Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5672
Reputation: 281.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 12:34 pm    Post subject: Handicapping the race ... Reply with quote

The ticket is now set. Hillary has selected Tim Kaine as her running mate. This is my own slightly eccentric view of where it stands now.

It seems to me Hillary is abandoning the Bernie voters rather brutally. Kaine is a big supporter of TPP, and all the 'bad trade deals' that Trump is attacking. It shows that, as soon as she got Bernie's endorcement, his ability of affect things disappeared.

Kaine is also not strictly correct on the abortion question. He was educated by Jesuits, and has a genuine religious faith. So he gets some of it wrong, on a woman's right to kill her own unborn children. But he speaks Spanish, which is useful. He will probably be used as an 'attack dog'.

So, now we know the main players in the campaign. The opening skirmishing is drawing to a close. The pundits are of the opinion that the campaign will focus on each candidate's negatives because they are both so widely disliked. That's the way Hillary wants the campaign to go.

Hillary wants to keep the voters minds off policy, and on the horrors that Trump would bring, real or imaginary. But Trump wants to illustrate how horribly bad she was at policy. He wants to rub her nose in her failures in a graphic way, so he wants the details brought to light.

He is most effective as a counter-puncher. in other words, he wants her to attack him where he is strong. For Hillary, every claim for herself is an opportunity for Trump. She has to choose carefully.

Her other choice is to ignore Trump, except to insult him, hold him in mock horror and the moral contempt. And otherwise, rally the crowd.

Hillary has to work hard making sure her inner nastiness doesn't show. Her speaking style is wooden, her cadence is mechanical, and everything is controlled. She is always on the attack, keeping attention off herself. By contrast, Trump is relaxed and genuine, with little to hide. and with an actual sense of humour. Both have baggage, but he has less, and handles it better than Hillary, in that she is untrustworthy and evasive with the truth, whereas Donald comes across as blunt, saying what needs to be said, and being genuine, even if a bit oafish.

There is a third reason. Trump has the right side of all the issues that matter to the ordinary folks. Jobs. immigration. National security. And good old-fashioned yankee-doodle pride in their nation. If he were a skilled politician, and had a Romney-sized budget, he'd be mopping the floor with her.

He does miss a lot of opportunities, particularly the little media stabs. However, what he does have is a narrative-building sense ... the feeling for where the political conversation is at, at any particular moment. An example; Trump's people could have prevented Cruz from speaking at the convention, but Trump let it go forward, confident it wouldn't hurt him. He seemed to know that Cruz would be rejected, and used it to make the party more unified.

Hillary goes into this election trying to keep everything contained, on the defensive, and unable to use facts to defend herself. She can't make big promises without implicitly criticizing the administration -- and she won't be free to do that until after Labor Day. So she's frozen, a target, avoiding contact with the public.

Trump goes into it, with her already labelled 'crooked Hillary'. He had material galore to attack her. He can, for example, bring up Bill's past when Hillary tries to use the 'woman card'. He's got Benghazi, Libya, Egypt, Syria and ISIS to choose from if she plays the 'experience' card. And meanwhile, he's in a fluid position, defending nothing so much as a new direction in government, with no firm details.


That doesn't mean that Trump is an automatic winner? It's not certain. The Democratic Party is a powerful vote-collecting machine. In many of the battleground states, no ID is required to vote! Would someone interested in the most powerful office in the world be willing to take advantage of that? Would illegal immigrants and ghetto lay-abouts take a ohance like that, oh yeah ... definitely possible.

The big Democrats know Hillary is a weak candidate. They must think that they can still win with her! Why is she a better candidate than Bernie?

Trump is in a better position than Hillary precisely because of her record. He has to force her to defend herself. He also has to make it clear why things will change under his presidency.

She has to be confronted with the question: Why did you go to such lengths to keep your emails private, Mrs Clinton? What were you protecting that was so valusble that you put the security of the USA at risk?

And others, like that.
Progressive Tory

Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1198
Reputation: 119.7
votes: 1

PostPosted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If Trump is on the right side of the issues then why aren't people donating more money too him?

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5672
Reputation: 281.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know this is an argument against the idea that Trump is on the right side of the issues.

You can match poll results to his main issues, and lots of times, the split is 70-30 or better -- for Trump.

I don't track fund-raising, but he has started and pulled in $50+ million over a month.

Equally relevant question; if Hillary has spent $60 million in the battleground states over that same month, while Trump spent nothing, why is the race so close?

Don't think I am on Trump's side, in a partisan sense. I feel it's easier for me to be objective about US politics if I don't relate to it that way. I do respect Trump because he has brought the issues forward and is forcing Congress to look at those issues. Nobody else would. He took the gamble in the arena of public opinion, and won at least the Republican nomination. And it wasn't on charm.

I think the course the West, in general, is on, is unsustainable because it is debt financed, and I don't believe you can debt-finance a society interminably. As soon as you come to that conclusion, the desire to confront the debt, vrs kick it down the road becomes a motive. I hope that explains my frame of mind on this.

I have not seen a serious critique of Trump from the other side. It's all name-calling, and demonizing. In my mind, both sides are hiding one likely consequence. There is some kind of economic crisis ahead, and anything Trump does will likely precipitate a depression.

On the other hand, if people go Hillary's way, it's probably best described as managed decline until a crisis, and thus, depression.

I don't know much time can be bought until the crisis, but it could well be less than one presidential term.

In my mind, that's the scenario. Over the last decade, the American public has lost much of the 'equity' they hold in their houses, and a chunk of their pensions. They feel that their social security is threatened. The good working-man jobs are disappearing, and family life, for many, is a mess. And a lot of Americans line up with Trump because they want to address the problems, rather than kick the can down the road.

I am not going to apologize for sharing that feeling, knowing full well that it'll mean chaos for Canada as well. it's because delaying will only make it worse, or, worse still, the west will try to solve its problem through war.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5672
Reputation: 281.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

July 28th ... it seems like, at last, the Democrat Convention hit one out of the park. They were afflicted with the Wikileaks revelations, and the dissident Bernie supporters, who they seem to have marginalized. Elizabeth Warren had to face chants of 'We trust-ted you' during her speech. for example.

But a good PA system can overcome that.

Obama gave a soaring endorsement speech on her behalf, and Bill's efforts weren't bad either. There was face-busting smile on her face, like the cat who'd finally gotten the goldfish ... when Obama hugged her, at the end, they looked at each others' faces deeply, in real gratitude and admiration ... Even a coarse old fart like me was moved. Briefly.

Sometimes you forget that the Democratic Party, at this time in its history, is a criminal conspiracy hiding within a political party ... and it's hard not to catch some of that old 'hope' that we seem so addicted to. Check you wallets ... i know it's Canada, but just in case.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1


Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

Handicapping the race ...

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB