login
Trump (Page 35)
-
No new posts
|
 2016-04-26 9:28 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Master  2802    Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member |  Subject: RE: TrumpOriginally posted by tuwood Originally posted by ejshowers And for some not-so-good news for Trump: A new poll suggests that a race for president between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton could yield the lowest support for a Republican candidate among young voters in decades. The survey, conducted by the Harvard University Institute of Politics, finds that in a hypothetical matchup, 61% of likely voters age 18-29 say they would vote for Clinton, while just 25% would vote for Trump. That's worse than most other recent Republican candidates for president. I'll say again - If nominated, he stands virtually no chance in the general election. I have seen no polling or other hard data, demographic information, or analyst report lay out a likely scenario where he wins. lol, aren't 18-29 year olds the lowest percentage of voters that actually vote? This is a stupid poll. Here's a better representation of head to head between Trump & Clinton (you'll notice the Harvard poll isn't on there) Clinton still has the edge, but the trend is in Trumps favor. The GWU/Battleground poll even had him within 3% (oops).
It is not a "stupid poll" - it is just another data point. I wasn't suggesting anything beyond what the poll points out - that Trump doesn't poll well among young people. The RCP average of polls is probably the best one to gauge OVERALL voter support of course. And I would NOT say there is a statistical trend in favor of Trump. The latest poll included, the USA/Suffolk poll ending on 4/24, has Clinton up by 11. |
| 2016-04-26 9:34 PM in reply to: ejshowers |
Pro 9391  Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump |
| 2016-04-27 10:47 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Trump From last night: In the final moments of his Q. and A. with reporters on Tuesday night in New York, Mr. Trump posited that the only reason Hillary Clinton was winning was because of her gender. “The only card she has is the woman’s card,” he said. He added, provocatively, “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote.” Me thinks this strategy won't help him much with his terrible gender gap.... |
| 2016-04-27 12:56 PM in reply to: ejshowers |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by ejshowers From last night: In the final moments of his Q. and A. with reporters on Tuesday night in New York, Mr. Trump posited that the only reason Hillary Clinton was winning was because of her gender. “The only card she has is the woman’s card,” he said. He added, provocatively, “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote.” Me thinks this strategy won't help him much with his terrible gender gap.... But is it true? If her last name weren't Clinton and she wasn't a woman, would she really be where she is today in the race? Personally I think being married to Bill is covering about 80% of her appeal and the other 20% is the female card so I disagree somewhat with the Donald. Her professional accomplishments are so abysmal that she's even incapable of naming any. We can bag on Trump all day long for being a blowhard, but it's really hard to suggest that he hasn't accomplished anything with a straight face. He's running on his accomplishments and his business leadership. Hillary is running away from her leadership and professional accomplishments (or lack thereof) and simply building support based on her progressive positions on the issues, her last name being Clinton, and the fact that she's a female. |
| 2016-04-27 1:10 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by ejshowers From last night: In the final moments of his Q. and A. with reporters on Tuesday night in New York, Mr. Trump posited that the only reason Hillary Clinton was winning was because of her gender. “The only card she has is the woman’s card,” he said. He added, provocatively, “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote.” Me thinks this strategy won't help him much with his terrible gender gap.... But is it true? If her last name weren't Clinton and she wasn't a woman, would she really be where she is today in the race? Personally I think being married to Bill is covering about 80% of her appeal and the other 20% is the female card so I disagree somewhat with the Donald. Her professional accomplishments are so abysmal that she's even incapable of naming any. We can bag on Trump all day long for being a blowhard, but it's really hard to suggest that he hasn't accomplished anything with a straight face. He's running on his accomplishments and his business leadership. Hillary is running away from her leadership and professional accomplishments (or lack thereof) and simply building support based on her progressive positions on the issues, her last name being Clinton, and the fact that she's a female. sorry, but that seems like a comment you could make about any politician. If his name wasn't Obama and he wasn't black? If his name wasn't bush? etc.
take her name off the resume and most people who oppose her would say, wow, that person seems very qualified. |
| 2016-04-27 2:03 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by ejshowers From last night: In the final moments of his Q. and A. with reporters on Tuesday night in New York, Mr. Trump posited that the only reason Hillary Clinton was winning was because of her gender. “The only card she has is the woman’s card,” he said. He added, provocatively, “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote.” Me thinks this strategy won't help him much with his terrible gender gap.... But is it true? If her last name weren't Clinton and she wasn't a woman, would she really be where she is today in the race? Personally I think being married to Bill is covering about 80% of her appeal and the other 20% is the female card so I disagree somewhat with the Donald. Her professional accomplishments are so abysmal that she's even incapable of naming any. We can bag on Trump all day long for being a blowhard, but it's really hard to suggest that he hasn't accomplished anything with a straight face. He's running on his accomplishments and his business leadership. Hillary is running away from her leadership and professional accomplishments (or lack thereof) and simply building support based on her progressive positions on the issues, her last name being Clinton, and the fact that she's a female. sorry, but that seems like a comment you could make about any politician. If his name wasn't Obama and he wasn't black? If his name wasn't bush? etc.
