have to stop.

That's my fear if Hillary brings in the attack ads, idiotic dems will think it's too trump like, pushing them to vote for some third party nobody.

 

Ya, it's really hard to say. You know Trump will dig up anything he can find on her. I have a feeling the people who liked that Benie didn't attack Hillary, would be OK if she went after Trump. Someone has to go after him, but you're right he's good at making you look like a jerk if you try.

 

Clinton may attack from the "rational" center. This,historically, is what has been effective and proper in elections. But, the center is effectively collapsing, hence Trump's continuing popularity regardless of what people have thrown at him. This misunderstanding is what may hand Trump the election; this particular conjuncture, as exemplified by Sanders, is one in which people are mobilized for something, as opposed to begrudgingly against something.

 

I do think at some point people will realize the "rational" answer is better than an irrational and dangerous candidate.

 

I said it before but I think she needs to get wonky at the debates, hopefully in as clear and concise way that Bill is able to do. He was always good at taking somewhat complex policy and telling it to others in ways that are easy to understand. If she can stand up there in the face of all his insults and just calmly explain why all of his ideas won't work and do it in a way that sounds like she knows what she's talking about, he'll be discredited with the general electorate in a way that doesn't happen with the right wing cook crowd that is the GOP primary.

A few good zingers here and there would help though.

 

I'm curious to see how Gary Johnson, the Libertarian parties nominee, will fare.

 

I would love to see them get the 15% threshold and get to the debate stage, because it would be great to watch them tear Trump down as not a real conservative. Of course it'll also totally cost the GOP the election too.

 

Perhaps. I think Hillary can decisively beat Trump. But, the rules for the typical elections have long been thrown out the window. The question is, not can Hillary blackmail people with the fear of a Trump presidency, but can she translate the visceral anger that stoked the Sanders campaign into a mobilized electorate. I am not certain she can. She is a terrible candidate. I don't mean that in terms of content or policy necessarily; rather, I think she is terrible in campaigns. Many people confuse a massive machine, along with the tacit endorsement of various institutions, with good candidacy. I honestly believe she does not recognize this and that she, and others, may be misjudging this moment. Being wonkish or trying to allow him to self-destruct may well work, but I'm not certain that is what the electorate is seeking out. I may be wrong. It is something to consider, however.

 

Yeah as a candidate and a politician she's pretty bad. She was better off in the Senate where she could help craft policy and not be under the scrutiny of the public on a campaign trail. She also went a little further to the left in the senate on certain issues than she normally is, probably because she felt 'safe' doing so as a senator from New York.

I don't think she can be a wonk alone and have that work, she really has to make it sound good the way Bill used to do (think his convention speech in 2012). That would play to the general electorate a little better than it does the GOP primary voters. Not sure what she can do to mobilize Bernie's crowd in ways that would make 'bernie or bust' people vote for her though. Probably depends if she takes a big hard turn right in the general or keeps her rhetoric where it is now, which has been mostly moderate-left wing. I think a lot of bernie or bust people expect her to move to the right in the general right now, but she really didn't push herself too far left in the primary to need to do it. My guess is she probably increases the hawkish rhetoric and maybe says she's willing to go down to $10.10 an hour on the min wage, but most of the other positions she's staked out in the primary are pretty safe and lack a need to shift back right, IMO.

 

I actually think Bill may be a liability. I can envision Trump dredging up all of his past issues, including the sexual assaults. The thing about the both of them is they are quite defensive. So, they're be compelled to respond in some way, and it is usually awful when they do so. They seem deceitful and their defensive tactics usually make them seem more so. That aside, there may be a shift to the center, thinking that this is what she is supposed to do, but given the level of polarization among independents, I'm unsure it will work. It can and should. But, it remains to be seen where we will be come November.

 

The party of limited government is also the party of limited clothing

 

he also has a tattoo of Voltairine de Cleyre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

sometimes i s2g everyone around me is going insane

 

Yep yep yep

 

yep yep yep

 

Amen to this entire post, but especially this part.

 

i also like rehashing conversations without adding anything or addressing the responses to the things i agree with

 

Very interesting article... thanks for sharing! I've been saying that despite my lack of faith in Hillary as a candidate, the one thing that I think will defeat Trump is the Democratic attack machine once it kicks into full swing. Trump has given them SO much material to work with already.

 

Apparently getting caught up in a thread means I'm not allowed to agree with points that were made without directly addressing EVERYthing that was said lol. I read the entire conversation, I just picked out the parts I most agreed with. I'm sure if I was doing this from the other side you would have no problem with it.

 

Also I'd be happy to go more in-depth with my thoughts on these issues, and have in the past on here and in the AP politics thread. But since the discussion had already passed for the most part, and David raised most of the points I would have, I felt like a quick response would do. Sorry I guess.

 

I will say though that I like coming in here and actually being one of the people arguing for the "status quo" and the more "conservative" viewpoint... that certainly isn't something I'm used to normally. I definitely enjoy there being such a breadth of political opinions on here, but at the same time it is sometimes nice to be able to talk about the election in a more analytical sense without having to feel like you're "morally bankrupt" or whatever for supporting a mainstream candidate. I love the FiveThirtyEight style of political analysis, and whenever that sort of discussion happens in this thread I adore it.

 

Paul Krugman is the only man who has lost more credibility than Nate Silver this election season.

 

I agree with you on this. I think a lot of the last couple weeks of conversations have come from a bit of a place of ignorance on all sides of the arguments. I know I would be very much guilty of this. But I think through it all we are at least coming to a place where we are all more open to learning from each other, which is what our country desperately needs.

I think our conversation was kind of like if we were talking about how to reduce concussions in the nfl. Some would say you need to add more rules to try and make the game safer, others would say it ruins the integrity of the game. Then their are others who would say football in itself is too dangerous, and all the players should be on the same team and still wear helmets. It's not wrong, but would need everyone to give up on football.