Presidential Race 2016

[Mark_Asher]

The one that tipped me off that there was nothing Trump could say that would hurt him was when he bad mouthed American prisoners of war saying that heroes don’t get caught. I can’t think of anything that would have been more toxic to the conservative base than this and it didn’t harm him at all. It would have ended the political career of any traditional candidate. I was fairly certain from that point that the only thing that would stop Trump would be if he lost interest and pulled out.

I remember that, and I remember thinking that was going to do him in, and instead his popularity climbed. I still thought a more traditional candidate would eventually get momentum and surpass him, but the voters have said otherwise.

[Timex]

The amusing thing to me is that his “answer” to trump to attempt to out trump him. This hasn’t worked out well for any previous political enemy. However, as you say, it is probably his only chance. Do or die.

That’s the thing, no one ever just went for the throat and made fun of him personally. They either attacked his policy, or said he wasn’t suits do is just flat out making fun of him , and no one does that to tell apparently.

[Incendiary_Lemon]

I remember that, and I remember thinking that was going to do him in, and instead his popularity climbed. I still thought a more traditional candidate would eventually get momentum and surpass him, but the voters have said otherwise.

It doesn’t speak well for the consultants running these campaigns. Trump was a clear threat by September, if not earlier. The fact that they didn’t do any opposition is baffling.

My father was a consultant way back in the day. I remember asking him for advice about a speech at school… he took a look at the text I’d prepared and put aside. Just go out there and be funny. There was a bit more to it, he had me put a few core ideas on paper. The things I wanted to talk about. But I was not going to give a prepared statement. And whatever I said, it had to be entertaining*, it had to connect with my audience. I can’t remember what I said at this point, but I’m pretty sure I promised to burn my mattress (on the quad) if elected.

It was a silly thing to say, but it made people laugh, and that made me a real person. Not just a nervous child they didn’t know standing on a stage.

We see the world through memories of our own experiences, so I thought of that moment when Trump started gaining support last summer. He was acting like a buffoon, but he was connecting emotionally with voters. He was venting their anger, and he was making them laugh.

That’s really what everyone else should have been trying to do, but they were all too buttoned up - lost in their stodgy ritual.

[I]

• The Phantom Tollbooth is the perfect book for a million reasons, but I will always love the sequence on speeches because it does a wonderful job of illustrating this point. If what you’re saying is dull, you’re doing it wrong.[/I]

[RichVR]

Trump has an Achilles heel. That’s his ego. Unfortunately the rest of the crowd didn’t take advantage of it until too late. Trump wins GOP spot. Can Hillary beat him?

[Murbella]

The one that tipped me off that there was nothing Trump could say that would hurt him was when he bad mouthed American prisoners of war saying that heroes don’t get caught. I can’t think of anything that would have been more toxic to the conservative base than this and it didn’t harm him at all. It would have ended the political career of any traditional candidate. I was fairly certain from that point that the only thing that would stop Trump would be if he lost interest and pulled out.

This stuff is sadly not uncommon in politics, although admittedly it is generally a “totally not connected” super pac doing it, like swiftboat vets for truth or whatever crap.

[Murbella]

That’s the thing, no one ever just went for the throat and made fun of him personally. They either attacked his policy, or said he wasn’t suits do is just flat out making fun of him , and no one does that to tell apparently.

I don’t really agree with this. I felt like they were going after him before too, but it wasn’t until now that basically EVERYONE piled on. In the past it was every man (and woman) for themselves with candidates attacking each other at random. Then every so often someone would go after Trump and they would fly to close to the sun.

Bush in particular traded lots of blows with Trump.

[Timex]

Bush made some attempts to attack Trump, but he wasn’t really that smooth about it. In most cases, he let Trump hit him back and couldn’t follow up.

What Rubio did that shook Trump was he followed through. He tried to come back, and Rubio just talked over him and kept mocking him.

We’ll see what happens, but it was the first time I saw Trump get that messed up.

[Incendiary_Lemon]

I don’t really agree with this. I felt like they were going after him before too, but it wasn’t until now that basically EVERYONE piled on. In the past it was every man (and woman) for themselves with candidates attacking each other at random. Then every so often someone would go after Trump and they would fly to close to the sun.

There were reasons not to go after him.

If you’re Rubio, for example, you want to edge out Jeb because he’s competing for the same base of voters.

If you’re Kasich, you may want to stay above the fray and look like the good guy.

If you’re Cruz, well, you might actually want to attack him because he’s dividing your base. At the same time, you might worried about the backlash. What kind of damage can Trump do to me? Why not wait it out and let other people do it for you. Surely, at some point, he’s going to take a tumble… right?

[Oghier]

Trump voters may not be as dumb as I thought. For decades, we’ve watched GOP voters who voted against their own economic self-interest (“What’s the Matter with Kansas” describes it well). Perhaps they have finally realized that tax breaks for the top 1%, free trade and enormous subsidies to specific industries don’t do much good for middle-class, or formerly middle-class blue collar workers.

They blame the wrong people (liberals, immigrants, Obama), and they’re not better at picking leaders with solutions than the dupes of the Tea Party. But at least they’ve figured out that trickle-down economics do not work.

