DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
STANV said:I first saw her in an interview with Jon Stewart. She was quite likeable. Stewart made a pass at her.
But are we looking for a date or a BFF or are we looking for a POTUS?
I think this is because a lot of democrats think that Trump won because Hillary wasn't likeable enough, so they are placing disproportionate weight on whether candidates are likeable or not.
I am not so sure if I agree with that observation though.
basil said:
STANV said:I first saw her in an interview with Jon Stewart. She was quite likeable. Stewart made a pass at her.I think this is because a lot of democrats think that Trump won because Hillary wasn't likeable enough, so they are placing disproportionate weight on whether candidates are likeable or not.
But are we looking for a date or a BFF or are we looking for a POTUS?
I am not so sure if I agree with that observation though.
Republicans spent 25 years trying to hang every scandal under the sun on HRC. While no one thing ever really stuck (i.e., she has never been charged with any real crimes), I think the cumulative effects of this character assassination campaign was pretty successful. I know more than a few otherwise intelligent people who voted for Trump because they hated HRC.
tjohn said:
basil said:Republicans spent 25 years trying to hang every scandal under the sun on HRC. While no one thing ever really stuck (i.e., she has never been charged with any real crimes), I think the cumulative effects of this character assassination campaign was pretty successful. I know more than a few otherwise intelligent people who voted for Trump because they hated HRC.
STANV said:I first saw her in an interview with Jon Stewart. She was quite likeable. Stewart made a pass at her.I think this is because a lot of democrats think that Trump won because Hillary wasn't likeable enough, so they are placing disproportionate weight on whether candidates are likeable or not.
But are we looking for a date or a BFF or are we looking for a POTUS?
I am not so sure if I agree with that observation though.
I agree, but that is not a likeability problem, it is a political smear problem.
basil said:
tjohn said:I agree, but that is not a likeability problem, it is a political smear problem.
basil said:Republicans spent 25 years trying to hang every scandal under the sun on HRC. While no one thing ever really stuck (i.e., she has never been charged with any real crimes), I think the cumulative effects of this character assassination campaign was pretty successful. I know more than a few otherwise intelligent people who voted for Trump because they hated HRC.
STANV said:I first saw her in an interview with Jon Stewart. She was quite likeable. Stewart made a pass at her.I think this is because a lot of democrats think that Trump won because Hillary wasn't likeable enough, so they are placing disproportionate weight on whether candidates are likeable or not.
But are we looking for a date or a BFF or are we looking for a POTUS?
I am not so sure if I agree with that observation though.
It's also a problem if you go about your business without considering that that GOP machine is there watching your every move.
I'm talking about likability as one factor in the complex process of electing a president. I know there are a lot more, but it's certainly a factor worth talking about. I'm not suggesting that likability cost HRC the presidency. But with the razor-thin margin of the 2016 election was it enough to help turn the tide? We'll never know.
I'm not looking for a BFF. I'm looking for a capable candidate. But I'm not the only voter so try to dismiss the likability factor at your own peril. I don't think as a society we've moved much past high school student council elections!
mrincredible said:
I'm talking about likability as one factor in the complex process of electing a president. I know there are a lot more, but it's certainly a factor worth talking about. I'm not suggesting that likability cost HRC the presidency. But with the razor-thin margin of the 2016 election was it enough to help turn the tide? We'll never know.
I'm not looking for a BFF. I'm looking for a capable candidate. But I'm not the only voter so try to dismiss the likability factor at your own peril. I don't think as a society we've moved much past high school student council elections!
Human beings are just clever animals and we spend a lot of energy trying to convince ourselves otherwise.
Red_Barchetta said:
basil said:It's also a problem if you go about your business without considering that that GOP machine is there watching your every move.
tjohn said:I agree, but that is not a likeability problem, it is a political smear problem.
basil said:Republicans spent 25 years trying to hang every scandal under the sun on HRC. While no one thing ever really stuck (i.e., she has never been charged with any real crimes), I think the cumulative effects of this character assassination campaign was pretty successful. I know more than a few otherwise intelligent people who voted for Trump because they hated HRC.
STANV said:I first saw her in an interview with Jon Stewart. She was quite likeable. Stewart made a pass at her.I think this is because a lot of democrats think that Trump won because Hillary wasn't likeable enough, so they are placing disproportionate weight on whether candidates are likeable or not.
But are we looking for a date or a BFF or are we looking for a POTUS?
I am not so sure if I agree with that observation though.
So what should she have done?
basil said:
mrincredible said:This is not an important argument at all, but I don't think people though she was stupid because of her folksiness, but because of the fact that she could not articulate correct sentences that were longer than, say 5 words. If you have problems with that AND you are running for VP of the US you are fairly ignorant.
Your example of Sarah Palin is a good one, but her folksiness got interpreted by a lot of people as ditziness and stupidity, in my (always correct) opinion. What worked for W became a handicap for her.
