Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:
I think its quite interesting that people are taking Trump's fall in the polls, and Clinton's lead of about 8 points to be definitive. Polls have moved that much between August and November in the past. And polls in this campaign have swung quite a lot - if Trump can go from almost even to 8 points down in three weeks, then he can recover that ground in ten weeks. On top of that the campaign so far has typically defied any kind of narrative - as soon as people start to think things have settled in to some kind of natural state then something has upended that.

McCain was down by around 8 points for much of the 2008 campaign, and people didn't talk about that being in the bag. It turned out a comfortable win for Obama, but until election day there was always a chance something could have changed the race. But this year people are very quick to conclude that Clinton's 8 point lead means her certain election. I suspect this is just the latest round of 'surely no-one is really going to vote for Trump, his ridiculous campaign has finally gone too far'. That's a tempting story, but it is one that almost every sensible person has fallen for at least once during the campaign so far. And those sensible people have been wrong many times now, because something very not-sensible is happening deep within the base of the Republican party.

So maybe this time Trump's impossible popularity has finally been dashed his latest racist and stupid statements. Or maybe this will be like the last few times and in a couple of weeks he'll be back within a few points of Clinton.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Peregrine: You could be right, but I tend to think there are probably a whole lot of voters who would jump at the chance to vote for someone besides Trump or Clinton. Let's call them "Johnson voters".

Yeah, and people are making a big deal about lots of people moving over to Johnson because Trump and Clinton are so horrible. And yet there's Johnson polling a whopping 8 to 10% of the vote. I think we have to start to consider that the people who are willing to leave their team and vote for someone else are actually a very small number of voters. The much more common thing is for people to not like their team's candidate, and just stay home.

The Clinton campaign has actually moved money away from some of the swing states... telegraphing that they're confident that they'll win. (VA, FL, NC?)

She's actually within spitting distance in GA, LA, AR!!

Trump just changed out his campaign leadership... it's August.

No, he's fethed. Clinton just need to "lay low" for a bit and she'll win handily.

As for Johnson... he's simply a means to an end (a protest vote) in attempt to raise the 3rd party stature.

 jasper76 wrote:
In any case, I seriously hope all 4 tickets make the debate, no matter if they receive 15% or not. That rule is a joke, it's undemocratic, totally designed to keep Republicans and Democrats in perpetual incumbency.

Debates for the presidency should be limited to people who have a sensible chance of actually becoming president. 15% is a very low bar to cross for anyone who is actually a realistic chance in November.

If people want a other parties to rise up and challenge the Democrats and Republicans, then they need to do it by actually building a supporter base. Build a real grass roots infrastructure. Use it to win smaller elections, and then use that power to deliver real benefits to constituents. Then you use that proven record to expand the supporter base. And more than anything, these parties have to work on a platform that isn't just playing to a bunch of fringe idiots, but actually has a chance of winning mainstream appeal.

That sounds very difficult, of course. But you know, who ever thought building a political party that could win the most important election in the world would be easy? If it's too much work then don't do it, that's fine, but also stop dreaming about coming and winning the presidency and reforming the entire political process in a single election cycle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I don't have a magic number. Buy let's work with 5%. If 5% of the population support a party, I certainly believe that they should be represented in the national debates.

People with 5% of the vote have no actual chance of being president. Even 15% is a very low bar.

Also, I have no problem with crazies at a debate. In fact, it is informative. There are probably a good number of people preparing to vote for Johnson or Stein who indeed would not vote for them if they were put under the spotlight of a national debate.

The more people in a debate, the less useful the debate. The 9 people in the Republican debates - waste of time. It was just a contest to get noticed, which meant saying whatever stupid gak would get attention. So the guy with the biggest talent for saying stupid, attention grabbing nonsense won.

I'm not saying debates have to be limited to two people, but increasing it beyond two should be done for a good reason. It should be done because the other people stand at something close to a real chance of winning the election.

