New DNC Attack Ad

[kaz]

Has anyone seen this? I just saw it for the first time yesterday. Wow! As much as I can't stand the Democrats and the Republicans, this ad makes The Donald look really pretty bad.



Having said that, I am tired of attack ads. Tell us what YOU are going to do!

How did you hold your lunch down when Hillary said "it's wrong to pit people against each other?"

I don't think that hurt Trump at all. He talks that way and those quotes were all out of context. I think we all know that, including leftists. Trump says things like "they hit you, you hit them." And leftists report that as Trump said "you hit them" as if he meant to initiate force when he actually said to return it

 

[ChrisL]

Has anyone seen this? I just saw it for the first time yesterday. Wow! As much as I can't stand the Democrats and the Republicans, this ad makes The Donald look really pretty bad.



Having said that, I am tired of attack ads. Tell us what YOU are going to do!

How did you hold your lunch down when Hillary said "it's wrong to pit people against each other?"

I don't think that hurt Trump at all. He talks that way and those quotes were all out of context. I think we all know that, including leftists. Trump says things like "they hit you, you hit them." And leftists report that as Trump said "you hit them" as if he meant to initiate force when he actually said to return it

I thought it was a GOOD ad for a change, and this was way at the beginning of the campaign. I was giving credit where credit was due. That doesn't mean I would ever vote for Hillary Clinton. Who knows though, maybe if she had kept going down that particular path instead of turning to the "dark side" and all the ridiculous Russians talk, she may have won.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

why does Hillary still act as is Ben Ghazi never happened?

 

[ChrisL]

I think that most Americans, like me, are getting really sick and tired of this whole democrat versus republican BS. These lunatics are holding the country hostage.

 

[kaz]

Has anyone seen this? I just saw it for the first time yesterday. Wow! As much as I can't stand the Democrats and the Republicans, this ad makes The Donald look really pretty bad.



Having said that, I am tired of attack ads. Tell us what YOU are going to do!

How did you hold your lunch down when Hillary said "it's wrong to pit people against each other?"

I don't think that hurt Trump at all. He talks that way and those quotes were all out of context. I think we all know that, including leftists. Trump says things like "they hit you, you hit them." And leftists report that as Trump said "you hit them" as if he meant to initiate force when he actually said to return it

I thought it was a GOOD ad for a change, and this was way at the beginning of the campaign. I was giving credit where credit was due. That doesn't mean I would ever vote for Hillary Clinton. Who knows though, maybe if she had kept going down that particular path instead of turning to the "dark side" and all the ridiculous Russians talk, she may have won.

I do know you're not a Hillary supporter, I didn't mean to imply that.

And yes, she lost because she was a horrible candidate. Trump pointed that out too. The electoral map is stacked for Democrats. The Democrat has to be beyond incompetent to lose.

But on the ad, I agree that if I didn't know anything about either candidate, then it would be a good ad. But I do and that Hillary is lying about being against negative campaigning and she's lying about what Trump said by manipulating the quote with the context. Everything Trump said was about his supporters defending themselves from attacks by violent leftists. I never saw a quote where he said to take the violence to them.

And the video of the rallies backs that up. It's the violent leftists that the police had to keep away from Trump supporters, not the reverse. Particularly poignant was a black cop who said the leftists were violent, abusive and out of control. Of course the leftist media doesn't care because they like it

 

[ChrisL]

Has anyone seen this? I just saw it for the first time yesterday. Wow! As much as I can't stand the Democrats and the Republicans, this ad makes The Donald look really pretty bad.



Having said that, I am tired of attack ads. Tell us what YOU are going to do!

How did you hold your lunch down when Hillary said "it's wrong to pit people against each other?"

I don't think that hurt Trump at all. He talks that way and those quotes were all out of context. I think we all know that, including leftists. Trump says things like "they hit you, you hit them." And leftists report that as Trump said "you hit them" as if he meant to initiate force when he actually said to return it

I thought it was a GOOD ad for a change, and this was way at the beginning of the campaign. I was giving credit where credit was due. That doesn't mean I would ever vote for Hillary Clinton. Who knows though, maybe if she had kept going down that particular path instead of turning to the "dark side" and all the ridiculous Russians talk, she may have won.

