Hillary Clinton

Brutal New Clinton Ads Target Trump, Portraying Him as Unacceptable

The likely Democratic nominee signals a willingness to attack the GOP candidate in a way that Republicans never did.

|

For a preview of what the next six months of general election jousting between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will look like, take a moment to watch the pair of ads released by the Clinton campaign over the last 24 hours. The ads portray Trump as both a dangerous demagogue with a penchant for racially charged remarks and as a loose cannon candidate whose behavior is unacceptable even to fellow Republicans.

One ad focuses on Trump's comments about Mexicans and Muslims, and his initial refusal to disavow support from white nationalists:

Another ad is just a compilation of statements that Trump's fellow Republicans, including Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and Marco Rubio, have said about him:

These ads give a pretty good sense of the general tone the election is likely to take right off the bat, and the sorts of attacks that Clinton is likely to pursue as the election proceeds. You can think of them as teaser trailers. There's sure to be lots more later in the year, once the main event is upone us. 

And what both ads make clear is that Clinton is going to make a sustained early effort to portray Trump as simply and totally unacceptable in a way that Trump's Republican primary competitors never really did—or at least didn't do in any concerted way.

One of the reasons that analysts got the Trump campaign wrong, and that he was able to outperform expectations was that many observers expected that the GOP would make a unified effort to cast Trump as someone who should be disqualified.

Although, as Clinton's video shows, there were certainly scattered efforts to take on Trump, and to rule him unfit for the presidency, they tended to come in bursts, one at a time, by desperate candidates who had effectively already lost. (Witness Ted Cruz, who played nice with Trump throughout last year, laying into Trump on the morning of the Indiana primary this week.)  And so, as Nate Cohn writes in The New York Times, "The Republican elite treated Mr. Trump as it would have treated a fairly ordinary candidate, even as he said extraordinary things. That's a big part of why he won."

Maybe Trump will figure out how to respond to these attacks in a way that renders them less effective. He's indicated that he will make an effort to behave in a way that is more "presidential" as the general election begins. But so far, at least, it's not clear what that will look like, and how it will mesh with these sorts of charges being lobbed at him. 

Trump spent yesterday flip-flopping on whether or not he would consider Ohio Gov. John Kasich as his running mate, and suggesting that, contrary to what he's said previously, he might consider raising the federal minimum wage. He may be toning down his rhetoric a little bit here and there, but he's still the same old Trump. And Clinton is going to draw out that less-presidential version of Trump, in part by attacking him with ads like these. 

That's why I suspect he'll have a difficult time escaping his outrageous primary persona. Even if Trump manages to successfully adopt a more presidential demeanor in the general, Hillary Clinton is going to make every effort to remind voters of all the times that he wasn't very presidential in the primary.

NEXT: How Does It Feel To Work 'Outside the Familiar Binaries of the Two-Party System'? Great!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What’s that they say about people who live in glass houses?

    1. Yeah, I am sure Trump’s responses will be…interesting.

      1. Roll the ‘What difference does it make…’ parade of shit.

        fuck

        1. I’d love to see a remake of the 3am call commercial, with the hillary character hanging up the phone and saying wdatpdim.

      2. If there is anything to praise about Trump, it’s that he’s not afraid to call her every name in the book. This election cycle, we may finally see the two-party system implode.

      3. I’ll bet he says she’s ugly and she smells bad!

    2. In this case I like:
      “When you point your finger you have 3 more pointing back at you”

      Since everything negative she can say about Trump goes triple for her.

    3. That they shouldn’t walk around naked?

      1. That depends on the occupant, doesn’t it?

        1. fairly sure we can all agree that Mrs Trump walking around naked is a good policy move. TIWTANFL

          1. More like FLOTUSILF.

    4. Glass houses are no problem when you have a sympathetic media providing cover.

  2. Spell-check to paragraph four please.

    1. “upone” is a perfectly cromulate word.

  3. It’s unacceptable candidates all the way down!

      1. Choose the form of the Destructor!

        1. All shall pick one and despair!

        2. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!

  4. Nothing Republicans threw at Trump stuck. What makes you think Hillary will have more success?

    1. Because Trump is so terrible!!! He is just the worst!!! How can he possibly be the nominee?!?!?! What’s wrong with people that vote???

    2. Different audiences and different margins of success.

      Republicans were trying to persuade their base, and needed to persuade at least 51% of that base overall, and significantly larger margins more recently.
      Clinton is aiming for “independents” and disaffected Republicans, and doesn’t need as large of a margin of either.

      1. …needed to persuade at least 51% of that base overall…

        Only very recently. Most of Trump’s “wins” were with 25-45% of the vote. That the media makes a big deal of the front-runner “winning” with less than 50% is frankly wrong.

        If he were the Republican favorite, he would always win with 50%+.

      2. Clinton is aiming for “independents” and disaffected Republicans

        Cruz got the base. Trump got the independents and the disaffected.

        The election will be Crooked Clinton Establishment Machine vs. Trump the Outsider. My money and hopes are on Trump.

        1. If you think Clinton’s favorability ratings are bad, they are way worse for Trump especially among women. Please don’t put your money towards Trump. Spend it on something more worthwhile like Sauna Pants.

        2. Except that unless the next recession/depression hits soon, it will
          be the new president that gets the blame. I agree with the current
          reason article on “Capitalist Pig Backs Hilary” (too lazy to give you the
          link but I just read it a second ago).

    3. The composition of the Republican primary electorate is drastically different than the composition of the general election. The attacks on Trump have stuck – just not with most Republicans. That’s evident by Trump’s historic unfavorable ratings among the general population. Of course, Clinton herself is the second or third most unfavorable major party nominee of all time, so that may be Trump’s only saving grace.

      1. Trump’s unfavorable rating was, worse in June 2015 when he started his campaign. A year of things supposedly sticking to him would seemingly cause them to get worse, but they haven’t, and that doesn’t square very well with your analysis.

        1. Sorry bout the extraneous comma, stupid mobile keyboards?

        2. Is there anyway to disaggregate those results by polls of registered voters, likely voters, and adults?

          1. I’ll try to find something.

          2. I think maybe you’re asking if a positive change in favorability among Republicans was offset by a negative change in others, causing what appears to be no change?

            Possibly, I suppose?

            1. I think maybe you’re asking if a positive change in favorability among Republicans was offset by a negative change in others, causing what appears to be no change?

              That’s one question, yeah. I’d just be interested to play with the data.

              1. In the interested of total honesty, I’m not having much luck finding it disaggregated, but I’ll keep at it and get you something if I find it.

                1. Wait..I found it. Click “customize this chart” then you can select by sub-population.

                  1. Awesome, thank you.

                    1. All I can say is that if you make the data smoothing more aggressive, there is a noticeable upward trend from Dec 2015 on for all sub-populations. It is most noticeable in the “Adults” sub-population. The reason? Who knows?

                    2. I’ll be interested to see how that changes now that many, many people will have to hold their nose and accept him.

                    3. Also, I thought maybe the GOP might have gone on the offensive against him around that time, but checking the news, it doesn’t look that way, they were all over him well before that.

        3. Trump had an initial decline in unfavorability between May and July, he has not improved things since then. He’s stuck around -24, which is historically awful.

          http://elections.huffingtonpos…..ble-rating

          1. Which basically proves the point that nothing is, sticking.

            1. GODDAMN YOU EXTRA COMMA!

            2. How does it prove that? He’s consistently being viewed unfavorably by 60% of the electorate or more. How is that not sticking?

        4. In June 2015 his unfavorable was in the high 60’s. His lowest unfavorable ever was mid 50’s. It’s now back to low 60’s.

          Most people rate him unfavorable. Those people aren’t going to change because they hear more attacks. And the minority who are favorable have unfavorable opinions of the attackers. The 10-15% who are swinging the polls currently place him in the middle of the unfavorable range.

          Historically unfavorable is correct.

          1. Finding him unfavorable doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t vote for him.

            1. Finding him unfavorable doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t vote for him.

              Absolutely. During the 2012 Canadian Federal election, nobody other than die-hard Conservatives seemed to “like” Stephen Harper, but he didn’t need like-ability to get a majority. And when Justin, The Hair That Walks Like A Man, got elected late last year, his popular vote was no better than Harper’s during the 2012 general, even though he was considered far more likeable than Harper.

