Octopus Overlords

Defiant wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
This might be the most partisan election cycle I've witnessed.

I'm not quite sure I'd call it *that*, especially when you have many prominent Republicans who so far either have concerns about Trump,

Yeah, I should have said most "divisive", and not necessarily along traditional lines either. Partisan is not correct.

The divisions are definitely deeper than usual, but what's unprecedented in recent history is that there is more than one of them. Dems are experiencing a particularly rancorous primary, but you hardly notice it because the Republican primary went from unruly crowd to civil war to full-on insurgency where a huge portion of the party considers itself incompatible with the presidential nominee.

Can anyone even remember the last time this happened? When Obama got the nomination in 2008, it was news when Democratic Governor Zell Miller of Georgia refused to support him. But Miller was only one man, and he was known to be a Republican in everything but name. This is completely different.

Good point on the Dem nomination run. It's not even a blip on the radar because Armageddon is happening on the Rep side.

Holman wrote:The divisions are definitely deeper than usual, but what's unprecedented in recent history is that there is more than one of them. Dems are experiencing a particularly rancorous primary, but you hardly notice it because the Republican primary went from unruly crowd to civil war to full-on insurgency where a huge portion of the party considers itself incompatible with the presidential nominee.

Can anyone even remember the last time this happened? When Obama got the nomination in 2008, it was news when Democratic Governor Zell Miller of Georgia refused to support him. But Miller was only one man, and he was known to be a Republican in everything but name. This is completely different.

There was some rancorousness on the Democratic side in 2008 ("She's likeable enough", "He's not muslim, as far as I know", etc), but it was more in the beginning part of the primary, and didn't last this long. Also, this time, it's not clear to me that it's within the Democratic party, and not between the Democrats and the Independents that voted in the primary. But yeah, there is some at the Democratic level (eg, Webb refusing to endorse Clinton), and lots of ugliness between the supporters.

I'm trying to think of rancorous primaries, and here's some of the ones I can think of off the top of my head, though I'm probably missing some.

On the Democratic side: 1968, 1980, 2008
On the Republican side: 1964, 1976, 2000

(Of course, there were earlier primaries where they needed multiple ballots at the convention to get a nominee, sometimes many)

Defiant wrote: On the Republican side: ... 2000

Alan Keyes was robbed.

GreenGoo wrote:

Defiant wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
This might be the most partisan election cycle I've witnessed.

I'm not quite sure I'd call it *that*, especially when you have many prominent Republicans who so far either have concerns about Trump,

Yeah, I should have said most "divisive", and not necessarily along traditional lines either. Partisan is not correct.

Well, it is partisan, but it's also multipolar: (Clinton vs Sanders) vs ((Trump + Tea Party(?)) vs GOP Establishment), with most (if not all) factions more easily defined by what they oppose than what they stand for, at least in terms of why people support them.

Holman wrote:

Defiant wrote: On the Republican side: ... 2000

Alan Keyes was robbed.

I was thinking more along the lines of the attacks on McCain in South Carolina, but either way.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/488412893200 ... show-clips

Go Bluto!

Oh great Trump has Christie building his team up. Guess the couple of months he was "back" in NJ are over. I just want Christie to f'n quit and let someone actually try and run our state. There's so many things broken and he's running around humping Trumps leg instead.

A friend of mine who is a PhD in economics and teaches at Whittier in California is utterly fascinated by Trump's extraordinary lack of knowledge on even the most basic concepts of economics. To be fair, I'm guessing he knows just about as much on the topic as most candidates. The difference being that sensible candidates seek out the advice of experts and avoid talking off the cuff on subjects they're clearly uninformed.

It's just a train wreck.

"Well, this is a nice way to start off the interview. First of all, you should congratulate me for having won the race,” he said. “I thought, you know, at least there would be a small congratulations, but I'm not surprised with CNN, because that's the way they treat Trump. It's the, you know, they call it the Clinton network and I believe that. So, you know –”

I'm not surprised with CNN, because that's the way they treat Trump.

Wait, Trump is referring to himself in the third person?

Blackhawk wrote:

"Well, this is a nice way to start off the interview. First of all, you should congratulate me for having won the race,” he said. “I thought, you know, at least there would be a small congratulations, but I'm not surprised with CNN, because that's the way they treat Trump. It's the, you know, they call it the Clinton network and I believe that. So, you know –”

I'm not surprised with CNN, because that's the way they treat Trump.

Wait, Trump is referring to himself in the third person?

I mean really who doesn't? I know Rip does.

hepcat wrote:It's just a train wreck.

Get that hippy, liberal rag out of here.

Oh man, I just thought of the perfect running mate for Trump.

Vince McMahon.