take her name off the resume and most people who oppose her would say, wow, that person seems very qualified. I think you've got it backwards. If you take her name off the resume people would say that she is not very qualified. A better example would be Trump and one of his sons. Trump has accomplished a lot of things, but if his son were to run for the Senate or something like that it wouldn't be on his merits it would be on his fathers name. Obama didn't get to be President because of his name. He made his own name and inspired millions of people to vote for him in spite of his short tenures in the state and national legislatures. Yes, he did have a black component, but I think it was a smaller percent similar to Hillary's female support. |
| 2016-04-27 2:52 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by ejshowers From last night: In the final moments of his Q. and A. with reporters on Tuesday night in New York, Mr. Trump posited that the only reason Hillary Clinton was winning was because of her gender. “The only card she has is the woman’s card,” he said. He added, provocatively, “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote.” Me thinks this strategy won't help him much with his terrible gender gap.... But is it true? If her last name weren't Clinton and she wasn't a woman, would she really be where she is today in the race? Personally I think being married to Bill is covering about 80% of her appeal and the other 20% is the female card so I disagree somewhat with the Donald. Her professional accomplishments are so abysmal that she's even incapable of naming any. We can bag on Trump all day long for being a blowhard, but it's really hard to suggest that he hasn't accomplished anything with a straight face. He's running on his accomplishments and his business leadership. Hillary is running away from her leadership and professional accomplishments (or lack thereof) and simply building support based on her progressive positions on the issues, her last name being Clinton, and the fact that she's a female. Whether it is true or not is entirely subjective and could never be proven one way or another. My point is that his talking like this - among his many other demeaning comments about women going back decades - will not help him win over moderate or independent women or help close his ~70% gender gap. From Gallup, April 1: "Seven in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump" I thought this was an interesting take by a female opinion writer for CNN: "In Clinton, Trump finds his ultimate adversary, a woman who brings him onto shaky ground. It's logical that he would tell the nation in last night's speech, that being a woman is the only source of her appeal to voters: in some ways, he cannot see past her gender. But by using the "woman card," the Trump campaign commits a grave error, showing the weakness of its overall hand. It implies that Trump has little else to damage Clinton, at least at the moment." |
| 2016-04-27 8:45 PM in reply to: ejshowers |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood Whether it is true or not is entirely subjective and could never be proven one way or another. My point is that his talking like this - among his many other demeaning comments about women going back decades - will not help him win over moderate or independent women or help close his ~70% gender gap. From Gallup, April 1: "Seven in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump" I thought this was an interesting take by a female opinion writer for CNN: "In Clinton, Trump finds his ultimate adversary, a woman who brings him onto shaky ground. It's logical that he would tell the nation in last night's speech, that being a woman is the only source of her appeal to voters: in some ways, he cannot see past her gender. But by using the "woman card," the Trump campaign commits a grave error, showing the weakness of its overall hand. It implies that Trump has little else to damage Clinton, at least at the moment." Originally posted by ejshowers From last night: In the final moments of his Q. and A. with reporters on Tuesday night in New York, Mr. Trump posited that the only reason Hillary Clinton was winning was because of her gender. “The only card she has is the woman’s card,” he said. He added, provocatively, “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote.” Me thinks this strategy won't help him much with his terrible gender gap.... But is it true? If her last name weren't Clinton and she wasn't a woman, would she really be where she is today in the race? Personally I think being married to Bill is covering about 80% of her appeal and the other 20% is the female card so I disagree somewhat with the Donald. Her professional accomplishments are so abysmal that she's even incapable of naming any. We can bag on Trump all day long for being a blowhard, but it's really hard to suggest that he hasn't accomplished anything with a straight face. He's running on his accomplishments and his business leadership. Hillary is running away from her leadership and professional accomplishments (or lack thereof) and simply building support based on her progressive positions on the issues, her last name being Clinton, and the fact that she's a female. I do agree that it can't be proven either way. I do think it is fun to think about why various people appeal to different folks though. The CNN lady's comments are kind of humorous. I'm going to go out on a limb and say s/he is a Hillary fan. I'm always curious about the women numbers of Trump because we constantly see polls about how horrible he is and how much women hate him, yet he crushes the other republican candidates in the woman vote. Clinton won 68% of female votes in Maryland, 60% in Pennsylvania, and 57% in Connecticut, according to ABC's exit polls in a two person race while Trump won 50%, 55%, and 54% of female voters in a three person race. I'm certainly not suggesting Trump will get more female votes than Hillary in a general election, but I don't think it's quite as bad as his detractors and the media like to make it. |