              Likeability is highly over-rated.

      2. Source

        http://elections.huffingtonpos…..ble-rating

        1. Looks like I linked the same thing as you. I don’t see how you find that data encouraging. He improved initially as he gained support in the primary, but he’s been stuck around 55-65% unfavorable (and below 40% favorable) for 10 months now, and it’s worse today than it was a few months ago.

          1. I don’t find it encouraging. I find it indicative of a lack of evidence indicating that the attacks on trump are effective.

          2. Allow me to be more clear.

            I don’t know where you’re getting that I find it encouraging. That seems to have come out of left field.

            I was simply responding to the idea that his unfavorables can be used to show what you claim, since it doesn’t, to me, seem to be supported by the polls I’ve read.

            He’s been stuck at historical asshole numbers forever. The attacks seem to have made little difference in that regard, so I’d disagree with your overall take on their effectiveness. I was offering the basically flat numbers as evidence.

            1. Trump wasn’t running for president or a political figure (outside of a couple times he considered possibly running) before June. He was viewed unfavorably then because most people know him as just a douchey reality TV star and billionaire. Some people who otherwise would have continued holding that position changed their minds because he started saying things about politics that they agreed with, but the rest of the country continued disliking him, and more intensely for the most part. Trump wouldn’t be viewed unfavorably by 80% of Latinos (with the vast majority having very unfavorable views) if those attacks weren’t sticking, for example. He wouldn’t have a huge gender gap problem if those attacks weren’t sticking. Etc etc.

      3. The fact that our two choices this year are the two least favorable candidates in living memory says more about our political process than anything else.

        1. Maybe it’s because sixteen years of failure have lowered our standards.

          1. Just sixteen?

      4. Then why’d he do better in open primaries? (As did Sanders.)

        1. It’s almost like Trump does badly…until it comes to actual voting.

        2. Because Independents who vote in primaries aren’t a good reflection of the general electorate either. Most of Sanders independent supporters are people who are too far left for the Democratic Party, and most of Trump’s are conservative-leaning people fed up with the GOP establishment.

  5. I wonder who Suderman is going to vote for.

    1. I wonder if Ron Bailey is going to vote Trump to punish the Democrats.

      1. They’re all going to vote Hilldog because Trump and the phenomenon of his rise is just so weird to them.

        1. Isn’t it horrible when the peasants have a say!

          1. No, it’s horrible when peasants, or anyone, choose shitty candidates.

      2. I wonder if Ron Bailey is going to vote Trump to punish the Democrats.

        Lol!

        I’d bet he’s going to vote Democrat to punish the Republican voters for punishing the Republican establishment

    2. I’m guessing no one, because he’s said his vote doesn’t count. Hillary, because he’s such a cosmo-prog.

      1. Hey, why did you put a line through the correct response?????

    3. Being a professional fake libertarian ain’t easy, but by golly, someone’s gotta do it.

  6. “Watch These Hillary Clinton Ads DESTROY Donald Trump!”

    1. Is there one simple trick, too?

      1. You won’t BELIEVE what happened NEXT! (girl in bikini circled in red)

    1. You SF’d the link.

      You will have no place in a Trump administration.

        1. They give it to you, so you vote that way.

          That was actually…a decent burn.

    2. *wipes link from page*

      1. With a cloth

    3. If you hate people who use food stamps, why would you shop at Wal-Mart?

      1. Low prices, same like everyone else.

      2. Because of all the Target rapists.

    4. IT’S A FREE COUNTRY!

      If this phrase comes back in earnest this is either the libertarian moment or Trump has truly made America great again.

    5. If you receive any form of direct public assistance you shouldn’t be allowed to vote. This includes social security and medicare, since you’re getting out more than you put in.

      1. So, you’d cut off voters once they reach the age of ~65?

        While I share you disdain for people voting who have no skin in the game, as it were. I do believe that shutting up those who should have the most wisdom and who have contributed much to the economy is like shooting ourselves in the foot.

        1. I do believe that shutting up those who should have the most wisdom

          My remaining grandparents all still believe that FDR was the greatest president, and possibly human being, who has ever lived, and at least one of my grandmothers is feeling the Bern pretty bad. Age does not necessarily equate to wisdom.

          1. I do believe that shutting up those who should have the most wisdom and who have contributed much to the economy is like shooting ourselves in the foot.

            Not at all. On the contrary, Heinlein wrote, in his treatise on how to fix American democracy, that as a group, old folks were easily the most selfish, grasping, and least civic-minded of any of the groups he dealt with as a political advisor. Their attitude was, paraphrasing, ‘Fuck it, I’ve got mine. And how can I get more, the country be damned.’

            If we were to follow some guy‘s proposal, they can decide if getting Social Security and Medicare is worth the franchise or not.

            The thing is, isn’t everyone pretty much receiving some form of public assistance?

        2. Make it net tax recipients can’t vote, and once retired you get cut off only once you have collected more SS and Medicare than you put in (plus an assumed 10% return on investment as you could have gotten had you been allowed to keep your SS money to invest yourself for your own retirement).

          1. Now that sounds good. Merely waving a hand and disenfranchising a fourth of the population is ludicrous.

            My grandmother hated FDR. She told stories of cow carcuses rotting in the fields, and of crops destroyed to prop up prices. Not all old people are the same.

  7. “”Hillary Clinton””Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio agree.”””

    So Clinton is admitting that Trump is right about their being no difference between the establishment in the Demo or Rep Party

    1. “Here are 3 people you never liked talking bad about someone. Convinced yet?”

      1. The target of this ad isn’t Trump supporters who hate those people. It’s Republicans skeptical of Trump who are on the fence about voting for him in the general.

        1. I get that, but none of the three have been that popular with any republicans. They’ve all been a mostly best of the worst type candidate who people hold their nose to vote for.

          1. Cruz is pretty well liked by the staunchly conservative wing of the party. And a lot of Republicans who would seriously consider voting for Hillary probably have a positive view of Mitt Romney.

            1. And I’ll add on that the attempt to appeal to Cruz voters is probably more to get them to not vote or vote 3rd party more so than for her, because that’s probably a bridge too far for the vast majority of them.

              1. Hillary’s problem in eroding the Repub base is that voting Repub is going to be seen as a vote against her.

                I don’t think the Repubs are going to have a big problem with base turnout this year.

                1. I agree that Hillary isn’t a particularly good candidate to capture anti-Trump sentiment in the GOP. If the Dems had offered up a halfway decent, middle of the road candidate who hasn’t been hated by half the country for 25 years, they would have this in the bag. But the data at the moment indicates that Trump is losing more Republicans to Hillary than Hillary is losing Dems to him. Maybe that changes, but so far everyone just seems to be basing that belief off of gut feelings.

                  1. Is there actual data on that or is it based on the overall poll numbers?

                    1. Here’s a recent poll showing that. There have been others also showing the same thing.

                      http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2…..eneral.pdf

                  2. But the data at the moment indicates that Trump is losing more Republicans to Hillary than Hillary is losing Dems to him.

                    Is there a citation/linky for that data?