If you smelllllll what the Trump is cookin!

edit: and a link with reasons to boot.

http://www.therichest.com/expensive-lif ... /?view=all

Rip wrote:

Blackhawk wrote:

I'm not surprised with CNN, because that's the way they treat Trump.

Wait, Trump is referring to himself in the third person?

I mean really who doesn't? I know Rip does.

So, then. I guess Trump thinks Trump's trump trumps Trump's trumps.

Rip wrote:http://video.foxnews.com/v/488412893200 ... show-clips

Go Bluto!

Meh. It helps with people who already support him. I'm not convinced it helps him gain additional support beyond what he has already experienced.

Flop.Meet flip.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Psychiatric hospitals filling up with time travellers sent back to kill Donald Trump

L.O.L.

tjg_marantz wrote:Flop.Meet flip.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Thanks but no thanks you ignorant twat.

Are we doing polls yet? I heard you guys like polls.

Trump and Clinton in dead heat:

Buckle up for the next six months: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are effectively tied in the swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to the results of a Quinnipiac University survey released Tuesday.

All of those polls apparently assumes a whiter electorate than in 2012. Unlikely to happen.

Even if they're correct-- which I imagine is freaking out some Trumphobics right now-- they still have Clinton up in Florida. Bag Florida and all the other swing states don't matter... assuming Trump doesn't flip any traditionally "safe" Blue states. But that would change if that Quinnipiac poll is accurate and PA really is in play this year. I'm skeptical.

I'm 100 percent skeptical as well. The models are all probably going to be very wrong. There has never been a candidate like this. It is going to be a spectacle on one hand and his organization is so unprepared for the general that it is not even reasonable (shocker I know). I think the only polls that will be useful will be sentiment based ones. I'd be shocked if even one poll comes close to getting the actual voting mix right across the board. Maybe a state here and there but overall? Not a chance.

NPR released their own study today which shows Clinton with a pretty decisive victory.

We're still far too early to look at polls, but the buzz reminds me a lot of Obama/Romney. Right up until election night there were websites saying the polls were overestimating Obama's support and that Romney had a clear path to victory. I imagine you'll see the same thing this time around, right before Clinton crushes Trump by a landslide.

I'll never forget Karl Rove on Fox News during election night frantically trying to stave off defeat by crunching numbers that didn't exist.

yeah... what ever happened to Karl Rove's genius ushering the GOP into years of power. (not that I'm interesting in finding it)

YellowKing wrote:NPR released their own study today which shows Clinton with a pretty decisive victory.

We're still far too early to look at polls, but the buzz reminds me a lot of Obama/Romney. Right up until election night there were websites saying the polls were overestimating Obama's support and that Romney had a clear path to victory. I imagine you'll see the same thing this time around, right before Clinton crushes Trump by a landslide.

I'll never forget Karl Rove on Fox News during election night frantically trying to stave off defeat by crunching numbers that didn't exist.

Also you have to bear in mind that, even setting Trump aside, the democrats have a pretty immense built-in electoral college lead at the moment. Any democrat who wins the states that have voted democratic in every election from 1992 on would get ~ 242 electoral votes, while any republican who wins the states that have voted republican in every election from 1992 on would get ~ 160ish electoral votes.

So a democrat winning all of the blue states plus Florida (which is pretty democratic leaning at this point) wins the election. Plus there are a couple other state alignments that get a democrat past 270 even if they lose Florida.

Meanwhile basically everything has to go right for a Republican to win the electoral college with the current map. And that's probably not going to improve in the near term given the growing minority vote and Republicans' adept handling of minority issues.

Buffer post. Write the name that rhymes with 'Yarl Pove' three times in three consecutive posts, and you summon him back from Hell. No one wants that.

Edit: Too late! But thank goodness it wasn't needed. Better safe than sorry.

The fundraising gap alone is a huge challenge. The Trump camp needs over a billion and have no fundraising machine and a Republican National party not all that interested in helping him. All the free coverage in the world won't compete with the Clintonistas taking the basis of that free coverage and judo reversing it into targeted attack ads.

I'm starting to question the effectiveness of attack ads (against Trump) in this campaign. Again, using traditional tools of (political) war against a nontraditional opponent? His base won't care, and he's such a public figure, it's not like people aren't aware of who (and how) he is, so people that are opposed to him don't need any extra hate fuel.

I guess there is value in making sure that the ugliness of his character is so known and publicized, that people become even more ashamed than they already are, that they are Trump voters.

I think the attack ads may be effective against those traditional GOP voters who are on the fence about whether to suck it up and vote for a GOP nominee who they find really offensive, or to vote for Hillary (or a third party, or not vote). The true believers in Trump are not likely to be swayed, but they're not really the targets.

I think they could also be very effective against late-deciding independent voters who have a general disdain for Hillary but view Trump as an unknown. They might be enough to push them into the "devil you know" camp.