| 2016-04-27 10:05 PM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood Whether it is true or not is entirely subjective and could never be proven one way or another. My point is that his talking like this - among his many other demeaning comments about women going back decades - will not help him win over moderate or independent women or help close his ~70% gender gap. From Gallup, April 1: "Seven in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump" I thought this was an interesting take by a female opinion writer for CNN: "In Clinton, Trump finds his ultimate adversary, a woman who brings him onto shaky ground. It's logical that he would tell the nation in last night's speech, that being a woman is the only source of her appeal to voters: in some ways, he cannot see past her gender. But by using the "woman card," the Trump campaign commits a grave error, showing the weakness of its overall hand. It implies that Trump has little else to damage Clinton, at least at the moment." Originally posted by ejshowers From last night: In the final moments of his Q. and A. with reporters on Tuesday night in New York, Mr. Trump posited that the only reason Hillary Clinton was winning was because of her gender. “The only card she has is the woman’s card,” he said. He added, provocatively, “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote.” Me thinks this strategy won't help him much with his terrible gender gap.... But is it true? If her last name weren't Clinton and she wasn't a woman, would she really be where she is today in the race? Personally I think being married to Bill is covering about 80% of her appeal and the other 20% is the female card so I disagree somewhat with the Donald. Her professional accomplishments are so abysmal that she's even incapable of naming any. We can bag on Trump all day long for being a blowhard, but it's really hard to suggest that he hasn't accomplished anything with a straight face. He's running on his accomplishments and his business leadership. Hillary is running away from her leadership and professional accomplishments (or lack thereof) and simply building support based on her progressive positions on the issues, her last name being Clinton, and the fact that she's a female. I do agree that it can't be proven either way. I do think it is fun to think about why various people appeal to different folks though. The CNN lady's comments are kind of humorous. I'm going to go out on a limb and say s/he is a Hillary fan. I'm always curious about the women numbers of Trump because we constantly see polls about how horrible he is and how much women hate him, yet he crushes the other republican candidates in the woman vote. Clinton won 68% of female votes in Maryland, 60% in Pennsylvania, and 57% in Connecticut, according to ABC's exit polls in a two person race while Trump won 50%, 55%, and 54% of female voters in a three person race. I'm certainly not suggesting Trump will get more female votes than Hillary in a general election, but I don't think it's quite as bad as his detractors and the media like to make it. 47% of female GOP voters--not women in general, mind you, female Republicans "cannot see themselves supporting Trump." He might be winning among the few GOP women who are still going to the polls, but in November, all of the hard evidence points to those women staying home and the female vote going to Hillary on a historic level. His line about women giving him great marks but not liking Hillary is, surprise surprise, just more unfounded bs. Sanders does better than Clinton with millennial women, it seems, but there isn't a single female demographic that I've seen where Trump beats Hillary. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/examining-trump-s-pro... http://fortune.com/2016/04/27/trump-hillary-women/ Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2016-04-27 10:10 PM |
| 2016-04-28 8:45 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood 47% of female GOP voters--not women in general, mind you, female Republicans "cannot see themselves supporting Trump." He might be winning among the few GOP women who are still going to the polls, but in November, all of the hard evidence points to those women staying home and the female vote going to Hillary on a historic level. His line about women giving him great marks but not liking Hillary is, surprise surprise, just more unfounded bs. Sanders does better than Clinton with millennial women, it seems, but there isn't a single female demographic that I've seen where Trump beats Hillary. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/examining-trump-s-pro... http://fortune.com/2016/04/27/trump-hillary-women/Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood Whether it is true or not is entirely subjective and could never be proven one way or another. My point is that his talking like this - among his many other demeaning comments about women going back decades - will not help him win over moderate or independent women or help close his ~70% gender gap. From Gallup, April 1: "Seven in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump" I thought this was an interesting take by a female opinion writer for CNN: "In Clinton, Trump finds his ultimate adversary, a woman who brings him onto shaky ground. It's logical that he would tell the nation in last night's speech, that being a woman is the only source of her appeal to voters: in some ways, he cannot see past her gender. But by using the "woman card," the Trump campaign commits a grave error, showing the weakness of its overall hand. It implies that Trump has little else to damage Clinton, at least at the moment." Originally posted by ejshowers From last night: In the final moments of his Q. and A. with reporters on Tuesday night in New York, Mr. Trump posited that the only reason Hillary Clinton was winning was because of her gender. “The only card she has is the woman’s card,” he said. He added, provocatively, “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote.” Me thinks this strategy won't help him much with his terrible gender gap.... But is it true? If her last name weren't Clinton and she wasn't a woman, would she really be where she is today in the race? Personally I think being married to Bill is covering about 80% of her appeal and the other 20% is the female card so I disagree somewhat with the Donald. Her professional accomplishments are so abysmal that she's even incapable of naming any. We can bag on Trump all day long for being a blowhard, but it's really hard to suggest that he hasn't accomplished anything with a straight face. He's running on his accomplishments and his business leadership. Hillary is running away from her leadership and professional accomplishments (or lack thereof) and simply building support based on her progressive positions on the issues, her last name being Clinton, and the fact that she's a female. I do agree that it can't be proven either way. I do think it is fun to think about why various people appeal to different folks though. The CNN lady's comments are kind of humorous. I'm going to go out on a limb and say s/he is a Hillary fan. I'm always curious about the women numbers of Trump because we constantly see polls about how horrible he is and how much women hate him, yet he crushes the other republican candidates in the woman vote. Clinton won 68% of female votes in Maryland, 60% in Pennsylvania, and 57% in Connecticut, according to ABC's exit polls in a two person race while Trump won 50%, 55%, and 54% of female voters in a three person race. I'm certainly not suggesting Trump will get more female votes than Hillary in a general election, but I don't think it's quite as bad as his detractors and the media like to make it. I'll be curious how well she holds up under Trumps criticisms. Bernie has been a creampuff running against her to this point while Trump has had the whole world coming down on him. Not that it isn't interesting already, but this race should be really interesting going down the stretch.
|
| 2016-04-28 10:00 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood 47% of female GOP voters--not women in general, mind you, female Republicans "cannot see themselves supporting Trump." He might be winning among the few GOP women who are still going to the polls, but in November, all of the hard evidence points to those women staying home and the female vote going to Hillary on a historic level. His line about women giving him great marks but not liking Hillary is, surprise surprise, just more unfounded bs. Sanders does better than Clinton with millennial women, it seems, but there isn't a single female demographic that I've seen where Trump beats Hillary. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/examining-trump-s-pro... http://fortune.com/2016/04/27/trump-hillary-women/Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood Whether it is true or not is entirely subjective and could never be proven one way or another. My point is that his talking like this - among his many other demeaning comments about women going back decades - will not help him win over moderate or independent women or help close his ~70% gender gap. From Gallup, April 1: "Seven in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump" I thought this was an interesting take by a female opinion writer for CNN: "In Clinton, Trump finds his ultimate adversary, a woman who brings him onto shaky ground. It's logical that he would tell the nation in last night's speech, that being a woman is the only source of her appeal to voters: in some ways, he cannot see past her gender. But by using the "woman card," the Trump campaign commits a grave error, showing the weakness of its overall hand. It implies that Trump has little else to damage Clinton, at least at the moment." Originally posted by ejshowers From last night: In the final moments of his Q. and A. with reporters on Tuesday night in New York, Mr. Trump posited that the only reason Hillary Clinton was winning was because of her gender. “The only card she has is the woman’s card,” he said. He added, provocatively, “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote.” Me thinks this strategy won't help him much with his terrible gender gap.... But is it true? If her last name weren't Clinton and she wasn't a woman, would she really be where she is today in the race? Personally I think being married to Bill is covering about 80% of her appeal and the other 20% is the female card so I disagree somewhat with the Donald. Her professional accomplishments are so abysmal that she's even incapable of naming any. We can bag on Trump all day long for being a blowhard, but it's really hard to suggest that he hasn't accomplished anything with a straight face. He's running on his accomplishments and his business leadership. Hillary is running away from her leadership and professional accomplishments (or lack thereof) and simply building support based on her progressive positions on the issues, her last name being Clinton, and the fact that she's a female. I do agree that it can't be proven either way. I do think it is fun to think about why various people appeal to different folks though. The CNN lady's comments are kind of humorous. I'm going to go out on a limb and say s/he is a Hillary fan. I'm always curious about the women numbers of Trump because we constantly see polls about how horrible he is and how much women hate him, yet he crushes the other republican candidates in the woman vote. Clinton won 68% of female votes in Maryland, 60% in Pennsylvania, and 57% in Connecticut, according to ABC's exit polls in a two person race while Trump won 50%, 55%, and 54% of female voters in a three person race. I'm certainly not suggesting Trump will get more female votes than Hillary in a general election, but I don't think it's quite as bad as his detractors and the media like to make it. I'll be curious how well she holds up under Trumps criticisms. Bernie has been a creampuff running against her to this point while Trump has had the whole world coming down on him. Not that it isn't interesting already, but this race should be really interesting going down the stretch.
Dude, the GOP has been pounding on Hillary relentlessly for YEARS. Well before this election cycle even started. I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that some of her popularity, especially among women, has to do with the abuse she's taken at the hands of the GOP. If Trump thinks that dishing out the kind of nasty, mean spirited personal attacks that he's known for is going to drive her base away from her and towards him, he's nuts. If anything, it will galvanize a lot of the pro-Bernie and undecided fence sitters against him, since it'll be yet more proof that he doesn't have a presidential bone in his body. |
| 2016-04-28 10:56 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Dude, the GOP has been pounding on Hillary relentlessly for YEARS. Well before this election cycle even started. I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that some of her popularity, especially among women, has to do with the abuse she's taken at the hands of the GOP. If Trump thinks that dishing out the kind of nasty, mean spirited personal attacks that he's known for is going to drive her base away from her and towards him, he's nuts. If anything, it will galvanize a lot of the pro-Bernie and undecided fence sitters against him, since it'll be yet more proof that he doesn't have a presidential bone in his body. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood 47% of female GOP voters--not women in general, mind you, female Republicans "cannot see themselves supporting Trump." He might be winning among the few GOP women who are still going to the polls, but in November, all of the hard evidence points to those women staying home and the female vote going to Hillary on a historic level. His line about women giving him great marks but not liking Hillary is, surprise surprise, just more unfounded bs. Sanders does better than Clinton with millennial women, it seems, but there isn't a single female demographic that I've seen where Trump beats Hillary. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/examining-trump-s-pro... http://fortune.com/2016/04/27/trump-hillary-women/Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood Whether it is true or not is entirely subjective and could never be proven one way or another. My point is that his talking like this - among his many other demeaning comments about women going back decades - will not help him win over moderate or independent women or help close his ~70% gender gap. From Gallup, April 1: "Seven in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump" I thought this was an interesting take by a female opinion writer for CNN: "In Clinton, Trump finds his ultimate adversary, a woman who brings him onto shaky ground. It's logical that he would tell the nation in last night's speech, that being a woman is the only source of her appeal to voters: in some ways, he cannot see past her gender. But by using the "woman card," the Trump campaign commits a grave error, showing the weakness of its overall hand. It implies that Trump has little else to damage Clinton, at least at the moment." Originally posted by ejshowers From last night: In the final moments of his Q. and A. with reporters on Tuesday night in New York, Mr. Trump posited that the only reason Hillary Clinton was winning was because of her gender. “The only card she has is the woman’s card,” he said. He added, provocatively, “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote.” Me thinks this strategy won't help him much with his terrible gender gap.... But is it true? If her last name weren't Clinton and she wasn't a woman, would she really be where she is today in the race? Personally I think being married to Bill is covering about 80% of her appeal and the other 20% is the female card so I disagree somewhat with the Donald. Her professional accomplishments are so abysmal that she's even incapable of naming any. We can bag on Trump all day long for being a blowhard, but it's really hard to suggest that he hasn't accomplished anything with a straight face. He's running on his accomplishments and his business leadership. Hillary is running away from her leadership and professional accomplishments (or lack thereof) and simply building support based on her progressive positions on the issues, her last name being Clinton, and the fact that she's a female. I do agree that it can't be proven either way. I do think it is fun to think about why various people appeal to different folks though. The CNN lady's comments are kind of humorous. I'm going to go out on a limb and say s/he is a Hillary fan. I'm always curious about the women numbers of Trump because we constantly see polls about how horrible he is and how much women hate him, yet he crushes the other republican candidates in the woman vote. Clinton won 68% of female votes in Maryland, 60% in Pennsylvania, and 57% in Connecticut, according to ABC's exit polls in a two person race while Trump won 50%, 55%, and 54% of female voters in a three person race. I'm certainly not suggesting Trump will get more female votes than Hillary in a general election, but I don't think it's quite as bad as his detractors and the media like to make it. I'll be curious how well she holds up under Trumps criticisms. Bernie has been a creampuff running against her to this point while Trump has had the whole world coming down on him. Not that it isn't interesting already, but this race should be really interesting going down the stretch.
Do you remember what happened several months ago when Trump brought up the fact of Bill being a sexual predator and Hillary protecting him? Her polls started to plummet and that's when Bernie started really taking off. Trump actually made a mistake by letting that out early because it is a big factor in her not clinching the race very early. You'll notice he completely stopped talking about it after only a day and the media was all over it for several weeks. Women like her because of the issues she supports, but when Trump exposes her for the monster that she really is there is no defense. He's not attacking the "benghazi benghazi" like the Republican party. He will hit her where it really hurts. |
| 2016-04-28 12:23 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Dude, the GOP has been pounding on Hillary relentlessly for YEARS. Well before this election cycle even started. I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that some of her popularity, especially among women, has to do with the abuse she's taken at the hands of the GOP. If Trump thinks that dishing out the kind of nasty, mean spirited personal attacks that he's known for is going to drive her base away from her and towards him, he's nuts. If anything, it will galvanize a lot of the pro-Bernie and undecided fence sitters against him, since it'll be yet more proof that he doesn't have a presidential bone in his body. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood 47% of female GOP voters--not women in general, mind you, female Republicans "cannot see themselves supporting Trump." He might be winning among the few GOP women who are still going to the polls, but in November, all of the hard evidence points to those women staying home and the female vote going to Hillary on a historic level. His line about women giving him great marks but not liking Hillary is, surprise surprise, just more unfounded bs. Sanders does better than Clinton with millennial women, it seems, but there isn't a single female demographic that I've seen where Trump beats Hillary. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/examining-trump-s-pro... http://fortune.com/2016/04/27/trump-hillary-women/Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood Whether it is true or not is entirely subjective and could never be proven one way or another. My point is that his talking like this - among his many other demeaning comments about women going back decades - will not help him win over moderate or independent women or help close his ~70% gender gap. From Gallup, April 1: "Seven in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump" I thought this was an interesting take by a female opinion writer for CNN: "In Clinton, Trump finds his ultimate adversary, a woman who brings him onto shaky ground. It's logical that he would tell the nation in last night's speech, that being a woman is the only source of her appeal to voters: in some ways, he cannot see past her gender. But by using the "woman card," the Trump campaign commits a grave error, showing the weakness of its overall hand. It implies that Trump has little else to damage Clinton, at least at the moment." Originally posted by ejshowers From last night: In the final moments of his Q. and A. with reporters on Tuesday night in New York, Mr. Trump posited that the only reason Hillary Clinton was winning was because of her gender. “The only card she has is the woman’s card,” he said. He added, provocatively, “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote.” Me thinks this strategy won't help him much with his terrible gender gap.... But is it true? If her last name weren't Clinton and she wasn't a woman, would she really be where she is today in the race? Personally I think being married to Bill is covering about 80% of her appeal and the other 20% is the female card so I disagree somewhat with the Donald. Her professional accomplishments are so abysmal that she's even incapable of naming any. We can bag on Trump all day long for being a blowhard, but it's really hard to suggest that he hasn't accomplished anything with a straight face. He's running on his accomplishments and his business leadership. Hillary is running away from her leadership and professional accomplishments (or lack thereof) and simply building support based on her progressive positions on the issues, her last name being Clinton, and the fact that she's a female. I do agree that it can't be proven either way. I do think it is fun to think about why various people appeal to different folks though. The CNN lady's comments are kind of humorous. I'm going to go out on a limb and say s/he is a Hillary fan. I'm always curious about the women numbers of Trump because we constantly see polls about how horrible he is and how much women hate him, yet he crushes the other republican candidates in the woman vote. Clinton won 68% of female votes in Maryland, 60% in Pennsylvania, and 57% in Connecticut, according to ABC's exit polls in a two person race while Trump won 50%, 55%, and 54% of female voters in a three person race. I'm certainly not suggesting Trump will get more female votes than Hillary in a general election, but I don't think it's quite as bad as his detractors and the media like to make it. I'll be curious how well she holds up under Trumps criticisms. Bernie has been a creampuff running against her to this point while Trump has had the whole world coming down on him. Not that it isn't interesting already, but this race should be really interesting going down the stretch.
Do you remember what happened several months ago when Trump brought up the fact of Bill being a sexual predator and Hillary protecting him? Her polls started to plummet and that's when Bernie started really taking off. Trump actually made a mistake by letting that out early because it is a big factor in her not clinching the race very early. You'll notice he completely stopped talking about it after only a day and the media was all over it for several weeks. Women like her because of the issues she supports, but when Trump exposes her for the monster that she really is there is no defense. He's not attacking the "benghazi benghazi" like the Republican party. He will hit her where it really hurts. love this one, bernie's success had nothing to do with him, it was all trump! it makes much more sense now, thank you |
| 2016-04-28 12:43 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Dude, the GOP has been pounding on Hillary relentlessly for YEARS. Well before this election cycle even started. I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that some of her popularity, especially among women, has to do with the abuse she's taken at the hands of the GOP. If Trump thinks that dishing out the kind of nasty, mean spirited personal attacks that he's known for is going to drive her base away from her and towards him, he's nuts. If anything, it will galvanize a lot of the pro-Bernie and undecided fence sitters against him, since it'll be yet more proof that he doesn't have a presidential bone in his body. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood 47% of female GOP voters--not women in general, mind you, female Republicans "cannot see themselves supporting Trump." He might be winning among the few GOP women who are still going to the polls, but in November, all of the hard evidence points to those women staying home and the female vote going to Hillary on a historic level. His line about women giving him great marks but not liking Hillary is, surprise surprise, just more unfounded bs. Sanders does better than Clinton with millennial women, it seems, but there isn't a single female demographic that I've seen where Trump beats Hillary. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/examining-trump-s-pro... http://fortune.com/2016/04/27/trump-hillary-women/Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood Whether it is true or not is entirely subjective and could never be proven one way or another. My point is that his talking like this - among his many other demeaning comments about women going back decades - will not help him win over moderate or independent women or help close his ~70% gender gap. From Gallup, April 1: "Seven in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump" I thought this was an interesting take by a female opinion writer for CNN: "In Clinton, Trump finds his ultimate adversary, a woman who brings him onto shaky ground. It's logical that he would tell the nation in last night's speech, that being a woman is the only source of her appeal to voters: in some ways, he cannot see past her gender. But by using the "woman card," the Trump campaign commits a grave error, showing the weakness of its overall hand. It implies that Trump has little else to damage Clinton, at least at the moment." Originally posted by ejshowers From last night: In the final moments of his Q. and A. with reporters on Tuesday night in New York, Mr. Trump posited that the only reason Hillary Clinton was winning was because of her gender. “The only card she has is the woman’s card,” he said. He added, provocatively, “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote.” Me thinks this strategy won't help him much with his terrible gender gap.... But is it true? If her last name weren't Clinton and she wasn't a woman, would she really be where she is today in the race? Personally I think being married to Bill is covering about 80% of her appeal and the other 20% is the female card so I disagree somewhat with the Donald. Her professional accomplishments are so abysmal that she's even incapable of naming any. We can bag on Trump all day long for being a blowhard, but it's really hard to suggest that he hasn't accomplished anything with a straight face. He's running on his accomplishments and his business leadership. Hillary is running away from her leadership and professional accomplishments (or lack thereof) and simply building support based on her progressive positions on the issues, her last name being Clinton, and the fact that she's a female. I do agree that it can't be proven either way. I do think it is fun to think about why various people appeal to different folks though. The CNN lady's comments are kind of humorous. I'm going to go out on a limb and say s/he is a Hillary fan. I'm always curious about the women numbers of Trump because we constantly see polls about how horrible he is and how much women hate him, yet he crushes the other republican candidates in the woman vote. Clinton won 68% of female votes in Maryland, 60% in Pennsylvania, and 57% in Connecticut, according to ABC's exit polls in a two person race while Trump won 50%, 55%, and 54% of female voters in a three person race. I'm certainly not suggesting Trump will get more female votes than Hillary in a general election, but I don't think it's quite as bad as his detractors and the media like to make it. I'll be curious how well she holds up under Trumps criticisms. Bernie has been a creampuff running against her to this point while Trump has had the whole world coming down on him. Not that it isn't interesting already, but this race should be really interesting going down the stretch.
Do you remember what happened several months ago when Trump brought up the fact of Bill being a sexual predator and Hillary protecting him? Her polls started to plummet and that's when Bernie started really taking off. Trump actually made a mistake by letting that out early because it is a big factor in her not clinching the race very early. You'll notice he completely stopped talking about it after only a day and the media was all over it for several weeks. Women like her because of the issues she supports, but when Trump exposes her for the monster that she really is there is no defense. He's not attacking the "benghazi benghazi" like the Republican party. He will hit her where it really hurts. love this one, bernie's success had nothing to do with him, it was all trump! it makes much more sense now, thank you You have to admit, he is a little goofy. |
| 2016-04-28 1:09 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump I know this doesn't fit the "Trump can never win" narrative, but I'll share anyways: This quote from the article was topical: |
| 2016-04-28 1:44 PM in reply to: tuwood |
| Chicago, IL | Subject: RE: Trump Trump's foreign policy speech has been globally slammed by media as incoherent, erratic, and a return to isolationalism. Also, since literally every single one of my predictions on this thread have been incomprehensibly accurate (seriously, go back and look, it's spooky) I'm going to predict that, assuming the Republican establishment doesn't have a "relief pitcher" they're saving for a contested convention to save the day/party/election, if the GOP nominee is either Trump or Cruz, the Dems will win by 10 points (a landslide in election terms) X |
| 2016-04-28 1:52 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by tuwood I know this doesn't fit the "Trump can never win" narrative, but I'll share anyways: This quote from the article was topical: Well, no, the stat you cherry picked doesn't support the narrative, but the part about 1/3 of GOP voters saying they would t vote for Trump kinda does. "Trump is more toxic within his own party than Clinton is in hers. If Trump is the Republican nominee, 16% of GOP voters say they would choose a third-party candidate, while five percent (5%) would stay home. Sixty-six percent (66%) would vote for Trump, but 10% would vote for Clinton instead." What will be interesting is what happens with Bernie voters when he finally steps aside, even if it's after the last primary. He will, undoubtedly encourage his voters to throw their support behind Hillary. Some won't, but you have to expect the majority will. When and if Trump secures the GOP nomination, it's hard to imagine Cruz/Kasich et al doing the same for Trump. Both Clinton and Sanders have said unequivocally that either of them is better for America than any republican nominee, while the rhetoric on the GOP side all along has been that Trump isn't a true Conservative, isn't a true Christian, has New York values, etc. and has to be stopped at all costs, even if it means manipulating primary voting. In other news, I heard today that Clinton has at least for the moment, stopped spending money on primary campaigns and seems to be shifting her focus towards the general. |
| 2016-04-28 1:56 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump CBS news stating basically the same thing I did: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/yes-trump-can-beat-hillary-clinton/
|
| 2016-04-28 1:59 PM in reply to: Brit Abroad |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by Brit Abroad Trump's foreign policy speech has been globally slammed by media as incoherent, erratic, and a return to isolationalism. Also, since literally every single one of my predictions on this thread have been incomprehensibly accurate (seriously, go back and look, it's spooky) I'm going to predict that, assuming the Republican establishment doesn't have a "relief pitcher" they're saving for a contested convention to save the day/party/election, if the GOP nominee is either Trump or Cruz, the Dems will win by 10 points (a landslide in election terms) X Globally slammed by media tells me that it's a big winner for the people. Rather than parrot the media, what specifically in his speech do you personally disagree with? |
| 2016-04-28 2:25 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by tuwood CBS news stating basically the same thing I did: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/yes-trump-can-beat-hillary-clinton/
You say it is CBS news like it is big and official, but it is really a COMMENTARY piece, and was authored by a former big wig at the Chamber of Commerce during the Reagan years and a huge supply-side guy (think Trickle Down / voodoo economics). |
| 2016-04-28 2:33 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood You say it is CBS news like it is big and official, but it is really a COMMENTARY piece, and was authored by a former big wig at the Chamber of Commerce during the Reagan years and a huge supply-side guy (think Trickle Down / voodoo economics). CBS news stating basically the same thing I did: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/yes-trump-can-beat-hillary-clinton/
You guys always make me smile when you attack the author/source and completely ignore the content. ***btw, you seem to have no problem saying "fox news" every time a commentator on fox says something you don't agree with so I'm not sure what your point is there. Edited by tuwood 2016-04-28 2:35 PM |
| 2016-04-28 3:41 PM in reply to: tuwood |
| Chicago, IL | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad Trump's foreign policy speech has been globally slammed by media as incoherent, erratic, and a return to isolationalism. Also, since literally every single one of my predictions on this thread have been incomprehensibly accurate (seriously, go back and look, it's spooky) I'm going to predict that, assuming the Republican establishment doesn't have a "relief pitcher" they're saving for a contested convention to save the day/party/election, if the GOP nominee is either Trump or Cruz, the Dems will win by 10 points (a landslide in election terms) X Globally slammed by media tells me that it's a big winner for the people. Rather than parrot the media, what specifically in his speech do you personally disagree with? Exactly, his speech was irrelevant, devoid of content, and directionless. Firstly, he said his foreign policy would put American people, and American security, above all else. The free ride is over for NATO? Support for Isreal? The bigger issue with the speech was that Trump didn't offer anything with regards to how he expects to achieve his goals. One last point: "Globally slammed by media tells me that it's a big winner for the people"? X |
