It is amazing (and by amazing, I mean terrifying down to the core of my being) that Trump seems immune so far from the sort of gaffe that would have surely torpedoed any other candidate. Poor Howard Dean did a silly braying "Yeawwww!!" trying to fire up his supporters one evening, and it went viral before that was even a thing. He was out of the picture because of that one little moment and it will be shown on his obit reel one day. Meanwhile, somebody sticks a quarter in Trump each morning and off he goes, with not a fact checker to be found, barfing out nonsense and bluster in every direction. MSNBC is transfixed by him, cutting away to show various rallies and campaign stops, for quarters of an hour at a time. I would bet a lunch (taco bowls at Cafe de Trump) that up until now, MSNBC has broadcast more Trump airtime than Fox News Channel has by a wide margin. No wonder he doesn't have to pay much for campaign ads.
I may change this opinion in 5 minutes too, but I'm guessing that it will be hard to tell at times who's likely to win, in part because the media narrative will fluctuate constantly. It's in the media's interest (particularly the news stations, which are almost all essentially entertainment now) to keep us guessing and to present a long-term-overarching narrative that it's close. So if the short-terms-overarching narrative last week was "Hillary's in trouble, Trump is on the rise!" - this week it's likely to be "Trump's in trouble, Hillary is on the rise!" It's becoming easier and easier to see through this stuff - sometimes it almost seems like they get together on Friday afternoon and decide what next week's narrative is going to be in advance. The problem (among many) is that it then becomes a chicken-and-egg thing when it comes to polls and "hard data." Is Trump up (or down) this week because that's in some way warranted - or was it the narrative from a week ago that he was in trouble?
Thing is, nothing he has done so far is actually a gaffe as far as his voter base is concerned. Racism? That's a feature, not a bug. Misogynistic insult to a powerful woman in the media? Lousy tramp had it coming. Ban all Muslims? Well damn, I sure wish I'd thunk of that! He's a genius I tell ya! Now that silly season is out of the way, I think his big mouth might start to hurt his chances. OTOH, Hillary Clinton is a flawed, uninspiring candidate just as likely to screw up as he. And her voter base isn't remotely as enthused as his is. We're so screwed. LOL - so true! How did it 'go viral' way back then anyway? Smoke signals or something? It's hard to imagine a Trump scenario where he turns off his troglodytes in quite the same way...maybe if he's caught pissing on the bible or something (although he kinda has already and none but the Mormons took any offence).
So true! I never really thought it was remotely close in 2008 and 2012, and for the most part the only time I started to lose faith was when some breathless commentator insisted that Obama "doesn't stand a chance against a statesman such as McCainRomney". My gut, though, feels no such stability this year. I do, honest to god, think Trump has an excellent shot at winning. I can't explain it, not with the demographics looking so bad for him, but I just feel like this is going to be a nail biter no matter which candidate ends up on top (and perhaps another SCOTUS situation, which'd be ironic as all hell with eight justices presiding).
<Now that silly season is out of the way, I think his big mouth might start to hurt his chances.> It was not noted as much as it should have been, but IMO, his big mouth has been (quietly) hurting his chances all along. It didn't hurt among the GOP primary electorate, so the commentariat kept insisting it wasn't hurting him. Yet it drove up his disapproval among women to 70%, for instance. He's created clips galore for the Clinton (and Clinton-backing Superpacs) will surely be airing after the conventions. This is what gives me hope. <OTOH, Hillary Clinton is a flawed, uninspiring candidate just as likely to screw up as he. And her voter base isn't remotely as enthused as his is.> And this is what gives me pause. I dearly wish we had someone as charismatic as Obama, or even Bill Clinton, as the Democratic nominee this time. But we don't. Trump appeals to something deep in the reptile brain, and is also the living embodiment of Lincoln's adage that you can fool some of the people all of the time. As it stands now (barring any major events to roil things one way or the other), the election may come down to whether he can fool most of the people, or just a disturbingly large minority.
Ah, come on. Admit it. You routinely ignore the "Use By" date on those yogurt cartons in your fridge! So why should this be any different.
