" ... a candidate with seriously complicated woman issues"

 

"THE FIX: How potent do you think the "enabler" claim might be as a political tool?

BROWN: This is a particularly potent claim against Hillary. According to a recent CNN/ORC International Poll, less than 20 percent of Americans sampled said that they did not think that America was ready for a woman president. Indeed, Gallup polling data has shown that Americans are increasing likely to support a woman candidate, particularly if a voter’s political party nominated a qualified woman.

These numbers indicate that Americans may not be opposed to electing a woman president; it is the candidate herself that matters most. Therefore, Trump does not necessarily have to play the gender card against Hillary but rather showcase why she, in particular, is the wrong woman for the job. This nuanced argument is an individual attack against Hillary — not women candidates. As such, Trump may be able to sidestep overt claims of misogyny and sexism." The Fix

--------------

The media in its willingness to help Obama get HC elected is launched upon a full throated campaign to denigrate and mock Trump.  His seeming inability to control what he says is a big help to them in this.  The imprecision of his speech gives them many openings, and they use them.  A typical example is his claim that HC abused and sought to humiliate and destroy those women who had the gumption to say that Bill had used and abandoned them or something like that.  "A wealthy rogue seduced and abandoned me" as the Irish terrorist gal says in "Ronin."  Her male colleague then replies, 'Funny, that's what happened to me as well." 

The press have twisted Trump's claim into a pretzel by insisting that Trump is criticizing her for tolerating his affairs when in fact he accuses her of attacking Bill's gals in order to protect their joint political career.  That is a big difference in focus.

Nevertheless, she has a lot of problems with women and her score card in the primary season with them is not all that good.  Her real strength is with Blacks.  Without them she would be in bad shape.

IMO she is very vulnerable to circumstances in which she is relentlessly pounded by Trump surrogates with accusations of a lack of virtue, civic and otherwise.  Trump himself should keep his mouth shut about this kind of thing and should concentrate on seeming the friend of miners, unemployed victims of Clintonian trade agreements, etc. 

I am increasingly attracted by the idea that he might ask Jim Webb to run with him.  Yes, I know that Webb is, at the moment, a Democrat, but... the GOP leaders are not going to like Trump, so, to hell with them.  Webb is a seriously "bad" dude.  Navy Cross, Silver Star, Secretary of the Navy, US senator from Virginia,  writer.  He is quite fluent and has that hard edged Scotch-Irish thing going.  Let him do the talking about military and foreign policy.

If Trump plays his cards right, he can beat Hillary.  pl  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/11/hillary-clinton-a-woman-candidate-with-seriously-complicated-woman-issues/

Comments

[optimax]

mbrenner

"... with a heavy, blunt instrument - his wit." I heard it land with a dull thud.

Those that believe Trump will save America will not be dissuaded by his compulsive lying. His ego is big enough to ignore the self-made verbal traps that ensnare him.

I voted for Pat Buchanan in 200 because he was against free trade, American jobs being shifted overseas,illegal immigration and for isolationism and a military strategically designed for defense and not offensive or preemptive wars. He was called a racist for bewailing the fact that that due to hispanic immigration American whites would become a minority, resulting in the depreciation of Western Culture. Clinton was praised by the same media stars for saying it was good that whites would someday be a minority in the country he led.

Too many Americans have lost the survival instinct and I have no one to vote for.

[rjj]

By putting people off Trump.

[Tyler]

Nancy,

I'm a nationalist. "Conservatism" has conserved nothing.

You're engaging in more pop psycho analyzing BS. Women have it great under the Christian West compared to the rest of the world. You're trying to compare the how the majority of women are treated under Islam and other religions with outliers, which shows your fundamental dishonesty.

Yes, you are a typical progressive.

[different clue]

William R. Cumming,

What if the brilliant analysts at Clintocrat Central decided that means Governor McCauliffe as Hillary VP?

[rjj]

the Dems became so iron fisted they managed to alienate both Clinton and Sanders supporters in Nevada.

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

Thought at first it was political theater but it seems to be more than that. No idea how it is being reported on Official State Media. There is another report of the results being posted by a local station three hours before the vote was taken.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CieiJbnUYAAGNzS.jpg

not suggesting there is any sort of conspiracy.

[optimax]

rjj,

The DNC is going to nominate Hillary no matter what the voters want. The MSM ignores the questionable tactics of the Democrats while concentrating on Trumps past girlfriends, real and imagined.

[Brent Wiggans]

Colonel, if you were contracted by a client to analyze the possible effects on policy - and their probabilities of realization - of Jim Webb being Donald Trump's vice president what would your executive summary be?

[turcopolier]

Brent Wiggins

Are you a client? pl

[Tyler]

mbrenner,

Warren's flustered "triggered" response to his tweet spoke more volumes about Warren than it did Trump.

Trump is the guy who says what everyone is thinking. He's right to point out that Warren's claim of Native American ancestry as a lever to achievement is nonsense.

This is only going to "hurt" him with people who would never vote for him anyway.

[Brent Wiggans]

No. I was just trying to elicit your most steely-eyed assessment of what Jim Webb is likely to be able to do and what influence on policy he is likely to have in the roll of Vice President in a Donald Trump administration?

[turcopolier]

Brent Wiggans

OK I dub you honorary client. IMO Webb should be SECDEF, Rand Paul should be SECSTATE and Tulsi Gabbard, like Webb, should be lured to a VP run even though she is a Democrat. pl

[Brent Wiggans]

Thank you. Honored. What I am really trying to get at is an eminent intelligence professional’s assessment of the likely effectiveness of a Jim Webb (and now a Rand Paul and a Tulsi Gabbard) in a Trump administration given Mr. Trump’s personality, his career leading an organization with his own name on it and his absence of experience in working within the constraints of American government. Conventional politicians have public records that can be at least suggestive of how they will work with members of their administrations. We can imagine how a Hillary Clinton or a Ted Cruz might get along with and utilize their own people and others to shape policy. Mr. Trump is anything but a conventional politician. His public record is of a very different kind. What are the predictors of how he will work with his own appointees to deal with others who hold power and are beyond his direct control?

[turcopolier]

Brent Wiggans

Flattered. IMO the kind of administration that I outlined would have no problems on most issues with a Republican Congress. There would be some grumbling but the general outcome would be cooperative. In foreign affairs his non-interventionist views coupled with an aggressive re-negotiation of trade deals are, in my view, doable and desirable. pl

[Brent Wiggans]

So, the answer to my question is that this group of appointees would have a high probability of having great influence over policy in a Trump administration. I can imagine that this might happen in one of two ways: Donald Trump would largely be quiescent to the views of his cabinet members or he is simpatico with the positions of these people on their signature issues. As to the first, it is difficult if not impossible to conceive of Mr. Trump being content to ride shotgun in the vehicle of his own administration. With regard to the second proposition, I do not think that what is in the public domain justifies much confidence that we know his real positions on much of anything. When challenged he invites us to not take too seriously a seemingly categorical pronouncement because it was merely a “suggestion” or a trial balloon or he may deny having said it at all or he may make a new and contradictory statement. Perhaps there are members of this committee who have a reliable fix on what Donald Trump truly believes.

It appears to me that people who were not initially persuaded to support Mr. Trump based upon his temperament and are - now that he is assured of being the Republican nominee and the alternative to Hillary Clinton - looking for other reasons to support him are underestimating him as a disruptive force and discounting his willfulness and unpredictability. On the other hand, those who oppose him based upon his temperament may be over-estimating its likely effects. I would have to believe that the greater strategic downside is in underestimating him.