Palin's pretty stupid, folksiness or not.
Gillibrand has no chance. She barely hits the radar in her own state.
basil said:
Red_Barchetta said:So what should she have done?
basil said:It's also a problem if you go about your business without considering that that GOP machine is there watching your every move.
tjohn said:I agree, but that is not a likeability problem, it is a political smear problem.
basil said:Republicans spent 25 years trying to hang every scandal under the sun on HRC. While no one thing ever really stuck (i.e., she has never been charged with any real crimes), I think the cumulative effects of this character assassination campaign was pretty successful. I know more than a few otherwise intelligent people who voted for Trump because they hated HRC.
STANV said:I first saw her in an interview with Jon Stewart. She was quite likeable. Stewart made a pass at her.I think this is because a lot of democrats think that Trump won because Hillary wasn't likeable enough, so they are placing disproportionate weight on whether candidates are likeable or not.
But are we looking for a date or a BFF or are we looking for a POTUS?
I am not so sure if I agree with that observation though.
She should have used the email system used by EVERY one of her predecessors. When questioned about it she shouldn’t have given lies as justification.
She should have turned down some of those Wall Street speeches.
She should have separated herself from the Clinton Foundation like she promised the Obama administration when she became SecState.
She should have prevented Bill from meeting with AG Lynch privately on the tarmac.
In short she shouldn’t have made any of these unforced errors. We can debate the cost of any or all of these actions. In all honesty what long term benefit did she derive from them? Basically im saying she didn’t conduct herself like a person who knew she would be running for president and would have every move scrutinized by the opposition.
Red_Barchetta said:
basil said:She should have used the email system used by EVERY one of her predecessors. When questioned about it she shouldn’t have given lies as justification.
Red_Barchetta said:So what should she have done?
basil said:It's also a problem if you go about your business without considering that that GOP machine is there watching your every move.
tjohn said:I agree, but that is not a likeability problem, it is a political smear problem.
basil said:Republicans spent 25 years trying to hang every scandal under the sun on HRC. While no one thing ever really stuck (i.e., she has never been charged with any real crimes), I think the cumulative effects of this character assassination campaign was pretty successful. I know more than a few otherwise intelligent people who voted for Trump because they hated HRC.
STANV said:I first saw her in an interview with Jon Stewart. She was quite likeable. Stewart made a pass at her.I think this is because a lot of democrats think that Trump won because Hillary wasn't likeable enough, so they are placing disproportionate weight on whether candidates are likeable or not.
But are we looking for a date or a BFF or are we looking for a POTUS?
I am not so sure if I agree with that observation though.
She should have turned down some of those Wall Street speeches.
She should have separated herself from the Clinton Foundation like she promised the Obama administration when she became SecState.
She should have prevented Bill from meeting with AG Lynch privately on the tarmac.
In short she shouldn’t have made any of these unforced errors. We can debate the cost of any or all of these actions. In all honesty what long term benefit did she derive from them? Basically im saying she didn’t conduct herself like a person who knew she would be running for president and would have every move scrutinized by the opposition.
Sorry, but that's silly. You're saying that all of this crap was her fault - as if the Republicans wouldn't have found other stuff to bury her with that the media would have joined in on.
Remember what they did with Benghazi?
As for using email systems her predecessors did - that's kind of what she did. e.g. Colin Powell used private email.
Though I think she could have handled the email thing better, to blame her for all of the huzzah which surrounded those decisions is pretty naive.
The Clinton Foundation is a perfect example. What did she ever do that was wrong regarding the CF?
I'd go further and say that your propensity to blame her is exactly the problem that afflicted the rest of the country that had a mindless hatred of her.
I just heard an interview of Kamala Harris on NPR.
She stepped nimbly around "traps" that some questions could have been (What kind of people voted for Trump? What do you think of Joe Biden running? and etc.). She sounded like a plausible possibility.
drummerboy said:
Red_Barchetta said:Sorry, but that's silly. You're saying that all of this crap was her fault - as if the Republicans wouldn't have found other stuff to bury her with that the media would have joined in on.
basil said:She should have used the email system used by EVERY one of her predecessors. When questioned about it she shouldn’t have given lies as justification.
Red_Barchetta said:So what should she have done?
basil said:It's also a problem if you go about your business without considering that that GOP machine is there watching your every move.
tjohn said:I agree, but that is not a likeability problem, it is a political smear problem.
basil said:Republicans spent 25 years trying to hang every scandal under the sun on HRC. While no one thing ever really stuck (i.e., she has never been charged with any real crimes), I think the cumulative effects of this character assassination campaign was pretty successful. I know more than a few otherwise intelligent people who voted for Trump because they hated HRC.
STANV said:I first saw her in an interview with Jon Stewart. She was quite likeable. Stewart made a pass at her.I think this is because a lot of democrats think that Trump won because Hillary wasn't likeable enough, so they are placing disproportionate weight on whether candidates are likeable or not.