I do know you're not a Hillary supporter, I didn't mean to imply that.

And yes, she lost because she was a horrible candidate. Trump pointed that out too. The electoral map is stacked for Democrats. The Democrat has to be beyond incompetent to lose.

But on the ad, I agree that if I didn't know anything about either candidate, then it would be a good ad. But I do and that Hillary is lying about being against negative campaigning and she's lying about what Trump said by manipulating the quote with the context. Everything Trump said was about his supporters defending themselves from attacks by violent leftists. I never saw a quote where he said to take the violence to them.

And the video of the rallies backs that up. It's the violent leftists that the police had to keep away from Trump supporters, not the reverse. Particularly poignant was a black cop who said the leftists were violent, abusive and out of control. Of course the leftist media doesn't care because they like it

Well sure, she started off okay and then totally screwed herself going off on "the Russians" and the "sexual assaulter" rampages. People want to hear what you are going to do for them as a candidate. I think most, aside from the hard political party supporters, are sick and tired of this back and forth nonsense. Run on your issues, on your platform, on what you believe in, and stop trying to convince us that you are "better" than the other guy. JMHO.

 

[kaz]

Has anyone seen this? I just saw it for the first time yesterday. Wow! As much as I can't stand the Democrats and the Republicans, this ad makes The Donald look really pretty bad.



Having said that, I am tired of attack ads. Tell us what YOU are going to do!

How did you hold your lunch down when Hillary said "it's wrong to pit people against each other?"

I don't think that hurt Trump at all. He talks that way and those quotes were all out of context. I think we all know that, including leftists. Trump says things like "they hit you, you hit them." And leftists report that as Trump said "you hit them" as if he meant to initiate force when he actually said to return it

I thought it was a GOOD ad for a change, and this was way at the beginning of the campaign. I was giving credit where credit was due. That doesn't mean I would ever vote for Hillary Clinton. Who knows though, maybe if she had kept going down that particular path instead of turning to the "dark side" and all the ridiculous Russians talk, she may have won.

I do know you're not a Hillary supporter, I didn't mean to imply that.

And yes, she lost because she was a horrible candidate. Trump pointed that out too. The electoral map is stacked for Democrats. The Democrat has to be beyond incompetent to lose.

But on the ad, I agree that if I didn't know anything about either candidate, then it would be a good ad. But I do and that Hillary is lying about being against negative campaigning and she's lying about what Trump said by manipulating the quote with the context. Everything Trump said was about his supporters defending themselves from attacks by violent leftists. I never saw a quote where he said to take the violence to them.

And the video of the rallies backs that up. It's the violent leftists that the police had to keep away from Trump supporters, not the reverse. Particularly poignant was a black cop who said the leftists were violent, abusive and out of control. Of course the leftist media doesn't care because they like it

Well sure, she started off okay and then totally screwed herself going off on "the Russians" and the "sexual assaulter" rampages. People want to hear what you are going to do for them as a candidate. I think most, aside from the hard political party supporters, are sick and tired of this back and forth nonsense. Run on your issues, on your platform, on what you believe in, and stop trying to convince us that you are "better" than the other guy. JMHO.

Sadly the negative campaigning dominates because it works. It doesn't change minds, but it lights fires under their (both sides) supporters to show up

 

[ChrisL]

Has anyone seen this? I just saw it for the first time yesterday. Wow! As much as I can't stand the Democrats and the Republicans, this ad makes The Donald look really pretty bad.



Having said that, I am tired of attack ads. Tell us what YOU are going to do!

How did you hold your lunch down when Hillary said "it's wrong to pit people against each other?"

I don't think that hurt Trump at all. He talks that way and those quotes were all out of context. I think we all know that, including leftists. Trump says things like "they hit you, you hit them." And leftists report that as Trump said "you hit them" as if he meant to initiate force when he actually said to return it

I thought it was a GOOD ad for a change, and this was way at the beginning of the campaign. I was giving credit where credit was due. That doesn't mean I would ever vote for Hillary Clinton. Who knows though, maybe if she had kept going down that particular path instead of turning to the "dark side" and all the ridiculous Russians talk, she may have won.

