Almalieque wrote:
That happens every election. What doesn't happen every election, is the previous living presidents of your own party dissing you.
Sure. But that does tend to happen when a party undergoes a shakeup of the leadership, which is more or less exactly what is happening with the GOP right now. No one's denying that Trump represents a different view of the GOP than Bush (any of them). So pointing it out it like saying that water is wet. Um... Ok. Trump is upsetting the apple cart. That's not in question. The question is whether this is harmful to him or to other Republicans running for office, or is helpful.
In a political climate where the establishment status-quo is increasingly seen as the problem to be solved, all of the things you're talking about may very well turn out to be positives for Trump and the GOP, not negatives. If people saw the politics of Bush, and Romney, and McConnel, and all the rest of the last generation of GOP leaders as a problem, and voted for Trump in protest over those politics, then what is the problem here? Like him or hate him, he is ushering in a new wave of GOP leadership and direction.
I'm not sure I'm happy about that at all from a political direction point of view, but to suggest that after having successfully staged a revolt in the Republican party, the absence of the guys he overthrew at his nomination is anything other than what you'd expect is somewhat bizarre.
Quote:
Maybe. However, if DWS did what she was supposed to (resign and then support her candidate), it would have had the same result.
The issue is that it was a brazen statement that DWS considered Clinton to be "her candidate", and Clinton knew this and felt the need to reciprocate by hiring her to her campaign. If you're trying to downplay the perception of collusion between the DWS while heading up the DNC and the Clinton campaign, this was the last thing you'd do. It's basically identical to a politician having to resign office over suspicion that he improperly used his position to benefit some business interest, and then immediately being hired by that very same business. At the very least, this makes one think that the suspicions were true, right?
I call it "brazen" because it appears as though Clinton just assumes that none of this matters. Which likely just infuriates the Sanders supporters even more because it's a repeat of what they believe happened in the first place. The system is rigged to prevent anyone but Clinton from winning, and rigged even more to prevent any harm occurring to her when it's revealed that it was rigged. She's so confident that no one "important" will take any action against her, that she's not even trying to conceal what was done anymore.
There are a lot of people who Clinton likely considers to be unimportant who are going to be voting this election. So that action may hurt her. It certainly didn't help. She basically just said "yeah, the system is rigged, we're all corrupt, but what are you going to do about it". I'm not sure challenging voters to accept her brand of corrupt politics is a great idea. Yeah, Trump is kinda scary, but she's more or less doing everything she can to push voters over to him. The sad part is that I'm not sure she's even aware of this fact. Hence my comment about being tone deaf. She's so far into the political bubble that I don't think she sees the degree of anger and resentment running through the country over this sort of thing right now. She's buying her own propaganda that Trump is just a hothead who appeals to a small percentage of angry white men, and is failing to get that this is the same thing that many of us Republicans assumed at first. We were wrong. And she is wrong. And she's doing exactly what I warned against a couple months back.
Edited, Jul 27th 2016 7:55pm by gbaji