Donald Trump

BS44325

JimmyV said:

It can be both but it was not both.

I really can't believe that this far out nobody on here can give him any credit at all for the campaign. I'm not talking about style points for f sakes...I'm talking about strategy! It was chaotic and ugly for sure but it was a strategy based on timing and instincts that completely paid off. Democratic strategist are openly discussing this so why can't the rest of you?

JimmyV

BS44325 said:

JimmyV said:

It can be both but it was not both.

I really can't believe that this far out nobody on here can give him any credit at all for the campaign. I'm not talking about style points for f sakes...I'm talking about strategy! It was chaotic and ugly for sure but it was a strategy based on timing and instincts that completely paid off. Democratic strategist are openly discussing this so why can't the rest of you?

Trump was not brilliant and did not run a brilliant campaign. That was what was said. You are free to give him as much credit as you like. If you think he was brilliant, fine. I don't.

BS44325

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

OnWis97 said:

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Pompeo is a fantastic upgrade. I'm agnostic about Haspel but I'm sure the rank and file approve bigly. Lamb shows that a good candidate with a conservative-bent can win in a very Red district. Like Jones and Northam before him the dems need to recognize that this is the path to victory. If they can get their progressive wing to back off then flipping the house should be easy.

Wasn’t it about a year ago that you were claiming that the brilliancy of Team Trump Treason and his campaign and policies would result in a Team Trumpian Treasonous wave that would solidify repube holds on congress and state legislatures, resulting in Team Trump Treason’s re-election and repubes’ consolidation of power for a generation? Still believing the myth, eh Professor?

No. I never claimed that at all but I understand how your emotion prevents you from comprehending reasoned nuanced arguments which led you to think that. I said that Trump figured out how to speak to the working class voter in a way that previous Republican candidates failed. I also said that if Democrats failed to learn from this then they will have a hard time of winning in the future. Doug Jones demonstrates learning. Lamb demonstrates learning. The progressive wing boxing-in red state democrats like Tester into a corner shows a lack of learning. The odds are that the Republicans will lose the house next year regardless of Trump's performance because as I have said before it is generally cyclical...the President loses the house in his first term almost all the time and there is currently no evidence that Trump's support crosses over to GOP establishment candidates that he ran against. The senate on the other hand will likely stay red and in fact will have a larger GOP majority when all is said and done as the progressive wing is making it extremely hard for red state senators to hold their seats...the Jones election is likely an off-year anomaly where everything had to go right including a terrible opponent in order to squeak over the finish line. There is no myth of Trump other then a disruptive outsider who will govern chaotically and will be judged by results. He didn't run as a saint but as a "doer" and in the end he will take that record to the people for judgement. He will have to thread the same very thin needle to win and will have to remain an outsider to do so. Who his opponent is will matter greatly and the democrats should strongly consider candidates in the "Lamb" mold. There is a reason why Democratic operatives are on tv asking Hillary Clinton to stop talking...her AMT rhetoric is bad for the party.

https://youtu.be/nfSsXSI-8LQ

Nice revisionist history. It’s what you neoCONS do best. You did claim Team Trump Treason as brilliant so at least admit that.

Hillary who?

Yes on claiming that Trump was brilliant in the campaign that he ran. It was pure brilliance as he saw what nobody else saw, ran in a way that nobody else ever ran, and won in a way that very few people have done before. Complete and utter brilliance. He continues to be brilliant in the way that he is able to on the whole advance his agenda. Like I said 100 times...the man fails forward. None of this guarantees reelection though as I have also said 100 times that he will be judged on results. I do believe though that he is doing what is necessary to repeat in 2020 even if that means GOP losses in 2018. In terms of your Neocon analysis though you are way off...the neocon establishment actually disagrees with me...they are generally NeverTrump...they thought he could not win and they still believe he is dangerous. You really need to pay attention to the different wings and who believes in what...again your understanding is all over the place.

I keep hearing that 

a) trump is brilliant and ran a brilliant campaign

but also

b) hillary was a terrible candidate who ran a horrible campaign

it can't be both. 

Of course it can be both.