I do know you're not a Hillary supporter, I didn't mean to imply that.

And yes, she lost because she was a horrible candidate. Trump pointed that out too. The electoral map is stacked for Democrats. The Democrat has to be beyond incompetent to lose.

But on the ad, I agree that if I didn't know anything about either candidate, then it would be a good ad. But I do and that Hillary is lying about being against negative campaigning and she's lying about what Trump said by manipulating the quote with the context. Everything Trump said was about his supporters defending themselves from attacks by violent leftists. I never saw a quote where he said to take the violence to them.

And the video of the rallies backs that up. It's the violent leftists that the police had to keep away from Trump supporters, not the reverse. Particularly poignant was a black cop who said the leftists were violent, abusive and out of control. Of course the leftist media doesn't care because they like it

Well sure, she started off okay and then totally screwed herself going off on "the Russians" and the "sexual assaulter" rampages. People want to hear what you are going to do for them as a candidate. I think most, aside from the hard political party supporters, are sick and tired of this back and forth nonsense. Run on your issues, on your platform, on what you believe in, and stop trying to convince us that you are "better" than the other guy. JMHO.

Sadly the negative campaigning dominates because it works. It doesn't change minds, but it lights fires under their (both sides) supporters to show up

One of these days we will have some viable 3rd party candidates to choose instead of the usual pieces of slop the dems and reps present us with.

 

[Pogo]

Has anyone seen this? I just saw it for the first time yesterday. Wow! As much as I can't stand the Democrats and the Republicans, this ad makes The Donald look really pretty bad.



Having said that, I am tired of attack ads. Tell us what YOU are going to do!

Ummm--- how is this an "attack" ad?

 

[ChrisL]

Has anyone seen this? I just saw it for the first time yesterday. Wow! As much as I can't stand the Democrats and the Republicans, this ad makes The Donald look really pretty bad.



Having said that, I am tired of attack ads. Tell us what YOU are going to do!

Ummm--- how is this an "attack" ad?

Because she spent so much time demonizing the other side instead of telling us what she is going to do.

 

[ChrisL]

Has anyone seen this? I just saw it for the first time yesterday. Wow! As much as I can't stand the Democrats and the Republicans, this ad makes The Donald look really pretty bad.



Having said that, I am tired of attack ads. Tell us what YOU are going to do!

Ummm--- how is this an "attack" ad?

Pogo



In political campaigns, an attack ad is an advertisement whose message is designed to wage a personal attack against an opposing candidate or political party in order to gain support for theattacking candidate and attract voters.

Attack ad - Wikipedia

 

[Pogo]

How did you hold your lunch down when Hillary said "it's wrong to pit people against each other?"

I don't think that hurt Trump at all. He talks that way and those quotes were all out of context. I think we all know that, including leftists. Trump says things like "they hit you, you hit them." And leftists report that as Trump said "you hit them" as if he meant to initiate force when he actually said to return it

I thought it was a GOOD ad for a change, and this was way at the beginning of the campaign. I was giving credit where credit was due. That doesn't mean I would ever vote for Hillary Clinton. Who knows though, maybe if she had kept going down that particular path instead of turning to the "dark side" and all the ridiculous Russians talk, she may have won.

I do know you're not a Hillary supporter, I didn't mean to imply that.

And yes, she lost because she was a horrible candidate. Trump pointed that out too. The electoral map is stacked for Democrats. The Democrat has to be beyond incompetent to lose.

But on the ad, I agree that if I didn't know anything about either candidate, then it would be a good ad. But I do and that Hillary is lying about being against negative campaigning and she's lying about what Trump said by manipulating the quote with the context. Everything Trump said was about his supporters defending themselves from attacks by violent leftists. I never saw a quote where he said to take the violence to them.

And the video of the rallies backs that up. It's the violent leftists that the police had to keep away from Trump supporters, not the reverse. Particularly poignant was a black cop who said the leftists were violent, abusive and out of control. Of course the leftist media doesn't care because they like it

Well sure, she started off okay and then totally screwed herself going off on "the Russians" and the "sexual assaulter" rampages. People want to hear what you are going to do for them as a candidate. I think most, aside from the hard political party supporters, are sick and tired of this back and forth nonsense. Run on your issues, on your platform, on what you believe in, and stop trying to convince us that you are "better" than the other guy. JMHO.

Sadly the negative campaigning dominates because it works. It doesn't change minds, but it lights fires under their (both sides) supporters to show up

One of these days we will have some viable 3rd party candidates to choose instead of the usual pieces of slop the dems and reps present us with.

As long as the Electrical College "winner take all" scam is in place there will be no 3P candy that ever gets a legitimate chance. That's part of what the WTA system does --- it perpetuates Duopoly and shuts out 3P candies. The nature of the system makes such a dichotomy inevitable.

The only 3P POTUS candies that have made any splash at all over the last century -- Perot, Anderson, Wallace, Thurmond --- have done so with the strategy of not winning but siphoning off enough EVs to leave nobody with a majority, throwing the decision to the H of R. Perot pulled a fifth of the pop vote and didn't even get one EV. No 3P has out-drawn either Duopoly party since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and he was a former POTUS.

The system is rigged, and it's rigged to perpetuate Duopoly. Until we fix that system, Duopoly is all we'll ever get. Because as long as you know it's a lock to elect either your party or theirs, you don't need to give voters a reason to vote for yours; all you have to do is give them reasons to not vote for theirs. Since we all know any given state is voting either all-D or all-R, that leaves no other choice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think that most Americans, like me, are getting really sick and tired of this whole democrat versus republican BS. These lunatics are holding the country hostage.

Both parties are holding the country hostage, yes.

 

[ChrisL]

I thought it was a GOOD ad for a change, and this was way at the beginning of the campaign. I was giving credit where credit was due. That doesn't mean I would ever vote for Hillary Clinton. Who knows though, maybe if she had kept going down that particular path instead of turning to the "dark side" and all the ridiculous Russians talk, she may have won.

I do know you're not a Hillary supporter, I didn't mean to imply that.

And yes, she lost because she was a horrible candidate. Trump pointed that out too. The electoral map is stacked for Democrats. The Democrat has to be beyond incompetent to lose.

But on the ad, I agree that if I didn't know anything about either candidate, then it would be a good ad. But I do and that Hillary is lying about being against negative campaigning and she's lying about what Trump said by manipulating the quote with the context. Everything Trump said was about his supporters defending themselves from attacks by violent leftists. I never saw a quote where he said to take the violence to them.

And the video of the rallies backs that up. It's the violent leftists that the police had to keep away from Trump supporters, not the reverse. Particularly poignant was a black cop who said the leftists were violent, abusive and out of control. Of course the leftist media doesn't care because they like it

Well sure, she started off okay and then totally screwed herself going off on "the Russians" and the "sexual assaulter" rampages. People want to hear what you are going to do for them as a candidate. I think most, aside from the hard political party supporters, are sick and tired of this back and forth nonsense. Run on your issues, on your platform, on what you believe in, and stop trying to convince us that you are "better" than the other guy. JMHO.

Sadly the negative campaigning dominates because it works. It doesn't change minds, but it lights fires under their (both sides) supporters to show up

One of these days we will have some viable 3rd party candidates to choose instead of the usual pieces of slop the dems and reps present us with.

As long as the Electrical College "winner take all" scam is in place there will be no 3P candy that ever gets a legitimate chance. That's part of what the WTA system does --- it perpetuates Duopoly and shuts out 3P candies. The nature of the system makes such a dichotomy inevitable.

The only 3P POTUS candies that have made any splash at all over the last century -- Perot, Anderson, Wallace, Thurmond --- have done so with the strategy of not winning but siphoning off enough EVs to leave nobody with a majority, throwing the decision to the H of R. Perot pulled a fifth of the pop vote and didn't even get one EV. No 3P has out-drawn either Duopoly party since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and he was a former POTUS.

The system is rigged, and it's rigged to perpetuate Duopoly. Until we fix that system, Duopoly is all we'll ever get. Because as long as you know it's a lock to elect either your party or theirs, you don't need to give voters a reason to vote for yours; all you have to do is give them reasons to not vote for theirs. Since we all know any given state is voting either all-D or all-R, that leaves no other choice.

It's not just that. It's the candidates that are being presented. That is a BIG part of the problem.

 

[kaz]

How did you hold your lunch down when Hillary said "it's wrong to pit people against each other?"

I don't think that hurt Trump at all. He talks that way and those quotes were all out of context. I think we all know that, including leftists. Trump says things like "they hit you, you hit them." And leftists report that as Trump said "you hit them" as if he meant to initiate force when he actually said to return it

I thought it was a GOOD ad for a change, and this was way at the beginning of the campaign. I was giving credit where credit was due. That doesn't mean I would ever vote for Hillary Clinton. Who knows though, maybe if she had kept going down that particular path instead of turning to the "dark side" and all the ridiculous Russians talk, she may have won.

I do know you're not a Hillary supporter, I didn't mean to imply that.

And yes, she lost because she was a horrible candidate. Trump pointed that out too. The electoral map is stacked for Democrats. The Democrat has to be beyond incompetent to lose.

But on the ad, I agree that if I didn't know anything about either candidate, then it would be a good ad. But I do and that Hillary is lying about being against negative campaigning and she's lying about what Trump said by manipulating the quote with the context. Everything Trump said was about his supporters defending themselves from attacks by violent leftists. I never saw a quote where he said to take the violence to them.

And the video of the rallies backs that up. It's the violent leftists that the police had to keep away from Trump supporters, not the reverse. Particularly poignant was a black cop who said the leftists were violent, abusive and out of control. Of course the leftist media doesn't care because they like it

Well sure, she started off okay and then totally screwed herself going off on "the Russians" and the "sexual assaulter" rampages. People want to hear what you are going to do for them as a candidate. I think most, aside from the hard political party supporters, are sick and tired of this back and forth nonsense. Run on your issues, on your platform, on what you believe in, and stop trying to convince us that you are "better" than the other guy. JMHO.

Sadly the negative campaigning dominates because it works. It doesn't change minds, but it lights fires under their (both sides) supporters to show up

One of these days we will have some viable 3rd party candidates to choose instead of the usual pieces of slop the dems and reps present us with.

Gawd, I hope so

 

[Pogo]

Has anyone seen this? I just saw it for the first time yesterday. Wow! As much as I can't stand the Democrats and the Republicans, this ad makes The Donald look really pretty bad.



Having said that, I am tired of attack ads. Tell us what YOU are going to do!

Ummm--- how is this an "attack" ad?

Pogo



In political campaigns, an attack ad is an advertisement whose message is designed to wage a personal attack against an opposing candidate or political party in order to gain support for theattacking candidate and attract voters.

Attack ad - Wikipedia

I do not need a definition of "attack ad". I asked for an explanation of how it applies here.

Are these not Rump's own words in the video clips? Is this not an accurate representation of his entire attitude?

Is it possible for Rump to "attack" himself?

 

[kaz]

I thought it was a GOOD ad for a change, and this was way at the beginning of the campaign. I was giving credit where credit was due. That doesn't mean I would ever vote for Hillary Clinton. Who knows though, maybe if she had kept going down that particular path instead of turning to the "dark side" and all the ridiculous Russians talk, she may have won.

I do know you're not a Hillary supporter, I didn't mean to imply that.

And yes, she lost because she was a horrible candidate. Trump pointed that out too. The electoral map is stacked for Democrats. The Democrat has to be beyond incompetent to lose.

But on the ad, I agree that if I didn't know anything about either candidate, then it would be a good ad. But I do and that Hillary is lying about being against negative campaigning and she's lying about what Trump said by manipulating the quote with the context. Everything Trump said was about his supporters defending themselves from attacks by violent leftists. I never saw a quote where he said to take the violence to them.