  8. I’m expecting a long season of glass house dwellers throwing stones at each other.

    -jcr

  9. Clinton attacks! Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the throne of Khorne Clinton!

    1. OY, WUT DA ZOG DID YOU JUS’ SAY ABOUT TRUMP, YA STUPID GIT? I’LL ‘AVE YOU KNOW I GRADUATID TOP A’ MY CLASS IN DA ORK KOMMANDOS, ‘N I’VE BEEN IN A BUNCHA SECRIT RAIDZ ON DEM FILFIE ‘UMIES, ‘N I HAS OVER 300 A DEIR TEEF TA PROVE IT. I’M TRAINED IN THE ART A’ STEALF ‘N I’M DA BEST AT DAKKA OUTTA ALL DA ORKZ. YOU AIN’T NOTHIN’ TO ME BUT JUSS ANOTHER CAN T’SCRAP. I’LL WIPE YA DA ZOG OUT, A DUFF THE LIKES A’ WHICH AIN’T NO WUNZ SEEN SINCE DA WARBOSS, YA LIST’NIN’? YA THINKS YOU CAN GET AWAY WIV CALLIN’ TRUMP A GROT IN FRONT’A DA WHOLE WAAAAH? FINK AGAIN, SKUM. AS WE YAP OUR GOBS, I’M CALLIN’ ALL MY INFILTRA’A’S ACROSS ALL A’ ORKDOM ‘N DEY’S ‘UNTIN’ YA RIGHT NOW, SO YOU BESS’ PREPARE FOR DA STORM, GIT. DA STORMBOYZ’LL RID YA UH’ DAT PUNY LI’ L FING YOU CALL A LIFE. YOU’S AS GOOD AS DEAD, YA GROT. I’Z EVERYWHERE ‘N EVERYTIME ALL AT ONCE, ‘N I’Z CAN KILL YA 700 TIMES WIFOUT EVEN USIN’ A SHOOTA. NOT ONLY DAT, BUT I CAN GET ALL THE STIKKBOMBS AN’ DAKKA I WANT AND BLOW YOUR TINY ‘EAD INTO SO MANY BITS YOU WON’ EVEN ‘AVE DA CHANCE TA MEET GORK AN’ MORK WHEN I’M THROU WIF’ YOU. IT’Z A SHAME YOU ‘AD NO IDEA THE AMOUNT OF WAAAAGH YOUR SNOTTY GOB-FLAPPIN’ WUZ GONNA GET YOU INTO, YOU’DA CUT YOUR TONGUE OUT INSTEAD! BUT YOU DI’N’T, AN’ YOU’S FIXIN TA PAY THE PRICE WIF MORE DEN JUS’ YER STUPID TEEF. I’LL SHOOT YA SO ‘ARD YOU’LL DROWN IN DAKKA. YOU’S AS GOOD AS DEAD.

      1. That is a thing of beauty.

  10. That kind of ad would work a lot better at a time when there wasn’t widespread rejection of the ruling class.

    As it is, it comes off like them saying “You can’t elect him, he’s not one of us!”. Which, inevitably, feeds Trump’s narrative that we should elect him, because he isn’t one of them.

    1. Clinton is not trying to appeal to the Trump-supporting rejectionists in the Republican Party with this ad; they weren’t going to vote for her anyways. Trump’s narrative is powerful in a vacuum; however, I question how much it will resonate with groups he has been busy alienating for a year.

      1. Trump’s narrative is powerful in a vacuum; however, I question how much it will resonate with groups he has been busy alienating for a year.

        Trump won the women’s vote in Indiana. In fact, I believe he won pretty much all demos. Granted, that was in a Repub primary, but I doubt Trump is terribly concerned about alienating voters who were never going to vote for a Repub anyway.

        I think Trump’s recipe for a win goes like this:

        (1) Get a decent Repub turnout. Not hard, against Hillary.
        (2) Pick up new/swing voters on an anti-establishment campaign. This would be the year for that.

        1. “Granted, that was in a Repub primary, but I doubt Trump is terribly concerned about alienating voters who were never going to vote for a Repub anyway.”

          Do you think those are the only people Trump has alienated?

          1. See above, where he won every demo (except, I think, people with post-graduate degrees or something).

            1. In a Republican primary. Do you think nobody who votes in Republican primaries would consider voting R in a general election?

              1. That’s what the anti-establishment angle is for.

                1. And the evidence that will work is? Sanders supporters may be anti-establishment, but they also despise Trump intensely for the most part. And I’m not sure what evidence indicates that independents who don’t vote in primaries but do in the general would prefer an anti-establishment candidate above all else.

        2. Trump won the women’s vote in Indiana.

          How does Trump do nationally with women? Do they like him much? Does it seem they’ll vote for him?

      2. ^This.

    2. Well said, RC. Suderman et al are still living in the Ruling Class bubble and ala David Brooks, might want to actually spend some time among the rest of the US if they are really interested in understanding, much less offering a thoughtful opinion on current events.

      1. Bernie Trump is the choice of the People. Real American folk, not billionaires like Peter Suderman.

      2. spend some time among the rest of the US

        Hang out with Floridians? No thanks.

    3. RC nails it.

      Clinton is remarkably tone deaf, bumbling and clearly not terribly bright. I an confident she will be constantly shooting holes in the dem hull while her handlers spend the next 5 months frantically bailing and patching.

      1. remarkably tone deaf, bumbling and clearly not terribly bright.

        Such a person has no chance in the general election.

        1. Such a person has no chance in the general election.

          Unless their opponent is equally ‘tone deaf, bumbling and clearly not terribly bright.’

          1. Sounds like Dumb and Dumber 3

        2. You forget the major media will cover up the tone deafness and bumbling. Voters will be presented with an image of complete rationality and competence.

      2. I expect this and nothing less.

  11. I personally think Trump has more to lose in this mudslinging simply because he’s more apt to say something amazingly offensive or stupid (or both) in response to Clinton’s jabs. Can he keep it together for 6 months? I seriously doubt it.

    1. “I personally think Trump has more to lose in this mudslinging simply because he’s more apt to say something amazingly offensive or stupid (or both) in response to Clinton’s jabs”

      On the other hand, Trump’s entire campaign has consisted of mudslinging so it’s his natural habitat and Clinton does not respond well to criticism.

      1. Trump responds well to criticism? He busted out fake Trump Steaks to “prove” that Trump Steaks was still a brand.

        I mean, yeah, I get your point. We can go back and forth on who’ll respond “worse” for the next 6 months.

        1. “Trump responds well to criticism?”

          Well? No.

          Effectively? The results speak for themselves.

          1. We’ll have to wait and see the results in November. Maybe you’re right on the money.

    2. he’s more apt to say something amazingly offensive or stupid

      What could he say that’s more offensive or stupid than the shit he’s been blabbering about for the last 6 months?

    3. I’m seriously considering seeing if Vegas is taking odds on when – not if – Trump calls Hilldabeast a cunt.

    4. I am surprisingly not worried about him saying something too offensive about Hillary. Maybe I’m a terrible person, but meh. I kind of think she deserves some mudslinging.

      1. She has got to be one of the least sympathetic figures in American politics

  12. That’s why I suspect he’ll have a difficult time escaping his outrageous primary persona.

    Prediction: The ‘primary persona’ will serve him just as well in the general election.

    1. ^This^

      There’s almost an element of maintaining the Trump brand regardless. Sure, Trump Presidential brand would be a nice peach but the Presidency would be a lot of work and as long as the Trump brand gets mentioned as much as possible during the Trump campaign and nobody in the Trump campaign strangles and then eats any newborn humans, it will all come out in the wash for Trump.

  13. The Republican elite treated Mr. Trump as it would have treated a fairly ordinary candidate, even as he said extraordinary things.

    Does the NYT really think the Republican elite treats fairly ordinary candidates to “anybody but him” campaigns?

    1. I think the analysis is that it was largely a “too little, too late” sort of thing.

      1. I think most of the establishment treated him like the normal celeb politicians that do OK for a primary or two, then self destruct. Think somebody like Herman Cain. And let’s face it, plenty of people assumed that would happen with Trump as well, and not all of them were party elites.

  14. Can we get the New York Times to print a fake edition of itself too?

    1. The NYT has been faking it for years.

  15. This coming from a woman who has plainly demonstrated breathtaking incompetence and that her only motive is graft.

    The two dem candidates are the only people on the planet who stand a chance of making BO not the worst pres in history. Congrats Dems.

    1. Incompetence?

      She accepted bribes to the Clinton Foundation from half the the governments of the Middle East while she was the Secretary of State!

      Hillary Clinton accepted millions from the Saudis before she was the Secretary of State, she championed the largest sale of military hardware in American history to the Saudis while she was the Secretary of State, and she resumed accepting donations from the Saudis after she was the Secretary of State.

      “In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom’s troublesome human rights record. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Times investigation released Tuesday.

      —-Right Wing Mother Jones

      http://www.motherjones.com/pol…..arms-deals

      How can we seriously consider a President who’s on the payroll of a foreign government?

      Incompetence is the least of my criticisms. Hillary Clinton is a crook, and she’s been a crook since she was at Rose Law.

      1. “…and that her only motive is graft.”

        Covered.

  16. On the flip side, Trump is going to attack Hillary in much nastier ways than Bernie Sanders or any Romney-type Republican would, and it’s not like many people are disposed to give her the benefit of the doubt either.

    This is going to be one low, low turnout election.

    1. I dunno if it will be low turnout or not.

      I think we’ll see a lot of hate-voting.

      1. Hate-voting, certainly. Low turnout? I don’t think so. Not for Trump. He keeps over-performing his polls.

        1. I agree with you that it won’t be low turnout (I think a lot of people on both sides will be motivated to vote against the other candidate), but Trump did consistently outperform polls in the primary. He did at times, and he underperformed at others. He outperformed RCP’s polling averages in the last few primaries in the northeast largely because they included polls from weeks before the election that didn’t capture his surge – if you look at the data, the most recent polls were generally pretty close. Even more so if you exclude undecided voters from the polls.

          1. Recent polls weren’t any better, as far as I can see. If anything, he does better in the recent ones. Trump beat the RCP average in Indiana by 11.8.

            1. I’m not talking about recent states, I’m talking about the more recent polls in the averages. For example, in Connecticut, the average was 53.7 and he got 59. The oldest poll had him at 48, and the two more recent ones had him at 54 and 59 exactly.

              http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..-5352.html

              In Rhode Island, one poll had him at 38, dragging down the average, but two more recent ones had him at 58 and 61. He got 65.

              http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..-5785.html

              He did outperform in Indiana and a couple other states, but a lot of those are just bad averages due to limited and outdated polling. Assuming that will hold up in the general is not a good assumption.

              Outperforming polls by 2.6% in primaries isn’t very surprising or meaningful. Polls include undecided voters, so you should be outperforming a little. If you’re at 30% in a poll where 10% of the voters are undecided, it’s not surprising or “overperforming” if you get 33% of the vote.

              1. I think there’s a “Bradley effect”/”shy Tory effect” going on.

                1. I think that’s your own wishful thinking. 2.6% is nothing after you account for undecided voters. There is no consistent trend of Trump outperforming polling, let alone evidence that this would continue in the general.

                  1. Due respect, your own wishful thinking seems to be at play here as well.

                    Outperforming by 2.6% is enough, under the right circumstances, to easily swing an election.

                    Dismissing it is perilous.

                    1. Not when you’re down by 13.

                    2. Outperforming by 2.6% in primaries isn’t the same thing as doing it in a general. And again, if you adjusted for undecided voters, I doubt even that 2.6% would exist. Most polls had 10% undecided give or take a few points. Trump was getting 30-50% of the vote in most states, so he should have been outperforming by at least 2.6%.

  17. The more interesting development to watch is whether someone not bound by political correctness can dismantle Clinton more effectively than anyone else.

    1. Clearly Trump can and will do that.

    2. This.

      Unless someone finds the will and the way to fight back successfully against progressive propaganda (Racist! Sexist! Homophobe!), our remorseless trek down the Road to Serfdom will never stop.

  18. Oh yeah, Hillary’s pro-Muslim immigration stance will sweep her into the White House!

    Much, much more devastating attack ads on Hillary are simple:

    “At this point, what difference does it make?”

    The tape of her laughing about sliming the underage rape victim when she successfully defended the rapist in court. The victim is still around, and pissed.

    The anti-Trump riots with Mexican flags and the “Make America Mexico Again” sign.

    The emails and the FBI investigation, including the email of her ordering someone to remove classified markings from a document, the hiring of a hard drive destruction company.

    Her refusal to release her health records.

    1. There is an unending series of devastating attack ads on Hillary, going back decades.

      “We’re going to raise taxes because we know better than you how to spend your money.”

      “You mean, like, with a cloth?”

      But the one I would put on a loop would be “WDATPDIM” – cuts of her saying that interspersed with shots of the bloody handprints at the consulate, photos of the dead, etc. The followup would be the mealy-mouthed “we’re going to find who did this and Bring Them To Justice”, followed by shots of the prime suspects with the caption “Still At Large”.

      1. Also: showing that she knew Benghazi was a terror attack, and then lied about it to the families later.

        1. Yeah, I think you could probably get one of widows to appear in an anti-Hillary ad. She lied to their faces as their husbands’ corpses were being unloaded from the plane.

          1. He could easily paint her as the “bomb the Middle East and then invite the refugees here” candidate.

  19. Clinton and Trump will beat each other down and people will pick sides but then a third party candidate – a principled conservative – will fly into town on a donkey….

    1. There are too many people who will vote for Trump or Clinton out of tribal loyalty.

  20. I can’t wait until Trump’s first ads about Bill Clinton’s trip to Pedophile Island hit the air.

    1. Ads showing Hillary smearing the victims of Bill’s serial sexual assualting and raping should be entertaining too.

  21. Will be filling my salty tear buckets when Democrats suddenly start hating executive actions during the Trump presidency.

    1. I think the Dems are past that. I really do. I think they see no inconsistency in the whole executive game. You get your guy in charge. Any questions or doubt about executive power just receive that argument, repeatedly: get your guy in charge, get your guy in charge…

      You don’t destroy the ring, you try to take it for your own ends.

      1. This is it exactly. It’s what the whole two-party system is about. Both of them want to increase that power and I think they realize they need each other to do it. One side gets in and ratchets things up as much as possible before the public catches on and punishes them for it. Then the other side gets in and does the same thing, but from the new baseline. And so we end up with reduced checks on power and a bunch of laws and orders that one half of the country or the other hates. It looks like both parties might be on the verge of fracturing, though. So maybe this cycle will end soon. For decades a single extra party has always failed to gain traction, but maybe two extra parties will change things permanently.

      2. Of course, the end path to that is becoming the new Dark Lord. Corrupting the normals checks and balances as a utilitarian way to get what you want is how you build a dictatorship out of a republic.

    2. I have already heard a fair amount of ‘ Trump can’t undo Obo’s decrees!!!’.

      Don’t like checks and balances? Ever hear of ‘Me today, you tomorrow,? Yes he can bitch. New king, new decrees.

      1. “I have already heard a fair amount of ‘ Trump can’t undo Obo’s decrees!!!’.

        Since when do Presidents make “decrees”?

        Obama in not a King or Emperor.

        Some people seem to be confused about that.

        1. Obama being at the top of that list.

        2. Obama in not a King or Emperor.

          Semantics.

  22. Um…. what the fuck are you talking about Sunderman? There’s been an effort for months to derail trump, although they did piss around and not support cruz. And I don’t like Cruz or Trump, but it isn’t true that a big chunk of people on the right have tried to portray Trump as unacceptable. Did you miss that National Review published an issue all about how Trump shouldn’t win?

    Look, I feel I sound more for TEAM RED than I really am, but this colunn just has no basis in reality when it acts like the Republicans didn’t unite, or try to, to stop Trump. They just picked the wrong horse with Jeb/Walker, then Rubio, and then Cruz. Like, if they had picked Cruz or Rubio first and put everything behind them, maybe, but bad bets happen. They were united against Trump, but they couldn’t agree on what Not Trump should be

    1. Suderman has a point in that the GOP establishment didn’t take Trump seriously until it was too late. You’re right in that they were against him from the start, but they assumed he would fall on his own for the most part. There was a real lack of research and strategizing against Trump until too late.

    2. The point is that they didn’t start even taking him seriously until it was too late and he already had momentum and the lead. At that point their protestations looked whiny and pathetic. For months at the start they mostly just ignored him, expecting his campaign to fizzle out when the Rep voters got serious about a real candidate.

    3. I really think it’s all a plot by Democrats in cahoots with Trump for him to run as a Republican and say the most ridiculous things so that a Democrat would be elected even if they ran Elmo.

      1. It’s GOT to be.

  23. The other campaigns did not treat Trump as an ordinary candidate. They treated him as a candidate that would crash and burn on his own while they tore down the other typical candidates they thought were actual contenders. Unfortunately for them, they completely misread the mood of their electorate, thinking that they must come round to a more conventional choice eventually.

