Forum Thread

How to fight trump, Hillary!

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 15 Posts
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Key states coming into play with Trump leading in Ohio almost out of margin of era. I have been calling Trump's success from the very beginning. Not for any other reason than listening to what he is saying and knowing it will resonate with a Majority of people. I said for Hillary to win she will have to double the same back at Trump. She is not responding to Trump's latest attack on her about Bill's women calling her an enabler. She is missing a big chance to identify her with Trump's supporters and if she doesn't act soon, it will hurt. One of the most famous country songs is her answer. "Stand by your man". She can come out trying to hold her marriage together. That will respond positively making Trump calling her an enabler a mark against him. Her choice to ignore Trump solidifies her support but doesn't expand it. Hillary, call me!
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    What I really appreciate about Hillary is that she is a "policy wonk" of sorts. By that I mean she understands what it takes to get legislation passed, and spends an inordinate amount of time studying the problems and alternative solutions. She is not married to any ideological worldview that prevents her from sitting down with the other side and compromising. For Hillary, every issue is nuanced...pros and cons. She deals with reality and critical thinking.

    Perhaps her one negative is that she doesn't play the emotion game very well, especially in front of a crowd. She cannot fire up a crowd with sound bites like the Donald or Bernie can in their stump speeches. She can talk about the well researched and peer reviewed details of her plan to go beyond Dodd Frank for more regulatory reform, but she is in competition with the populist narrative..."too big to fail" and "break up the big banks"...period! Her many plans on everything are very cerebral. Bernie's plans have an emotional appeal...feel good, punitive at times, but often lacking in the forward thinking of what they would actually accomplish or what they would ultimately cost, not only in terms of money, but also in the global arena of international competition with globalization.

    I personally prefer the cerebral...whether it is Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I understand, however, as Chet pointed out that she needs to be more responsive to Trump's attacks. I'm okay with a certain level of push back, but not to make it the sensational headlines every morning. And to be sure, the mainstream media loves to sensationalize the "feuds" as they often call them. It's good for ratings. Talking numbers and policies is boring...it loses viewers. They want red meat.

    Of course, I don't want to make too much of it. I think there are lots of voters who think like I do, and don't care for all the media coverage of the carnival barker.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    What I really appreciate about Hillary is that she is a "policy wonk" of sorts. By that I mean she understands what it takes to get legislation passed, and spends an inordinate amount of time studying the problems and alternative solutions. She is not married to any ideological worldview that prevents her from sitting down with the other side and compromising. For Hillary, every issue is nuanced...pros and cons. She deals with reality and critical thinking.

    Perhaps her one negative is that she doesn't play the emotion game very well, especially in front of a crowd. She cannot fire up a crowd with sound bites like the Donald or Bernie can in their stump speeches. She can talk about the well researched and peer reviewed details of her plan to go beyond Dodd Frank for more regulatory reform, but she is in competition with the populist narrative..."too big to fail" and "break up the big banks"...period! Her many plans on everything are very cerebral. Bernie's plans have an emotional appeal...feel good, punitive at times, but often lacking in the forward thinking of what they would actually accomplish or what they would ultimately cost, not only in terms of money, but also in the global arena of international competition with globalization.

    I personally prefer the cerebral...whether it is Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I understand, however, as Chet pointed out that she needs to be more responsive to Trump's attacks. I'm okay with a certain level of push back, but not to make it the sensational headlines every morning. And to be sure, the mainstream media loves to sensationalize the "feuds" as they often call them. It's good for ratings. Talking numbers and policies is boring...it loses viewers. They want red meat.

    Of course, I don't want to make too much of it. I think there are lots of voters who think like I do, and don't care for all the media coverage of the carnival barker.

    Schmidt, I somehow agree with Chet. Hillary is getting more and more in a difficult position. Since Trump has got a "free" field, he can spent a lot of time attacking Hillary until the convention. Then on top of that the Wasserman-Schultz problem as I posted, will make the Bernie voters roaring mad, so they may give their vote to Trump because of the DNC attitude. In the polls the numbers are getting closer and closer in the general election. Thus if Hillary and the DNC continue as right now, it may mean an Trump win. Then Jared can eat his shirt. Wake up Democrats before it is too late.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    One thing that I have noticed is that Bernie Sanders is an outstanding politician. He wasn't always that way, but he has hired some great professionals that know how to control the messaging. He stills sees a "narrow path to victory" that depends on him winning the remaining states, and then using those victories to turn the Super Delegates to vote for him. But the key to turning those super delegates is to make them believe that he has a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary. So in his many rallies and stump speeches he lays out his plan to his supporters of how the super delegates will support him if they think he has a better chance than Hillary. He says it again and again now, more often than even his "millionaires and billionaires" part of his speech.

    It is a great political strategy. When the pollsters call upon Bernie supporters and ask if they would vote for Hillary in the general election, is it in the back of their minds that to say "yes" would undermine Bernie's stated path to victory? More and more polls keep showing Hillary's margin of victory over Trump tightening, while Bernie always does better in beating Trump than does Hillary.

    I would surmise that most Bernie supporters will eventually support Hillary if she is the nominee, but to admit that to a pollster now would undermine Bernie's narrow path to victory. Yes Bernie has a slim chance if he can pull that off, and somehow Hillary's stature is undermined in some unforeseen way.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    One thing that I have noticed is that Bernie Sanders is an outstanding politician. He wasn't always that way, but he has hired some great professionals that know how to control the messaging. He stills sees a "narrow path to victory" that depends on him winning the remaining states, and then using those victories to turn the Super Delegates to vote for him. But the key to turning those super delegates is to make them believe that he has a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary. So in his many rallies and stump speeches he lays out his plan to his supporters of how the super delegates will support him if they think he has a better chance than Hillary. He says it again and again now, more often than even his "millionaires and billionaires" part of his speech.

    It is a great political strategy. When the pollsters call upon Bernie supporters and ask if they would vote for Hillary in the general election, is it in the back of their minds that to say "yes" would undermine Bernie's stated path to victory? More and more polls keep showing Hillary's margin of victory over Trump tightening, while Bernie always does better in beating Trump than does Hillary.

    I would surmise that most Bernie supporters will eventually support Hillary if she is the nominee, but to admit that to a pollster now would undermine Bernie's narrow path to victory. Yes Bernie has a slim chance if he can pull that off, and somehow Hillary's stature is undermined in some unforeseen way.

    Schmidt, I see the DNC as biggest danger of this election; read the piece again about the Wasserman woman. If the "established" DNC leaders like to retain their Washington inbred "culture" that may be a nail into their own coffin.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: Schmidt, I see the DNC as biggest danger of this election; read the piece again about the Wasserman woman. If the "established" DNC leaders like to retain their Washington inbred "culture" that may be a nail into their own coffin.

    You see the DNC and not a fascist getting their hands on the nuclear codes as the biggest danger of this election?

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Dutch -- I looked at Debbie Wasserman Schultz's voting record in Congress. I would judge her as a liberal and would probably agree with her on maybe 90 percent of her votes. On that basis, she would have my vote if she ran for Congress out of Colorado. She has been good to the Democratic Party. Her party members elected her to the Democratic Party chair position in May 2011, largely based on her support and activism within the party.

    If you have a problem with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, you probably have a problem with 90 percent of the Democratic Party. So if you are blaming Wasserman Schultz for doing the job that her party members elected her to do, then you do not understand the Democratic Party.

    On the other hand, Bernie Sanders didn't join the party until April 30, 2015. He's been a "Democrat" for just over a year. His socialist views are not endorsed by 90 percent of the party. That's why he could never join the party until a year ago.

    If Bernie wants to transform the party, there is a process for doing that. Crying foul to the media, does not help to change the views of long established party members. To change the party, you start at the grass roots. All those young Bernie supporters are quite capable of doing just that if they don't lose energy in the next several months.

    I have met and talked with many of the Bernie supporters. Yes they do not support the Democratic Party and their policies. However, if they join the party and participate, then they can work within the party to change it. Many of them describe themselves as independents, much like Bernie was before he "joined". I, like many of my "establishment Democrats", have a certain mistrust of Bernie's political revolution.

    But hey, there is always a 3rd party option.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt, Do you remember the hit parade. Early in the 50's on Saturday night and they did the top songs of the week. Top songs then were melodic with respectful meaningful lyrics. Singers were usually formally attired respectful gracious. That was how the Satuday Night Hit Parade was formatted and performed. Girls wore ball gowns and the guys black tie. I very vividly remember the end of the hit parade in the late 50's and the end of that era of civillity. The top song that week was the "Witch Doctor". So the ekegant Gizelle McKenzie and formal Snooky Lansing had to dress up in jungle grass and animal skins and sing "O E O AH AH". That was the end of the "Hit Parade". It was also the beginning of the end of a lot of social respect. We are now living in the land of "O E O AH AH" and Trump is the witch doctor. No matter how much respect you have for honor, accomplishment and loyalty it doesn't matter. Trump is resonating with the majority and this is a democracy . Years and years of conservatives deriding government and preaching self determination has created a country predominantly populated as pr pointed out. People love Trump kicking ass. Making fun of a crippled reporter is their free speech. Times and temperament have changed. Sticking to the high road will cost the Democrats the election. The winning plan is free speech and knowing the mind of the majority. Trump is everybodies American on one level or another. Bernie is resonating because he is telling people they are being screwed over. Hillary will get nowhere with quit complaining and be thankful for what you have. She can gain more by figuratively grabbing the women by the hair that cheated with Bill and dragging them across the podium. Polls are swinging by the hour toward Trump.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Dutch -- I looked at Debbie Wasserman Schultz's voting record in Congress. I would judge her as a liberal and would probably agree with her on maybe 90 percent of her votes. On that basis, she would have my vote if she ran for Congress out of Colorado. She has been good to the Democratic Party. Her party members elected her to the Democratic Party chair position in May 2011, largely based on her support and activism within the party.

    If you have a problem with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, you probably have a problem with 90 percent of the Democratic Party. So if you are blaming Wasserman Schultz for doing the job that her party members elected her to do, then you do not understand the Democratic Party.

    On the other hand, Bernie Sanders didn't join the party until April 30, 2015. He's been a "Democrat" for just over a year. His socialist views are not endorsed by 90 percent of the party. That's why he could never join the party until a year ago.

    If Bernie wants to transform the party, there is a process for doing that. Crying foul to the media, does not help to change the views of long established party members. To change the party, you start at the grass roots. All those young Bernie supporters are quite capable of doing just that if they don't lose energy in the next several months.

    I have met and talked with many of the Bernie supporters. Yes they do not support the Democratic Party and their policies. However, if they join the party and participate, then they can work within the party to change it. Many of them describe themselves as independents, much like Bernie was before he "joined". I, like many of my "establishment Democrats", have a certain mistrust of Bernie's political revolution.

    But hey, there is always a 3rd party option.

    I guess you did not understand what I'm saying; indeed if the Wasserman woman blocks Bernie and his supporters to have any say in the convention as mentioned, then indeed a "fascist" as you said may win. I absolutely don't care about her voting record. It is important what is happening now; the same as with the GOP, a lot of people think the DNC has become stagnant in their thinking as well favoring the "established" Clintons. You can already see the "games" which are played with the delegates as well the super delegates. I can imagine that a lot of people think that the DNC has made up its mind and will boycott Bernie as they see fit. You think this is an honest country? Forget it. Just stick with the "establishment" and read my "memo" about where the "problems" are related to "wasting" trillions, without any return to our public society. In order to fix this country you need " term limits" and "new" brains; not the same old weasels.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    There was an interview on MSNBC with this Wasserman woman; her arrogant attitude "stinks" and she did not even wanted to answer questions. Sorry it is an horrible un-representable woman. I guess Trump will have an "hayday" in calling her "ugly".

    I'm amazed that an DNC sinks that low to give such a woman this position, she surely does n't win any "beauty contest".

    If the DNC, appoints an representable woman/man to talk to the media, that will also help to boost the party; now it looks like Eva Braun is talking.