It may have been both in 1984 when Reagan won 49 states.  But was it really both when a few million more people voted for her than him?

When the name of the game is winning Electoral College votes then 100% it can be both. 

disagree. he benefited from many things. running a brilliant campaign was not one of them. 

if he ran a brilliant campaign, he would have to be brilliant no matter his opposition. had hillary been even slightly more likable and actualy run a campaign in the states that mattered (and that pesky FBI announcement days prior to voting), he would have lost. how brilliant could that be?

Well first it is understanding timing and recognizing to run in the year where Hillary and Jeb were pretty much anointed by the establishment before the race even began. It was the only scenario where his candidacy could work. Second you completely ignore the primaries where he had to beat 16 other candidates. It was not just Hillary he faced. Trump recognized the game board early and played the game to perfection warts and all.

josevolution

BS44325 said:

JimmyV said:

It can be both but it was not both.

I really can't believe that this far out nobody on here can give him any credit at all for the campaign. I'm not talking about style points for f sakes...I'm talking about strategy! It was chaotic and ugly for sure but it was a strategy based on timing and instincts that completely paid off. Democratic strategist are openly discussing this so why can't the rest of you?

Yes i'll give him credit , i'm hoping he shows up at all REPUBLICAN campaigns this yr he sure know how to pick e'm what is he 0-4 ...

OnWis97

BS44325 said:

JimmyV said:

It can be both but it was not both.

I really can't believe that this far out nobody on here can give him any credit at all for the campaign. I'm not talking about style points for f sakes...I'm talking about strategy! It was chaotic and ugly for sure but it was a strategy based on timing and instincts that completely paid off. Democratic strategist are openly discussing this so why can't the rest of you?

Running against one of the most hated figures in US political history was not strategy. 

But the more I think about it, the more I am open to this.  I guess the question is whether there was a lot of strategy involved in taking advantage of white America's frustration with eight years of a president that, um "hates America."  Somehow, the "forgotten America" was convinced that a silver-spoon, Ivy League, New York, billionaire was the person that was going to "remember" them.  And they still think that.  Was it a brilliant campaign? Or did that just fall into their lap like Hillary did?

JimmyV

"Democratic strategists"

HughFreakingDillon

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

OnWis97 said:

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Pompeo is a fantastic upgrade. I'm agnostic about Haspel but I'm sure the rank and file approve bigly. Lamb shows that a good candidate with a conservative-bent can win in a very Red district. Like Jones and Northam before him the dems need to recognize that this is the path to victory. If they can get their progressive wing to back off then flipping the house should be easy.

Wasn’t it about a year ago that you were claiming that the brilliancy of Team Trump Treason and his campaign and policies would result in a Team Trumpian Treasonous wave that would solidify repube holds on congress and state legislatures, resulting in Team Trump Treason’s re-election and repubes’ consolidation of power for a generation? Still believing the myth, eh Professor?

No. I never claimed that at all but I understand how your emotion prevents you from comprehending reasoned nuanced arguments which led you to think that. I said that Trump figured out how to speak to the working class voter in a way that previous Republican candidates failed. I also said that if Democrats failed to learn from this then they will have a hard time of winning in the future. Doug Jones demonstrates learning. Lamb demonstrates learning. The progressive wing boxing-in red state democrats like Tester into a corner shows a lack of learning. The odds are that the Republicans will lose the house next year regardless of Trump's performance because as I have said before it is generally cyclical...the President loses the house in his first term almost all the time and there is currently no evidence that Trump's support crosses over to GOP establishment candidates that he ran against. The senate on the other hand will likely stay red and in fact will have a larger GOP majority when all is said and done as the progressive wing is making it extremely hard for red state senators to hold their seats...the Jones election is likely an off-year anomaly where everything had to go right including a terrible opponent in order to squeak over the finish line. There is no myth of Trump other then a disruptive outsider who will govern chaotically and will be judged by results. He didn't run as a saint but as a "doer" and in the end he will take that record to the people for judgement. He will have to thread the same very thin needle to win and will have to remain an outsider to do so. Who his opponent is will matter greatly and the democrats should strongly consider candidates in the "Lamb" mold. There is a reason why Democratic operatives are on tv asking Hillary Clinton to stop talking...her AMT rhetoric is bad for the party.

https://youtu.be/nfSsXSI-8LQ

Nice revisionist history. It’s what you neoCONS do best. You did claim Team Trump Treason as brilliant so at least admit that.

