Political Roundtable Part IX

[Induveca]

He is just mocking Hillary. Pretty tame by his standards.

Exactly. The guy knows how to get press, even during the DNC he's on the front page of every major news site right now!

And if you actually read what he said he's sarcastically mocking Clinton for deleting 33k emails she didn't want the Feds/anyone to read.

Pretty amazing troll job.

But Trump's sarcasm is at the Beavis and Butthead level of sophistication. He's a caricature. Every day, he puts out more cartoonish material. Not sure how that's a positive - other than on the entertainment side.

Never said it's positive or negative. The man just knows how to hijack a news cycle. Instead of reading about Bill Clinton's speech, everyone is back to reading about his wife's emails scandals.

[dckingsfan]

Exactly. The guy knows how to get press, even during the DNC he's on the front page of every major news site right now!

And if you actually read what he said he's sarcastically mocking Clinton for deleting 33k emails she didn't want the Feds/anyone to read.

Pretty amazing troll job.

But Trump's sarcasm is at the Beavis and Butthead level of sophistication. He's a caricature. Every day, he puts out more cartoonish material. Not sure how that's a positive - other than on the entertainment side.

Never said it's positive or negative. The man just knows how to hijack a news cycle. Instead of reading about Bill Clinton's speech, everyone is back to reading about his wife's emails scandals.

I am just amazed by the press - they are so easily hijacked these days.

And I might have to apologize to Nate - doesn't look like Hillary got her bounce - very confusing.

[DCZards]

But Trump's sarcasm is at the Beavis and Butthead level of sophistication. He's a caricature. Every day, he puts out more cartoonish material. Not sure how that's a positive - other than on the entertainment side.

Never said it's positive or negative. The man just knows how to hijack a news cycle. Instead of reading about Bill Clinton's speech, everyone is back to reading about his wife's emails scandals.

I am just amazed by the press - they are so easily hijacked these days.

And I might have to apologize to Nate - doesn't look like Hillary got her bounce - very confusing.

We won't know until after the convention whether or not there is a bounce for Hillary and the Dems.

[I_Like_Dirt]

We won't know until after the convention whether or not there is a bounce for Hillary and the Dems.

I don't think she's going to get a bounce. What she's hoping for is a bunch of people to slowly, but grudgingly come to the conclusion that she really isn't so bad after all and that Trump is so awful that they might as well go vote for her rather than just not voting at all. That can still happen, even right up until election day, but it's going to be more of a gradual tide than a bounce, I'd suggest.

I've been saying it for some time, but Hillary has basically been fighting a battle where she has tacitly encouraged low voter turnout in the primaries in order to beat Bernie, yet to beat Trump she now needs to switch tracks and push towards a high voter turnout strategy. Finding a way to get high voter turnout to support her is going to be really, really hard. It's easy to say that people will just go vote for her because she's the Democratic candidate and Trump is an awful candidate that couldn't possibly be elected, but turning those words into reality is much harder than simply repeating the mantra.

Part of me wonders if Hillary isn't going to have to do something to inspire more people to come out to vote for her, and I'm not really sure what she can do there, because she really hasn't done much in the inspiring sense other than sort of being there in the past. She's going to continue to have a lot of questions asked of her, that's for sure, and deflating for any attempts she might make to try to start momentum and passion that she's never really been able to generate in either of her campaigns for the Democratic nomination. The Democrats need to convince Michelle Obama to run; regardless of whether or not she'd actually be a good POTUS, she'd win in a landslide.

[Zonkerbl]

I have a question for you guys. Would intentionally inviting a country to hack emails that contain, allegedly, classified information, be treason?

[Induveca]

I have a question for you guys. Would intentionally inviting a country to hack emails that contain, allegedly, classified information, be treason?

What does an inability to detect sarcasm indicate?

[dckingsfan]

We won't know until after the convention whether or not there is a bounce for Hillary and the Dems.

I don't think she's going to get a bounce. What she's hoping for is a bunch of people to slowly, but grudgingly come to the conclusion that she really isn't so bad after all and that Trump is so awful that they might as well go vote for her rather than just not voting at all. That can still happen, even right up until election day, but it's going to be more of a gradual tide than a bounce, I'd suggest.

