Actually, The SEC & Friends --- Alabama Primary Alaska Republican Caucus American Samoa Primary Arkansas Primary Colorado Caucuses Democrats Abroad Georgia Primary Massachusetts Primary Minnesota Caucuses Oklahoma Primary Tennessee Primary Texas Primary Vermont Primary Virginia Primary --- Will Trump sweep? Will Bernie burn? Go Ted! --- --- Prepare! Stock Up! Play nice. -- and -- HAIL GRIMES!
Never. Ever. Now. I realize that part of Grimes Club is to never talk about Grimes Club as a whimsical collective fantasy, but Trump's rise is absolutely real and he *could* theoretically become Prez. Whereas Grimes requires a massive grassroots effort that only BS N&A/Elections can provide.
What I'd like is for Clinton to decisively crush Sanders so that he can get out of the race, endorse her and we can avoid an extended period of ugliness. He's obviously not going to win and he's already performed his role of dragging her somewhat to the left. I don't know that extending his candidacy is all that great for the process at this point.
Note, this would also allow Obama to become active in campaigning for the Democratic nominee. Bill, one can hope, will be on a fairly short leash; from my perspective, I'd like to see little of him except perhaps at the convention (the guy can give a good speech). But Obama is pretty damned popular among the Democratic core and, imho, could be a real asset to Clinton in that, personality-wise, he has what it'll take to poke holes in a windbag like Trump.
It's funny, I don't see it like that at all. But Obama would be an asset: Bill would be good at the anti-Trump jousting -- if the campaign controls him well. Obama would help HRC rise above her technocratic, practical persona. Meanwhile HRC could move between those two poles depending on the circumstance. That said, I actually think HRC would more than hold her own in the verbal jousting with Trump. She's quick, she's secure, and she's not gonna take Trump's shit. Also, she has enough self-control not to be dragged down into the muck. Nothing is gonna faze her. (I've got my doubts about Bill on that front. Indeed, I've got really strong doubts.)
Trump-Hillary debates would be a disaster for Trump. He doesn't have any self control and will constantly demean her which will reinforce the fact that he's a misogynist sexist pig. He'll try to treat her like a 2nd rate secretary that should just sit there and take his shit. That's not going to work with women ... even conservative women. Especially the older women who remember what it's like to deal with these types of assholes in a work environment. As a country we've never really had the male/female president debate dynamic. The male debater needs to have a minimum amount of tact and nuance to not fall into the sexist trap. Lots of men are socially prewired to not treat women seriously and women pick up on it fast. Trump will not have the tact to navigate the battle of the sexes. And of course his personal narrative doesn't help either with the multiple trophy wives and affairs. Somehow I think there are going to be lots of women who may not agree with Hillary politically, but will be motivated to come out and vote against Trump. In a way it'll feel like payback for all the crap they've had to take their entire lives from men like Trump. At least I hope this is true ... it's what I hear anecdotally from some women in my life
Yeah, I have no doubt Clinton will not be as easily intimidated as Rubio, or as easily dismissed as Cruz. I liked Rubio, but outside that last debate in which he wiped the floor with Trump, he seemed intimidated by him, hesitating to engage with him. Say what you want about Hilary, but she hasn't lasted this long or done this well in politics out of luck. She's tough and smart and she will not back down. I also think an underrated part of it is the debate stage will only have two people; Trump will be forced into prolonged back-and-forth exchanges with someone who will press him and call him out constantly. He won't have the benefit of having filler candidates buffer for him so he can stick to what he's good at; the 30-second platitude soundbite with a drive-by personal attack and if someone hits him with a valid point, just shout him down and interrupt him constantly until the debate moves on. It'll just be him and Clinton, and I have no doubt Clinton will tirelessly expose how shallow his statements really are. And if he shouts over and interrupts Clinton too much, the "Trump bullies women" narrative will come out loud and clear.