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    If the DNC is going to ignore Bernie Sanders supporters, don't cry if they have no love for Clinton and refuse to support her. Is a full blown effort for campaign finance reform such a pipe dream? Any candidate who does not want to dedicate themselves to fixing this national disgrace that is so detrimental to our Democracy is part of the problem instead of being part of the solution. There is a Supreme Court position just waiting to be filled with a candidate who has brains and moral compass to know the difference between money and free speech. Why shouldn't Citizens United be challenged in the short term future? When would be a better time unless the DNC prefers things as they are? Most Democrats just whine about big money elections and give us excuses why it can't be fixed. How about making a serious effort then whine if these efforts don't succeed?
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Dutch -- I looked at Debbie Wasserman Schultz's voting record in Congress. I would judge her as a liberal and would probably agree with her on maybe 90 percent of her votes. On that basis, she would have my vote if she ran for Congress out of Colorado. She has been good to the Democratic Party. Her party members elected her to the Democratic Party chair position in May 2011, largely based on her support and activism within the party.

    If you have a problem with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, you probably have a problem with 90 percent of the Democratic Party. So if you are blaming Wasserman Schultz for doing the job that her party members elected her to do, then you do not understand the Democratic Party.

    On the other hand, Bernie Sanders didn't join the party until April 30, 2015. He's been a "Democrat" for just over a year. His socialist views are not endorsed by 90 percent of the party. That's why he could never join the party until a year ago.

    If Bernie wants to transform the party, there is a process for doing that. Crying foul to the media, does not help to change the views of long established party members. To change the party, you start at the grass roots. All those young Bernie supporters are quite capable of doing just that if they don't lose energy in the next several months.

    I have met and talked with many of the Bernie supporters. Yes they do not support the Democratic Party and their policies. However, if they join the party and participate, then they can work within the party to change it. Many of them describe themselves as independents, much like Bernie was before he "joined". I, like many of my "establishment Democrats", have a certain mistrust of Bernie's political revolution.

    But hey, there is always a 3rd party option.

    Schmidt, You are placing a higher priority on the sanctity and preservation of the party than of the people it represents. FDR was a revolutionist that ran contrary to the Democratic platform and then he became the "Democrat" of all times. I would say that Bernie is running much the same way FDR ran.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Agreed! Anyone who would support DWS much less vote for her cannot call themselves a Democrat. Oh, I know, her base loves her - supposedly - is that why she may not even win re-election?

    One big, and it's a very BIG, problem with the Democratic party today is the control the Blue Dogs have. Todays' Democratic party represents big business and banking just as surly as the Republican party, because, for all practical purposes, they are Republicans. The old Democrats have become the Bernie supporters and true Progressive Liberals while the old Republicans have become the new Democrats and the new Republicans are left with a bunch of old, white, bigoted Christian nuts that are only interested in their own survival. The only strengths and values the Democrats still hold that are meaningful at all to the general public are their tepid support for social justice.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pr Wrote:

    Agreed! Anyone who would support DWS much less vote for her cannot call themselves a Democrat. Oh, I know, her base loves her - supposedly - is that why she may not even win re-election?

    One big, and it's a very BIG, problem with the Democratic party today is the control the Blue Dogs have. Todays' Democratic party represents big business and banking just as surly as the Republican party, because, for all practical purposes, they are Republicans. The old Democrats have become the Bernie supporters and true Progressive Liberals while the old Republicans have become the new Democrats and the new Republicans are left with a bunch of old, white, bigoted Christian nuts that are only interested in their own survival. The only strengths and values the Democrats still hold that are meaningful at all to the general public are their tepid support for social justice.

    Yes P.R. they want to retain their "established" gang, without endangering their own positions as well stick to a "safe" platform without new idea's, to shake things up, because then they have to think and that may hurts their positions if any new things could derail them.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Again P.R. on the news: DWS ( and the DNC) is pushing hard to stop Bernie; they said he should get out of the "race". Thus it is exactly as I said; they want their existing"ESTABLISHMENT" because it is an cozy bridge club who don't want interference.