    1. they completely misread the mood of their electorate, thinking that they must come round to a more conventional choice eventually.

      And it looks to me like Hillary is repeating this mistake.

      We have the ultimate insider v the ultimate outsider, in an anti-establishment year. You do the math on who has the tougher hill to climb.

      1. I don’t think all anti-establishment types are created equal, though.

        There’s a pretty wide difference between a liberty-minded voter who understands the problem with government power, and say a Bernie voter who wants to throw out the establishment because it’s not establishmenting enough.

        1. I think the anti-establishment mood will primarily come into play with undecided/swing voters.

        2. The Bernie supporters are more ideologically motivated than the Trump supporters, who just want to tear the whole thing down. The Sanders people will dutifully vote Democrat when oush comes to shove.

          1. Most of them, but not all of them. There’s more Sanders/Trump overlap than you might think. That, plus Trump’s appeal to blue-collar Reagan Democrats, many blacks, and large numbers of “I never voted before” types, more than compensates for the #NeverTrump GOPe types/neo-cons/ultra-conservatives who claim they won’t vote, or will support Hillary.

            1. And Trump doesn’t have to get Bernie fans to vote for him, he just needs to not rile them up enough where they vote for Hillary. Sanderistas staying home is a very good path for Trump.

              1. I’m surrounded by Sanderistas… quite deep… deeep in Sanders territory, it’s hard for me to imagine they’d stay home rather than vote Hillary.

            2. “There’s more Sanders/Trump overlap than you might think. That, plus Trump’s appeal to blue-collar Reagan Democrats, many blacks, and large numbers of “I never voted before” types, more than compensates for the #NeverTrump GOPe types/neo-cons/ultra-conservatives who claim they won’t vote, or will support Hillary.”

              What data is this based on? All evidence points to Clinton currently having more support from Republicans than Trump has from Democrats.

              This is one poll, but most other have similar results. Clinton beats Trump 94-5 among Ds and Trump wins 84-12 among Rs (Cruz and Kasich both have better spreads among both groups).

              http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2…..eneral.pdf

              And there is no recent data to suggest that has good appeal to black voters, even for a Republican. That narrative is entirely based on one or two outlier polls from last year. He’s viewed unfavorably by 86% of black people, even worse than among Latinos. In the poll above, Trump gets 14% of the non-white vote (they don’t break it down further), compared to 31% for Kasich and 26% for Cruz.

              http://www.latimes.com/politic…..story.html

            3. Wait until Trump suggests Sanders as his running mate.

  24. Meanwhile, there’s a real battle going on.

    1. I normally don’t watch these things, but J.R.R. Tolkien battle rapping with George R.R. Martin with the line “I cut my teeth in the trenches of the Somme, you LARPed your Santa Clause ass through Vietnam!” is solid gold.

    2. Finally, something that makes sense and a candidate we can all get behind.

  25. Libertarian Party doubled in registrations in the wake of the Trumpista win

    From the Washington Examiner:

    In the hours after the polls closed in Indiana and it was announced that businessman Donald Trump had won the Republican presidential primary ? thereby ending Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s campaign ? the Libertarian Party saw a doubling of its new membership applications.

    Now, keep in mind, they’re talking about a trivial number of registrations. Like TINY. But the sentiment is reflective of something we are seeing all across the country.

    1. “Now, keep in mind, they’re talking about a trivial number of registrations. Like TINY.”

      The LP is a grower, not a shower

    2. so, it went up to like what, 10?

  26. Hopefully Trump will do one ad that is just a solid 30 seconds of her barking. Nothing else. Not even his name. Just “Arf, arf, arf”

    1. Anybody with decent video skills could do that and try to get it to go viral on YouTube.

      Maybe steal a little something from a Hillary ad about how awesome she is, as an opener, just to set some context.

      1. Someone’s already cut it together, but I want to see it on prime time.

        Mocking her without giving her a bloody shirt to wave is possible, but I’m not sure Trump can play it that way.

        All anti-Hillary ads should just be using her own words against her.

    1. Nice kitchen.

      Plus, he’s agreeing with me, so he’s obviously intelligent and perceptive. 🙂

    2. Do you have SolidOpinion points and would you use them to point people to his analysis? I apparently got 100 points just for registering.
      http://www.solidopinion.com

  27. Hah. Clinton’s shooting herself in the foot with that idiotic second ad.

    The theme is “The Establishment Doesn’t Like Trump”, which is more pro-Trump of a message than anti-Trump.

    1. Oh – I like the way you think. Though along those lines I would argue it’s more pro-Trump than self-destructive.

  28. They really should exploit Trump’s marriage to Melanoma in attack ads. That’s the kind of thing that gets into the tabloids, where they can write your attack ads for you (and people pay to read them!).

    Trump met Melanoma because he bought himself an escort service a modeling agency where she was on retainer–because chasing tail is a pain in the ass, I guess. Why not have somebody run that game for you?

    Owning your own modeling agency is sort of like before a metal show, when the roadies fan through the crowd and hand out backstage passes to the really hot chicks. . . . only better.

    In this way, our first lady was chosen.

    In the ad, I’d have a montage of all the first ladies people remember. Dolly Madison, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jackie O, Betty Ford, Michelle Obama–and then fade to Melanoma, the plastic goddess.

    http://www.gossipextra.com/wp-…..ania-1.jpg

    1. While our culture is seriously degraded, I would hope its not so degraded that attacking a candidate’s wife is a winning play in a general election.

      1. I’d rather see candidates go after each other’s spouses than go after free trade or our gun rights.

      2. I think that is a really dumb idea. First, it would make it much more difficult for Hillary to play the women card. I want to see Hillary supporters try and defend her basically calling another woman a whore. Second, it would make women sympathetic to both Trump and his wife. No one wants someone questioning how they met their husband. Lastly, I don’t think sexual morality is a subject Hillary wants to get into. If we want to talk about how Trump treats women badly, I am sure Trump would be happy to have that conversation and the opportunity it brings to talk about Bill Clinton.

        1. Since she’s Trump’s wife, she’s not a woman-woman.

        2. Tremendously dumb. You never give a psychopath the opportunity to gain the higher moral ground. Hillary, being a psychopath herself, knows this, of course.

        3. I might agree it would be hard to go after Melanoma and play the woman card if it weren’t for two things:

          1) Melanoma ain’t no Carly Fiorina.

          Melanoma may be unique in that she’s perhaps the only political spouse in the country that makes Hillary look like a professional, self-made woman by way of comparison.

          http://tinyurl.com/gvfh5w9

          America hates slutty, eurotrash, social climbers almost as much as they love jail bait pop singers.

          2) Hillary’s go-to strategy has always been to accuse others of what she’s being accused of–and it never costs her anything.

          When has Hillary Clinton ever paid a price for being a total hypocrite?

          1. Melanoma?

            When did you join the “Block Yomomma is a great insult” club?

            1. Second this.

              Ken, cut the shit.

            2. “Melanoma” is beneath you, Ken. And not funny besides.

              1. Melanoma is hilarious. I hope it’s denigrating to the office of President–especially when it’s occupied by the likes of Obama, Hillary, or Trump.

                And if you think calling her “Melanoma” is bad, wait ’til you see me get warmed up on Liz “Dances with Lies” Warren.

                Fuck Melanoma Trump. Fuck Donald Trump, Fuck his whole family, and Fuck Hillary, Bill, and that scruffy little shit stain Chelsea, too.

                I’m not obligated to provide a safe space for authoritarian assholes or their stupid families.

                1. I’ve thought Fauxcahontas was funnier, but whatever. The Cherokee Tribe, after God only knows kind of compensation/gifts/extortion, validated her claims of NA ancestry FWIW.

                  Not sure what to say to you when pretty much everyone who’s chimed in here, thinks ‘Melanoma’ isn’t funny at all, and you do. She’s not even all that tan.

                  1. “Not sure what to say to you when pretty much everyone who’s chimed in here, thinks ‘Melanoma’ isn’t funny at all, and you do. She’s not even all that tan.”

                    It isn’t just funny. It’s also cruel and obnoxious.

                2. Denigrating the office and the people in it is probably the first step on the road to Libertopia.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKh3-sS96s4

          2. “When has Hillary Clinton ever paid a price for being a total hypocrite?”

            There’s always a first time for everything.

          3. So in your world the Kardashians aren’t a thing?

            1. Among a very small subset of the general population, the Kardashians are popular. More people tune in when they’re on because they hate them.

              And the younger generation came up on the ‘America loves jail bait’ wagon. Same thing happened with Paris Hilton. Nowadays, the only thing people can remember is how much they hated her.

          4. I don’t really care at all about the First Lady or what her background is or what she does, and consider her to be more or less off limits, provided that she understand that she’s just the spouse and she keeps her nose out of our business.

            The latter part is why I often call the Wookie a disgusting pig with a big fat ass; because she keeps lecturing the rest of us that we should eat better while she shoves ice cream cones in her own face and refuses to hit that treadmill that’s begging her to climb aboard.

            1. Yeah, I’m sure your vote won’t be swayed by the candidate’s spouse, but like I was saying, a lot of swing voters care about stuff like that. Hillary Clinton made an entire political career that may culminate in being President of the United States out of leveraging her image as the President’s wife.

              Hillary’s amazing unpopularity today isn’t completely unrelated to going after her personally way back when. Bill cheating on his wife didn’t make him any more popular than he would have been either. And shouldn’t making the emperor as unpopular as possible be the mission of every libertarian?

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFP8kdkHftI

      3. Especially nor when the other candidates spouse is Bill Clinton.

    2. You think it’s a good idea for Hillary to attack Trump’s wife…? And based on her good looks…? Dude….

      1. Attacking her looks would help with the far left, they have a dislike of pretty gals. (But she already has them won) That would probably hurt with more moderated people though.

      2. Absolutely.

        A lot of the swing vote floats around for these kinds of reasons anyway.

        Did you know Mitt Romney once strapped the family dog to the roof of the car and drove all the way across the country?

        If we’d never learned about that, we might never have heard that Barack Obama ate dog while he was in Indonesia.

        In this way our emperors are chosen. Now let’s show them and their families all the respect they deserve.

        1. If it gets down to spouses, Trump wins. Dude, Hillary is on record attacking her husband’s sexual assault victims. Of whom there are dozens. And Melania seems very nice and well-spoken. It would be a total fail as an attack, unless Trump responded badly (which is of course a possibility). Even then, Hillary would be shooting herself in the foot.

          1. You can’t attack women and run on a war on women platform.

            Even the lapdog MSM would eventually have to ask Hillary if she disowned the attacks ads.

            She is incapable of giving a good response to that.

            1. You’re dreaming!

              She accepted bribes from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State!

              Nobody gives a shit.

              She’ll accuse Trump of being dishonest and greedy all campaign long. There is no price for Hillary being a total hypocrite.

              There are corroborating reports of Hillary having clocked Bill with a lamp and a bedside book so that there was blood all over the bed. You think she won’t speak out against domestic violence?

              The woman eats blatant hypocrisy for breakfast every morning. . . . and it costs her nothing.

              1. “The woman eats blatant hypocrisy for breakfast every morning. . . . and it costs her nothing.”

                Wouldn’t she have finished Bernie months ago if that was the case?

                1. Tak Kak has a point. She can’t even dispatch a geriatric Commie who isn’t even a Democrat. She’s also never been nominated for president before. She’s not invulnerable, by any means.

                2. Bernie would have finished her off if there were a price for her being a hypocrite.

    3. That’s a low blow. That’s like McAfee taking a picture of an empty revolver to his head.

      1. A punch to the gut…

        he’s too prepared for something like that if he let her up on the mic already.

  29. Trump talks about hiking the minimum wage. He talks about infrastructure projects as a “beautiful thing” because – get this – they create jobs for people. He talks about keeping interest rates low.
    Is El Trumpo the second coming of FDR?

    There is absolutely no evidence that Donald Trump has any understanding of how a free market works.

    He is in favor of a Federal Reserve that manipulates interest rates—and pushes them lower.

    And he holds the asinine belief that government creates jobs that somehow couldn’t be created in the private sector:

    We do need money to rebuild the infrastructure of the country. The beautiful thing about infrastructure is it puts people to work, immediately puts people to work. But it’s got to be done properly, on time and on budget.

    DJT is FDR on steroids.

    1. Like most criticisms of Trump, this applies to Clinton equally or even more so.

      1. Are you voting for Trump?

        1. Do you even have to ask that question?

          1. Well I know he’s from SF, so, I just wanted to ream him for even thinking not only about voting, but voting for a Team Red candidate in a presidential general election in California.

          2. He’s definitely campaigning for him.

            1. Naw, I campaign for nobody. Ever. I just don’t think Trump is as bad as many say, think he’s correct on immigration, and fear Hillary more.

              1. You’re an immigrant, lol

        2. I’m curious about how the commentariat intends to vote. For myself I will, for the fifth consecutive presidential election, not be voting.

          1. This will be the first election I don’t vote at all.

            Probably. I might waste my vote, again, on the Libertarian candidate.

            1. I’ll do my duty and go down and cast my vote for Rand Paul.

              I haven’t made my mind up yet on whether to Feel the Johnson or write-in one of the Old Gods.

              1. Dude. Dead Raccoon is your candidate.

            2. If your state isn’t a swing state, it’s not a waste, because your vote doesn’t matter anyway.

        3. Being in SF my vote never makes a difference anyway. All my candidates, and most of the measures I vote on, lose.

          I am seeing Trump as the Dada/punk candidate. I think I am OK with throwing the dice for a nationalist populist, as flawed as he is. He’s broken molds and made all the right heads explode on all sides. The libertarian obsession with open borders is just suicidal in my view. He’s at least a bit of a con artist, but he likes to win and get things done, a pragmatist more than an ideologue, and I have no doubt he loves this country.

          Hillary is a corrupt, incompetent, ’70s feminist scold. She wants to “fix” us with her ideology. The email thing should land her in Leavenworth. Her health is clearly terrible. I doubt she could hurry up three flights of stairs and survive. As someone said, in an attic there’s a picture of her that’s getting prettier and prettier. But mainly she wants to take us further down the big government/SJW rathole. So stopping her is the top priority. Voting for the Libertarian won’t do that.

      2. Difference is that Trump might actually know something about construction projects.

  30. Trump should run the same ad of Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and Marco Rubio saying bad things about him.

    But couldn’t Trump just counter this brutality with a video of Hillary barking?

  31. It seems that the problem is very deep
    ‘Cause every time I try to sleep
    I have nightmares
    Thinking about
    Getting together with you

    No, no, I wouldn’t say so
    I would not call it a curse
    But what worries me then
    Is when I wake up if it might be worse

  32. I am with RC. The only thing “brutal” about this ad is how counter productive it is. I think the ad not only shows Clinton doesn’t understand what is going on with the country, it also shows that she doesn’t even understand how Democrats have won in the past. Obama won in 2008 and 2012 by portraying his candidate as a Republican. The Democrats, with a lot of help from the Republicans themselves, have made being a Republican a very bad thing in large areas of the country. So running an add showing how all the Republicans hate Trump helps Trump because it allows him to escape all of the negative connotations Democrats have spent decades creating about Republicans.

    1. Then of course there is the obvious fact that most of the country hates Washington now. The ad is as much as anything an appeal to authority, as RC notes above. The Clinton campaign seems to think that “the people in Washington think Trump is unacceptable” is some kind of a winning message. That is almost as dumb as the Cruz campaign thinking “our guy knows how to make the rules work for him” was a winning message.

      The last thing is that it doesn’t give any reason to vote for Clinton. An attack ad should not just tear the other candidate down, it should make the candidate who runs it look like a truth teller. Running an ad showing other people attacking the candidate makes your candidate look weak. The people who came up with this ad were too clever by half. There is some logic to thinking using the words of Trump’s own party would make an effective attack, in a Republican primary maybe. But in a general election you have to show people a reason why your candidate deserves the votes. And this ad does just the opposite. It makes Hillary Clinton look to week to attack her own opponent.