Hillary who?

Yes on claiming that Trump was brilliant in the campaign that he ran. It was pure brilliance as he saw what nobody else saw, ran in a way that nobody else ever ran, and won in a way that very few people have done before. Complete and utter brilliance. He continues to be brilliant in the way that he is able to on the whole advance his agenda. Like I said 100 times...the man fails forward. None of this guarantees reelection though as I have also said 100 times that he will be judged on results. I do believe though that he is doing what is necessary to repeat in 2020 even if that means GOP losses in 2018. In terms of your Neocon analysis though you are way off...the neocon establishment actually disagrees with me...they are generally NeverTrump...they thought he could not win and they still believe he is dangerous. You really need to pay attention to the different wings and who believes in what...again your understanding is all over the place.

I keep hearing that 

a) trump is brilliant and ran a brilliant campaign

but also

b) hillary was a terrible candidate who ran a horrible campaign

it can't be both. 

Of course it can be both.

It may have been both in 1984 when Reagan won 49 states.  But was it really both when a few million more people voted for her than him?

When the name of the game is winning Electoral College votes then 100% it can be both. 

disagree. he benefited from many things. running a brilliant campaign was not one of them. 

if he ran a brilliant campaign, he would have to be brilliant no matter his opposition. had hillary been even slightly more likable and actualy run a campaign in the states that mattered (and that pesky FBI announcement days prior to voting), he would have lost. how brilliant could that be?

Well first it is understanding timing and recognizing to run in the year where Hillary and Jeb were pretty much anointed by the establishment before the race even began. It was the only scenario where his candidacy could work. Second you completely ignore the primaries where he had to beat 16 other candidates. It was not just Hillary he faced. Trump recognized the game board early and played the game to perfection warts and all.

no one is not giving him ANY credit. we are simply disputing the idea that he is brilliant and/or ran a brilliant campaign. 

Halifax2TheMax

The RNC and NRA are complicit with Russian meddling, including the primaries.

Halifax2TheMax

And the repubes’ internal polling showed that Team Trump Treason was the only repube candidate that could beat Hillary but within the margin of error. None of the repube candidates attacked Team Trump Treason for his affairs and treatment of women, particularly in the southern primaries. The repube establishment held their nose and “allowed” Team Trump Treason to win without any of the mudslinging and character asassination typical of repube primary campaigns, see Bush vs McCain, South Carolina. The RNC and NRA, not wanting to leave anything to chance, became complicit with Russian meddling. No brilliance required.

BS44325

dignin said:

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

The Pennsylvania race proves it: Trump is a weight around the GOP’s neck

In short, the vast majority of Republican officeholders will continue walking the tightrope. Too afraid of offending the GOP base, which is still solidly behind Trump, yet too afraid of generating a backlash among Democrats and independents, they are the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. They dare not dash to one side or another (solidly pro- or anti-Trump), but they are defenseless against the charge that they are enablers of a deeply unpopular president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/03/14/the-pennsylvania-race-proves-it-trump-is-a-weight-around-the-gops-neck/?utm_term=.a68ed847eead

The Pennsylvania race proves conservative democrats can win. Lamb did not run against Trump. He was a great candidate who vocally rejected Pelosi and supported most if not all of the GOP's positions. There is nothing wrong with that and in fact it is smart. The other thing the race proves is that Lamb's district is not filled with a bunch of misogynist, low-information racists who voted for Trump by 20 points but then all of a sudden came to their senses. The voters of this district were offered a young dynamic candidate who spoke to them with respect and for the most part agreed with them on centre-right issues.

it doesn't matter. trump ran against him. and failed. again. 