I don't care about their chances to win, I care about their effect on the national debate. We don't have a left ption, we don't have a right option. We have two liberal options socially (no option, but fine by me). We don't have a fiscal conservative option. We have a centrist option and a chaos option.

I'd like to hear from more parties in this highly unusual election cycle.

I don't know if it was a waste of time, Seb. I learned that I want none of those people (with the exception of Jeb! Or Christie) anywhere near the presidency.

The large Republican debate was a joke because they were all basically parrots of one another vs. Trump, with the notable exceptions of Rand Paul and Sleepy McAmbien. There was no serious criticism or opposition on policy. But I agree it was too crowded.

I'd personally like to see at least the Top 4 campaigns for the Presidential debates. That could be a decent compromise solution

 whembly wrote:
We owe them NOTHING. Nada. Zilch.

It turns out the statements of a dead zealot and some people on the internet have less legal weight than a ruling of the Supreme Court.

 whembly wrote:
You keep on pushing that voxspeak there boyo.

If Vox wrote an article about how Whembly just regurgitates the Twitter derposphere in the OT, you might have a point boyo.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You keep on pushing that voxspeak there boyo.

If Vox wrote an article about how Whembly just regurgitates the Twitter derposphere in the OT, you might have a point boyo.

I have no idea what the Twitter landscape looks like. Does it become more active now and again like a certain STD that a certain person compares to another fatal STD?

 whembly wrote:
The Clinton campaign has actually moved money away from some of the swing states... telegraphing that they're confident that they'll win. (VA, FL, NC?)

When Clinton had her first big spending campaign in the swing states just after winning the primary... she left out Pennsylvania. She's a really gak campaigner. Clinton may have started taking the campaign for granted, but that is not the judgement of an astute campaigner, it is the judgement of the person I think is possibly the worst strategic campaigner in modern US history.

[No, he's fethed. Clinton just need to "lay low" for a bit and she'll win handily.

Everyone was certain Gore had in the bag when he was leading by around 6 points. Afterall, the economy was in good shape (as the tech crash hadn't happened yet), Clinton was a popular president, and Bush was an idiot. And that led to complacency and in turn that led to a lot of the left thinking they could be idealistic, and vote for Nader, or stay home because Gore wasn't exactly the candidate of rainbows and unicorns that they personally wanted.

As for Johnson... he's simply a means to an end (a protest vote) in attempt to raise the 3rd party stature.

Which is putting the bull before the horns. The relationship should be 'give me a candidate and a platform that's liked and popular, and that third party will attract votes'. But it seems that people are hoping for a different relationship, they're hoping that if they vote for a third party then that third party will become more reasonable and viable. I can't see how that works at all.

Basically, if you think the major parties suck, that doesn't mean there's any merit in voting for a small party that also sucks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I don't care about their chances to win, I care about their effect on the national debate. We don't have a left ption, we don't have a right option. We have two liberal options socially (no option, but fine by me). We don't have a fiscal conservative option. We have a centrist option and a chaos option.

I'd like to hear from more parties in this highly unusual election cycle.

You can hear from other candidates in plenty of other formats*. But the presidential debates should be limited to people who actually might become president. You only need 15% to get there. If you can't get that now then it's ridiculous to think you can gather the approx 35% you'd need at a minimum to have some kind of chance of winning the presidency.

It is unlikely that Johnson will drag his way up to 15% of the vote. If he doesn't, then the debates will be between the two people who might become the next US president. If Johnson does sneak up to 15% somehow, then it will be between the two people who might be president, and also Johnson who's snuck in by meeting the very low bar for accessing the debates. I really cannot see how that is unfair to the minor parties.



*There has been a problem with third party candidates not getting enough access to traditional media, but that's rapidly becoming less of an issue as new media takes over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I don't know if it was a waste of time, Seb. I learned that I want none of those people (with the exception of Jeb! Or Christie) anywhere near the presidency.

I think that should have been pretty obvious before the debates


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'd personally like to see at least the Top 4 campaigns for the Presidential debates. That could be a decent compromise solution

That's not a compromise solution. That's 'two people who might be president, and also these two other people who have to be here'.