And the video of the rallies backs that up. It's the violent leftists that the police had to keep away from Trump supporters, not the reverse. Particularly poignant was a black cop who said the leftists were violent, abusive and out of control. Of course the leftist media doesn't care because they like it

Well sure, she started off okay and then totally screwed herself going off on "the Russians" and the "sexual assaulter" rampages. People want to hear what you are going to do for them as a candidate. I think most, aside from the hard political party supporters, are sick and tired of this back and forth nonsense. Run on your issues, on your platform, on what you believe in, and stop trying to convince us that you are "better" than the other guy. JMHO.

Sadly the negative campaigning dominates because it works. It doesn't change minds, but it lights fires under their (both sides) supporters to show up

One of these days we will have some viable 3rd party candidates to choose instead of the usual pieces of slop the dems and reps present us with.

As long as the Electrical College "winner take all" scam is in place there will be no 3P candy that ever gets a legitimate chance. That's part of what the WTA system does --- it perpetuates Duopoly and shuts out 3P candies. The nature of the system makes such a dichotomy inevitable.

The only 3P POTUS candies that have made any splash at all over the last century -- Perot, Anderson, Wallace, Thurmond --- have done so with the strategy of not winning but siphoning off enough EVs to leave nobody with a majority, throwing the decision to the H of R. Perot pulled a fifth of the pop vote and didn't even get one EV. No 3P has out-drawn either Duopoly party since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and he was a former POTUS.

The system is rigged, and it's rigged to perpetuate Duopoly. Until we fix that system, Duopoly is all we'll ever get. Because as long as you know it's a lock to elect either your party or theirs, you don't need to give voters a reason to vote for yours; all you have to do is give them reasons to not vote for theirs. Since we all know any given state is voting either all-D or all-R, that leaves no other choice.

Yes. That is an advantage of a parliamentary system. Third parties here just have no chance in this country. Even "independents" in congress always caucus with one of the parties and aren't really independent

 

[Pogo]

I do know you're not a Hillary supporter, I didn't mean to imply that.

And yes, she lost because she was a horrible candidate. Trump pointed that out too. The electoral map is stacked for Democrats. The Democrat has to be beyond incompetent to lose.

But on the ad, I agree that if I didn't know anything about either candidate, then it would be a good ad. But I do and that Hillary is lying about being against negative campaigning and she's lying about what Trump said by manipulating the quote with the context. Everything Trump said was about his supporters defending themselves from attacks by violent leftists. I never saw a quote where he said to take the violence to them.

And the video of the rallies backs that up. It's the violent leftists that the police had to keep away from Trump supporters, not the reverse. Particularly poignant was a black cop who said the leftists were violent, abusive and out of control. Of course the leftist media doesn't care because they like it

Well sure, she started off okay and then totally screwed herself going off on "the Russians" and the "sexual assaulter" rampages. People want to hear what you are going to do for them as a candidate. I think most, aside from the hard political party supporters, are sick and tired of this back and forth nonsense. Run on your issues, on your platform, on what you believe in, and stop trying to convince us that you are "better" than the other guy. JMHO.

Sadly the negative campaigning dominates because it works. It doesn't change minds, but it lights fires under their (both sides) supporters to show up

One of these days we will have some viable 3rd party candidates to choose instead of the usual pieces of slop the dems and reps present us with.

As long as the Electrical College "winner take all" scam is in place there will be no 3P candy that ever gets a legitimate chance. That's part of what the WTA system does --- it perpetuates Duopoly and shuts out 3P candies. The nature of the system makes such a dichotomy inevitable.

The only 3P POTUS candies that have made any splash at all over the last century -- Perot, Anderson, Wallace, Thurmond --- have done so with the strategy of not winning but siphoning off enough EVs to leave nobody with a majority, throwing the decision to the H of R. Perot pulled a fifth of the pop vote and didn't even get one EV. No 3P has out-drawn either Duopoly party since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and he was a former POTUS.