Yeah. Maybe. Other's could argue that Saccone was about to get slaughtered until Trump showed up. I'm not really sure but if you were a Republican knowing this district is about to disappear in November then why even bother showing up if it makes zero difference to the governing majority? There were so many different things at play and in the end people shouldn't take away from the fact that Lamb himself was/is an excellent candidate.

I know people use polling numbers to their advantage and decry them when they don't, but this is considered a massive upset, even if he squeaks out a win, is it not? trump won that same district by 20 points. excellent opposing candidate or not, that doesn't happen without reason. 

I absolutely agree that it is a massive upset...my point is that everybody always wants it to be because of a certain thing. It is so simple to say it is because of Trump when there really are a whole host of factors. Let's flip it around for a sec... The other day there was an election in Texas which was supposed to demonstrate the coming blue wave. It turns out that there was no blue wave there at all. Cruz crushed the votes of his three opponents combined. Where was the national Trump exhaustion in Texas? The truth is that Trump plays a much smaller role in some of these local races then people want to believe. Lamb was a far better candidate then Beto. He is also more disruptive to the status quo. The candidate matters. Also the district in Pennsylvania is disappearing in November...other then narrative in what possible way did the election matter yesterday matter? In terms of passing legislation it sure as hell doesn't matter.

Saccone was fully backed by Trump and claimed to be perfectly in line with Trump and his agenda. This is a huge loss for Trump. You can downplay it all you like, it won't make it true.

How are those FISA investigations coming? Indictments any day now? I'm sure worried for Obama.

A huge loss for Trump is also turning into a huge loss for Pelosi

https://news.grabien.com/story-conor-lamb-pelosi-we-need-new-leadership-top-both-parties-ho

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

OnWis97 said:

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Pompeo is a fantastic upgrade. I'm agnostic about Haspel but I'm sure the rank and file approve bigly. Lamb shows that a good candidate with a conservative-bent can win in a very Red district. Like Jones and Northam before him the dems need to recognize that this is the path to victory. If they can get their progressive wing to back off then flipping the house should be easy.

Wasn’t it about a year ago that you were claiming that the brilliancy of Team Trump Treason and his campaign and policies would result in a Team Trumpian Treasonous wave that would solidify repube holds on congress and state legislatures, resulting in Team Trump Treason’s re-election and repubes’ consolidation of power for a generation? Still believing the myth, eh Professor?

No. I never claimed that at all but I understand how your emotion prevents you from comprehending reasoned nuanced arguments which led you to think that. I said that Trump figured out how to speak to the working class voter in a way that previous Republican candidates failed. I also said that if Democrats failed to learn from this then they will have a hard time of winning in the future. Doug Jones demonstrates learning. Lamb demonstrates learning. The progressive wing boxing-in red state democrats like Tester into a corner shows a lack of learning. The odds are that the Republicans will lose the house next year regardless of Trump's performance because as I have said before it is generally cyclical...the President loses the house in his first term almost all the time and there is currently no evidence that Trump's support crosses over to GOP establishment candidates that he ran against. The senate on the other hand will likely stay red and in fact will have a larger GOP majority when all is said and done as the progressive wing is making it extremely hard for red state senators to hold their seats...the Jones election is likely an off-year anomaly where everything had to go right including a terrible opponent in order to squeak over the finish line. There is no myth of Trump other then a disruptive outsider who will govern chaotically and will be judged by results. He didn't run as a saint but as a "doer" and in the end he will take that record to the people for judgement. He will have to thread the same very thin needle to win and will have to remain an outsider to do so. Who his opponent is will matter greatly and the democrats should strongly consider candidates in the "Lamb" mold. There is a reason why Democratic operatives are on tv asking Hillary Clinton to stop talking...her AMT rhetoric is bad for the party.

https://youtu.be/nfSsXSI-8LQ

Nice revisionist history. It’s what you neoCONS do best. You did claim Team Trump Treason as brilliant so at least admit that.

Hillary who?

Yes on claiming that Trump was brilliant in the campaign that he ran. It was pure brilliance as he saw what nobody else saw, ran in a way that nobody else ever ran, and won in a way that very few people have done before. Complete and utter brilliance. He continues to be brilliant in the way that he is able to on the whole advance his agenda. Like I said 100 times...the man fails forward. None of this guarantees reelection though as I have also said 100 times that he will be judged on results. I do believe though that he is doing what is necessary to repeat in 2020 even if that means GOP losses in 2018. In terms of your Neocon analysis though you are way off...the neocon establishment actually disagrees with me...they are generally NeverTrump...they thought he could not win and they still believe he is dangerous. You really need to pay attention to the different wings and who believes in what...again your understanding is all over the place.

I keep hearing that 

a) trump is brilliant and ran a brilliant campaign

but also

b) hillary was a terrible candidate who ran a horrible campaign

it can't be both. 

Of course it can be both.

It may have been both in 1984 when Reagan won 49 states.  But was it really both when a few million more people voted for her than him?

When the name of the game is winning Electoral College votes then 100% it can be both. 

disagree. he benefited from many things. running a brilliant campaign was not one of them. 

if he ran a brilliant campaign, he would have to be brilliant no matter his opposition. had hillary been even slightly more likable and actualy run a campaign in the states that mattered (and that pesky FBI announcement days prior to voting), he would have lost. how brilliant could that be?

If he'd run a brilliant campaign, he and his entire campaign staff wouldn't have been completely gobsmacked when it dawned on them that they might actually win the fucking thing. They didn't even WANT to win FFS, and it was never their plan to actually win, lol. They fell ass backwards into it, essentially. None of them ever though their tactics would actually work... that's what happens when you underestimate the stupidity of the masses.

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

OnWis97 said:

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Pompeo is a fantastic upgrade. I'm agnostic about Haspel but I'm sure the rank and file approve bigly. Lamb shows that a good candidate with a conservative-bent can win in a very Red district. Like Jones and Northam before him the dems need to recognize that this is the path to victory. If they can get their progressive wing to back off then flipping the house should be easy.

Wasn’t it about a year ago that you were claiming that the brilliancy of Team Trump Treason and his campaign and policies would result in a Team Trumpian Treasonous wave that would solidify repube holds on congress and state legislatures, resulting in Team Trump Treason’s re-election and repubes’ consolidation of power for a generation? Still believing the myth, eh Professor?

No. I never claimed that at all but I understand how your emotion prevents you from comprehending reasoned nuanced arguments which led you to think that. I said that Trump figured out how to speak to the working class voter in a way that previous Republican candidates failed. I also said that if Democrats failed to learn from this then they will have a hard time of winning in the future. Doug Jones demonstrates learning. Lamb demonstrates learning. The progressive wing boxing-in red state democrats like Tester into a corner shows a lack of learning. The odds are that the Republicans will lose the house next year regardless of Trump's performance because as I have said before it is generally cyclical...the President loses the house in his first term almost all the time and there is currently no evidence that Trump's support crosses over to GOP establishment candidates that he ran against. The senate on the other hand will likely stay red and in fact will have a larger GOP majority when all is said and done as the progressive wing is making it extremely hard for red state senators to hold their seats...the Jones election is likely an off-year anomaly where everything had to go right including a terrible opponent in order to squeak over the finish line. There is no myth of Trump other then a disruptive outsider who will govern chaotically and will be judged by results. He didn't run as a saint but as a "doer" and in the end he will take that record to the people for judgement. He will have to thread the same very thin needle to win and will have to remain an outsider to do so. Who his opponent is will matter greatly and the democrats should strongly consider candidates in the "Lamb" mold. There is a reason why Democratic operatives are on tv asking Hillary Clinton to stop talking...her AMT rhetoric is bad for the party.

https://youtu.be/nfSsXSI-8LQ

Nice revisionist history. It’s what you neoCONS do best. You did claim Team Trump Treason as brilliant so at least admit that.

Hillary who?

Yes on claiming that Trump was brilliant in the campaign that he ran. It was pure brilliance as he saw what nobody else saw, ran in a way that nobody else ever ran, and won in a way that very few people have done before. Complete and utter brilliance. He continues to be brilliant in the way that he is able to on the whole advance his agenda. Like I said 100 times...the man fails forward. None of this guarantees reelection though as I have also said 100 times that he will be judged on results. I do believe though that he is doing what is necessary to repeat in 2020 even if that means GOP losses in 2018. In terms of your Neocon analysis though you are way off...the neocon establishment actually disagrees with me...they are generally NeverTrump...they thought he could not win and they still believe he is dangerous. You really need to pay attention to the different wings and who believes in what...again your understanding is all over the place.

I keep hearing that 

a) trump is brilliant and ran a brilliant campaign

but also

b) hillary was a terrible candidate who ran a horrible campaign

it can't be both. 

Of course it can be both.

It may have been both in 1984 when Reagan won 49 states.  But was it really both when a few million more people voted for her than him?

When the name of the game is winning Electoral College votes then 100% it can be both. 

disagree. he benefited from many things. running a brilliant campaign was not one of them. 

if he ran a brilliant campaign, he would have to be brilliant no matter his opposition. had hillary been even slightly more likable and actualy run a campaign in the states that mattered (and that pesky FBI announcement days prior to voting), he would have lost. how brilliant could that be?

If he'd run a brilliant campaign, he and his entire campaign staff wouldn't have been completely gobsmacked when it dawned on them that they might actually win the fucking thing. They didn't even WANT to win FFS, and it was never their plan to actually win, lol. They fell ass backwards into it, essentially. None of them ever though their tactics would actually work... that's what happens when you underestimate the stupidity of the masses.

I totally agree with you on his staff as he pretty much ran a one-man campaign making calls on the fly. His presidency isn't very different. I also agree that he probably didn't think he would win but believed that he could win and adjusted everyday on his own to give himself the best possible chance. The question of "WANT" is something none of us can truly know. I believe he wanted to without fully thinking through what it meant. If he really didn't "want" to then he wouldn't have pushed as hard as he did during the final weeks. If you look back he campaigned in the last week like somebody who "wanted" it and not as somebody who was resigned to defeat.

PJ_Soul

True, in the last week, lol, he suddenly realized "omfg, I could actually win this?!" Right about the same time Comey did his thing, haha. So yeah... to me, that would suggest it wasn't a brilliant campaign. At the end of the day it worked, but that doesn't mean it was brilliant. It was, in fact, completely ridiculous.

JimmyV

He had no idea what the job of President of the United States entailed so whether or not he wanted to win is largely irrelevant. I'm willing to be he did want to win but in no way did he want the job that he now has.

my2hands

So apparently running a racist, xenophobic, sexist, ignorant, name calling, bullying, disgusting excuse for a political campaign is "brilliant" in some circles?

That campaign was fucking disgusting, and FAR from brilliant... Unless of course you're a racist, sexist, xenophobe

my2hands

You should be ashamed of your unaplogetic support of this piece of shit clown

Halifax2TheMax

my2hands said:

So apparently running a racist, xenophobic, sexist, ignorant, name calling, bullying, disgusting excuse for a political campaign is "brilliant" in some circles?

That campaign was fucking disgusting, and FAR from brilliant... Unless of course you're a racist, sexist, xenophobe

Bingo

BS44325

my2hands said:

You should be ashamed of your unaplogetic support of this piece of shit clown

No I shouldn't because it isn't unapologetic. 

BS44325

JimmyV said:

He had no idea what the job of President of the United States entailed so whether or not he wanted to win is largely irrelevant. I'm willing to be he did want to win but in no way did he want the job that he now has.

I don't disagree on what he believed the job entailed. I do disagree on whether he still wants the job...throughout all the chaos he doesn't seem discouraged at all. In fact I think that's what drives you all crazy the most. The man don't care.

BS44325

my2hands said:

So apparently running a racist, xenophobic, sexist, ignorant, name calling, bullying, disgusting excuse for a political campaign is "brilliant" in some circles?

That campaign was fucking disgusting, and FAR from brilliant... Unless of course you're a racist, sexist, xenophobe

Sorry. It just wasn't any of those things. Other then the brilliant part.