reddogblitz Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 He simply is too unlikable not just among the general population but among GOP voters as well. Is he more unlikable than Hillary? You don't think Republican voters would show up to beat Hillary? All the Republican candidates vowed to support Trump if he gets the nomination. Seems Hillary is concerned about Trump after all. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-trumps-wedding-fun/story?id=32998621 After a series of questions from reporters regarding Trump, Clinton eventually threw up her hands in exasperation when, finally, asked about student debt. “Oh really?!” Clinton said, sarcastically. "What does Donald Trump have to say about college affordability? I would wonder." Sounds like maybe she's not sitting back enjoying it after all. Trump hit her in a vulnerable spot. Her collecting huge sums of cash from fat cats like himself.
Magox Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) Is he more unlikable than Hillary? You don't think Republican voters would show up to beat Hillary? All the Republican candidates vowed to support Trump if he gets the nomination. Doesn't work that way. Look at what happened with Romney, Republican voters dislike Obama more than they dislike Hillary and many on the further end of the right spectrum didn't show up to pull the lever for Romney, because in their views he was no different than Obama (which is asinine) Enthusiasm matters in campaigns. If you have a candidate that inspires it doesn't just translate in showing up for the polls but it shows up in helping volunteer for that candidate by making phone calls, knocking on doors, contributing money etc. Also if you are fired up about a candidate you may convince your family and friends to show up, whereas if it's a choice of the lesser of two evils, you most likely just quietly go to the polls, hold your nose and cast your ballot. In regards to just me, no way I'd ever vote for Trump. I don't trust his temperament, if someone in his view disrespects him, he'd be prone to ratchet up the tensions with his actions which of course could lead to trade sanctions, freezing of cooperation between the two countries and maybe even war. Plus, he's a protectionist and protectionism is really bad for the economy. Not to mention that we would be the laughing stock of the world. The reasons are endless. Edited August 11, 2015 by Magox
IDBillzFan Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Sounds like maybe she's not sitting back enjoying it after all. Trump hit her in a vulnerable spot. Her collecting huge sums of cash from fat cats like himself. If Trump were serious, he's stop shooting off his idiocy at the GOP and show everyone he can square off with Hillary. Unfortunately, his shtick is bucking the GOP establishment. Let's hear him go after Hillary with the same vitriol. But he won't. Because he can't.
KD in CA Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Doesn't work that way. Look at what happened with Romney, Republican voters dislike Obama more than they dislike Hillary and many on the further end of the right spectrum didn't show up to pull the lever for Romney, because in their views he was no different than Obama (which is asinine) Enthusiasm matters in campaigns. If you have a candidate that inspires it doesn't just translate in showing up for the polls but it shows up in helping volunteer for that candidate by making phone calls, knocking on doors, contributing money etc. Also if you are fired up about a candidate you may convince your family and friends to show up, whereas if it's a choice of the lesser of two evils, you most likely just quietly go to the polls, hold your nose and cast your ballot. In regards to just me, no way I'd ever vote for Trump. I don't trust his temperament, if someone in his view disrespects him, he'd be prone to ratchet up the tensions with his actions which of course could lead to trade sanctions, freezing of cooperation between the two countries and maybe even war. Plus, he's a protectionist and protectionism is really bad for the economy. Not to mention that we would be the laughing stock of the world. The reasons are endless. Yup...and in 2016 the Dems might still hold those cards. Many women will be fired up for Hillary, and if Obama (maybe, depending on that week's ego) can get blacks to the polls, she will be tough to beat. Once again will probably come down to a handful of swing states that the GOP will need to win.