The system is rigged, and it's rigged to perpetuate Duopoly. Until we fix that system, Duopoly is all we'll ever get. Because as long as you know it's a lock to elect either your party or theirs, you don't need to give voters a reason to vote for yours; all you have to do is give them reasons to not vote for theirs. Since we all know any given state is voting either all-D or all-R, that leaves no other choice.

It's not just that. It's the candidates that are being presented. That is a BIG part of the problem.

As I just explained, apparently unsuccessfully --- there is no incentive to present quality candidates as long as a Duopoly operates. Nobody in a Duopoly has to appeal to voters as a positive --- all they have to do is demonstrate "hey, at least I'm not that guy". And that means all they have to do is excel over one person, and that's an extremely low bar.

Think of it like the punch line of the old joke --- "I don't need to outrun that bear --- all I need to do is outrun you".

 

[kaz]

I do know you're not a Hillary supporter, I didn't mean to imply that.

And yes, she lost because she was a horrible candidate. Trump pointed that out too. The electoral map is stacked for Democrats. The Democrat has to be beyond incompetent to lose.

But on the ad, I agree that if I didn't know anything about either candidate, then it would be a good ad. But I do and that Hillary is lying about being against negative campaigning and she's lying about what Trump said by manipulating the quote with the context. Everything Trump said was about his supporters defending themselves from attacks by violent leftists. I never saw a quote where he said to take the violence to them.

And the video of the rallies backs that up. It's the violent leftists that the police had to keep away from Trump supporters, not the reverse. Particularly poignant was a black cop who said the leftists were violent, abusive and out of control. Of course the leftist media doesn't care because they like it

Well sure, she started off okay and then totally screwed herself going off on "the Russians" and the "sexual assaulter" rampages. People want to hear what you are going to do for them as a candidate. I think most, aside from the hard political party supporters, are sick and tired of this back and forth nonsense. Run on your issues, on your platform, on what you believe in, and stop trying to convince us that you are "better" than the other guy. JMHO.

Sadly the negative campaigning dominates because it works. It doesn't change minds, but it lights fires under their (both sides) supporters to show up

One of these days we will have some viable 3rd party candidates to choose instead of the usual pieces of slop the dems and reps present us with.

As long as the Electrical College "winner take all" scam is in place there will be no 3P candy that ever gets a legitimate chance. That's part of what the WTA system does --- it perpetuates Duopoly and shuts out 3P candies. The nature of the system makes such a dichotomy inevitable.

The only 3P POTUS candies that have made any splash at all over the last century -- Perot, Anderson, Wallace, Thurmond --- have done so with the strategy of not winning but siphoning off enough EVs to leave nobody with a majority, throwing the decision to the H of R. Perot pulled a fifth of the pop vote and didn't even get one EV. No 3P has out-drawn either Duopoly party since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and he was a former POTUS.

The system is rigged, and it's rigged to perpetuate Duopoly. Until we fix that system, Duopoly is all we'll ever get. Because as long as you know it's a lock to elect either your party or theirs, you don't need to give voters a reason to vote for yours; all you have to do is give them reasons to not vote for theirs. Since we all know any given state is voting either all-D or all-R, that leaves no other choice.

It's not just that. It's the candidates that are being presented. That is a BIG part of the problem.

Pogo's right on the point about third party candidates. Our system effectively prevents it. In Europe, if you had 20% of the vote, you may not get 20% of the legislature, but you'd get a big chunk of it. Perot got 19%.

So let's revisit the 92 election.

Here, Republicans and Democrats got all the electoral college votes, all the Senators and virtually all of the House.

If the same election had happened say in Europe, the Reform Party (Perot) would have gotten up to roughly 1/5 of the Parliament. Maybe a little less.

In our system, Democrats won, it was over. In a parliamentary system, Perot would have been able to pick which party they form a government with, and they would have gotten a lot of concessions to do it.

In our system, Perot got nothing and there was no compromise

 

[william the wie]

Wow this is a blast from the past. But the Ds are setting up for the same campaign in 2018.