But are we looking for a date or a BFF or are we looking for a POTUS?
I am not so sure if I agree with that observation though.
She should have turned down some of those Wall Street speeches.
She should have separated herself from the Clinton Foundation like she promised the Obama administration when she became SecState.
She should have prevented Bill from meeting with AG Lynch privately on the tarmac.
In short she shouldn’t have made any of these unforced errors. We can debate the cost of any or all of these actions. In all honesty what long term benefit did she derive from them? Basically im saying she didn’t conduct herself like a person who knew she would be running for president and would have every move scrutinized by the opposition.
Remember what they did with Benghazi?
As for using email systems her predecessors did - that's kind of what she did. e.g. Colin Powell used private email.
Though I think she could have handled the email thing better, to blame her for all of the huzzah which surrounded those decisions is pretty naive.
The Clinton Foundation is a perfect example. What did she ever do that was wrong regarding the CF?
I'd go further and say that your propensity to blame her is exactly the problem that afflicted the rest of the country that had a mindless hatred of her.
What logical reason was there to do what she did re emails? And you damn well know what she did was different than what Powell did. (For those who dont know: Powells was on government property behind Govt IT framework administered by Government IT guys.)
Sure the GOP would have found other stuff to hype, but this was a huge unforced error. It’s inexcusable from our most qualified, seasoned candidate perhaps in history.
Yeah. That’s it. She didn’t comport herself properly. She should have modeled her conduct after the big winner. Please stop acting as though that election was anything more than the mass appeal of old fashioned American bigotry.
annielou said:
Yeah. That’s it. She didn’t comport herself properly. She should have modeled her conduct after the big winner. Please stop acting as though that election was anything more than the mass appeal of old fashioned American bigotry.
If the Clinton's had employed and listened to an ethics attorney from, say, 2000 to the present, HRC would be President.
And if she had campaigned more on the issues and less on Trump's character....
basil said:
STANV said:I first saw her in an interview with Jon Stewart. She was quite likeable. Stewart made a pass at her.I think this is because a lot of democrats think that Trump won because Hillary wasn't likeable enough, so they are placing disproportionate weight on whether candidates are likeable or not.
But are we looking for a date or a BFF or are we looking for a POTUS?
I am not so sure if I agree with that observation though.
But but but she WON THE POPULAR VOTE...
tjohn said:
annielou said:If the Clinton's had employed and listened to an ethics attorney from, say, 2000 to the present, HRC would be President.
Yeah. That’s it. She didn’t comport herself properly. She should have modeled her conduct after the big winner. Please stop acting as though that election was anything more than the mass appeal of old fashioned American bigotry.
And if she had campaigned more on the issues and less on Trump's character....
In any case, and with all due respect, I don’t want to see Hillary, Bernie, Warren, or any other geezers in 2020. Just isn’t going to work.
annielou said:
As it turns out, Trumps character IS an issue
Obviously, but to a lot of voters in 2016, either they knew his character and didn't care or denied that which was right in their face or they somehow thought there was equivalency between things like Trump's misogyny and HRC's stupid handling of emails.
annielou said:
In any case, and with all due respect, I don’t want to see Hillary, Bernie, Warren, or any other geezers in 2020. Just isn’t going to work.
I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I hope someone like Kamala Harris works out.
annielou said:
In any case, and with all due respect, I don’t want to see Hillary, Bernie, Warren, or any other geezers in 2020. Just isn’t going to work.
Personally, I would prefer any one of these geezers over the current geezer in the WH.
Okay it's tempting to re-argue all the reasons HRC did not win the electoral college (Scully thanks for pointing out her popular vote win). But I think it's important to think about what the 2016 election teaches us going forward.
Clinton was held to a different standard for ethical behavior than Trump. I think that's pretty unequivocal. Whether it was in part because of her gender or more because she's Hilary Clinton is less clear to me. It's relevant because of the likelihood of several women running in the primaries.
tjohn said:If the Clinton's had employed and listened to an ethics attorney from, say, 2000 to the present, HRC would be President.
If Trump had employed and listened to an ethics attorney he would not be President!
And that is bigger story.
basil said:
annielou said:Personally, I would prefer any one of these geezers over the current geezer in the WH.
In any case, and with all due respect, I don’t want to see Hillary, Bernie, Warren, or any other geezers in 2020. Just isn’t going to work.
I think that’s evident. I’m talking about 2020. We better pick a winner this time around.
drummerboy said:
Kamala Harris has announced.
Is she hinting that or has she officially announced? It will be interesting to see what support(ters) she locks in.
Rep. Gabbard is in!
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/11/politics/tulsi-gabbard-van-jones/index.html
What's the largest number of women candidates in a major party primary election to date? Two? I know they may not all be there on the first day of the Iowa caucuses.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Yes.