Also, does anyone else find it fascinating to watch the media report on how the media has been manipulated? Pundit after pundit discusses how Trump stole the news cycle from Rubio by announcing the Christie endorsement, and how clever it is that Trump can determine what they cover. I don’t know if it’s irony or a complete lack of self-awareness, but it’s nuts either way.

[Papageno]

Hey, First Amedment, good to know you! (if Trump were to win):

Donald Trump: We're going to 'open up' libel laws

[Oghier]

I just watched Christie, live on CNN, tearing into Rubio. It was devastating. The gist of it was that Rubio is lazy. “He says he has foreign policy experience, because he’s on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He skipped 60% of the meetings. He says he has business experience because he’s on the Senate Small Business Committee. He skipped 85% of those meetings…[and on and on] What would happen to you if you skipped that much work? The presidency is not a No-Show Job”

They say you shouldn’t mud-wrestle a pig, because you can’t win, and the pig likes it. I don’t think that’s what Rubio has done. I think he picked a fight with a pair of gorillas. He’s not going to win a fistfight with these two (all the more so, as probably every Trump supporter has already made up their mind, and just views this as entertainment).

[Timex]

Christie attacked trump previously too, saying he was unqualified to be President. I think that ultimately no one really cares what Christie thinks. He attacked kasich in new Hampshire too, before losing and dropping out.

[Oghier]

Christie attacked trump previously too, saying he was unqualified to be President. I think that ultimately no one really cares what Christie thinks.

New Hampshire debate.

[Timex]

New Hampshire debate.

But that’s the thing, in the debate, it wasn’t at all what Christie said that mattered. It was how Rubio reacted.

Christie got exactly zero additional votes from his performance in the debate.

[MikeJ]

Trump voters may not be as dumb as I thought. For decades, we’ve watched GOP voters who voted against their own economic self-interest (“What’s the Matter with Kansas” describes it well). Perhaps they have finally realized that tax breaks for the top 1%, free trade and enormous subsidies to specific industries don’t do much good for middle-class, or formerly middle-class blue collar workers.

I thought Trump’s gigantic tax cuts were skewed very much towards the top 1%, like all the other Republican plans.

This analysis says it would drop middle quintile taxes by 4.3% or $2700 and taxes for the top 0.1% by 12.5% or $1,300,000. Also blowing a giant hole in the national debt.

[Oghier]

Christie got exactly zero additional votes from his performance in the debate.

That’s true enough. Being the attack dog, even if you’re a great attack dog, does not garner you votes. It won’t make people like you, and it can do as much harm to the dog as the other guy’s ankle. Christie wrecked Rubio (though, Rubio has obviously recovered), but it did Christie no good at all.

I think that’s part of why candidates like to use spokesmen or PAC’s to go negative. They want the effect, but they don’t the mud spattered on them.

[Oghier]

I thought Trump’s gigantic tax cuts were skewed very much towards the top 1%, like all the other Republican plans.

This analysis says it would drop middle quintile taxes by 4.3% or $2700 and taxes for the top 0.1% by 12.5% or $1,300,000. Also blowing a giant hole in the national debt.

Trump voters are not calculating their relative tax burdens under everyone’s plans. Rather, they believe he’ll take manufacturing jobs back from China/ Mexico and keep Mexicans from jumping the fence to take them. That’s the core of his policy positions, sandwiched in between all the “I’m really rich” and “That other guy’s a loser” stuff.

I think those voters have noticed that the GOP establishment’s economic policies have done them no good, or in fact made their lives worse. On that point, they’re correct. It took them decades to figure it out.

[Timex]

That’s true enough. Being the attack dog, even if you’re a great attack dog, does not garner you votes. It won’t make people like you, and it can do as much harm to the dog as the other guy’s ankle. Christie wrecked Rubio (though, Rubio has obviously recovered), but it did Christie no good at all.

I think that’s part of why candidates like to use spokesmen or PAC’s to go negative. They want the effect, but they don’t the mud spattered on them.

Yeah, but the key part is that it wasn’t Christie that hurt Rubio. It was Rubio’s reaction.

For this reason, Christie attacking Rubio when Rubio isn’t there has no real impact. And at this point, Rubio is ready for this kind of thing. Trump tried, and it backfired on him.

[Oghier]

Yeah, but the key part is that it wasn’t Christie that hurt Rubio. It was Rubio’s reaction.

For this reason, Christie attacking Rubio when Rubio isn’t there has no real impact. And at this point, Rubio is ready for this kind of thing. Trump tried, and it backfired on him.

Rubio’s reaction absolutely made it worse. But negative ads and other attacks can be effective without being performed in the presence of the target. We have a decades of proof, back to the little girl picking a daisy in 1964.

[Strollen]

Rubio’s reaction absolutely made it worse. But negative ads and other attacks can be effective without being performed in the presence of the target. We have a decades of proof, back to the little girl picking a daisy in 1964.

Exactly. Let’s hope for the country’s sake that Hillary’s negative ads work against Trump.

Cause, I’m waiting for Trump to start going after Bernie’s college age supporters by promising free college at the Great Trump university, that the Chinese will pay for.