Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Campaigning Like He Wants To Win
Yes, I know. Trump. Short-fingered vulgarian. Enemy of all that’s good. Big state authoritarian. Say what you will about Trump, whoever wants to get in the cage with the Clinton Crime Family™ is going to have to fight like he wants to win. This one’s gotta sting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17EOM3RTD1Y
Published in General
Great commercial.
Yeah, I think maybe he wants to win.
Trump won’t hold back the punches. It’s going to be awesome.
Wait until you see Trump’s NCAA Bracket!
Wait, did Trump just call Putin an enemy?
That may be some comfort to those of us who were displeased at his earlier remarks re. Putin.
That’s awesome.
*
An opponent, actually.
You’re right. I don’t know why I was confused. An “opponent.”
I’m inclined to think of that as a notable improvement.
If Trump is our nominee, I just can’t wait to see him light into Hillary the Harpy. No one else would feel comfortable calling out both her and Bill for all their corruption over the years, but Trump will. And they’ll deserve everything they get.
Ah, the silver lining.
Silver, hell. Solid platinum.
And that will matter how once the msm has exposed him as the childish bully he is leaving him as a quivering mass of jelly filled rage? Then we can suffer through 4 years of Hillary scolding or worse, maybe, our president will be a childish bully. Sure hope I’m wrong but I see no reason to think so.
I know … clinging to the little things, here, but maybe that’s a cause for mild optimism.
That one attack ad on Hillary is solid proof that Drumpf is willing to win in October? The last I checked the biggest indicators of defeating an opponent are in the Presidential debates and Drumpf doesn’t do well in those.
Sure his anger and childish temperament (which oddly some find endearing) might make his political base feel all proud (like a mother cheering her son as he is pinned to the mat in less than 5 seconds after the first round starts) but in the debates Drumpf will have to deal with Hillary and from what we have seen she is willing to fight dirty too and Drumpf has a ton of skeletons, just like Clinton.
The worst part is that Drumpf’s failings have been broad casted before in the primary debates. Simply do stand up on Drumpf and roast him over his failings or when he acts like a child try to tell him to breath and count to ten. The Democratic Party has a larger electorate and the MSM has been feeding the fires of Drumpf hatred by their coverage. Their base will be energized, just like in 2012.
The independents are not going to side with Drumpf and the worst part is that Drumpf’s negative coat tails will ensure congressional election defeats. Republicans will have to kiss at least the White House and Senate good bye.
Trump will win. Handily. Deal with it.
Could you show me your crystal ball?
Her dog voice is way less off-putting than her people voice, not to mention her broomstick voice.
Amusing and effective in the same way a drunk frat boy can be amusing and effective in class at distracting you from discussing or learning anything substantive.
Trump has no chance in the general election, unless some dishonest games are played. Wait, that means he does have a chance.
Despite the self destruction by our conservative intellectual elites – and it’s not “the establishment” – Trump will win.
One swallow does not make a summer of course. But this is not a one-off. Recall when Clinton dragged out the “Trump is a misogynist” line of attack he came right back at her with a rejoinder about Bill’s treatment of women. Clinton suddenly got very, very quiet.
Trump’s taken to using the word “stamina” in reference to Clinton which Scott Adams (recall Claire Berlinski’s post yesterday about Adams’ analysis of Trump) refers to as a linguistic “kill shot.”
Yes, Trump seems to have a glass jaw, but if his performance in the last debate is any indication he may be able to manage that.
The Gentleman John McCain and Mild Mittens Romney approach didn’t work, we need somebody who’s going to fight for the office like he wants it. The field has winnowed down to the two people who might be able to do that (Trump & Cruz) plus one who probably wouldn’t even if he could (Kasich).
Dishonest games are going to be played. Remember:
Perhaps the Democrats will think twice before going there if they know they’re up against someone who’ll push back. Or at any rate Republican voters will have some confidence their candidate won’t just lie there and take it.
The words “childish” and “bullying” get thrown around a lot as descriptors for Trump.
The childish and bullying behavior that has astonished me in the past 3 months or so has been that of some members of the conservative commentariat who have gone past reasoned opposition to almost inchoate foaming rage. I suspect the reason for anger at that level is that they are besides themselves that people aren’t listening to them.
Who was that?
When Lincoln said you could fool some of the people all of the time, or when Barnum said there’s a sucker born every minute, I wonder if they realized that could still be so when most of the world was maniacally pointing to a giant, blinking, neon sign that said, “This man is the most blatantly, absolutely proven con man in history, and you are his mark right now!” Or if they thought it possible to hoodwink so many with such thinly veiled pretenses as Trump’s. I suspect even they’d be amazed at the self-abasing credulousness and gleeful, eagerness with which so many lined up to be the wiping paper of such a morally incontinent and shamelessly obvious charlatan.
Here’s a question. I’m in Australia and this is the bit I don’t get. Aside from a trade war with Asia, Trump’s platform is pretty close to Cruz and Rubio. The problem with him, I think, is evidence of insincerity, self grandeur and being thin-skinned leading to the assumption that he’ll go back on his word or do something dangerous as president. But isn’t there a chance that he won’t? Say 50%? In other words isn’t it better to have a 50% chance that he’ll be good than say a 75% chance that Hillary will keep Obama’s policy going? Sure Cruz would be great but if not then isn’t Trump worth a risk?
“Republican voters will have some confidence their candidate won’t just lie there and take it.”
Half of them are going to vote for HRC or a third candidate. This message seems to be slow in getting through.
I was thinking about exactly that (once you get Scott Adams’ paradigm in your head, you start looking for it), and wondering if that was supposed to be his linguistic kill shot. But I was thinking it just didn’t work — I mean, the one thing we know about her is you can’t get rid of her. She’s always been around. I would have chosen something like “no flair,” or “time-serving,” or something that evokes the idea of a hectoring bureaucrat who’s just been around since forever and of whom we’re all so bored.
“Here’s a question. I’m in Australia and this is the bit I don’t get. Aside from a trade war with Asia, Trump’s platform is pretty close to Cruz and Rubio. The problem with him, I think, is evidence of insincerity, self grandeur and being thin-skinned leading to the assumption that he’ll go back on his word or do something dangerous as president. But isn’t there a chance that he won’t? Say 50%? In other words isn’t it better to have a 50% chance that he’ll be good than say a 75% chance that Hillary will keep Obama’s policy going? Sure Cruz would be great but if not then isn’t Trump worth a risk?”
That might be the most bizarrely backward and deluded actuarial analysis I’ve ever read.