      1. It makes it look like Hillary has joined the team that Trump has already beaten.

        Yeah, that’s a winning message. “See, I agree with all these losers!”

      2. I think Hillary is going for an “even these crazy fuckers think he’s a crazy fucker” vibe, but I agree it is a misstep. She’s mistaking what she thinks about the GOP with what voters think of the GOP.

        1. It seems like she is trying to get out the D vote based on what Trump is saying. It might help her own favorables if she reminds people of Trump, but I agree this won’t sway anybody on the TEAM R to switch sides.

          1. I can see that but I think she is being too clever by half. Her base doesn’t care what Republicans say. And her base wants red meat and don’t totally trust that she is one of them. If she wants to motivate her base, she needs to attack Trump herself not show a bunch of Republicans doing it.

  33. effort to portray Trump as simply and totally unacceptable in a way that Trump’s Republican primary competitors never really did

    The Republican elite treated Mr. Trump as it would have treated a fairly ordinary candidate, even as he said extraordinary things

    What the fuck am I reading? Did Suderman catch amnesia from the MSM?

    1. The Republican elite shit their pants and went insane over Trump. What kind of a bubble does Suderman live in for him to think the Republican elite treated him like any other candidate? The candidates openly coordinated with each other in hopes of denying Trump a majority on the first ballot. I have never seen that before. What the hell is Suderman talking about?

  34. The problem Hillary has is that the way to beat Trump in a general election is to ignore him and run a positive campaign about how great your candidate is. It does no good to attack Trump because everyone knows him and his supporters don’t care. So you are not going to win by tearing him down. The way you win is by building your candidate up and presenting them as a reasonable, competent and safe alternative. This would be an easy campaign for the Democrats if their candidate were not Hillary Clinton. Hillary is without question the least likable major party nominee in my life time. She no record of achievements or competence to run on and she her only hope to win was by destroying her opponent.

    Hillary v. Trump is to put it in sports terms a real match up problem for the Democrats. Hillary would have destroyed some typical GOP stiff like Jeb and or kaisich. Hillary could have just rerun Obama’s 2012 campaign and portrayed them as the usual evil racist Republican and that would have been it. Trump is too nimble and too good at deflecting criticism and attacking for that. Negative isn’t going to work. The only thing that will work against Trump is positive. Without someone to fight with, Trump has nothing to do and becomes much less effective. Hillary, however, is not the kind of candidate who can do that.

    1. I am less sanguine about Hillary’s inability to run a positive campaign.

      Judging from the people I work with, there are a lot of people who think “what, with a cloth?” was the height of wit from a beautiful, brave, strong and accomplished woman who will finally break the glass ceiling and usher in a new era of equal opportunity.

      Never underestimate the ability of people who, when handed a shit sandwich and are told that it is the finest beluga caviar, will snarf it down proudly while loudly marveling at how wonderful it tastes.

      1. Maybe she can. I will be surprised but it won’t be the first time. The problem is that even if she can run a positive campaign, I am not sure she has the discipline to do so and avoid the temptation to go after Trump. Trump is the greatest media troll artist of our age. It is going to be very hard for Hillary to not try and go after him and concentrate on just being positive. Maybe she can do it but it take her behaving in a way she never has in the past.

        1. The problem is that even if she can run a positive campaign, I am not sure she has the discipline to do so and avoid the temptation to go after Trump.

          Her self-discipline was a casualty of the Yugoslav break up. PTSD from that time she was nearly killed by Bosnian sniper fire.

        2. The problem with running a positive campaign is that a candidate has to have some accomplishments of their own to run on. Usually they run on things like being a successful businessman, war hero, or even just a successful politician. Hillary has none of that to run on. Her chief accomplishments are marrying Bill, and having a vag.

      2. Tarran, that might work with a lot of Democrats, but not with independents, Republicans, or hardcore Bernistas.

        1. I think it will work marvelously with low information voters, whatever their bent.

          1. A lot of those put their hopes on Obama, and were sorely disappointed. Trump will do well among low-info types, which is one of the things the pundits have been freaking out about.

            1. I don’t know any progs who were “disappointed” in Obama. They just fabricate a laundry list of great successes he’s made. Have you seen any of those “Occupy Democrat” image macros on Facebook? They’d sooner deny reality than grapple with the cognitive dissonance of admitting their “hope and change” candidate they shed so much blood and tears over has been no better than Bush III.

          2. I get the impression most lukewarm Clinton supporters are incredibly low-info.

            Also, the coworkers you were describing are probably true believers who would never entertain an (R) in their lifetime because Team. Hillary doesn’t need to “reach” them.

      3. tarran, a positive campaign has to be credible to somebody other than you committed base.

        Hillary can’t make that sale.

    2. Didn’t the GOP try ignoring him at the start of the primary season to their detriment? I agree that the second ad was poorly thought out, but I’m not sure the idea of replaying some of the crazy things he’s said is a bad way to sway swing voters. Then again, I don’t think Hillary would want to get into a war of former words given what she’s said, so for her specifically, only positive might be the best strategy.

      1. The GOP never ignored him. They dismissed him and told people he was a crank, which was exactly what Trump wanted them to do.

  35. “And what both ads make clear is that Clinton is going to make a sustained early effort to portray Trump as simply and totally unacceptable in a way that Trump’s Republican primary competitors never really did?or at least didn’t do in any concerted way.”

    Suderman apparently missed Marco Rubio selling #NeverTrump shirts and Ted Cruz calling him a malignant narcissist.

    1. Or Cruz runnning lingerei picks of Trump’s wife before the Utah primary or Rubio, Cruz and Kasich openly working together to try and deny Trump the nomination on the first ballot.

      No matter what you think of Trump, I can’t understand how anyone could think the GOP rolled over for him and didn’t go to extraordinary lengths to try and deny him the nomination.

      1. Except they really did not do that until after he became the clear frontrunner and the more acceptable candidates were almost gone.

        1. They were all over him last fall. Remember the whole “we demand you pledge to support the nominee” thing? They never ignored him. That is just a bullshit lie Republicans are telling themselves to rationalize how badly he beat them.

  36. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Click This Link

    =========[] http://www.CashPost7.com

  37. Gigantic ghastly goat balls the mass array of dripping drizzling media-torture. The certified winner will never be lovely liberty but the headline businesses and their assorted clutch of font-derived drugs that way too goddamn many citizens are atrociously snorting their intellects into the swamps of shittery with. The deft lies of cocaine are wind-driven purity of the whitest blizzards when compared to the muddy rivers of devious splutter that fling like flagrant shimmering sorcery oils from the dimensions of paper and screen.

    Grinding drek the habit mills and their motherfucking election harvests. Fuck it all into the goddamn granularity.

  38. You know who else portrayed their opponents as unacceptable?

    1. Conor McGregor?

  39. State chemist was high daily, thousands of drug prosecutions jeopardized

    A former Massachusetts drug-lab chemist was high on the job nearly every day for eight years, according to a report from the state’s attorney general. The report said that the chemist, Sonja Farak, was under the influence of drugs like crack, meth, LSD, and ketamine as she testified in court in drug cases and while examining drug samples in a crime lab between 2004 and 2013.

    1. Wouldn’t that just sharpen her perception and her creativity? What’s wrong with that?

      You *do* support the police, don’t you? You want criminals convicted? So stop hating on our brave drug-warriors.

      /sarc

      1. I just love the multiple ironies in this story. Looks to me like Sonja was indeed a “drug expert”. The bonus is it looks like a bunch of WoD victims might get their freedom back.

    2. No fucking way.

      The report said that the woman began taking the lab’s so-called “standard” drugs, the ones purchased from drug companies as a control in testing. “Farak began to consume the Amherst Lab’s standards on a fairly regular basis beginning in late 2004 or early 2005,” according to the report. “The first standard she admitted to using was the methamphetamine standard, which was the largest or most voluminous standard at the Amherst Lab. The methamphetamine standard was a base sample, meaning its form was oil base and it was not cut or diluted with any other substance, essentially making the standard the purest form of a controlled substance.”