I think because Hillary is such a low charisma candidate, her VP selection better be one that really knocks it out of the park, someone that will get people excited to go to the polls. Because I am sure that Trump will pick someone designed to grab headlines (I really doubt reports that he will choose some little known "safe" running mate. It doesn't fit his m.o. at all to do anything dull and sensible). If she wants to not spend the remainder of the campaign in reaction mode, a bold choice for VP would be a great, low cost way to grab the news cycle. And that VP should be Jennifer Lawrence or Chris Pratt.
How about Pooh Bear? I know for a fact he ran for President in 1972 - I saw it at DL. Yeah, 44 years ago, but he doesn't look a day older. It's actually kinda spooky. I smell comeback!!
Funny you mention these two, because it occurred to me that Obama and Clinton, along with Reagan, were the three candidates I know of (not only presidents, any major candidates in my experience) who I'm convinced would trounce Trump in an epic landslide. Even the Bushes, I think, would struggle with him, as would Carter imo, but these three could dispatch with him easily, even amusingly. Part of it is how deft all three are at dismissing blowhards — slinging mud without getting muddy themselves — as President Obama so easily proved when he roasted Trump to a crisp. Clinton did something similar when he toppled Bush Sr., without outright insulting the man badly enough for him to retaliate, or ramp up any sympathy support. Reagan? Fuggetaboutit. He made far scarier, far blowhardier Russian strongmen look like pansy-assed morons, all without batting an eye. The Democrats would do well to study the hell out of the three above (heck, they've got two of them around to consult with!), but I fear that Hillary's hubris won't allow it.
Unless, she divorces him if she gets elected, we kinda do have Bill, don't we? Just as wife's of Presidents had influence over their husbands, the same thing is going to apply in reverse. Hillary, has done a few questionable things, but, so did Bill, yet, if we are truthful, he was a pretty damn good President and one that connected with the people. (Some even physically. ) He has savvy, and she is no idiot. I wish we had a strong candidate to run against the Tangerine Man, but, I don't see how she could mess things up anymore then all the rest have, especially Congress and she has a "go to" advisor that I do trust to make solid government related decisions (not so much personal, but, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter and then Reagan being to old for shenanigans, they all had that stigma, even the best of them). To me the only real danger is if the intelligent electorate are so disgusted with the options that they don't even bother to vote and then we stand a huge, scary chance of having the "mouth that roared" as POTUS because the crazies are the only ones showing up to mark their ballot with an X. She won't be able to get anything done because she is a woman and the old men in the government will resist her with every drop of Geritol they consume. I see a few positive things with electing Hillary: 1. The opportunity to elect a woman right after a black man. We sure would seem enlighten to the world. Or at the very least we will have caught up with many other nations that aren't nearly as bigoted as we are. 2. The first First Gentleman position ever in this nation. 3. The first historic situation where a husband and wife have been elected President in different decades. Worthy of a lot of awe. We have seen a number of Father/Son setups through the years, but, this would be unique in that in the world due to the fact that both would have been elected and not just taken over after a death. (not here, other places) Let's face it, like I said, she cannot screw it up any more then the men have been able to do for centuries. Just kick that JackA$$ back into one of his many towers, that is the important thing. However, he would probably call for a revolution if the isn't elected, which would also be a first since the revolutionary war. All the rest have been peaceful transitions.. I don't see this one as being possible.
Both Bill and Hillary are capable of being inspiring one minute, and then making you want to tear your hair out the next. Probably more than any two other pols I can think of.
I highly recommend this article on Hillary. If you hate her or are one of those people that just never got her, this, I think, gets to the heart of it. And no, it's not softball interview or gives her any kind of a pass. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/hillary-clinton-candidacy.html
How many ways can she find to say "Oh, and by the way, I'm also a woman!"? Blech. One great thing about President Obama was the fact that he wanted to lead all Americans. Being black, while cool in a historical sense, was never front and center. He never leaned on it, nor even made too big a deal about it. She'd do well to take a page from his book, because reading that article I found myself liking her *less*, and I certainly didn't feel like she was running with the likes of me in mind. No wonder she's so reviled.