I've been saying it for some time, but Hillary has basically been fighting a battle where she has tacitly encouraged low voter turnout in the primaries in order to beat Bernie, yet to beat Trump she now needs to switch tracks and push towards a high voter turnout strategy. Finding a way to get high voter turnout to support her is going to be really, really hard. It's easy to say that people will just go vote for her because she's the Democratic candidate and Trump is an awful candidate that couldn't possibly be elected, but turning those words into reality is much harder than simply repeating the mantra.

Part of me wonders if Hillary isn't going to have to do something to inspire more people to come out to vote for her, and I'm not really sure what she can do there, because she really hasn't done much in the inspiring sense other than sort of being there in the past. She's going to continue to have a lot of questions asked of her, that's for sure, and deflating for any attempts she might make to try to start momentum and passion that she's never really been able to generate in either of her campaigns for the Democratic nomination. The Democrats need to convince Michelle Obama to run; regardless of whether or not she'd actually be a good POTUS, she'd win in a landslide.

Nice analysis - and something I didn't consider before. It really is a tale of two campaigns - although in the past it was the case of moving to the middle. Obama kind of ignored that strategy and just played to his base - which was really pretty brilliant.

I hadn't considered a different switch from low voter to high voter turnout. I would think she would need Trump to do something really offensive (well within his capability) during the campaign to really motivate folks to come out since she doesn't seem to be able to generate that kind of passion.

And Trump is pulling Hillary into the gutter with him and causing apathy from her base. Fascinating really.

[montestewart]

I have a question for you guys. Would intentionally inviting a country to hack emails that contain, allegedly, classified information, be treason?

What does an inability to detect sarcasm indicate?

Yeah, seems pretty much like trolling, but his persistent wild-eyed impulsiveness lead me to a prediction (and I don't make many predictions): if elected he will tweet classified information so frequently that his kids will insist that he have his tweets pre-screened.

[DCZards]

I don't think she's going to get a bounce. What she's hoping for is a bunch of people to slowly, but grudgingly come to the conclusion that she really isn't so bad after all and that Trump is so awful that they might as well go vote for her rather than just not voting at all. That can still happen, even right up until election day, but it's going to be more of a gradual tide than a bounce, I'd suggest.

I disagree. I think she's going to get a solid bounce of at least 5 pts. But we'll see.

[tontoz]

I have a question for you guys. Would intentionally inviting a country to hack emails that contain, allegedly, classified information, be treason?

What does an inability to detect sarcasm indicate?

Zonk mocks the people who think Hillary should be indicted and now this.



You can't make this stuff up.

[AFM]

Latest poll done by LATimes/USC: Trump 47, Clinton 40

[Zonkerbl]

Just sayin'. What Trump did is a lot closer to ACTUAL TREASON than anything Hillary has been accused of.

[Wizardspride]

I really think he is just baiting Hillary, Obama and Bill to get into a twitter war with him. He will win that war and it doesn't cost him anything.

If they don't respond he has to win the debates because Hillary will definitely outspend him on media buys.

If I were Trump - I would agree to debate the 3rd party candidates for several reasons:
- more free media
- Trump is good in multi-candidate forums
- lead tightens in polls where there are third party candidates

If I am Hillary, I just bludgeon Trump with Media buys, minimize the debates and try to stay out of trouble.

Agree with everything except minimizing debates.

That's her strength. Policy wonk.

[fishercob]

I really think he is just baiting Hillary, Obama and Bill to get into a twitter war with him. He will win that war and it doesn't cost him anything.

If they don't respond he has to win the debates because Hillary will definitely outspend him on media buys.

If I were Trump - I would agree to debate the 3rd party candidates for several reasons:
- more free media
- Trump is good in multi-candidate forums
- lead tightens in polls where there are third party candidates

If I am Hillary, I just bludgeon Trump with Media buys, minimize the debates and try to stay out of trouble.

Agree with everything except minimizing debates.

That's her strength. Policy wonk.

Yeah, but Trump is such a wild card in debates that they have disaster potential. he will interrupt, filibuster, won't answer questions, etc. She'd kill Ted Cruz in a debate, but Trump is a concern because he won't abide to any rules.

[Wizardspride]

I really think he is just baiting Hillary, Obama and Bill to get into a twitter war with him. He will win that war and it doesn't cost him anything.

If they don't respond he has to win the debates because Hillary will definitely outspend him on media buys.