You don't start a viable third and fourth parties by everyone just agreeing to pretend they are equal to the major parties. Viable third and fourth parties are started by the parties building platforms, candidates and proven records that actually appeal to a proper number of voters.

Do the hard work, campaign every single election, build a platform with broad appeal and do the work of selling that platform to a wide number of voters. Build a voting base. Stop dreaming of this overnight presidential run that will sweep away all the bits of politics that you personally don't like. And really, really stop thinking that a change in some minor rule like the minimum voting % will somehow make that dream run viable.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Ok you know the definition (or at least have read it) now apply it. Notice, the definition doesn't have included in it "on the occasion where the claimant has a justifiable claim to their own money". You might be better off saying we were bartered for it. Or we were traded for it. Or, and I would go with this one, we had to give them their money because it was legally owed to them and if we didn't, we would be using our own money to try to hold it back. As a result we got more than we "bargained" for.

"bargained for" is too generous.

The fact of the matter, we did not have to give Iran this money. The fact that it was a pallet-o-nonUS cashola... and US didn't "relinquish" the cash until the hostages were "wheels up" off Iranian soil is pretty damning.

The WH/DoS spin is simply outrageous, espcially now that the States department admitted that there were a connection between the cash and the hostages, after weeks of denying that fact.

I mean... besides the spin... simply answer this: Were the initial statements true?

Furthermore, even the DoJ objected to this plan.

and, are you one of those people (said with as much distance and derision as internet speak will allow) that believes we should have taken the Mideast oil because we won the wars and all? I mean, to the victors go the spoils, right?

Absolutely not.

I believed that we needed something like the combined Marshall Plan & the Occupation/Reconstruction of Japan plan. Those oil resources could've been put to use in those regards, but not straight out "annexing" those oil fields.

Yes we legally did have to give that money over whether we got any troops or citizens or payment in return. We could have said no. And then we would have been in the courts for the next two years and have had to pay anyway. With interest.

As to the second answer,,I'll leave it at that. I agree. We weren't getting that from any govt there, but I'll accept the wishlist.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I have no idea what the Twitter landscape looks like.

A lot like this:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I have no idea what the Twitter landscape looks like.

A lot like this:

I think you've accidentally posted a picture of their stock's performance...

Posting nothing-posts to do with how useful a social media site is isn't the point of this subforum or this site. Stick to the topic thanks

So there's been a story floating around for a while that Trump is less interested in the presidency, and more interested in building his brand and audience to the point where he can launch Trump TV, aimed at the people sympathetic to his political message. I didn't give it much credit for a long time, it seemed simpler and more obvious to consider that perhaps the guy running for the presidency was doing it because he wanted to be president.

But now with Roger Ailes being linked to the campaign, on top the Breitbart people coming on board, maybe the theory is looking more and more sensible. It would also explain why Trump has spent little time in marginal states and instead went for large population centres - he doesn't want electoral votes he wants eyeballs for his TV network. And it would explain why his campaign has been almost entirely about media, with little to no interest in stuff that's campaign politics only (data management, ground game).

This is probably about as close as I'll ever get to a conspiracy theory

And the theory doesn't completely fit in with everything that's going on. Trump's recent backflip in saying that sometimes he says the wrong thing - that's all about arresting bad polling numbers, it will likely cause him harm among the future Trump TV watchers who love the 'politically incorrect' Trump. Nor does Trump's recent change on economic policy - that stuff had little appeal to his base, but was all about wooing conservative big money donors.

But there's enough there that, well, maybe, you never know. It'd be quite the irony who actually was plotting a grand conspiracy was actually Mr Trump himself

 sebster wrote:
So there's been a story floating around for a while that Trump is less interested in the presidency, and more interested in building his brand and audience to the point where he can launch Trump TV, aimed at the people sympathetic to his political message. I didn't give it much credit for a long time, it seemed simpler and more obvious to consider that perhaps the guy running for the presidency was doing it because he wanted to be president.

But now with Roger Ailes being linked to the campaign, on top the Breitbart people coming on board, maybe the theory is looking more and more sensible. It would also explain why Trump has spent little time in marginal states and instead went for large population centres - he doesn't want electoral votes he wants eyeballs for his TV network. And it would explain why his campaign has been almost entirely about media, with little to no interest in stuff that's campaign politics only (data management, ground game).

This is probably about as close as I'll ever get to a conspiracy theory

And the theory doesn't completely fit in with everything that's going on. Trump's recent backflip in saying that sometimes he says the wrong thing - that's all about arresting bad polling numbers, it will likely cause him harm among the future Trump TV watchers who love the 'politically incorrect' Trump. Nor does Trump's recent change on economic policy - that stuff had little appeal to his base, but was all about wooing conservative big money donors.

But there's enough there that, well, maybe, you never know. It'd be quite the irony who actually was plotting a grand conspiracy was actually Mr Trump himself

I'd heard this theory floating around as well and gave it equal disregard.

But honestly, there's always been that little voice in the back of my head saying there's an end game we're not seeing in this Trump presidential run. But as Freud said, some times, a cigar is just a cigar. The whole election has left me shaking my head to the point that I don't know what to expect from day to day. Having voted in POTUS elections for over 30 years, I've seen all kinds of whack, but this one goes down in the books.

What would Trump TV consist of?
Surely normal advertising would have hooked him the same demographic, and would have been considerably cheaper too.
Seems like a huge waste of time, effort and money to launch a TV channel.

 sebster wrote:
So there's been a story floating around for a while that Trump is less interested in the presidency, and more interested in building his brand and audience to the point where he can launch Trump TV, aimed at the people sympathetic to his political message. I didn't give it much credit for a long time, it seemed simpler and more obvious to consider that perhaps the guy running for the presidency was doing it because he wanted to be president.

I think it's pretty obvious that publicity is exactly what the goal was from day one. I mean, think about a normal election year when the candidates like Trump get some early publicity for their pet causes or bids for a job at Fox News or whatever and then quickly drop out of the race after getting 1% of the vote in the early primaries. Nobody, not even Trump himself, could have looked at the situation and said "yep, this is going to be a viable plan to become president". But somehow the mainstream candidates failed miserably and the racist element turned out to be larger than expected, and he wasn't a 1%-er after all. I think, after that WTF moment in the early polls, Trump decided that he might as well try to win the election and do even more to build his brand.

And the theory doesn't completely fit in with everything that's going on. Trump's recent backflip in saying that sometimes he says the wrong thing - that's all about arresting bad polling numbers, it will likely cause him harm among the future Trump TV watchers who love the 'politically incorrect' Trump. Nor does Trump's recent change on economic policy - that stuff had little appeal to his base, but was all about wooing conservative big money donors.

I think it fits just fine if you modify the theory very slightly to include the idea that, after somehow being handed the nomination, Trump decided he might as well make at least token effort to be president along with all the brand-building. I think things like his economic policy statements aren't going to hurt him that much with his core audience. They don't care about rational policy arguments, they care about someone reassuring them that their masturbatory fantasies about Making America White Again are the best thing ever. Whatever he might have said about economic policy will be instantly forgotten as soon as he makes another "second amendment solutions if Clinton doesn't build a border wall" speech, if his core audience even bothered to notice his policy statements in the first place. Likewise for the whole "politically incorrect" image. It's pretty easy to go back to that just by saying some awful stuff again, and all his worst fans will nod in agreement and tell themselves that Trump was their hero the whole time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:
What would Trump TV consist of?

The same kind of stuff that Trump Magazine consisted of, except in TV form.

 r_squared wrote:
What would Trump TV consist of?
Surely normal advertising would have hooked him the same demographic, and would have been considerably cheaper too.