Now, see, I read that article, and I thought the author was much more focused on Clinton's gender than Clinton herself was. So naturally those quotes were some of the ones she chose to use. The whole tone of the article can kind of be summed up in this paragraph (which I think makes some good points): "But if, as in this election, a man who spews hate and vulgarity, with no comprehension of how government works, can become presidentially plausible because he is magnetic while a capable, workaholic woman who knows policy inside and out struggles because she is not magnetic, perhaps we should reevaluate magnetism’s importance. It’s worth asking to what degree charisma, as we have defined it, is a masculine trait. Can a woman appeal to the country in the same way we are used to men doing it? Though those on both the right and the left moan about “woman cards,” it would be impossible, and dishonest, to not recognize gender as a central, defining, complicated, and often invisible force in this election. It is one of the factors that shaped Hillary Clinton, and it is one of the factors that shapes how we respond to her. Whatever your feelings about Clinton herself, this election raises important questions about how we define leadership in this country, how we feel about women who try to claim it, flawed though they may be." When asked about it directly, Clinton said: "I asked Clinton if it still makes her uncomfortable to be thought of as a symbol. “No,” she replied. “I’ve really kind of matured in my understanding of how symbolism can be efficacious, so I’m more embracing of that. But at the end of the day, being the first woman president can only take you so far. What have I done that can actually produce positive results in somebody’s life? Do we have more jobs? Are people’s incomes going up? Have we made progress on the minimum wage? What have we gotten done on equal pay? What are we doing on early childhood?” She is right back in worker mode. “I’m still a results-oriented kind of person, because that’s what I think matters to people.” So sure, Clinton is running to be the President of everybody. But you can't pretend gender isn't an issue, and while she doesn't even bring it up in the majority of her policy speeches, this author chose to highlight it in this piece.
Maybe. But to me it read as though she were in campaign mode the whole way through, despite the "casual" style of interview...and the constant references to feminism stood out for all the wrong reasons in that context. It's possible I just misread the intent. Maybe she really thinks that way.
Or maybe you're reading a necessarily heavily edited piece by an author who apparently had quite a lot of time with her, and is presenting what she feels is most important. (Also maybe - just maybe - the very real sexism that Clinton has dealt with since she's been a public figure has "earned" her some of her observations. After all, she's been knocked over the years for daring to take a law exam... then for keeping her maiden name... then for speaking her mind as First Lady of Arkansas... and on and on. As the years have gone by, each previous step of things that "a woman can't/shouldn't do" has fallen away and seems quaint - and therefore, perhaps not worth bringing up - but they only seem so because women like Clinton insisted on breaking those barriers in the first place and were pilloried for it time and again. As she continues to aim higher, every step has her somewhat ahead of the curve of what some deem "acceptable" for women, so she keeps getting pilloried. Sure, she can also be criticized on the merits - and certainly I've done so - but let's face it: sometimes she has faced backlash simply for doing things that no one would think twice about her aiming for if she was male.)
Yeah but see, that's just the thing. You see that as some kind of preferred default way of being. I see it as a minefield fraught with complexities that Obama should've never been forced to navigate. Someday someone is going to write an incredible book about how Obama had to negotiate not being too black, being black enough, not being the angry black man, etc. And he seems to have abandoned some of that ever so slightly in the last year. Go read his press release on the death of Muhammad Ali. But no, Obama wasn't some pan-racial President who "got it"; he's a very smart man who had the skills to behave the way everyone expected him to despite the fact that it's a very ugly reflection on American culture.
True enough. I think part of my reaction was in the notion that this was a 'great article'. I did feel it was heavily slanted, and maybe my beef is with the writer, not the candidate. But for once, I really would like to read, hear, or see a straightforward version of Hillary Clinton that isn't "Campaign Mode Clinton". I get that a campaign has to be run a certain way, but she's so heavily scripted it's ludicrous. And for me, this article is just another heavily scripted puff piece.
Yes and no. Sure, because he's the first at something, he's heavily scrutinized (I'm sure Washington was too, in his day). People want to see if his way will be 'different', and President Obama has been careful about that. He's acted, well...presidential. For me, it's a good thing. The prez is the leader of *all* Americans, and President Obama made that fact clear right from his victory speech in Grant Park.