And the true believers are presumably baked into Trump's staggeringly bad favorability ratings. If Clinton can keep Trump's support limited mostly to the true believers, then she wins.

YellowKing wrote:NPR released their own study today which shows Clinton with a pretty decisive victory.

We're still far too early to look at polls, but the buzz reminds me a lot of Obama/Romney. Right up until election night there were websites saying the polls were overestimating Obama's support and that Romney had a clear path to victory. I imagine you'll see the same thing this time around, right before Clinton crushes Trump by a landslide.

I've read mirror articles where one says that Clinton's attacks on Trump are only helping him, and the other said that Trump's attacks on Clinton are only helping her.

I've also noticed (took me long enough) that some articles write themselves, each election cycle. They are literally (ok, maybe not literally) refurbished articles from previous elections, making the same points about different candidates, using different "facts" to come to the exact same conclusions that were made in the previous election cycles.

I realize I'm slow in discovering this, but it was disheartening. I mean, these articles could be about anyone, during any period of time. Talk about political filler.

Carpet_pissr wrote:I guess there is value in making sure that the ugliness of his character is so known and publicized, that people become even more ashamed than they already are, that they are Trump voters.

Watching an early investigative report in the heartland of Trump support, it was very clear that most people see him as an outsider (as per Rip's view) and that he's "pretty good at business" so that must mean he's smart.

And that's it.

Showing these people who he really is would have an impact, I like to think. Maybe not.

Everyone they showed in the report was just your average everyday American. Not dumb, not smart, not overly partisan. Just regular people who think Trump would make a good president based on knowing his name and that he's "pretty good at business".

GreenGoo wrote:

YellowKing wrote:NPR released their own study today which shows Clinton with a pretty decisive victory.

We're still far too early to look at polls, but the buzz reminds me a lot of Obama/Romney. Right up until election night there were websites saying the polls were overestimating Obama's support and that Romney had a clear path to victory. I imagine you'll see the same thing this time around, right before Clinton crushes Trump by a landslide.

I've read mirror articles where one says that Clinton's attacks on Trump are only helping him, and the other said that Trump's attacks on Clinton are only helping her.

I've also noticed (took me long enough) that some articles write themselves, each election cycle. They are literally (ok, maybe not literally) refurbished articles from previous elections, making the same points about different candidates, using different "facts" to come to the exact same conclusions that were made in the previous election cycles.

I realize I'm slow in discovering this, but it was disheartening. I mean, these articles could be about anyone, during any period of time. Talk about political filler.

Both Trump and Clinton are pretty widely disliked, so there's some logic to trying to make your attack ads without linking them to you. Which I suspect would mean that a lot of the attack ads would be outsourced to Super PACs and the like.

GreenGoo wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote:I guess there is value in making sure that the ugliness of his character is so known and publicized, that people become even more ashamed than they already are, that they are Trump voters.

Watching an early investigative report in the heartland of Trump support, it was very clear that most people see him as an outsider (as per Rip's view) and that he's "pretty good at business" so that must mean he's smart.

And that's it.

Showing these people who he really is would have an impact, I like to think. Maybe not.

Everyone they showed in the report was just your average everyday American. Not dumb, not smart, not overly partisan. Just regular people who think Trump would make a good president based on knowing his name and that he's "pretty good at business".

You wonder whether attack ads along the lines of "Trump's business deals screwed over these specific people" (like what was done against Romney re: Bain Capital) might have some effectiveness at dislodging a few supporters.

I personally think attack ads are going to be *more* effective than ever. Assuming that people target them properly of course. Sit with any half competent marketing person and see the data sometime. Marketing works. And we have more data than ever to support it. Pairing the right demographic with the right message with the right platform is unbelievably powerful and I believe the Clinton camp will do that right. Especially since there will be so much idiocy to leverage.

Easy ladies, let's not get your knickers in a wad.

I know Trump is hard to swallow but it is for your own good.

malchior wrote:I personally think attack ads are going to be *more* effective than ever. Assuming that people target them properly of course. Sit with any half competent marketing person and see the data sometime. Marketing works. And we have more data than ever to support it. Pairing the right demographic with the right message with the right platform is unbelievably powerful and I believe the Clinton camp will do that right. Especially since there will be so much idiocy to leverage.

Good point. With such a character, the attack ads would seemingly write themselves, but those obvious points would not work for supporters or straight R ticket voters probably. Will have to use a different angle for them, like 'Trump is neither a conservative, nor a Republican', 'Trump has farther left positions on X and Y than Hillary', 'Trump is a New York City elite socialite!', 'Trump hates Jesus', etc.

Rip wrote:I know Trump is hard to swallow

No argument there. My first mental image on reading that was a humanized version of those disgusting orange Circus Peanut chewy candies that no one likes (also notoriously difficult to swallow).