Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Making the argument that she represents their interests better than the completely inexperienced, advice immune Trump is not a rightward shift. A rightward shift would require something in her policies changing. This is her making her case to people who might be wavering that she is indeed the better option.
Regardless of party affiliation, a smart presidential candidate has to make the argument to vote to them to the entire American people.
Yeah I don't see Clinton trying to get more "moderate" Republicans as her swerving right, it's trying to get more votes by saying she's closer to their views than Trump is.
When she starts backtracking on some of the stuff she says then it'll be fair to make that claim, but until then, like Nativie Jovian said, it just sounds like "I don't like Clinton, so I expect her to do stuff I don't like without proof" and doesn't come off as particularly justified.
edited 10th Jun '16 8:06:12 PM by LSBK
So, there's been a lot of talk about the possibility of Trump either dropping out before the convention (due to the psychological and financial stresses of campaigning) or the GOP ratfucking him out of it (by writing the rules of this year's RNC to prohibit him). As much as it'd make me feel better not to have to worry about Trump, this alternative is just as scary. If Clinton suddenly has to switch tactics midstream, it could make things much hairier against, say, Paul Ryan or Scott Walker. And while the RNC derailing him would almost certainly rip the GOP in half, appointing someone if he drops out won't. And that's not even going into the Johnson spoiler effect if neither of those happens...
So, what happens if he drops out/is replaced? Should I worry?
Clinton's argument here is that she is the Status Quo and for Republican donors, that's what they want to hear. Yes, it is a Democratic Status Quo, but that is better for the Republican donors than Trump's Change.
Wizard Needs Food BadlyWell, no. Sounds like your anxiety is talking again. I very much doubt Trump is going to drop out. Since, you know, he's going to do what most people do and rely on donations to fund his campaign. And he's shown no signs of breaking in that manner. Like at all. His ego won't let him. And the Republicans are lining up behind him, however reluctantly, because to reject him would cause the voting public to reject them.
Besides, it'd be a disaster for the Republican party for their nominee to suddenly drop out. This being entirely unprecedented, there's no telling who'd end up getting picked. Or if anyone even would before November.
edited 10th Jun '16 9:03:01 PM by AceofSpades
"If those golden boys win then at least they won't burn the country down."
They'll still leave behind the cancer of Republican-nominated Supreme Court justices.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."The point is they're making plans specifically for Trump to be their candidate and are unlikely at this point to actually be planning for his ousting. They'd lose a significant chunk of their voter base. And Scott Walker couldn't even say in the primary for very long; I don't think he counts as one of their golden boys anymore. And I doubt they'd put for Paul Ryan because of all the fuckery it took to get him to be the Speaker; they'd have to fill that position if he ran for Presidency.
I mean, shit, barely anyone who wasn't Trump made any kind of an impact during the primary. Anyone they could replace Trump with just wouldn't win. Especially if picked during a mad scramble in October.
And much of the post Mc Govern-Mondale/Reagan Democrat strategy is "Square the Circle by running to the Center", a strategy that got Bill elected twice. It's called Triangulation
.
"But she's not Bill!" Yeah, but often people who are related hire their family's political contacts/friends that were used during the last time those families ran, who will often suggest similar strategies. And she was constantly touted as "Co-President" during Bill's runs, meaning she wasn't an outside force not involved in her husband's political decisions and runs.
So based on previous patterns, I expect to start seeing her swerve right to the Center and walks back as much as she can without the Left/Progressive Wing hissing and revolting.
Or to put it simpler: I will expect the worst to happen so I can be pleasantly surprised when it doesn't. It's a form of cynicism that's worked very well for me my entire life and keeps my stress low.
"But when will you admit defeat?" Convention and/or Debates (provided Trump isn't a complete garbage chicken shit who dodges them.) Basically somewhere where she's under the spotlight hard enough that backpedaling will hose her.
Though yes, I'm not very hype for Hillary. Personally I think she wasn't a particularly good option for the party to pick, because of her lousy charisma, which results in any time a skeleton comes out or a scandal hits, she trends towards acting in such a way where if she didn't do something wrong, it has the unfortunate appearance to the general public that she's hiding something or that she got her hand caught in the cookie jar. (Which is probably why every-time she goes from Elder Statesman to Acting Politician, her likeability tanks in general polls. While when she floats away from office, her likeability jumps through the roof.)
I think on the election trail, she's a weak candidate, and she's lucky she got Trump as her opponent.
(And even then, I'm utterly fucking anxious because I expect Brexit to cause an economic cascade fallout that damage the US economy, which'll be blamed on Democrat Trade Deals, and then we get His Toupee-ness in Office, because when the economy tanks, the opposition party basically gets an "Auto-In" to the Presidency and Congress.)
MEANWHILE:
Ryan under GOP fire for calling Trump's remarks "Racist"
. I wonder if the rest of the GOP will throw him under the bus and try and persona non grata him to appease the Toupee.
edited 10th Jun '16 9:39:56 PM by PotatoesRock
He's the Speaker, I think it would be hard to unperson him at this point.
And I gotta imagine that hiring Sander's staff is more of a clue that she's going to stay on the path she's currently on. You're making mountains out of molehills.
This is how it will play out: Trump's not going to suddenly abandon his campaign. It's highly unlikely. And in the event that he does, no one here knows what will happen because such a thing is completely unprecedented in American politics. If it happens, we'll just have to ride it out. And again, you're bringing your anxiety into a discussion where maybe it's best to just get off the internet until you feel better. And if it does happen, I very much imagine it will be very hard to drum up enthusiasm and voter support from the Republican base at that point.
edited 10th Jun '16 9:45:21 PM by AceofSpades
That's a swerve to the right.
I'm not exepecting her to take Republican talking points if you thought that's what I meant. I expect her to take up "Focus Group Tested And Proven(TM) Centrist Talking Points".
edited 10th Jun '16 9:49:34 PM by PotatoesRock
Those in Washtington, in Congress, are going to stand by Trump, because of the Republican Commandant: "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill Of Another Republican" with the Addendum "Especially If The Republican Is Your Presidential Candidate".
Which is the point of the article. The DC GOP is going to stand by Trump in case he gets in, so they remain in his good graces.
Romney can sit out and endorse whoever and go play golf. These guys in DC have to deal with regime change. Romney doesn't.

Yeah no.
Non Indicative Username