Hillary's Email

[QUOTE="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.[/QUOTE]

I don't think she's any more heavily scripted than pretty much any modern candidate. With the exception of Trump, who really does seem to go off-the-cuff most the time, I think every major candidate since Reagan has been very scripted. (Before then too, but to a lesser degree. )

IMO, The real difference is not how heavily scripted they are, but how skillful they are at delivering the script. Including not appearing to be delivering a script. No question, she's terrible at that.

 

That may be my main issue, really. She just plain sucks as a campaigner, full stop.

Unfortunately I can't for the life of me recall anyone who sucked as a campaigner who actually *became* president. The closest may be W., but honestly he was a lot better than she is, plus he only just barely squeaked by both times, against dull and uninspiring opponents. Daddy Bush was pretty lame too, but he rode in on Reagan's coattails (and let's face it, Reagan had far longer 'tails than Obama will ever have), plus, again, a dull and uninspiring opponent.

Trump may be a lot of things, but "dull", he ain't.

*sigh* We are so screwed.

 

It's such a crapshoot trying to figure out how Trump will do in the general election ultimately.

For sure, he isn't dull. He's probably a better campaigner in general.

But on the other hand, those other great campaigners never had so many questions about their basic suitability for the office. Sure, some people said Reagan was too right wing at the time, and some people said Obama was too inexperienced. But they were very different concerns compared to the concerns about Trump. So do those concerns ultimately sink him, even against a bad campaigner?

Clinton did win this week, no question. She ripped into him on substance and his response was really lame and amounted to "nuh uh!" That was good enough for his acolytes but was it good enough for anyone else?

 

"a capable, workaholic woman who knows policy inside and out struggles because she is not magnetic"

They keep saying that's what it is.

That's not what it is.

She struggles because she's such a control freak that nothing she says or does comes across as the least bit genuine. She struggles because she's such a control freak, that she's willing to ignore government policies (about email servers and such) despite the political damage it's SURE to cause her. She struggles because she's such a control freak that, when confronted with the situation, she defaults to "I didn't know I was doing anything wrong" even though every single one of us dang well knows that's a lie, including the State Department (!) committee that investigated her.

And most of all, she struggles because she and her foundation gets bungloads of donations from the 1/10th of 1%, and then she tells us that it won't affect her policies in any way.

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

It amazes me that the Dems somehow found the one candidate on the face of the Earth who could plausibly lose to Donald friggin' Trump.

I'm voting for her. I live in a swing state now, so I can't afford to be making statements when there's a literal fascist running on the Other Side. But I do so, knowing full well that her administration is going to be an absolute nightmare.

 

Rally-wise, I agree with you (although let's face it, we're not the ones he's talking to).

In the debates, though, he kicked ass by playing up the reality star shtick — humiliating his opponents just like he did for so many years on his stupid TV show. It didn't help that they just stood there and took it for the most part, and whatever lame retorts they did attempt fell flat because this was *his* wheelhouse. But there's no denying he controlled that arena pretty much from start to finish.

Then there's the constant barrage of interviews and media-bait he uses so deftly to keep his name front and center all the time. That stems from the fact that he's an excellent used-car salesman, and knows how to pump a brand like nobody else.

I don't love the guy, far from it, but he's done some highly effective campaigning so far. I can't think of a bloody thing Hilary has done that has even come close.

Honestly I can't listen to either of 'em. Trump for the hypnotically repetitive word-salad that gets boring after 30 seconds unless you're under his spell; Clinton for the high-pitched, insincere bellowing (the article really got that right lol) that really just gives me a headache.

No doubt that's true. But he gets them really, really fired up. That's incredibly scary, since Hillary has such a talent for turning off moderate folks enough to make most of 'em stay home.

 

Trump's having a very bad week. His comments on the judge are getting slammed by Republicans left and right (even Gingrich, though McConnell was predictably mealy-mouthed about it) scared to death that Trump will drive Hispanics away from the party in general, not just away from himself. He may have just pushed his own numbers with Hispanics below 20% - which alone could cost him Florida, and it's hard to see any Republican winning without Florida.

Clinton should get a bump after Tuesday that will probably show up in the polls a week or so later.

In short, some of this panic seems to me like the panic when your baseball team loses an 8 game lead in the standings down to 1 1/2 games... but it's still May.

Let's see what kind of bounce Clinton gets after she clinches. How Sanders responds. Then it's another "silly season" while we wait for the conventions. That's when we can start panicking if Trump still looks like he has a real shot. And at this point he does. I'm not denying that.

But again, if the concept of President Trump freaks you out, consider not JUST freaking out about it. Consider working to prevent it.

 

"But I don't like Hillary so I'm going to vote for Johnson."