It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Fair points, BUT...this article was written in 2014.
I'm actually OK with the Senate going back into Democratic hands. That will rid us of having to have Mitch McConnell in a position of power, which has done quite a bit of harm to the Republican party over the last few years. The quicker we can get him out of office, whether it be by a Republican primary challenger or through him being defeated by a Democrat in a general election, the better.
Ooowh I agree. But listen, I'm not saying that the Clinton campaign should now leave all the groundwork in Ohio, Pennsylvania, North-Carolina & Florida (Virginia too!). On the contrary! These are must-win states. But at this very moment the Clinton campaign is on the offense in all these states. And indeed, they need to stay on the offense.
Especially Pennsylvania and Ohio could be seriously swinging towards Trump. The countryside in these states are full of angry blue-collar working-class men (they tend to to be white, less educated and older as well). So these states are pivotal for Clinton.
Obviously, the Clinton campaign likes to carry all the states that Obama carried in 2012. And that's their ultimate goal. Albeit with a stronger focus on Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. So this is the electoral vote map they are aiming for:
Because, if they move campaign resources out of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida, then the electoral vote map might become less favorable for the Democrats. Then the electoral vote map would look like this and Trump wins, albeit narrowly. This is the Trump campaign's aim:
But, I am not suggesting to move Democratic campaign resources out of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida (and North-Carolina, Virginia). No, on the contrary. That should be the main focus of the Clinton campaign. But all I suggest is to set up a secondary, less dominant, but still realistic campaign groundwork effort in these states: Arizona, Utah, Missouri, Georgia (43 electoral votes in total).
Why? I do think, with Trump being the Republican presidential candidate, you need to give him a clear message after November 8th. Trump has already started to say that "The elections will be rigged if crooked Hillary wins!" To counteract that, you need to fully crush him, to let him show that it is Trump who did something wrong, and not 'crooked Hillary'. I do think then that an electoral vote victory of more than 332 electoral votes, by carrying at least one state that hasn't been carried at all by Obama in 2008 and 2012, gives Trump a clearer message. And an electoral victory between 348 electoral votes (Obama 2012 + Utah) and 390 (Obama 2012 + Utah, Missouri, Georgia & Arizona) will make Trump's defeat look much more like one of his business failures:
[img][/img]
Let's see if the Clinton campaign sees it like this as well. So far, the biggest 'extra prize' on top of an Obama 2012-electoral vote victory, seems to be Arizona. The Clinton campaign is already heavily campaigning there as opposed to Obama in 2012. But I seriously think Utah can be in play too. And Missouri and Georgia too. Although I think Utah seems more realistic to win when compared to Georgia and Missouri. As you can see in the last three polls from Utah:
26% - 29% (Clinton - Trump): May 31-June 1, Gravis
35% - 35% (Clinton - Trump): June 2-June 8, Survey USA
36% - 35% (Clinton - Trump): July 31-Aug 1, Hinckley Institute
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Aug03.html#item-4
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-donald-trump-blowing-it/
Hillary's backroom data/research team have each state, each town, each street broken down to likely voters. They know where to devote resources and what areas they have locked in support. They are not 'heavily campaigning' in Arizona. Why would they? Sen. McCain is in a bad situation for re-election. If he doesn't support Trump in the primary he loses. If he does support Trump, he loses the general. Hillaur's team is sitting back waiting for the implosion.
My feeling is Hillary winds by 6-8%, the Dens take back the Senate and gain House members.
That's the way things look currently...but I have faith in Trump's ability to stick his foot into his mouth and keep flapping his lips while gnawing on his own ankle.. He's going to spend the next few months firing back at everybody who slights him, all while claiming that the race has been fixed by that crooked Hillary. Hillary wins by 10-12%, the Democrats take back the Senate and the Republicans hold the House by a razor-thin margin.
Dear @BondJames, I would love to hear your expert assessment on this :-). IMO this is starting to become one huge weird comedy show. I can't help....laughing. And I wouldn't be surprised if Trump himself is going to say: "I'm out of the race".
As I said, I don't waste time on trivial pursuits. The hatchet job is out in full force (apparently they want to try and wrap this up within the next two weeks according to reports, with their willing fools in the media).
My take? This will backfire. The election will be a lot closer than your current rosy predictions have it.
The only thing I'm not sure about yet is whether Trump is actually serious about this or is attempting to throw it. As I said after his convention speech, the man is far smarter about connecting with the public than I am. I think I know where he's going with this now (based on the convention speech) and I'll watch closely to see whether his plan succeeds.
I'll be back to discuss here after the first debate. In the meanwhile, carry on with the Kumbaya.
Wow, I didn't offend you I hope? But what plan do you actually mean? IMO I start thinking that Trump will shock us all.....be leaving the race. Do you think that can happen?
I'm not sure if Trump is serious or not and the first debate will tell us that.
As I've said several times before, you are witnessing the Art of the Deal in action. He's either got everyone fooled or he himself is the fool. The unpredictability is delicious.
Either way he wins though - he will either become president or she will win and he will be a thorn in her (and the Republican party's) side with his coalition for 4 yrs. I somehow think he may be trying to pull a 'Boris' and just get close enough without winning, then control the Tea Party media coalition (including possibly some kind of show or channel even) but I have no idea. Maybe he really wants the job. Who knows?
Again, all I can see at the moment is either way, he wins. Either way, she loses. The way she's campaigning (as expected) she will have half of the country hating her, and we're in for a lot of fun over the next four years. You ain't seen nothing yet.
Interesting line of thinking, but do you really think it's possible he's just doing this for shows to enlarge his name and make a business (case) out of it? You might be right and indeed, that would explain his oafish behaviour. Either that or he really is one. I agree on most of the sideline stuff, but attacking the Kahn family the way he did is attacking republicans in one of their core values. I've never met a republican disrespecting the military, except one who was more of a right-wing anarchist.
RE: The Kahns: He shouldn't have gone there. It was a slip up. They set it up and he took the bait. Silly move. Having said that, I don't think it will hurt him as much as some think. Kahn was all over the talk shows on the weekend in to yesterday. He should have just laid low and the impact would have been stronger. All it did was reinforce perceptions among those who disliked Trump in the beginning.
RE: McCain and Ayotte: I'm sure Trump would rather see the back of those two (warmongers, along with Graham - the fearsome threesome).
RE: Ryan: Trump's hedging. Just a little gentle payback given Ryan's buttkissing at the C@cK (sorry, Koch) fundraiser over the weekend.
I'm not sure the fight with a couple of old republicans will make any difference at all, that's all political show and as far as i can tell (yes, from afar, I know) is that these senators have (had) little influence on any proceedings.
And Donald paving the way for his kids, in his own flamboyand style might be just the thing. They do come over far more balanced. Donald Jr. and Eric will have some trouble with their big game hunting though, but I guess many conservatives from the south don't mind that at all. Anyway, that's still a long way off if it's ever dragged up.
1. The Khan issue isn't about substance: it's about persona. Trump's thin skin was on full display for all Americans to see, not just Republicans following the primaries.
2. Lack of knowledge of Russia and Ukraine and arguing that Putin won't go into Ukraine. He got pounded on that screw up.
3. A campaign rep saying that Obama is the reason for Khan's death. Somehow, the Trump campaign overlooked the fact that Khan died in 2004, five years before Obama took office. This kind of mistake is amateurish, and it's this amateurism that is also going to continue.
If Trump makes this close, it won't be because of his communication skills. It will happen if Clinton messes up or if Congress's investigation into the emails becomes a public spectacle again.
It's Clinton's Presidency to lose.
Trump doesn't even have a full campaign operation (or ground game) and his communciations team (outside of Manfort and Katrina Pierson) is a joke. Surrogate Kayleigh McEnany is brilliant however. That's why, as I said, for now I think there is a different play being made here. Either that or he's got something planned in a way that I can't see (e.g. if the Kochs are funding down ballot, will those voters vote for Trump in the end when in the booth? Are they indirectly funding Trump?)
Actually, this is Trump's election to lose, and so far he is losing it. If he even had a modicum of a strategic operation at work (including a hard hitting 'communications war team'), he would have cleaned this up by now.
Yes, this is on various news sources, GG.
and on some (not saying all) Trump supporters:
This is true of every Presidential candidate at some point or another. The same goes for Obama and his infamous "you didn't build that" speech. one of the most important qualities to be President is that you don't start waving the white flag at the first sign of being it trouble. it's about how you handle the situation.
Comparing Obama as president with Trump right now trying to get president....doesn't come even close to comparing apples with oranges. It's comparing apples with.....cars. Or apples with.......planets.
The biggest problem I have with Trump is the fact that he sees the presidency as one big business deal for himself in which his media skills perhaps even help him right until November 8th. And it's true that Trump is seen as the 'people's man', the common, hardworking, ordinary people. But if that's really the only reason to elect him, then I want you to look at some examples in recent Dutch politics in which other populist parties and people were actually governing the country.
And in all honesty, that's the moment where it usually goes wrong. That's the moment were populists with narcist tendencies are being revealed as incapable in actually governing a country.
