Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Campaign 2016

Donald Trump is not an elected official. He has never held office of any sort and thus, as I see it, is exempt from this particular guideline.

That rule only applies to elected officials. At this point, we need to keep that from happening to Trump.

What Greger said.

Clinton tears Trump a new one

I admit that I am disturbed by the inevitable. FiveThirtyEight's forecasts have Clinton's probability of winning eroding, if ever so slightly (from 90+% to 80+% in the "now cast" and from near 80% to just 73+% in the "polls-plus"). I don't think this augers a sea change, but I would prefer he lead to remain more pronounced.

As I understand it, the polls plus has a built in tightening factor due to the economic fundamentals signifying a tight race.

Been thinking about the Brexit effect, where the pollsters missed a significant voter cohort on which that vote ultimately hinged. Could that happen here? I think on the GOP side the Brexit voting types were already captured by the tea party movement and are already counted in Trumps support. That would leave the traditionally Democratic party voters. 538's Blue state polling abyss still leaves some uncertainty.

The Tea Party folks and Trump supporters are the very same demographic - the very same folks.

This election is different. We have a GOP nominee that every other day puts his foot into this big mouth and says something stupid or backtracks causing his base to drop support.

I am prepared for a Hillary presidency and the investigation after investigation which the Republicans will launch simply because she is a Clinton.

So glad that Trump will never, ever be an "elected official" so that we can mock him until our hearts content.

The Line between True Position and Political Expediency

Election time, for me, always brings to the fore this question:
How much of what politicians say is actual positioning on a question and how much is political posturing and/or expediency?
The constant flip-flopping (as it is commonly referred to) could have two distinct meanings:
1) The person ACTUALLY changed their mind.
2) They are trying to court some portion of the electorate that they need in order to get elected.

In my more cynical moods I tend to think it is always the second option. But I admit that there may be some instances where the first is, in fact, the case.
I imagine that timing is always an important data point. When the change of position comes as a result of public opinion that tends to favor a certain side, it would seem that
for the most part, the politician is being merely expedient.
I have not been able to identify changes of position that came at off times, when it would be more likely to be truly a change of heart.
And for that matter, how does one tell what a politician really thinks?

Thoughts?

Running for office is little more than being a top salesman. Acquiring market share. Convincing enough people that you will give them more of what they want.

Trump is a professional salesman. He has no policy positions other than what his instinct tells him will sell to a lot of people. The difference between running for president and running his "businesses" is that to become president you need to get a majority of the market share.

Clinton is a less accomplished salesman, and I believe she has some real policy positions. But I also believe that she cannot win unless she panders judiciously to acquire the majority market share.

The other side of the equation is that people want to be sold something. Otherwise, salesmen wouldn't exist. Unfortunately, the majority of the market share does not have much in the way of common sense when it comes to buying.