      By 2009, she had “nearly exhausted” the lab’s meth standard?so she turned to consuming other standards, in addition to the drugs submitted by the cops for testing. All the while, her addiction went unnoticed until the end, when her appearance began to deteriorate, lab workers discovered missing samples, and she was “nosy” about which new drugs were being brought to the lab, according to the report.

      Oh man. Oh man oh man. This is the best story I’ve read all day.

  40. Brutal Twitter feeds! Hashtag Brutality! Fuck!

  41. The Donald is the most vile, disgusting slime that has ever crawled from underneath a rock, and I still find him preferable to the Hildebeast.

  42. Those are the comments of losers, and Hillary is a loser.

    Or something like that.

    I expect a lot of noise about her being a sex offender for aiding and abetting her husband’s predation.

  43. With news reports like this, I’m sure that Hillary’s eagerness for Muslim refugees will play well with voters, especially women.

  44. Suderman is so tone-deaf and ridiculous about Trump that it has affected his ability to write and reason, and the bias is obvious at this point. Ban Suderman from the Trump beat, for his own good.

  45. It occurred to me looking at this ad who Trump is and why the political establishment has failed so miserably trying to stop him. If you have ever worked in retail, what I am about to say should cause a light to go on inside your head. Who know who Trump is? He is the pissed off customer. Anyone who has worked in customer service or retain knows the pissed off customer. He is the guy who usually has a legitimate complaint but is combative, vulgar and totally over the top in his reaction to it. And anyone who has worked in customer services knows that the worst thing you can do when dealing with such a person is to get angry back. It just makes them look and feel that they have a legitimate beef and makes things worse. The way to deal with such a person is to be reasonable and kill them with kindness. They came there ready to fight and if you are nice to them, they have nothing to say or if they do it just makes them look like the dick.

    None of our political establishment has ever worked a real job. None of them know this. When confronted with Trump, they did the intuitive but exactly wrong thing of yelling back. From the very beginning when they demanded Trump pledge to support the nominee right on through Cruz doing is “know the rules” routine about Colorado, they have done nothing but yell back and make Trump look more reasonable and like he has a point. Judging from this ad, it looks like Hillary nor anyone in her campaign has ever worked in customer service either.

    1. yes. if they had just let him be and not been so antagonistic, he would have calmed down and walked off on his own.

      1. His supporters would have lost their reason for supporting him. If they hadn’t antagonized them, he wouldn’t have been able to kick them around which was half the reason his supporters liked him.

  46. You’re all ignoring the fact that Clinton is going to get indicted and crazy Uncle Joe is going to swoop in to save the party.

    /my dreams

    1. On a side note, I look forward to reading SugarFree’s dispatches from Hillary’s prison cell.

    2. He has the Trans Am warmed up. And Joe was ready to run until he had a meeting with Hillary and then thought better of it. I don’t know what dirt she has on him but it must have been serious.

      1. “You have other children besides Beau, correct?”

        1. It was something like that. I am serious, Biden as VP had to know how serious her legal problems. And he certainly knew how louse the rest of the field was. There had to have been one hell of a reason to get him not to run.

          1. Joking aside, I think he was just exhausted. Losing a loved one has a way of making you not want to do anything for a while.

            1. Maybe so. IT surprised me he didn’t run.

      2. Trans Am? He’s doing his entire campaign tour on Amtrak.

    3. Perhaps you guys know this; I’ve not been able to find the bylaws that would govern this kind of situation, post-1968.

      How would a party select another candidate, post-Convention, when the previous nominee would be unable to serve because of death, illness, indictment, etc…? Also, how does that intersect with state ballot access laws? I remember when Eagleton let slip post-Convention that he spent some time in a mental hospital, and after the uproar, the DNC and McGovern picked another VP. I don’t know how they did it though, and Eagleton wasn’t the presidential nominee anyway.

      IOW, if as I suspect, the increasing realization that Hillary is probably one of the only two Dem politicians who can lose to Trump, meets a too-big-to-ignore Teapot Dome classified data scandal, and Hillary is indicted after the Convention, how would the Democrats pick a new candidate? Assuming she even suspends her campaign, of course.

      Who picks, and how? Do they go with her Veep? (Who do we think it’s going to be, incidentally?) If not her veep, are they allowed to pick Uncle Joe or someone else? And can a new candidate even get on the ballot if Hillary doesn’t drop out until say, September?

  47. Here’s the thing about negative ads – (my theory at least)

    – they don’t really convince current supporters to drop the person they support
    – they don’t convince people on the fence that the ‘attacker’ is any better
    – at best they *might* convince people on the fence that the target is ‘less appealing’

    basically i don’t think anyone gets motivated to go to the polls to vote “against” someone unless they’re already 100% opposed to that person from the start. Negative adds don’t increase those numbers.

    I’ve seen mixed studies which suggested that there might be a mild-vote-suppression effect from negative ads; but generally is statistically negligible. Its not guaranteed to do anything, really.

    from my fuzzy memory the most effective kinds of political ads are ones which compare the candidates on key issues and “differentiate”.

    Something that makes X vs Y a “Clear Choice” in the context of a given heart-string issue.

    Abortion, guns, war.

    Those tend to be the better ‘attacks’, if they’re credible.

    1. That’s it, I think. Negative ads are about keeping voters at home. You target them at people who are trying to decide between voting for your opponent and not voting at all. That’s why these ads might work somewhat. She’s basically saying to Republicans: “Hey, remember that guy Cruz that you like so much? Well he hates Trump, so you should too!” Of course it could easily backfire like others have mentioned here already.

      1. Negative ads are about keeping voters at home.

        I think keeping the Hillary hate-vote at home is going to take more than some attack ads.

    2. To the extent they work, they work on people that the public hasn’t yet formed an opinion about. That is why they are so ineffective against Trump. Everyone knows who he is and has an opinion. He is not like your typical candidate whom most of the country doesn’t really know when they get the nomination.

  48. Pot, meet Kettle.

  49. Boy, it didn’t take long for the Team Red “Never Trump”* people to come out in force.

    Hold on. I feel a barbaric yawp coming on. BEENNNGGHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZZZZIIIII!!!!!!

    There. Much better.

    1. Go back to Salon you thieving socialist fuckstick.

  50. Clinton may have made a mistake starting the onslaught now. Not only does she give Trump time to prepare a counter-strategy, but she runs the risk that her ads will lose their impact over time.

  51. Clinton add about ( place name of any candidate here). See you think its about Trump but in reality these adds are typical of every campaign by the left no matter who is opposing them.

  52. Normally I’d say the polls show Trump at a disadvantage. But we’re talking about a guy who’s already destroyed about 17 competitors in less time than than Hilldog has managed to dispatch with two. Whatever else, the guy is a walking wrecking machine. Whether he can Kill Hill by election time remains to be seen, but I wouldn’t be surprised in the least.

  53. I’m interested to see if Hillary Clinton will work the electoral college the same way she worked the democrat superdelegates.

    1. If she does, we might finally see our dream of the current US devolving into a smaller set of regional confederations come true.

  54. Considering every one of those comments caused Trump’s numbers to go up, why Hillary is giving him free advertising by promoting his greatest hits?

  55. Brutal New Clinton Ads Target Trump, Portraying Him as Unacceptable

    Yes, yes, the same old chant we’ve heard for decades – “Racist! Sexist! Homophobic!”. Yawn. I wouldn’t count on it working this time. It used to work because Repubs would reply with apologies for being born. Bend over. Grab ankles. Beg for forgiveness. I expect something a little different from Trump. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t, but at least it *might*.

  56. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did

    ——————— http://www.nypost55.com

  57. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ——————- http://www.worknow88.com

  58. til I saw the draft which was of $6881 , I didnt believe that my mother in law had been realy taking home money part-time on their laptop. . there best friend has done this 4 only twelve months and at present took care of the mortgage on there condo and got a top of the range Subaru Impreza . Learn More ….

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  59. Can someone please indict her already, geez.

  60. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  61. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  62. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  63. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  64. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  65. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  66. the second ad showing what leading republicans have said should be used often, but with one caveat. at the end, they should show how many of those same people are now endorsing trump. why just attack trump when you can get the whole party smeared with the same brush with just a little more effort?

  67. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Centernet40.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.