The New American Politics thread

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

A bunch of people now going "Hah! What an idiot! Never heard of Aleppo?!" and then proceed to google Aleppo. I actually wasn't aware that there was a specific problem in Aleppo proper that would make the question "What to do in Aleppo" more salient than "What to do in Syria".

The problem is that a couple of weeks ago it was like 13%. It needs to start going back down or I'm going to get nervous.

So you didn't know? I would think most politically astute people would at least know it is a city in Syria. Maybe not the exact location within Syria, but to be a politician and to have never heard of it is pretty bad.

[JohnnyB]

I am no great fan of Hillary, but she did a good job in that town hall. Solid, informed and nuanced answers all round. That plays to her base at least.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

A bunch of people now going "Hah! What an idiot! Never heard of Aleppo?!" and then proceed to google Aleppo. I actually wasn't aware that there was a specific problem in Aleppo proper that would make the question "What to do in Aleppo" more salient than "What to do in Syria".

Yeah, Aleppio is kind of unfair to hang on someone. My wife is pretty up on issues and I had to explain it to her this morning. You have to really be in the guts of some of these issues to understand the ins and outs. You know, kind of like the whole email bull####.

The problem is that a couple of weeks ago it was like 13%. It needs to start going back down or I'm going to get nervous.

I think 538 is being a little disingenuous at the moment and things aren't as close as they are trying to project. They have included a lot of national polls recently and national polls are routinely poorly sampled. Also, some of the polls included have used very faulty methods and their sampling has been jacked up from the get go. Things will naturally tighten up, but the odds of victory for Trump are a lot less than suggested. The electoral college path for Trump is pretty well nonexistent.

[Senator Clay Davis]

538 is using the same model they did in 2012 when they showed Obama was going to win, and win easily, basically the entire time. I think people are mostly just revolted that Trump has more than a 1% chance in any model, but he's still highly unlikely to win. The fact his ad buy in Michigan lasted only a week (seriously....a 1 week ad buy 2 months out?) shows his campaign is still pretty much a mess. The lack of organization at some point will torch him. And again if we get moderators who do their job in the debates, Trump is going to look bad. If we see Lestor Holt in the tank for Trump then I agree people should be very worried. Until then this is just how the cycle plays out.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

A bunch of people now going "Hah! What an idiot! Never heard of Aleppo?!" and then proceed to google Aleppo. I actually wasn't aware that there was a specific problem in Aleppo proper that would make the question "What to do in Aleppo" more salient than "What to do in Syria".

Yeah no doubt that is happening, but a bunch of people aren't running for president.

His stumbling, useless answer to the broader question about Syria was worse than not knowing what Aleppo is. "Hold hands diplomatically with Russia and bring this civil war to an end" was pretty feeble. He should have a better answer ready for a question that he knows he's going to be asked.

The smug, faux-incredulous acting by the MSNBC crew was really annoying.

[photon]

These earpiece youtube videos are just like the ones that show a pod on the airliners. Is it a coincidence it's almost 9/11? Wake up sheeple!!!

[Matata]

been roadtripping through some of the NW states and it's amazing how invisible this election is: not one sign or bumper sticker for Hillary; the occasional Trump sign in rural areas; one "Hillary for prison" sticker; one Bernie sticker; Hillary is running one attack ad against trump and that's it.

[JohnnyB]

Actually, having just watched the second half with Trump, I think he wins that. Guy is a talented orator. An orator in a very different way from Obama, but he is slick. Hillary played to her strengths and her base in a highly rational way. Trump played to more than his base in a vacuous but emotionally compelling way that gets beyond his most extreme voters. The guy can speak and manage the tone of an interaction well.

The debates are going to be a hell of an entertaining show.

[taco.vidal]

Clinton is downright scary.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Matata

been roadtripping through some of the NW states and it's amazing how invisible this election is: not one sign or bumper sticker for Hillary; the occasional Trump sign in rural areas; one "Hillary for prison" sticker; one Bernie sticker; Hillary is running one attack ad against trump and that's it.

This is likely a result of the fact that the states you were in are not in play. The election is very visible in Iowa and Florida, I suspect.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

Clinton is downright scary.

Why do you say that?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah no doubt that is happening, but a bunch of people aren't running for president.

His stumbling, useless answer to the broader question about Syria was worse than not knowing what Aleppo is. "Hold hands diplomatically with Russia and bring this civil war to an end" was pretty feeble. He should have a better answer ready for a question that he knows he's going to be asked.

The smug, faux-incredulous acting by the MSNBC crew was really annoying.

I don't think Johnsons answer was that bad. Okay sure, it's a bit embarrasing to not know what Aleppo is, but sometimes it's not easy to connect names correctly right away.

I think he has the general parts of the answer in the right ballpark. The US is indeed supporting both the islamists and "the kurds" (would be more proper to call them SDF at this point, but it's close enough), and that is absolutely one part of the problem. Saying that supporting regime changes is a bad idea and only makes things worse is a completely fair view. Trying to negotiate with Russia is certainly necessary.

It's not a great answer. But it's not a terrible answer IMO.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

Clinton is downright scary.

Why? Please explain.

If Clinton is down right scary them Trump is utterly terrifying.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

So you didn't know? I would think most politically astute people would at least know it is a city in Syria. Maybe not the exact location within Syria, but to be a politician and to have never heard of it is pretty bad.

I knew where Aleppo was but only because my memory is weirdly good at remembering place names, which is an unfortunately useless skill considering I have no idea where my car keys are right now, but I digress... I definitely wouldn't expect 95+% of people to know it. It's not even the capital.

[Looch City]

Humans of New York are doing a segment on Hillary:

[peter12]

I highly doubt that story is even true.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

A piece from the New York Times discussing the job Lauer did last night.

Granted 30 minutes with each candidate, who appeared back-to-back at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in Manhattan, Mr. Lauer devoted about a third of his time with Mrs. Clinton to questions about her use of a private email server, then seemed to rush through subsequent queries about weighty topics like domestic terror attacks.

When an Army veteran in the audience asked Mrs. Clinton to describe her plan to defeat the Islamic State, Mr. Lauer interjected before the candidate could begin her reply.

“As briefly as you can,” he said, one of several moments where the anchor spoke over Mrs. Clinton to remind her that their time was running short.

Drawing particular ire was the moment when Mr. Trump asserted, with his usual confidence: “I was totally against the war in Iraq.”

In fact, Mr. Trump initially said he supported the war, a point that Mrs. Clinton had raised earlier in the evening, citing an interview that Mr. Trump had given to Howard Stern. But Mr. Lauer left the assertion unchallenged, zipping along to his next question about Mr. Trump’s professed tendency to “say things that you later regret.”

Journalists and longtime political observers pounced. “How in the hell does Lauer not factcheck Trump lying about Iraq? This is embarrassingly bad,” wrote Tommy Vietor, a former aide to President Obama. Glenn Kessler, the chief fact checker at The Washington Post, posted a link to NBC’s check of Mr. Trump’s claim and wrote: “@MLauer should have been prepared to do this.”

The criticism captured what has become a common complaint about media coverage during this election: that news organizations and interviewers treat Mrs. Clinton as a serious candidate worthy of tough questions, while Mr. Trump is sometimes handled more benignly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/us...=top-news&_r=0

[Senator Clay Davis]

^^You may highly doubt that story is true, but I'm guessing absolutely everyone is going to believe this story.

The Trump campaign built a large policy shop in Washington that has now largely melted away because of neglect, mismanagement and promises of pay that were never honored. Many of the team’s former members say the campaign leadership never took the Washington office seriously and let it wither away after squeezing it dry.

Donald Trump often brags about having experts and senior former officials advising him. Wednesday night in a forum on national security, he said, “We have admirals, we have generals, we have colonels. We have a lot of people that I respect.” It’s true that Trump is getting high-level policy advice on a regular basis from senior experts such as Rudy Giuliani and retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn. But Trump has never acknowledged the policy shop based in Washington that has been doing huge amounts of grunt work for months without recognition or compensation.

Since April, advisers never named in campaign press releases have been working in an Alexandria-based office, writing policy memos, organizing briefings, managing surrogates and placing op-eds. They put in long hours before and during the Republican National Convention to help the campaign look like a professional operation.

But in August, shortly after the convention, most of the policy shop’s most active staffers quit. Although they signed non-disclosure agreements, several of them told me on background that the Trump policy effort has been a mess from start to finish.

“It’s a complete disaster,” one disgruntled former adviser told me. “They use and abuse people. The policy office fell apart in August when the promised checks weren’t delivered.”

Three former members, all of whom quit in August, told me that as early as April they were promised financial compensation but were later told that they would have to work as volunteers. They say the leaders of the shop, Rick Dearborn and John Mashburn, told many staffers that money was on the way but then were unable to deliver. Dearborn is Sen. Jeff Sessions’s (R-Ala.) chief of staff, while Mashburn is the former chief of staff for Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C).

“I heard it from Dearborn, I heard it from Mashburn. It was understood that we would be paid. The campaign never discussed how much the pay would be. It was never in writing,” said one staffer, who quit last month. “There were some people who were treating it as a full-time job. I suspect that those people were quite astonished when the pay didn’t come through.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...c-policy-shop/

[peter12]

Oh I definitely believe that story.

[Itse]

A candidate essentially cheating his own staff out of salary should be a huge scandal.