| 2016-04-28 3:44 PM in reply to: Brit Abroad |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad Trump's foreign policy speech has been globally slammed by media as incoherent, erratic, and a return to isolationalism. Also, since literally every single one of my predictions on this thread have been incomprehensibly accurate (seriously, go back and look, it's spooky) I'm going to predict that, assuming the Republican establishment doesn't have a "relief pitcher" they're saving for a contested convention to save the day/party/election, if the GOP nominee is either Trump or Cruz, the Dems will win by 10 points (a landslide in election terms) X Globally slammed by media tells me that it's a big winner for the people. Rather than parrot the media, what specifically in his speech do you personally disagree with? Exactly, his speech was irrelevant, devoid of content, and directionless. Firstly, he said his foreign policy would put American people, and American security, above all else. The free ride is over for NATO? Support for Isreal? The bigger issue with the speech was that Trump didn't offer anything with regards to how he expects to achieve his goals. One last point: "Globally slammed by media tells me that it's a big winner for the people"? X So basically what I'm reading is you completely agree with everything he said, but want more specifics? |
| 2016-04-28 4:00 PM in reply to: 0 |
| Chicago, IL | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad Trump's foreign policy speech has been globally slammed by media as incoherent, erratic, and a return to isolationalism. Also, since literally every single one of my predictions on this thread have been incomprehensibly accurate (seriously, go back and look, it's spooky) I'm going to predict that, assuming the Republican establishment doesn't have a "relief pitcher" they're saving for a contested convention to save the day/party/election, if the GOP nominee is either Trump or Cruz, the Dems will win by 10 points (a landslide in election terms) X Globally slammed by media tells me that it's a big winner for the people. Rather than parrot the media, what specifically in his speech do you personally disagree with? Exactly, his speech was irrelevant, devoid of content, and directionless. Firstly, he said his foreign policy would put American people, and American security, above all else. The free ride is over for NATO? Support for Isreal? The bigger issue with the speech was that Trump didn't offer anything with regards to how he expects to achieve his goals. One last point: "Globally slammed by media tells me that it's a big winner for the people"? X So basically what I'm reading is you completely agree with everything he said, but want more specifics? No, my point is that talk is cheap. I actually had a very hard time watching his speech, because it was just so unintentionally hilarious. Trump without a teleprompter: like your crazy drunk grandma who yells the N word flipantly, and everyone lets it go because of who they are. Trump with a telepromtper: like the naughty kid in English class who's forced to read a few pages of Macbeth at the front of the class. Atrocious cadence, mispronunciation of words, and utterly insencere. Edited by Brit Abroad 2016-04-28 4:18 PM |
| 2016-04-28 4:33 PM in reply to: Brit Abroad |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad Trump's foreign policy speech has been globally slammed by media as incoherent, erratic, and a return to isolationalism. Also, since literally every single one of my predictions on this thread have been incomprehensibly accurate (seriously, go back and look, it's spooky) I'm going to predict that, assuming the Republican establishment doesn't have a "relief pitcher" they're saving for a contested convention to save the day/party/election, if the GOP nominee is either Trump or Cruz, the Dems will win by 10 points (a landslide in election terms) X Globally slammed by media tells me that it's a big winner for the people. Rather than parrot the media, what specifically in his speech do you personally disagree with? Exactly, his speech was irrelevant, devoid of content, and directionless. Firstly, he said his foreign policy would put American people, and American security, above all else. The free ride is over for NATO? Support for Isreal? The bigger issue with the speech was that Trump didn't offer anything with regards to how he expects to achieve his goals. One last point: "Globally slammed by media tells me that it's a big winner for the people"? X So basically what I'm reading is you completely agree with everything he said, but want more specifics? No, my point is that talk is cheap. I actually had a very hard time watching his speech, because it was just so unintentionally hilarious. Trump without a teleprompter: like your crazy drunk grandma who yells the N word flipantly, and everyone lets it go because of who they are. Trump with a telepromtper: like the naughty kid in English class who's forced to read a few pages of Macbeth at the front of the class. Atrocious cadence, mispronunciation of words, and utterly insencere. I will give you that the teleprompter was pretty amusing. I told my wife it was like trying to walk a cat on a leash. It just doesn't work. I am actually with you a little in that I would love to know more specifics myself, but I just don't think politics of today give us what we want no matter who is running. Hillary has position statements and such out there, but no specifics of how she's going to do her goals. Usually broad statements like "I'll tax the rich" are answers to questions about how are you going to pay for it. Similarly Trump would use the "we'll grow enough to cover the costs" which really is every bit as vague as taxing the rich.
|
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK