I'm genuinely curious - when do you think the poll numbers will reflect your analysis? A week from now? Two weeks?
The reason I ask is because I have been wrong about Trump's numbers consistently since he first announced. Over and over I thought his support would wane. It hasn't.
I would like you to be right, but without a clear prediction, I won't be able to tell.
Just look at the graphs in the various polls. The RCP Average poll shows Trump peaking about a week ago, dropping since. If this trend continues, and I see no reason why it won't with the stupid crap he's been tweeting and saying the past few days, you can watch it as it happens. Or you can wait to see the polls in about two weeks when both candidates' convention bounces will have bumped and receded back to more of a "norm".
I'm mostly surprised that it's only four days after the DNC and that Trump's lead is gone in the averages. You can also look at "same poll/previous iteration" on the RCP average page by expanding the list. You'll see that almost without fail the current polls are all better for Clinton/worse for Trump than the previous poll by the same organization.
It's a smart play. Sure, Trump acted like a monster but look how crazy other people are! The Donald is the sane choice [only in comparison to those who plan to vote for him].
This'll be fun. I've got a hundred baht burning a hole in my wallet that says that no one on Donald's team says "Hey, c'mon that's going too far."
Lest everyone falls for the "oh that's one lone wacktard" lie, let's remember who Roger Stone is, that he worked directly for Trump and that he claims he's still best buddies and has his ear. He's also the former partner of Trump's campaign manager and proud of the dirt he's dished in previous campaigns.
Mr. Khan's probably his match, though. He'll probably come right out and call Roger filth and ramp up the challenges. "Why won't Mike Pence resign from the ticket?" would be nice.
Those people who were going to vote for him for the LULZ and those undecided cannot see anything other than a revolting pile of festering turds masquerading as human.
I really think this is the one thing that will sink him.
Especially doubling down with the crying Tweet "Can't I defend myself?"
Yes, Donald, you can. Defending yourself is not crapping all over a pair of grieving parents.
Just imagine how many military families and voters will be having second thoughts about now. By all accounts, Capt. Khan saved a number of other lives.
No, just French and English. And supposedly American. And I will grant you great ape tribal protocols were indeed more cultured than the Trump/GOP ticket.
Those people who were going to vote for him for the LULZ and those undecided cannot see anything other than a revolting pile of festering turds masquerading as human.
I really think this is the one thing that will sink him.
Especially doubling down with the crying Tweet "Can't I defend myself?"
Yes, Donald, you can. Defending yourself is not crapping all over a pair of grieving parents.
Just imagine how many military families and voters will be having second thoughts about now. By all accounts, Capt. Khan saved a number of other lives.
I genuinely hope that you're right and this this really does permanently damage the Trump campaign but then again veteran-related comments and actions which would have ordinarily have sunk a campaign without trace have had no effect.
If any other candidate, especially a Democratic Party candidate had referred to John McCain as a loser, their campaign would have been dead in the water.
If any other candidate had promised a million dollar donation to veterans' causes and hadn't ponied up months later it would have had a major negative effect.
If it had become clear that any other candidate had at best exaggerated, and at worst plain lied, about his role in commissioning the Vietnam Memorial then the ridicule would have seen them off.
Heck, if a Democratic Party candidate advocated reneging on NATO treaties, tipped the wink to Russia regarding its expansionist agenda or even called for Russia to hack the FBI (only joking, hur, hur) then the right wing press would have hauled them over the coals and called them a traitor.
There'll be a bit of a fuss for a day and it'll all just die down as the press moves onto the next outrage.
I genuinely hope that you're right and this this really does permanently damage the Trump campaign but then again veteran-related comments and actions which would have ordinarily have sunk a campaign without trace have had no effect.
If any other candidate, especially a Democratic Party candidate had referred to John McCain as a loser, their campaign would have been dead in the water.
If any other candidate had promised a million dollar donation to veterans' causes and hadn't ponied up months later it would have had a major negative effect.
If it had become clear that any other candidate had at best exaggerated, and at worst plain lied, about his role in commissioning the Vietnam Memorial then the ridicule would have seen them off.
Heck, if a Democratic Party candidate advocated reneging on NATO treaties, tipped the wink to Russia regarding its expansionist agenda or even called for Russia to hack the FBI (only joking, hur, hur) then the right wing press would have hauled them over the coals and called them a traitor.
There'll be a bit of a fuss for a day and it'll all just die down as the press moves onto the next outrage.
Maybe just one at a time, Trump and the GOP could fend them off with a bit of desperation plus favourable media. But I suspect the lies and "issues" are all starting to mount up now. And at some point will be a tip-over and an inevitable downhill slide into the dustbin of history. There will be no going back
No, he was born in Africa: "John and Alice (Rutherford) Clayton II, Lord and Lady Greystoke of England, are marooned in the western coastal jungles of equatorial Africa in 1888. In September of 1889 their son John Clayton III is born."
I'm not Joe Arpaio who can be fooled by some fake birth certificate.
Maybe just one at a time, Trump and the GOP could fend them off with a bit of desperation plus favourable media. But I suspect the lies and "issues" are all starting to mount up now.
All the GOP needs is a halfway decent story that plays to their Crooked Hillary narrative, so a release of wikileaks information, some more Benghazi nonsense, more pressure for the release of transcripts - anything and the story moves on and away from Trump.
It seems that the electorate and the media have no collective memory. As soon as the next "Trump outrage" happens all previous transgressions appear to be forgotten.
Maybe, then again maybe it will never happen or only happen after he is elected President.