Majority coalition government of CDA-VVD-LPF (2002-2003)
Let's start with the late Pim Fortuyn. He wrote a book -"De Puinhopen Van Paars" ("The Disasters of Eight Years Purple Coalition"- and he thought that was enough to govern. He thought a carefully written party program with solutions wasn't necessary. But then his party LPF (Lijst Pim Fortuyn, an early predecessor of Geert Wilders' PVV) entered the coalition government with CDA (Conservatives) and VVD (Conservative Liberals) in 2002, and what we got then was nothing short of banana republic affairs and a powerless outgoing 'caretaker' government until May 2003. It was....a mess.
Now we all know Pim Fortuyn got assassinated on May 6th 2002. And trust me, I was shocked about itIt was an attack on the freedom of speech. And as of today, I do admire Pim Fortuyn on at least some issues. But make no mistake, his character was authoritarian, he was in many ways slightly narcist, and self-criticism and nuance were truly unknowns to him. And even if he was still the party leader of LPF, I don't see how the coalition government of CDA-VVD-LPF would have survived.
Minority coalition government of VVD-CDA + extraparliamentary support PVV (2010-2012)
Then 3 years later in 2005 Mr Geert Wilders founded the PVV (Party of Freedom), which is now one of the bigger political forces in Dutch politics. They, sort of, entered the government of VVD (Conservative Liberals) and CDA (Christian Conservatives) in a minority construction in 2010: VVD and CDA were forming a government, but didn't have a majority in the government together. They delivered the kabinet and the PM. But in a minority accord with PVV, the PVV became the sole supporter of this minority government. By backing proposals from the minority supporter, the minority government in return executed all wishes from the PVV with regard to immigration and (anti-)Islam. The biggest advantage for the PVV was the fact that they could push their agenda forcefully, without having real government responsibility and without delivering members for the cabinet.
The minority government of VVD and CDA with extraparliamentary support from PVV, as written down in the minority coalition agreement between VVD-CDA on one hand and PVV on the other hand, fell only 1,5 years after it was sworn in.
So, both periods of the above governments, July 22nd 2002 until May 27th 2003 (with populist party LPF) and October 14th 2010 until April 23rd 2012 (with populist party PVV), were messy affairs in which, in my opinion, the country stood still. Both governments didn't come even close to finish a full 4-year term! No real backbone was shown in actually really changing the country with progressive legislation. The constant focus on immigration reform made the country less attractive for investors. The economy underperformed in those periods. But most importantly, the populists themselves could not find common ground in actually governing the country. The periods were marked by lots of gossip, bullying, narcism, little internal rows, unexpected resignations and God knows what other nonsense that distracted from a real important goal that was never really met: Effective government.
So, in my honest opinion I do think I can say what mess you get when you start giving some power to populists: They corrupt themselves. And in the case of the 2010-2012 minority government, PVV didn't even have the balls to be a full government partner, but the damage to that government was still farfetching. So again, please stop comparing Obama with Trump? Running a business is one thing.
But running a country is so much more delicate, it is full of nuances and complexities, and it is built on the notion that it actually IS impossible to always find common ground and that it IS necessary on many occasions to disappoint the people who have voted for you! And with the above examples in Dutch politics, by jolly....let's be sane and pragmatic here: Donald Trump simply doesn't have it to be a US president, to lead a government with the understanding that there's a 'Three-way Separation of Powers'.
In The Netherlands we have endured the rise of populism since 2002. Populist parties like the PVV (with Geert Wilders) and its predecessor LPF have been part of politics since 2002. So in a way they can be seen as firm establishment forces now as of 2016. And in all honesty? 'They' promised us heavens and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. Well, look where we are now 14 years later.....
That is surely some interesting data, Gustav.
This link is a series of tweets from someone who worked in our nuclear program (in the underground control center for nuclear weapons). So ... not a parody; I think it's worth a read. Very concisely presented. Click on what looks like a video in this (it opens a slideshow of the tweets).
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
Meanwhile, the saner Republicans are in a rush to get out the door without letting it hit them from behind. Meg Whitman, noted Republican fund-raiser (and occasional unsuccessful candidate for the Republicans here in California) is endorsing Hillary and will be actively fundraising on her behalf. A couple of current Republican senators are pointedly repudiating him, with more sure to follow. Trump himself has declined to endorse the re-election campaigns of both John McCain and Paul Ryan (both of whom HAVE endorsed him, at least for now) and Republican Party chairman Reince Priebus is fit to be tied. More popcorn, anyone?