Magox Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Is he more unlikable than Hillary? You don't think Republican voters would show up to beat Hillary? All the Republican candidates vowed to support Trump if he gets the nomination. Seems Hillary is concerned about Trump after all. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-trumps-wedding-fun/story?id=32998621 Sounds like maybe she's not sitting back enjoying it after all. Trump hit her in a vulnerable spot. Her collecting huge sums of cash from fat cats like himself. Well, it was suppose to be her big day. She unveiled a pretty damn big proposal and considering she has been lagging in the polls and having a horrible summer, I'm guessing she was hoping that she could change the narrative with her "big ideas". Well, the narrative changed, but not in the way she had hoped.
IDBillzFan Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 In a nutshell. Guy Benson @guypbenson 5m5 minutes ago We are SICK and TIRED of this NARCISSISTIC, PETTY, PETULANT, and ARROGANT president! Also, go Donald Trump!
reddogblitz Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 If Trump were serious, he's stop shooting off his idiocy at the GOP and show everyone he can square off with Hillary. Unfortunately, his shtick is bucking the GOP establishment. Let's hear him go after Hillary with the same vitriol. But he won't. Because he can't. Did you miss the Hillary coming to his wedding comment? He's negotiating with the GOP. GOP establishment needs to be bucked. These Southern Baptist PC guys have no chance to win anyway. None of them. Especially Jeb. Here's a few jabs at Hillary by Donald: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/26/politics/trump-hillary-clinton-emails-cnn-poll/index.html "The fact is that what she has done is criminal," Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday in a phone interview on "State of the Union." Trump compared Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, to Petraeus, the former top U.S. military official in Iraq and Afghanistan and Central Intelligence Agency director who resigned amid allegations he allowed his mistress access to classified information. "What she did is far worse than what General Petraeus did and he's gone down in disgrace," Trump said. "What he did is not as bad as what Hillary Clinton did, and it's similar. But it's not as bad. I mean, she got rid of her server, he never did anything like that." http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/07/09/donald-trump-slams-hillary-clinton-worst-secretary-of-state-history/#! “Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State in the history of the United States. There’s never been a Secretary of State so bad as Hillary. The world blew up around us. We lost everything, including all relationships. There wasn’t one good thing that came out of that administration or her being Secretary of State,” Donald ranted and raved to NBC News You might be right that he is a Clinton plant, but you may also be wrong.
Chef Jim Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 It's interesting. I've been reading a book called Learned Optimism and they looked at optimism in political campaigns. They looked at the acceptance speeches of every Presidential candidate from 1948 to 1984 and by analyzing those speeches they correctly picked the winner in every time accept once and that was the Humphey-Nixon election of 1968. They said Humphrey's speeches were slightly more optimistic than Nixon's. What happened after the speech is what changed the result of the election. The 1968 riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. This does not bode well for Trump if he wins the nomination (please God no). So all that Hope and Change crap worked!
Magox Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Donald Trump backs off Planned Parenthood defunding push Donald Trump on Tuesday appeared to back off his demands to defund Planned Parenthood. After saying last week it’s worth having Congress shut down the federal government unless Planned Parenthood is stripped of its $528 million in government funding, the Republican presidential candidate changed his tune. That was quick. A man of convictions.
Tiberius Posted August 11, 2015 Author Posted August 11, 2015 It's interesting. I've been reading a book called Learned Optimism and they looked at optimism in political campaigns. They looked at the acceptance speeches of every Presidential candidate from 1948 to 1984 and by analyzing those speeches they correctly picked the winner in every time accept once and that was the Humphey-Nixon election of 1968. They said Humphrey's speeches were slightly more optimistic than Nixon's. What happened after the speech is what changed the result of the election. The 1968 riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. This does not bode well for Trump if he wins the nomination (please God no). So all that Hope and Change crap worked! Wow, that's pretty amazing, picking the winners long after the elections are over...
Chef Jim Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Wow, that's pretty amazing, picking the winners long after the elections are over... Do you have any idea what scientific method they used to pick the winner? Of course you don't. Until you do you can STFU.
Tiberius Posted August 11, 2015 Author Posted August 11, 2015 Do you have any idea what scientific method they used to pick the winner? Of course you don't. Until you do you can STFU. Scientific method to pick winners in elections that are over? Hmmmm....
