80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 09:20 am
@blatham,
Be careful. I figuratively lost my house with such a bet.

I think the leverage Fox has on Ailes is evidence of his sexually harassing female employees. Ailes isn't going to want that to come out (if it exists) and so may give concessions that money couldn't buy.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 09:22 am
@blatham,
Oops, didn't see this before I posted my prior
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 09:26 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Ailes will be well paid and his advice will still be heeded at Fox. He just won't be interacting with the "talent" anymore.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 09:38 am
@engineer,
You're probably right but we'll see.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 10:30 am
Donald Trump Goes ‘All-In.’ How Will Clinton Respond?

Quote:
CLEVELAND — No matter what happens between now and the election on Nov. 8, Donald Trump’s dark and defiant acceptance speech on Thursday will probably be remembered as a pivotal moment in American political history. If Trump wins the election — an increasing possibility based on recent polls — the speech will serve as proof that he did so as an explicitly nationalist and populist candidate, having stirred up support in a country that has historically resisted such movements. If Trump loses to Hillary Clinton, especially by a wide margin, the speech will probably be seen as an historic debacle, the hallmark of a convention that went wrong from start to finish. Either way, the Republican Party might never be the same.



Trump delivered a long and loud address that violated most of the normal rules of acceptance speeches. The speech, and the Republican convention overall, made only perfunctory efforts to appeal to voters who weren’t already aboard the Trump train. It had no magnanimous gestures to Trump’s vanquished Republican rivals. It contained a fair bit of bragging, but not much autobiographical detail. It contained no laundry list of policy positions. Most strikingly, it was unrelentingly pessimistic, whereas acceptance speeches usually aim to soften the blow.

But Trump has broken a lot of rules and gotten away with it, and it will be a few days before we’ll have a sense of Trump’s convention bounce and a few weeks before we can reliably say how the conventions have affected the election overall. Given what Trump accomplished in the primaries, it’s probably prudent to avoid making too many assumptions in the meantime.

However, Trump is at a potential tactical disadvantage because he’s now committed to a strategy, whereas Democrats get to make the next move at their convention next week. Broadly speaking, Clinton can pick between a 1964 strategy and a 2012 strategy. By a 1964 strategy, I mean that Clinton could seek to portray Trump as unfit for office, as Lyndon Baines Johnson did to Barry Goldwater. Such a strategy might entail making a relatively “safe” vice presidential pick, perhaps one with national security credentials. It wouldn’t necessarily deny that the world had become more chaotic; instead, it would turn the argument around by suggesting that the chaos required Clinton’s steady hand on the tiller.

The 2012 strategy would emulate Barack Obama’s successful re-election bid, and would operate on the assumption that Democrats have a larger base than Republicans do, provided that they turn out their voters. It would make a more vigorous defense of Obama’s accomplishments and of the condition of the country overall, instead of buying into Trump’s premise that things were going badly. It might involve making a more left-wing VP pick.


I have no idea which strategy is better, and I think there’s some risk to Clinton in getting caught in between them. But mostly I think that Trump has raised the stakes of the election. His speech made clear that if he becomes president, it won’t be as a “generic Republican” but on his own terms.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 10:46 am
@revelette2,
Interesting article that is about 50% right.

When the nominee of the Republican Party makes multiple favorable references to the LGBTQ (When did the addition of "Q" become the norm?) Community, that is more than a "perfunctory" appeal to them. There were other examples as well, but to expect him to address these groups the way a Democrat candidate might is evidence of a fundamental bias.

The notion that there is an advantage in Convention timing is overblown. If the Dems weren't 99% settled on where they were going before the GOP show, I will be stunned. Sure there will be sound bites they can use but there were no issues (that they could counter) that should have been a surprise to them.

I will be surprised if Clinton doesn't go with the 1964 strategy. It's all been announced that she will go with Kaine and the notion of convincing everyone that we're really in a good place and she has the steady hand is just not credible.

revelette2
 
  2  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 10:59 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I'll take your 50% with a grain of salt.

I am actually hoping you are wrong, I want her to go with the most leftist candidate who is not a senator (we need them where they are) out there. We leftist need something to light a fire under us.
blatham
 
  3  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 11:05 am
Gary Kasparov on Trump's speech last night:
Quote:
“I’ve heard this sort of speech a lot in the last 15 years and trust me, it doesn’t sound any better in Russian.”
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 11:12 am
@revelette2,
You must have a large pile of grains of salt.

Obviously I could be wrong, but based on the buzz and simple political strategy, she's going with a moderate white man.

0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 11:35 am
@engineer,
Quote:
Ailes will be well paid and his advice will still be heeded at Fox. He just won't be interacting with the "talent" anymore.

I'm sure that's so. Murdoch isn't stupid. Evil, obviously, but not stupid.

I hadn't even considered the possibility he might set himself as the temporary operational figurehead. Smart move. And Fox is a cash cow which also provides him with serious leverage into US politics which is always a fundamental consideration for him as we've seen in Australia and, most revealingly, in Britain where he managed to compromise/corrupt damn near everyone. Tony Blair told Ted Turner that if it weren't for Rupert, he wouldn't be Prime Minister (that's from an interview I saw with Turner about a decade ago).

But Ailes is no longer in charge. Jamie and Laughlin got what they wanted and Rupert has managed, as well as could be done, I think, to minimize damage to the brand. Given the nature of the Fox viewership, I doubt many will turn off the channel before they expire over the one or two years they have remaining on this world.

Yet, as in Britain, this scandal here has changed the media and political playing field. And the bad guys' power is diminished.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 11:43 am
@blatham,
Quote:
Yet, as in Britain, this scandal here has changed the media and political playing field. And the bad guys' power is diminished.


That's good to know.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 11:49 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Given the nature of the Fox viewership, I doubt many will turn off the channel before they expire over the one or two years they have remaining on this world.


I posted about this on another thread. Given that younger viewers/voters skew liberal/Liberal/Democratic, there could be a slight shift in direction for Fox. The current Fox demographic has spending money, but it's dying off. The money is moving to younger hands.
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 11:52 am
This morning's media coverage of the Trump speech pretty much universally acknowledges Trump's attempt to duplicate Nixon's '68 strategy of promoting fear and division (though no one I've read notes Reagan's use of the same strategy). It's an obvious parallel, so that's understandable. And most also recognize that the present situation is far difference from that point in the sixties as regards turmoil.

But not many in media seem to be considering the parallels I noted earlier between Ted Cruz's move on the night before last and Nixon's tactical connivences to set himself up to be perceived as the guy who was right all along - even if that perception/agreement might come a few years up the road. The folks who do seem to be getting this are the smarter conservatives. Mind you, they are the same folks who are presently praying with fervor that someone, somehow will salvage this disaster that's visiting their party and ideology.
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 11:59 am
@blatham,
The Dems use the same exact tactics but with different subjects. You won't believe it but it's true.
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 12:00 pm
@ehBeth,
Yes. And I expect that the sons are more acutely aware of this generational aspect. That is, the financial need for change in what Fox does. But my reading suggests that they are also have a personal/generational distaste for the prior levels of bigotry and the targets of it. They don't believe what Ailes or Limbaugh present as reality and are offended by it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 12:11 pm
@Baldimo,
I don't know how you managed to emerge from the containment grid but it happened. So let me give you a tip. Any time you begin with the thesis that X and Y are exactly the same, recognize that you've made the first step in a journey that has about forty miles remaining. The sociologist Bernard Levi Strauss made the very smart observation that we frame our thinking on a scheme of binary opposites - good/evil, north/south, us/not us, etc etc. And he's right. That's where we start from. But just as when we see 12 people on a crosswalk and our first impression is 12 all alike crossing the road, if that's where you leave off in your observations and thoughts, that's how shallow and functionally stupid you leave yourself.
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 12:13 pm
No one could have seen this coming from a Trump.

"After delivering a well-received, if politically liberal, speech Thursday night at the Republican National Convention, Ivanka Trump seized the opportunity to promote her fashion line.

The eldest Trump daughter's Twitter account shared a link Wednesday morning to purchase the light pink sheath dress from her own fashion line that she wore for the speech on Macy's website for $138" http://bit.ly/29ZzpCs
Blickers
 
  2  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 12:15 pm
@engineer,
Quote engineer:
Quote:
Ailes will be well paid and his advice will still be heeded at Fox. He just won't be interacting with the "talent" anymore.

You mean he will be treated like the Catholic priests who were caught molesting kids and so got transferred to positions where they didn't have to interact with children?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 12:21 pm
@blatham,
You mean she had on a dress that an average woman can buy and not the $12,000 dresses and pant suits worn by Michelle and Hillary? For shame Ivanka!
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 22 Jul, 2016 12:31 pm
There are some elements to Trump's rhetoric which are quite unique in political discourse. Everyone sees them but nobody I know of has addressed this communication/persuasion style in it's own right. Here's an example from this morning and it is more than representative. It's absolutely standard. He does this all the time.
Quote:
"Somebody got booed the hell out of a place by thousands and thousands of people," Trump said. "There wasn't one person in the room -- not one. And then they said there may not be unity. Unity? There wasn't one person in the room, including the Texas delegation, right? Honestly, he may have ruined his political career. I feel so badly. I feel so badly."


As bad as he claimed to feel, Trump made it clear he does not need Cruz on his side to win the presidency.

"You know, he'll come and endorse over the next little while," he said. "He'll — because he has no choice. But I don't want his endorsement. What difference does it make? And I don't want his endorsement. I have such great -- I don't want his endorsement. Just -- Ted, stay home, relax, enjoy yourself."

"Again, I don't want his endorsement," he said. "If he gives it, I will not accept it. Just so you understand. If he gives it -- I will not accept it."

Repetition of this sort, often within a single sentence or within two adjacent sentences or within a very short (what a generous person might call a) paragraph.

Have you ever heard anyone talk like this before? Anyone care to analyze what is going on here?
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 03/14/2025 at 09:31:42