Monday Open Thread [8.22.16]
OHIO–PRESIDENT–CBS/YouGov–Clinton 46, Trump 40
IOWA–PRESIDENT–CBS/YouGov–Clinton 40, Trump 40
SOUTH CAROLINA–PRESIDENT–Brietbart/Gravis–Trump 41, Clinton 37
SOUTH CAROLINA–PRESIDENT–Brietbart/Gravis–Trump 39, Clinton 38
Ruth Marcus on the disgusting ploy from Trump that is still in its early stages.
Donald Trump — he who likes to fly home at night in the comfort of his own plane to sleep in the comfort of his own bed — is at it again on the question of Hillary Clinton’s stamina, or alleged lack thereof.
“To defeat crime and radical Islamic terrorism in our country, to win trade in our country, you need tremendous physical and mental strength and stamina,” he said in Wisconsin. “Hillary Clinton doesn’t have that strength and stamina.”
And a day earlier, in case you missed it, “Importantly, she also lacks the mental and physical stamina to take on ISIS, and all the many adversaries we face.”
It’s obvious what’s going on here. The strength-stamina combo is a gender-age twofer, a double whack at Clinton for the price of one. Strength, what men have and women lack; stamina, with its intimations of go-all-night virility. Clinton, in this depiction, is both a weak girl and a dried-up old crone.
What if Hillary was openly supported by Russia? And 99 other double-standards pointed out by @johnastoehr – https://t.co/7AorHdQmlt
— WestLA (@WestLA24) August 22, 2016
“Fewer than a third of Republican members of the Politico Caucus — a panel of activists, strategists and operatives in 11 key battleground states — believe Trump’s reshuffling will move the campaign in the right direction. Just as many, 31 percent, say the installation of Breitbart News executive Stephen Bannon as campaign CEO and pollster Kellyanne Conway as campaign manager, represent a turn for the worse.”
New York Times: “Since 2010, Republican governors and Republican-held state legislatures have fought for stricter voter identification laws, which Democrats argue are intended to hinder turnout by the poorest voters, many of them black and Hispanic, who tend to vote Democratic.”
“But Mr. Trump’s language has moved beyond his party’s call for rigid identification requirements and the unfounded claims that polls are “skewed” to predictions of outright theft of the November election. And his warnings have been cast in increasingly urgent and racially suggestive language, hinting that the only legitimate outcome in certain states would be his victory.”
A New York Times investigation published on Saturday reveals that U.S.-based real estate companies owned by Trump are at least $650 million in debt. Only half this amount was disclosed in the public F.E.C. filings Trump completed in order to run for president.
Donald Trump “is leaning heavily on Republican Party organizations to provide crucial campaign functions like getting out the vote, digital outreach and fund-raising, at a time when some leading Republicans have called for party officials to cut off Mr. Trump and focus instead on maintaining control of Congress,” the New York Times reports.
“Despite an influx of campaign cash from small donors in July, Mr. Trump’s operation still largely resembles the bare-bones outfit that he rode to victory during the primary season, more concert tour than presidential campaign, according to interviews and documents filed with the Federal Election Commission through Saturday night. And some Republicans believe he is effectively out of time to invest in the kind of large-scale infrastructure that the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, will bring to the polls in November.”
Matt Taibbi: “Like the old adage about quarterbacks – if you think you have two good ones, you probably have none – this basically means we have no credible news media left. Apart from a few brave islands of resistance, virtually all the major news organizations are now fully in the tank for one side or the other.”
“The last month or so of Trump-Hillary coverage may have been the worst stretch of pure journo-shilling we’ve seen since the run-up to the Iraq war. In terms of political media, there’s basically nothing left on the air except Trump-bashing or Hillary-bashing.”
Anatomy of a Trump voter: How racism propelled Trump to the Republican nomination https://t.co/So7YEjwCbX via @SeanMcElwee
— Propane Jane™ (@docrocktex26) July 24, 2016
Politico: “Donald Trump campaign’s boasts of a formidable fundraising month in July spooked Democrats who feared their financial advantage could be slipping. But a closer inspection of the campaign finance report filed just before Saturday’s midnight deadline indicates the haul came at a steep price, and the campaign was still not dedicating resources to catching up on building the staff and field organization that all previous presidential efforts have required.”
“The money that the Trump campaign raised also didn’t come cheap. The campaign more than doubled its spending from the previous month to $18.5 million in July, far more than in any other period of the campaign. But most of that money went toward expanding the campaign’s online fundraising operation.”
There may *literally* not be enough blue collar white men in USA to elect Trump, even if 99% vote, analysis finds: https://t.co/ndPMsZ3XpE
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) August 22, 2016
“Hillary Clinton has reserved nearly $80 million in additional television advertising across eight key states in coming months… offering both a window into how the Democrat sees the presidential contest shaping up and a reminder of her dominance on the airwaves in the the race against Republican Donald Trump,” the Washington Post reports.
“The campaign is targeting Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In addition, Clinton is continuing to advertise in the Omaha market in Nebraska, one of only two states that awards its electoral votes based on performance in congressional districts.”
“The Trump campaign, by contrast, launched its first general-election TV ad last week, saying it planned to spend $4.8 million on a 10-day buy in four states: Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania.”
Donald Trump “began preparing on Sunday for his first general election debate against Hillary Clinton, with a meeting at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.,” the New York Times reports.
“Roger Ailes, the former Fox News chairman who helped prepare George Bush to debate Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential race, is advising Mr. Trump as he begins to focus on the debate, scheduled for Sept. 26 at Hofstra University on Long Island.”
Artist's "Choices for Syrian children" illustration a vivid reminder of the toll of the war https://t.co/9wM2qLS22s pic.twitter.com/xuh7OxT9a5
— CNN (@CNN) August 22, 2016
Jim Rutenberg in the New York Times says Sean Hannity is officially advising the Trump campaign:
“But Mr. Hannity is not only Mr. Trump’s biggest media booster; he also veers into the role of adviser. Several people I’ve spoken with over the last couple of weeks said Mr. Hannity had for months peppered Mr. Trump, his family members and advisers with suggestions on strategy and messaging.”
“So involved is Mr. Hannity that three separate denizens of the hall of mirrors that is Trump World told me they believed Mr. Hannity was behaving as if he wanted a role in a possible Trump administration — something he denied to me as laughable and contractually prohibitive in an interview on Friday.”
Report: Kirk calls Obama ‘drug dealer in chief’: https://t.co/fJkFMWJXUs pic.twitter.com/1cpJfW9GTD
— ABC 7 Chicago (@ABC7Chicago) August 22, 2016
Bye Felicia.
“It’s very hard to find someone to mimic the reckless temperament and the hateful instincts and divisive instincts of Donald Trump.” — Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, quoted by Politico, on not yet finding someone to play Trump for debate preparation.
Just have someone stand there and read the comments sections of right wing websites.
“There may *literally* not be enough blue collar white men in USA to elect Trump”
Certain progressives may be chortling with glee over this proposition. But let’s think about that for a minute.
What happened to all the blue collar white men? Ignoring for the moment the inflammatory words “white” and “men,” what indeed happened to all the blue collar workers?
There are in fact fewer blue collar workers overall, and that would be Trump’s point exactly.
I realize Trump is offering no real solutions, but he is in fact raising those issues to voters. It’s worth playing devil’s advocate for a moment.
The study in question makes the assumption that men without college degrees are blue collar workers. But in fact, many men who used to be blue collar workers are now unemployed or are working in the service industry in lower paying, less secure jobs that are not traditionally thought of as blue collar. And that again would be Trump’s point.
It is tempting to pin blue-collar angst on racial resentment, which may be true in part. But I think if a white guy gets a good job and is able to establish economic security, he really doesn’t mind if a black guy does too.
Instead of addressing the economic concerns of blue collar workers , Democrats are now “benefiting” from their demise (see Thomas Franks). Why should a blue collar worker support the party that presided over the deterioration of his economic situation?
It would be better if there were MORE blue collar workers and Democrats offered them reasons to vote Democratic.
There’s not much chortling, but a reminder that some of us have been making the point that there aren’t enough angry white men to carry Trump to victory. Even though the recent Gallup survey of Trump voters notes that they are fairly traditional GOP voters.
Yeah.. this whole “angry blue collar/economic anxiety” stuff is pretty much nonsense. Trump voters are simply run of the mill racists.
Just walk into any Home Depot and ask a sales guy what he used to do.
No one doubts that economic anxiety is quite real. It is just that there are not enough Home Depot sales guys to power Trump to victory.
If it were about blue collar white guys — and I’ll get to the problem with puck’s formulation in a minute — then why do the data show that Trump does better in areas where manufacturing is relatively healthy than places where factories have closed? You are ignoring data to talk about what you think they think.
Also, the problem with your formulation is that a larger-than-previously segment of the blue-collar population isn’t white. It’s black and Hispanic. The decline in blue-collar jobs for white guys isn’t just the lack of such jobs, it’s a lack of white guys in general.
“then why do the data show that Trump does better in areas where manufacturing is relatively healthy than places where factories have closed?”
Because economic insecurity is not necessarily traceable county-by-county. Closure or downsizing of a factory in one state impacts the perceived economic security of all workers in that industry or related industries located anywhere in the US. It’s not like factories close so they can open up somewhere else in the US, like the textile industry once did. Now when a factory closes it is a sign the US is permanently losing that industry.
Also, and probably more important: because Trump is so uniquely repulsive, distaste for Trump may overcome his (rather shallow) appeal to economic insecurity for certain populations. Which probably explains why Trump is not winning over “blue collar” minorities.
Is this how you usually react to new data? Deny it? You’re more conservative than you think.
It’s not the economy fueling Trump. It’s racism.
What new data? and,
“You’re more conservative than you think.”
Do you counter an adopted devil’s argument by saying “You’re the devil?” Maybe you’re more of a polemicist than you think.
Headlines on the front page of thehill.com today:
Yesterday:
Top aide: Trump ‘doesn’t hurl personal insults’
Kellyanne Conway was pressed on past statements criticizing Trump’s tone.
Today:
Trump gets personal in ‘Morning Joe’ attacks
Trump calls Mika Brzezinkski “a neurotic” and “not very bright.”
“then why do the data show that Trump does better in areas where manufacturing is relatively healthy than places where factories have closed?”
Short answer: Fear.
Data disproving your postulation, sport. The link was provided. Try to keep up.
@Brian: The question was rhetorical. Why would fear be greater in places that still have jobs than in places where they already have disappeared?
The simpler answer is racism.
Except, anon, there’s never just one explanation for anything. Racism I’m sure is part of it. However, even racists are afraid of losing their jobs for reasons other than non-white guys taking their place. The trend in US manufacturing has been pretty clear. So when Trump talks about “bringing manufacturing back”, like it’s just lost and needs to be rounded up, and mixes it with the racial tones you get a “stronger” message, especially to people who work in a dying industry in this country.
@Brian: No doubt. But nobody has yet explained convincingly why that argument would work better with the employed than the unemployed.
There’s lots of data about this out there for the mining. The data simply fail to support the theory that Trump’s support is based on economic fears.
I’m sure the data is aplenty. Anecdotally, I can say that if I’m working in an industry that has shown a clear trend of outsourcing or otherwise shedding jobs, my fear is that “my company is next.” I’m so freaked out about not having any money to support my kids, pay for food, medicine, doctors, mortgage, car payment, etc, that my fear is strong enough to border on irrational. So a guy with a megaphone shouting about how he will bring back the industry that supports my whole world may be enough to grab my support. Of course I don’t have statistical evidence to support that because it’s subjective and “proving” the subjective, especially when emotions are involved, is inherently more difficult than proving something objective.
Anecdotally, I’m sure some people out there in the “strong” manufacturing areas of this country share similar sentiments.
@Brian: I agree with all you said. But it still fails to account for why people who have jobs are more strongly for Trump than people who have lost them to the forces of globalization.
The data show that the further people live from actual Mexicans, the more likely they are to support Trump. That indicates fear of an unseen “other” is stronger than fear of the others they can actually see.
In short, most of the data point to this economic analysis being, at best, the lesser reason for Trump’s support. The greater reason therefore must be something non-economic. What, oh what, could that something be?
The NJ does a story about 13 candidates fined for illegal political signs this season and then only names one of the 13. What’s up with that?
The one named has three times as many violations (17) as any of the others, which means that none of the others had more than 6.
Most candidates don’t put up their own signs. The violation, as the story notes, is easy to commit, because rights of way vary depending on the road.
Do you really think the names of all the violators is relevant information, or would it possibly taint otherwise innocent candidates with charges of wrongdoing so minor that there isn’t even a penalty for violations?
Anyone who wants to know can find out and post it here. It’s public information. The newspaper is not obligated to print everything in the public record. I’m far more concerned with TNJ’s inability or unwillingness to report fully on Gordon’s past.
They put the exact number “13” in the headline on 1A above the fold. If it’s not relevant don’t put it there.
The headline writer lives in Asbury Park, NJ, where all the copy editing for the Wilmington paper is performed. You can blame him or her, I suppose.
Seems to be some combination of irrational resentment and racism along with hate and fear. Buy gold and lifelock before the Muslims steal your white women..
It’s funny because I know the reporter personally and I also know that headlines aren’t written by the reporter.
You must understand how dumb this is and how bush league it looks. It isn’t about anyone thinking that TNJ is obligated to print all information in the public record, but if you’re going sell me on X tell me X. Why you seem to want to defend it then deflect it is very strange.
Speaking of relevance…I don’t care what the system is or where the editor lives.
“If you’re going to sell me on X tell me X….I don’t care what the system is or where the editor lives….Why you seem to want to defend it then deflect it is very strange.”
Last first: Not defending, explaining. The author and his assigning editor were, I assume from the story’s construction, trying to illustrate how common the problem was by citing the number of violators. Because no story would be a good narrative without quotes from one of them, the most common violator was chosen and the reason for choosing him was given — this guy has the most by far and here’s his excuse. It’s unstated, but he represents all 13.
The headliner writer lives and works in New Jersey, meaning he has likely never met the author or the assigning editor and lacks the context to understand the story, to wit: Delaware, more than any other place in the nation of which I’m aware, depends on printed signage on roadsides for voter outreach and name recognition. The author never comes out and says that Delaware is unique, because readers see the situation for themselves every time they drive, as he points out.
So, apparently unaware of the idea of a “news-feature” hybrid, the headline writer seizes on the traditional journalistic obsession with lawbreaking and highlights the number of offenders. That person’s lack of familiarity with the locale of the story opens the door to his/her emphasizing a point that the story does NOT use in the lead, instead relegating to the third paragraph.
Back when they all worked in the same place, that would have been caught by the news desk editor on the page mockup, if it hadn’t been corrected before it ever left the copy desk. The lack of physical proximity allows for the headline writer to misunderstand the story’s point.
Apparently some people only wanted to know the names of the candidates, something I’m sure the author and assigning editor thought was unimportant and would possibly bias voters against those candidates for “illegal” activity that amounts to nothing.
Dumb and bush league, yes.
…But explainable. That’s what happens when you save money by eliminating the copy desk.
If it is important enough to do a story on “13 people who got fined” than name those people. Otherwise, there just isn’t a story.
Granted most candidates do not put up their own signs, but responsible ones will make sure that those doing that job have the rules. But, we don’t mind holding candidates accountable for taking checks from various bad actors when the candidate usually does not see checks. Signs are not as important, but still.
I didn’t “want” the names necessarily. I agree with Cass. Signage is the smallest of potatoes. We were told something in a headline and we didn’t get the information. Simple as that. I didn’t really need an explanation as I knew basically the issue from the beginning.
“If it is important enough to do a story on “13 people who got fined” than name those people. Otherwise, there just isn’t a story.”
You mean there isn’t a NEWS story. A feature story was written; a news headline was placed atop it.
Not as important? How about not at all important? The scourge, as the lede makes clear, is the thicket of signs, not the individual ones. Drive through Pennsylvania during election season and you’ll see very few signs by comparison, except on private property. That would make a good story for people relatively new to Delaware, who must wonder why we allow this. Were I the editor, I’d make the story about how beholden candidates in Delaware are to the printing industry. It’s the biggest expense in most district races. And you can see by the focus at DL on the union bug that there’s a business story in there somewhere, too.
Though the author didn’t emphasize it enough, the point I drew about violations was that it’s hard to tell where the right-of-way ends. Most states just don’t allow them along roadways because they’re a safety hazard.
The story, as I said, is a “news feature,” not a blotter item. You can argue that the newspaper should arrange its priorities differently, but this was a feature story that used the vagueness of the law as an entry point.
If it’s a news story, then we need the names and fine totals, perhaps in an accompanying table. But it’s too late to do that on deadline. The headline writer is at fault here is all’s I’m saying, and the lack of physical proximity is the underlying reason it saw print. Examples of this occur in one form or another several times a week.
You knew all this, DG, but it doesn’t mean everyone else does. You offered your take. I fleshed it out. I’m not contradicting you, I’m providing context. I’m puzzled why that’s so offensive to a couple of you.
Tim Wise on Trump supporters:
“Well, if it were really a working-class issue, if it were a class issue as opposed to race or gender or both, then you would expect black and Latino and Asian folks — who are working class in much greater percentages, I should point [out], than white folks — to be flocking to Donald Trump. You would say, well, if it’s a class issue, the disproportionate percentage of working-class people who are people of color should love Donald Trump. And, of course, they don’t.
“By the same token, if the hostility toward Hillary Clinton were just an issue of misogyny or patriarchy, you would expect that black men, Latino men, Asian men, indigenous Native North American men would be just as hostile to her and just as supportive of Trump as white men. And yet what does the data say? The data is real clear. It’s pretty much the fact that white men are the base for Donald Trump. So when we talk about gender and sex issues, we need to understand there’s a particularly fragile white masculinity that is at the root of Trump’s movement.”
http://www.salon.com/2016/08/22/there-was-a-market-for-white-resentment-tim-wise-on-trump-david-duke-and-the-bigotry-that-risen-from-the-shadows/
The Trumps aren’t even as media-savvy as everyone pretends. The Daily Mail printed a story on rumors about Melania’s past as a model, including claims that an agency she worked for in Milan doubled as an escort service.
Most news outlets wouldn’t touch the story, but the Daily Mail printed it and now the Trumps are, naturally, threatening to sue — opening the door for all the other outlets to write about something they normally wouldn’t have.
FWIW, whatever she modeled, it wasn’t clothes — she has a thick waist and enormous fake boobs, neither one an asset on the runway. The Daily Mail story is interesting because it shows their supposed “first meeting” was a fake, which raises the question, how DID they meet? I always thought he must have found her in a Russian bride catalog.
@a “I always thought he must have found her in a Russian bride catalog.”
Not Russian.. Slovenian. Slovenia really does have the best looking women. Just go to Ljubljana and sit at a nice outdoor cafe on a nice day. No city anywhere can match that.
Well, you can’t tell by her. She looks like one of those alien lizards I keep hearing about.
And why would I want to go to Slovenia in the first place? Aren’t there Slovenian bride catalogs for what you’re talking about?
@a “Well, you can’t tell by her. She looks like one of those alien lizards I keep hearing about.”
Look at her pictures from 15 years ago… ((insert bad lizard joke here)).
“And why would I want to go to Slovenia in the first place?”
It’s actually one of the most beautiful countries in Europe. Just look at pictures from Bled (lake region), Kranjska Gora (mountain region), Postojna (caves), or Piran (seaside)… They also have a hilly wine region, and a farmland region that looks a lot like Sussex County (but without the idiots). Museums? The art is exceptional but very dark and ominous. It’s a 3-star place at 2-star prices.
Oh.. and I go there to find subordinates, and to interact with former subordinates. It seems they also have one of the best educational systems…
“Aren’t there Slovenian bride catalogs for what you’re talking about?”
Doubt it. Slovenia is a lot wealthier than Russia, so there’s less desperation.
I’ve seen them, if you’re talking about the nudies. She still looks like a lizard, albeit one with a boob job.
To each his own. I’ll stick with Italy and France.
The only reason to vote Democrat is the Republicans
The only response to Mouse, after all we have been through with the nonsense that Gore is the same as Bush, That Obama is the same as Romney and McCain, that Hillary is the same as Trump, is this:
via GIPHY