Trump TV wouldn't be an extension of his campaign, it would be the end goal of his campaign run. Think of the campaign as just a really long hype campaign for an upcoming product - Trump TV. He's built up however millions of interested viewers, and then he'll tell them he can keep watching it all on his brand new cable channel. Trump would collect subscriptions and also sell ads to whoever has a product that appeals to Trump supporters. Bomb shelter manufacturers, I guess.

Seems like a huge waste of time, effort and money to launch a TV channel.

Starting a cable channel in this market of declining cable audiences would definitely be a dumb thing to do. But this is the same guy who tried to build a luxury brand airline running the New York to Washington shuttle. It's the guy offered billions in junk bonds offering 14% to build a casino that was in direct competition with the two other casinos in Atlantic City that Trump already owned. It's the guy who started a mortgage company right at the peak of the housing bubble.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
I think it fits just fine if you modify the theory very slightly to include the idea that, after somehow being handed the nomination, Trump decided he might as well make at least token effort to be president along with all the brand-building.

Actually that helps the theory make a lot of sense. Maybe Trump TV hasn't been the only goal, just as maybe the presidency hasn't always been the only goal. But rather both have been possible opportunities, irons he has kept in the fire to set what might develop.

Oh, and I agree on the economic policy stuff not really impacting on Trump's core supporters. And it was interesting to note that very shortly after Trump made his economic speech he made the second amendment comments about Clinton. Pretty much as you described it, he puts something out for the donors who hear what they need to hear, and then before it's even close to being properly covered in the greater media... Trump says some 'politically incorrect' stuff, the media makes a big deal about, Trump's base doesn't care, and don't hear the stuff about his tax plan giving lots of money to the rich.

You assume Trump has a plan. I don't think he thinks any further ahead than the next word. I suspect he is just a massive egomaniac who will continue as long as people keep telling him he is amazing. Listen to the sycophants, and attack anyone who says anything that is not unmitigated prase as being disloyal, a lier or worse. The presidential campain just gives him an opportunity to get even more people telling him how he is amazing, and more people to attack those who disagree.

He has no plan. I don't belive he has thought either way about the end game. All he is thinking of is how to feed his ego.

 Steve steveson wrote:
He has no plan. I don't belive he has though either way about the end game. All he is thinking of is how to feed his ego.

This not inconsistent with the TV/presidency plan.

Well he's already got a stable of people. Hannity...and Hannity. ..how many hours can Hannity take up? Maryannlou will get one hour. Then what? The Dennis Rodman show? I would seriously pay to watch mr busey make waffles every morning.,He has so wanted to emulate Oprah for so long (even saying he wanted her as a running mate), I think he put his cart before his horse. And then realized he had no cart and no horse. But he still has Gary Busey. Gary Busey and waffles. Who wouldn't watch that? And he could change it up for the Canadians-put maple syrup on it. And the Catholics-unleavened bread and syrup. It will be great.

Obviously it can be both. Run for presidency, get it if you can, if not you start a TV channel. It pays to have a plan B.

That's already the general reason why most people run for president. There are the few who have a real chance to do well and win, then there are the rest who just want to be seen, heard, get a book deal, make money off of speaking engagements, and otherwise just try to get every penny they can milk out of it.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/darrensands/black-republicans-growing-even-more-frustrated-with-trump-ef?utm_term=.geXyN5oLY#.ejjbO3RBy

Trump asked for the black vote Tuesday. But some black Republicans said the message didn’t jibe with how black people have been treated by members of the campaign. Several black Republicans referred to an incident involving Sean P. Jackson, a young Floridian Republican strategist. Jackson, whose plan to reach black voters has reached the inboxes of select black conservatives in his state and nationally, recently told friends that the Trump campaign’s chief Florida strategist, Karen Giorno, told him during that primary that Trump didn’t need his “classification of people” to get elected.
At a recent event in Florida, two sources said Jackson was approached by Secret Service and escorted out of the event. But when he confronted Giorno to vouch for him, a source said she declined to acknowledge Jackson, the chairman of the Black Republican Caucus of Florida, a group that once hosted Dr. Ben Carson.

....

.no, I got nothing.

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/darrensands/black-republicans-growing-even-more-frustrated-with-trump-ef?utm_term=.geXyN5oLY#.ejjbO3RBy

Trump asked for the black vote Tuesday. But some black Republicans said the message didn’t jibe with how black people have been treated by members of the campaign. Several black Republicans referred to an incident involving Sean P. Jackson, a young Floridian Republican strategist. Jackson, whose plan to reach black voters has reached the inboxes of select black conservatives in his state and nationally, recently told friends that the Trump campaign’s chief Florida strategist, Karen Giorno, told him during that primary that Trump didn’t need his “classification of people” to get elected.
At a recent event in Florida, two sources said Jackson was approached by Secret Service and escorted out of the event. But when he confronted Giorno to vouch for him, a source said she declined to acknowledge Jackson, the chairman of the Black Republican Caucus of Florida, a group that once hosted Dr. Ben Carson.

....

.no, I got nothing.

Huh, it's almost as if he is openly saying racist things and embracing the white nationalist movement. No wait, that is exactly what he is doing.

Apparently, Trump sees the future of the Republican party in strong arm tribal politics and a lot of Americans agree with him. The GOP leadership needs to distance themselves from this clown show and re-affirm their position as the party of fiscal responsibility and individual opportunity, regardless of color. Otherwise, the GOP is looking to be headed the way of the nationalist parties in Europe, which is not a good thing. Unfortunately, I don't see Trump getting shutdown in the general like some are expecting- he is still in striking distance. Even if he loses, the fact that he will likely be very close on the popular vote should be very disturbing.

This is shaping up to be a fight for the nature of the GOP. If Trump is Goldwater, I hate to see who the Reagan will be.

 sebster wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
He has no plan. I don't belive he has though either way about the end game. All he is thinking of is how to feed his ego.

This not inconsistent with the TV/presidency plan.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Obviously it can be both. Run for presidency, get it if you can, if not you start a TV channel. It pays to have a plan B.

Honestly I don't think this is part of his plan. I realy don't think he is that deep to have a plan A, let alone a plan B. I realy think he is just seeing people worshiping him and want's more. He will say whatever he can to keep those people worshiping him. He is like a cult leader IMO. Not the Televangelism type who has an aim, be that power, money, fame. Not even like the ones who want to manipulate the people under them for other benefits, in terms of sex or drugs. More like David Koresh or Jim Jones. They just want to be worshiped by someone for something. I don't think he belives most of what he says, but these small groups he is gathering around him have a strong, overriding, belief in one thing. He panders to that and they worship him for it, and will put him with all the other things he says, as long as he keeps promising the one thing they want.

 r_squared wrote:
What would Trump TV consist of?
Surely normal advertising would have hooked him the same demographic, and would have been considerably cheaper too.
Seems like a huge waste of time, effort and money to launch a TV channel.

As well as being a bad time to do it. But then just look at the guy's business history, and his goofy, poor decisions.


On another note, many moons ago I had a phone conversation with Trump's new campaign manager, back when she was a law student.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-20/paul...ampaign/7768584

Paul Manafort has now resigned from the campaign. Donald is now on his third campaign chairman in two months.

Oh, but it's "not a shake up" of the campaign. MmmHmmm.

So the question is, rat deserting a sinking ship, or pushed out because he was trying to stop trump from saying stupid things? Both are fairly plausible.

 Maddermax wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-20/paul...ampaign/7768584

Paul Manafort has now resigned from the campaign. Donald is now on his third campaign chairman in two months.

Oh, but it's "not a shake up" of the campaign. MmmHmmm.

So the question is, rat deserting a sinking ship, or pushed out because he was trying to stop trump from saying stupid things? Both are fairly plausible.

Huh...

Maybe there's some truth to Manafort's connection to Pro-Russian Ukrainian black book payment to him (which he failed to disclose).

Or, it could be that Trump needed a hail-mary because he doesn't even have a functioning campaign...

Or, likely, it's both.