If I were Trump - I would agree to debate the 3rd party candidates for several reasons:
- more free media
- Trump is good in multi-candidate forums
- lead tightens in polls where there are third party candidates

If I am Hillary, I just bludgeon Trump with Media buys, minimize the debates and try to stay out of trouble.

Agree with everything except minimizing debates.

That's her strength. Policy wonk.

Yeah, but Trump is such a wild card in debates that they have disaster potential. he will interrupt, filibuster, won't answer questions, etc. She'd kill Ted Cruz in a debate, but Trump is a concern because he won't abide to any rules.

Yeah, I hadn't considered that.

[nate33]

I have a question for you guys. Would intentionally inviting a country to hack emails that contain, allegedly, classified information, be treason?

Can you not see the undertone of Trump's point. He's not seriously suggesting that Russian should hack Hillary's email. He's drawing attention to the fact that Hillary deleted 30,000 emails and nobody in our government seems willing or able to find them. This all ties into his accusations of corruption.

The frustration of the left as they swing and miss wildly as they attack Trump is hilarious. Do you honestly think this line of attack is going to work? "Wah! Trump just asked a foreign country to hack Hillary! This is unacceptable"

[nate33]

I really think he is just baiting Hillary, Obama and Bill to get into a twitter war with him. He will win that war and it doesn't cost him anything.

If they don't respond he has to win the debates because Hillary will definitely outspend him on media buys.

If I were Trump - I would agree to debate the 3rd party candidates for several reasons:
- more free media
- Trump is good in multi-candidate forums
- lead tightens in polls where there are third party candidates

If I am Hillary, I just bludgeon Trump with Media buys, minimize the debates and try to stay out of trouble.

Agree with everything except minimizing debates.

That's her strength. Policy wonk.

Debates aren't about policy. People that care about politics already know the candidates' respective policies and have already made up their minds. At this point in the game, the "undecideds" aren't the type of people who care about policy details. They're going to look at the debates to try and get a measure of the candidate. Who is honest? Who appears powerful and confident? Who gives the impression that they really care (and not merely faux caring by carefully reading poll tested scripts)? I don't know who will come across as the "winner" in those criteria, but I have no reason to believe that Hillary any advantage.

[Wizardspride]

I have a question for you guys. Would intentionally inviting a country to hack emails that contain, allegedly, classified information, be treason?

Can you not see the undertone of Trump's point. He's not seriously suggesting that Russian should hack Hillary's email. He's drawing attention to the fact that Hillary deleted 30,000 emails and nobody in our government seems willing or able to find them. This all ties into his accusations of corruption.

The frustration of the left as they swing and miss wildly as they attack Trump is hilarious. Do you honestly think this line of attack is going to work? "Wah! Trump just asked a foreign country to hack Hillary! This is unacceptable"

Nate,

It just blows my mind that you actually take Trump as a serious candidate. I mean they're people who are voting for him just because he's a republican but you actually seem to like this guy.

To me this isn't even a left-right thing for the most part, it's a question of competence, temperament etc etc.

Heck, the guy doesn't even come across as particularly smart despite his educational background.

I'm at a loss for words...

[tontoz]

Nate,

It just blows my mind that you actually take Trump as a serious candidate. I mean they're people who are voting for him just because he's a republican but you actually seem to like this guy.

To me this isn't even a left-right thing for the most part, it's a question of competence, temperament etc etc.

Heck, the guy doesn't even come across as particularly smart despite his educational background.

I'm at a loss for words...

I didn't take him seriously for a long time but he is the Republican nominee going up against a weak opponent. Pretty much have to take him seriously now.

He is obviously a bad candidate but he is also a sign of just how disgusted people have become with career politicians.

[AFM]

Makes sense to me. Nate is a self confessed neo nazi, (33 representing the 2nd coming of the 3rd reich) and all my Facebook friends who are real political buffs swear that Trump is just like Adolf Hitler! He's a fascist!

Oh and before any of you islamophobe fascists mention the terrorist attack in France yesterday, it's my sworn duty as RealGM's liberal in chief, to remind you that the attack, like all terrorist attacks, has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

The reports of the attackers yelling "ALLAHU AKBAR!" are NOT true, I have word from a fellow SJW on tumblr that they were sneezing, "ACHOO ACHAR", and the acoustics in the church being as bad as they are...