Tiberius Posted August 11, 2015 Author Posted August 11, 2015 So you feel there is no phycology when it comes to elections? No what?
Chef Jim Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 No what? Let me try that again. Do you believe there is no psychology in elections?
Tiberius Posted August 11, 2015 Author Posted August 11, 2015 Let me try that again. Do you believe there is no psychology in elections? Some, sure, but its not the most important social science involved. And analyzing acceptance speeches to "predict" the winner seems backwards looking and suspect, to me. I'm pretty sure Dewey was optimistic and over confident in 1948 while Truman laid it on thick with negativity. Saying the GOP economic program would be Hoover all over again. I can give more examples if you want
Chef Jim Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Some, sure, but its not the most important social science involved. And analyzing acceptance speeches to "predict" the winner seems backwards looking and suspect, to me. I'm pretty sure Dewey was optimistic and over confident in 1948 while Truman laid it on thick with negativity. Saying the GOP economic program would be Hoover all over again. I can give more examples if you want No if that were the case the psychological analysis would have given the win to Dewey. Correctly picking 9 out of 10 elections due to how pessimistic or optimistic a speech is pretty darn accurate. Elections have changed a lot in the 30 that this was last done so it would be interesting to how that process would work today. Once again Obama ran on Hope and Change. Well we got very little change and what the !@#$ it hope. I'll tell you what it's not. It's not a strategy but lemmings like you lapped it up.
DC Tom Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Wow, that's pretty amazing, picking the winners long after the elections are over... Personally, I would have gone with pointing out that they got one wrong as a more incisive criticism... You're such a retard.
Tiberius Posted August 11, 2015 Author Posted August 11, 2015 No if that were the case the psychological analysis would have given the win to Dewey. Correctly picking 9 out of 10 elections due to how pessimistic or optimistic a speech is pretty darn accurate. Elections have changed a lot in the 30 that this was last done so it would be interesting to how that process would work today. Once again Obama ran on Hope and Change. Well we got very little change and what the !@#$ it hope. I'll tell you what it's not. It's not a strategy but lemmings like you lapped it up. No, they would have just said Dewey was more optimistic. It's not accurate when they decide how "optimistic" a speech was after the election. Totally subjective. Heck, you can say all the winners speeches were optimistic, and poof! The more optimistic speech won. Bush in 2004 played the fear card big time. Ike would have won in 52 almost no matter what, same in 56. In the vastness of a election, with so many things outside a candidates control, just being happy and saying you will make a better world isn't enough. Obama won in 08 because Bush sucked, the economy was screwed AND Obama was awesome.
DC Tom Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 No, they would have just said Dewey was more optimistic. It's not accurate when they decide how "optimistic" a speech was after the election. Totally subjective. Heck, you can say all the winners speeches were optimistic, and poof! The more optimistic speech won. Bush in 2004 played the fear card big time. Ike would have won in 52 almost no matter what, same in 56. In the vastness of a election, with so many things outside a candidates control, just being happy and saying you will make a better world isn't enough. Obama won in 08 because Bush sucked, the economy was screwed AND Obama was awesome. Obama didn't run against Bush.
Chef Jim Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 No, they would have just said Dewey was more optimistic. It's not accurate when they decide how "optimistic" a speech was after the election. Totally subjective. Heck, you can say all the winners speeches were optimistic, and poof! The more optimistic speech won. Bush in 2004 played the fear card big time. Ike would have won in 52 almost no matter what, same in 56. In the vastness of a election, with so many things outside a candidates control, just being happy and saying you will make a better world isn't enough. Obama won in 08 because Bush sucked, the economy was screwed AND Obama was awesome. Oh I'm sorry. I had no idea you'd read all the research. BTW what are you basing the awesomeness of Obama in 2008?
Recommended Posts