It seems that a large slice of the U.S. electorate have gone the same way as the UK Brexit Leavers. Facts don't matter, experts can be safely ignored and you chose what you want from the pick-and-mix mutually contradictory messages the campaign is putting out.
Add a healthy layer of partisanship (from both parties) and I can see this being just another campaign "ripple" to be ridden out. IMO there is literally nothing that Trump can do or say short of actually murdering someone in cold blood, in front of camera, for fun that would prevent the GOP machine, almost all prominent GOP supporters, FOX and so on from continuing to support him. Of course they'll need to ratchet up the Crooked Hillary rhetoric but in today's post-factual age it doesn't matter a jot whether any of their slurs or allegations have a basis in fact.
I believe you're wrong. I think the country has tired of his bluster. I think his core following doesn't care, but that core consists of dedicated Republicans who'd vote for a cockle rather than a Democrat and the hard core disaffected white supremacist/bigot. I believe that peaks at just under forty per cent.
The rest of the country hear "Crooked Hillary" in response to a question on water rights in Nevada and they're tired of it. The constant bombast and insulting, contrary to the image of the American tourist as "ugly American" does not play real well with our national psyche. Yeah, there's a big old dumb segment that watches WWE and thinks that the Kardashians and The Apprentice represent a desirable slice of life. But it's not a majority.
Sometimes the American left/progressive/liberal are our own worst enemy. "OMG Fox News will destroy her/him on that issue" is heard around campaigns and breakfast tables across the country. They have far more clout than their mere viewership accounts for, but that's because all the rest of the not-nearly-so-biased media covers them like a train wreck in progress. Fox gets less than two per cent of the American population watching them on their most highly rated programs. The Not Fox networks on cable and broadcast out-draw them almost ten to one.
Playing to and hiding from this feared big mouthed negative demographic gives the impression that Americans are only an opposable thumb away from having just climbed down from the trees. We may wear plaids and pinstripes at the same time, but we're really not that stupid or coarse. I think that if Trump and his supporters don't shut up about Humayan Khan real soon, he is going to have done irreparable harm to not just his campaign but to the GOP.
As George Will put it, yesterday - and I paraphrase - "the straw that broke the camel's back does not equal a come-to-god moment when the scales suddenly fall from our eyes, it's that one tiny piece that when added to all the other tiny pieces finally, well,... breaks the camel's back...."
I think that's what we're dealing with, here. I honestly hope so.
Why would anyone take it as given that Trump will attempt to distance himself from Stone? He'll say, "I don't know if Khan is in the Muslim Brotherhood. It would not surprise me."
Hasn't Slate figured out their premise is perhaps fatally flawed?
Why would anyone take it as given that Trump will attempt to distance himself from Stone? He'll say, "I don't know if Khan is in the Muslim Brotherhood. It would not surprise me."
Hasn't Slate figured out their premise is perhaps fatally flawed?
I agree, it's a possibility and phrased as a question like
"...it's been said that Khizr Khan is a Muslim brotherhood agent, maybe it's true, maybe it isn't, but it's typical of Crooked Hillary to use a terrorist to attack my campaign....."
The idea that there are a significant number of "undecideds" out there among the hustings is a concept I have a lot of trouble buying. At least in this election nobody is complaining about the choice being between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. There is a REAL difference between the candidates. That someone says he/she is undecided means, to me, a better description would be "uninterested". And I suspect an uninterested person cannot likely be described as a "voter".
In this election, I suspect nearly all actual voters know their vote today. I distrust the remainder to say much of anything of value.
Nope. Not a turning point. In fact, as usual, the Democratic Party and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) are overplaying their hand. Khan has been given too big a stage, he continues to attack assuming that his status as a Gold star parent gives him immunity from attack, and his argument is too fallacious.
Khan called on House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to withdraw their support for Trump.
"It is a moral obligation -- history will not forgive them," he said. "This election will pass, but history will be written. The lack of moral courage with remain a burden on their souls."
Umm, sorry, Mr. Khan, but you are not a deity, nor even particularly worthy of respect. Your son is worthy of respect, but why do you think that grants you any special moral authority?
"For this candidate for presidency to not be aware of the respect of a Gold Star mother standing there, and he had to take that shot at her, this is height of ignorance," Khan said. "This is why I showed him (the) Constitution. Had he read that, he would know the status a Gold Star mother holds in this nation."
Oh, I see. The status of a Gold Star mother is prescribed in the Constitution? I hadn't remembered that. What a buffoon.
By the way, has anybody run the numbers? I mean if a Gold Star parent has, say, 100x the moral authority of a normal person (and, for the life of me, I can't figure out why that should be so), shouldn't we add up the preferences of the 6884 other Gold Star families from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We might be able to infer that the other 13 Muslim Gold Star families, (by the way, a ratio of 14/6885 = 0.2% as compared with the order of magnitude greater proportion of Muslims in the American population) are against Trump, but might not the majority of the remaining 6671 Gold Star families still support Trump?
If Trump is smart, and it seems like he is getting better advice, he can, by patiently explaining that Khan's attacks are directed at the wrong target, turn this to his benefit. Americans can recognize unfair attacks when they see them, which is why the Cindy Sheehan stuff never really gained traction with the public in turning against Bush, despite the media's best efforts. As long as Trump refrains from directly attacking Khan, and instead lets unaffiliated surrogates do it (just has Hillary's flacks have done to Patricia Smith), then it will redound to his benefit.
This has apparently been making the rounds in reference to Trump.
Note, however, that William Shatner's bad acting was really Jim Kirk's bad acting. Khan had in fact fallen into Kirk's trap rather than vice versa. Not a bad analogy for the current situation, in my opinion.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
