Capitol Hill Blue Forums Capitol Hill Blue Opinions CHB Columnists Trump is a traitor and enemy of the state

I think that he pretty much put an end to much of this stuff. I, personally, think that if he wins the election it will eventually kill him. Then we will get the first female president which is, I think, pretty interesting and fine with me. I can't help it. I also find it interesting that media loves to put anything they can find, if its anti-biden, out there. I am sick and tired of media crap. They are responsible, for instance, for training Trump, and then giving him a billion dollars of exposure which, incidentally, they continue to this day and its free.

If anything costs Trump money he also doesn't pay. I remember, before he ran, that he owed a LOT of people money. He never paid and when he was sued he did the Trump put it off until they gave up. When he needed to hire somebody they wouldn't work for Trump unless he paid up front. The man is not just a criminal but an active criminal.

I think the worst thing about Trump is that he is showing the rest of the world that we have voters who are determined to elect a criminal, a loser, liar, and a jerk as their president.

Wonders never cease.

I think the notion she wouldn't appear on the propaganda networks because she was an oblivious campaigner, I believe is based rather on the fact those networks ask ridiculous questions ... when did she stop being a communist, vis a vis reality based questions. Juxtapose that with conservatives who will not appear on non-propaganda networks which as the hard questions based on what these folks have said or done ... they do not want to be exposed to their Base. Witness the recent Hannity interview of Gov Newsom ... Hannity did not believe factual information like Pres Biden has presided over an oil industry which is currently the largest producer of oil in the world ... just can't be .... Trump was

Imagine if Pres Biden were to be interviewed by Bartiromo ... first question would be, how much money has he taken from China.



I suspect she as well as many in the non-propaganda media, thought Trump's unfitness would be so overwhelming few would support him. Little did they know, and I was one of the few who entertained the idea Trump had a real chance as he found the Republican Base amenable to a message of bigotry, which is now the normal, no longer do elected Republican's have to tell the Base they are not bigots. That chance was enhanced by the Comey effect, which I believe, despite all the polling which you believe is gospel, was the precipice tipping to Trump.

All objective minded folks know and understand Trump is unfit to be a dogcatcher ... imagine the conundrum intelligence officials have, knowing they may have to give Trump top secret intelligence, which he may sell or simply give to Putin.

But she also refused to even show up on historically Dem friendly late night shows!
Sorry but THAT was just plain flat out "STOO-PID".
Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, Rachel Maddow, or even (gasp! shudder!) Keith Olbermann.
She wouldn't grant interviews with Rolling Stone, she didn't let hardly anyone interview her.

Hillary practiced what she practices best:
ARROGANCE.
It is the exact same arrogance that landed her in the tank for the emails situation which, for those who aren't aware, happened because Hillary shares one thing in common with Trump, ignorance and hostility toward new technology. She refused to give up her Blackberry and when the government declared they were no longer capable of handling federal security requirements, what does she do? She angrily picks up the phone and demands her own private server, rather than LEARN HOW to operate a new phone fer chrissakes.

Her defeat was largely of her own making, it was her election to lose and she lost it because of her arrogance.

Jeffrey, another big reason Hillary lost was she let Trump both outwork and out campaign her on the campaign trail. 116 campaign visits, stops, rallies for Trump from 1 Sep to election day 2016 to Hillary’s 71. That 71 looks larger than what it was as it included fund raisers in deep blue California and New York. The deciding states, Wisconsin, Trump 5 visits, Hillary 0. Michigan Trump 6, Hillary 1. Pennsylvania Trump 8, Hillary 5. That 5 would have been 4 if Hillary hadn’t made an election eve stop in Pittsburgh. Even in electoral vote rich Florida Hillary let Trump outwork and out campaign her there, 13 to 8. I was doing monthly forecasts back then, but many of us wondered if there wasn’t something physically wrong with Hillary, like sick or something.

Arrogance, certainly. That caused her to lose the independent vote for those independents who actually voted. 46-42 over Trump with 12% voting third party. 54% of all independents disliked both and didn’t want neither one as the next president.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/pol...ans-dislike-presidential-candidates.aspx

Hillary did come across as arrogant, as aloof, an elitist know it all vs. Trump’s obnoxiousness, his rudeness, uncouth, egotistical throw in a bunch more adjectives in front of his name. Traits that turned independents off on both. Independents made up only 25% of those who actually voted in 2016 although at the time they made up 41% of the electorate. The democrats had a 6 point advantage in party affiliation but that shrunk to a 3 point advantage among those who voted. Voter turnout was very important to Trump’s win, 54% turned out in 2016 using VAP, 137 million. In 2020 when Biden won independents 54-41, independents made up 30% of those who voted, voter turnout was 62%, 160 million. Biden won new voters, those who didn’t vote in 2016 but did in 2020, some 23 million people 64-32 over Trump. Voter turnout was one main key in both Biden’s win and Hillary Clinton’s loss.

Both posts above cite really good reasons why Hillary lost. Two not mentioned is James Comey reopening the investigation into Hilary during early voting and, yes this really did happen, Russian interference into the 2016 election.

We’re still dealing with that interference today as recently as a few weeks ago when Alexander Smirnoff was arrested. Don’t let Trump, Bill Barr, or any MAGAt tell you there was no Russian interference - that is a lie. There was plenty interference to go around.

inre JJ and P /// Arrogance

If arrogance was the deciding factor then Americans truly are stupid.

There are two kinds of arrogant people ... those who have no portfolio i.e. Trump .... and those who have portfolio i.e. Clinton. Clinton was far and away the better candidate despite her "arrogance", her "elitism", her lack of techno skills, her etc. That Americans could not see the difference between a competent elitist and an incompetent elitist, eludes me, only to reiterate my believe for the most part the electorate is stupid.

And so now we stand at the proverbial fork in the road, to either continue the grand experiment called Democracy or to succumb to dictatorship. Based on my previous comments, I can easily see how this time next year I will be off the grid. Rapace.

Rporter - Electability. When parties choose a candidate, electability should be taken into consideration. Before one can govern, first one must win an election. Electability can change over time; it can change depending on the situation and circumstances of the time the election takes place. Also, what the voters are looking for in a candidate, that too can change. Charisma also plays a large part in determining who wins and losses. Obama had charisma, he won twice, Bill Clinton had charisma, he won twice, Reagan had charisma, he won twice. Ford didn’t, he lost to Carter who in turn lost to Mr. Charisma Reagan. G.H.W. Bush was very competent, experienced, but lacked charisma, he lost to a charismatic Bill Clinton. Trump was obnoxious, rude and uncouth, he lost to Biden. Biden didn’t have any charisma, but folks were sick and tired of Trump childish antic like name calling and throwing of temper tantrums along with his 3rd grade schoolyard bullying tactics. It’s all about how the voter sees, views the candidates, their perspectives of the candidates. No matter how qualified, how experienced, how good a president one could be, if that person isn’t electable, he’s going to lose. This is democracy in action.

Clinton and Trump were both big turnoffs back in 2016. 25% of all Americans disliked and didn’t want neither. Result, low voter turnout, high third-party vote from those who did vote. The deciders, independents, 54% didn’t like nor want neither one. Many independents decided to stay home in 2016 came out to vote in 2020. 12% of independents who did vote, voted for Johnson, Stein or some other third-party candidate, they voted against both Trump and Clinton.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/pol...ans-dislike-presidential-candidates.aspx

One must look at the entire electorate, not just how the party stalwarts view their candidate. The entire electorate to see if a candidate is electable. One needs to get their perspectives of the candidates. But with today’s modern primary system, usually neither major party does that. The Democrats did take into consideration the entire electorate in 2020 with their choice of Biden. But that was the Democrats sole objective, goal, defeating Trump. Biden was pretty much everyone’s second choice but recognized as a fairly safe bet to beat Trump in 2020. That could be seen by everyone except Trump supporters. Hillary Clinton wasn’t electable in the eyes of the deciders, swing voters, independents. She wasn’t her husband. Her husband would have trounced Trump by 15 points in a landslide victory in 2016. Bill probably could do so again this year. Bill has that type of personality and charisma that non-affiliated voters love. Hillary’s personality was the type that was very easy to dislike among the election deciders, independents. If you don’t think personality plays a huge role in elections especially among swing voters, then you don’t know much about elections. Notice I didn’t say politics, I said elections.

Sooo .... I think you made my claim ... the American electorate are ignorant and stupid, if as you point out they rely on the qualities of a "beauty" contest instead of competence. Based on one of your criteria Adolph Hitler would made a very electable candidate and I would have to guess the ignorance and stupidity of the American electorate would vote for him.

I'm a pragmatic liberal. There are lot's of problems and I'm looking for the people who will be able to solve those problems or at least attempt to solve them. In 2016 Trump, without experience and definitely no competence, would exacerbate the problems while Clinton, with a truckload of experience and competence, would attempt solutions. I would choose Clinton for that reason. In 2024 Trump, without any "real" experience governing, with incompetence, and corruption to boot, would not just exacerbate the problems, he would attempt to end Democracy. I have no choice but to vote for Biden, who has invaluable experience in governing, a high level of competence, apparent incorruptibility, surrounded by people with some vision for solutions to problems, and all despite the "fact" he is not a very "electable" candidate, based on your analysis.

While there are certain elements of reality in your analysis, it does not provide an adequate explanation for the many ridiculously stupid people who ARE elected. Some of these folks are elected because they are stupid or ignorant or both, which would reflect their constituency. Others are elected by party machinery.

I choose to vote for people based on the set of proposed solutions to the problems facing Americans, both domestically and in the global setting. I can only hope you are not voting based on who has more people at a rally.

For many folks, that’s exactly what elections are. A popularity contest, a beauty contest, a personality test, a test of charisma. That’s a reality especially among independents who don’t pay much if any attention to politics until an election nears. That’s all part of being a democracy where all people can vote, but on average 45% decide not to for various reasons. You’re going to have folks very knowledgeable about politics, other who have no knowledge at all. For those who do vote, for who they vote for, for whatever reason their vote counts.

When choosing a candidate, the two major parties need to take this into consideration. One can never govern if one can never win an election regardless of how competent, experienced, whatever. This is part of being a democracy, of trying to get as many people to vote as one possibly can. What would you have us do? Make everyone who votes take a civics test? In a democracy, the informed and uninformed all have a vote.

I think since the start of our modern primary system the quality of candidates have dropped. FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ are all rank in the top 13 of presidents by historians. LBJ being the lowest at number 13. Those presidents fell under the old primary system or selection process. Trump never would have been nominated under the old system. But the new primary system relies more on popularity than competence. It also relies more on the people voting than having party leaders have a say.

Barack Obama is ranked number 10.