Yep. The format counts. When you're standing on a stage you can shout and use your body language. But when you're sitting at an intimate round table with a moderator you need to tone it down. Or my favorite is the town hall format where you're amongst the audience and need to show a little humanity and interact with regular people 1 on 1. Not sure how Trump will come across in that environment.
Absolutely. Also, I think Trump will come off terribly in a town hall format; IIRC, he hasn't done that many town halls, preferring to stick to the large rally with a long stream-of-consciousness speech. There's probably a reason for that. Hilary isn't great in that setting; she comes off as a bit stiff, but Trump shrinks whenever there's not someone to bully or intimidate, and he's forced to just talk to normal people in a rational, compelling way IMO.
So, I read this: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/super-tuesday-states-219886 Seeing all the states with viability thresholds -- some quite high -- has me thinking Trump will do even better delegate-wise on Super Tuesday than some may be expecting.
True. Even loathsome Carly Fiorina deflated trump with one single sentence. And when Biden debated Palin, he basically gave her a whole lot of respect she didn't deserve so as not to appear as if he was bullying her. It's a very interesting dynamic.
Deflated for us, but we weren't voting for Trump anyway. Actually, I think Hillary has a tough task. If Rubio stands up to Trump, that helps him, he's being a man. If Hillary does so, she's a bitch. Which is the tag on her already ... she's a bitch, even as she's more polite and respectful than any of the leading GOP candidates. Such is sexism and yeah it's still alive and well.
Thankfully I will actually be at the game, not in front of a TV. I think Bill also shines on the sort of late night shows where they actually have a substantive discussion of different issues, like the the Daily Show used to do. I agree that they should limit his appearances for another reason - he looks downright haggard when he is tired (now that he has lost so much weight), and that will remind people how old Hillary is. She certainly will be able to show that she is more knowledgeable on a lot of different issues (like, all of them). Not that that matters to Trump voters, who do not value education or knowledge. Also, will there really be any undecided voters by the time there are debates? Seems hard to imagine.
The thing I remember the most was her telegraphing the setup of her punch line, by asking him early on if she could call him "Joe." You knew something was coming, and of course, the "say it ain't so, Joe" line was soon to follow. Al that for a lukewarm one-liner? I don't think Hilary has that much to lose by playing the "bitch" card, since a lot of people feel that way about her anyway. She can press him on specifics and be very effective, and as long as she smiles and comes across in a good-natured way she can make him look like the bombastic fool that he is.
These past several election cycles, I've had a hard time understanding how anyone can be undecided by the time the conventions ended. So, yes: I can imagine there being undecideds. Though to quote Bill Maher, there is a better word.... “If you’re one of the 5 percent of American voters who are still undecided on who to vote for, it’s okay to admit you just don’t really give a shit,” Maher began. “Seriously, if you still can’t figure out who you like more –Mitt Romney or Barrack Obama– stay home… because you probably couldn’t find your polling place anyway. I mean, what more information does someone need to make this choice? Obama has been President for nearly four years. And Mitt Romney has been running for President since 1971, when his space egg incubated and he burst out of an astronaut’s chest.” [/i] and regarding the media's valorization of undecideds: “Can we please stop treating them like they’re more noble and discerning than the rest of us? … put on a pedestal by the media, as if they’re Hamlet in a think tank, searching out every last bit of information and high-minded arbiters pouring over policy positions and matching them against their own philosophies. Please! They mostly fall into a category political scientists call ‘low-information voters’ –otherwise known as ‘dipshits.’”
France 24 had a bit a few weeks back where a prof analyzed Hillary's speech patterns and concluded that her voice inflections really annoyed people. The panel (which included women) concluded that Hillary needed to develop her campaign beyond "Vote for me, because I'm a woman."
Maybe Obama could help with the Pro-Sanders white college crowd, the handful that actually may go and vote.
And his base would love him for that. Is not like he would win the women vote anyways, he would want to run up the score with the male vote, specifically the white male vote.