Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Top Republican fundraiser, Meg Whitman, says she’ll raise m
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Top Republican fundraiser, Meg Whitman, says she’ll raise money for Hillary Clinton in order to stop Trump
The big WH2016 news overnight is a story in the New York Times that prominent GOP fundraiser and Hewlett Packard executive, Meg Whitman, has announced that she’s supporting Hillary Clinton and will help raise money for her campaign. According to the New York Times she says she’s taking the action in order to stop Trump who she describes as a threat to American democracy.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I have to say that the reaction to this current round of crass Trump statements does feel different somehow than previous ones. A few days ago I felt he was immune to blowback from his gaffes. Now I'm not so sure. As you say, the next week to ten days will tell us if this is a real sea change, or just post-conference noise.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-koch-idUSKCN10C2W8
Perhaps this is what drives Trump to make such absurd, overblown remarks in order to get on the news where he can't afford to advertise. He ought to realise there is a difference between attacking Cruz (who most of the GOP regard as barely more palatable than Trump) or Hillary, and attacking the parents of a young man who'd made the ultimate sacrifice for his country.
I could wish that the beneficiary of Trump's implosion was somebody of ability and integrity. Is there any way Clinton might still be pulled so Tim Kaine could be the Democratic nominee? He's by far the best candidate of the four still left.
I gather he's offered to match all donations with his own cash, but several prominent fundraisers are discovering their tweets never appeared/hashtags aren't listed.
This isn't the first time I've seen this happen.
I saw figs earlier this week of $90m for Hillary and $37m Trump last month.
Arthur S
Conservative Party poster in the 1983 General Election: https://t.co/Lu0t5HrLZI
Pence has of course gone through such a selection and seems at least as mad as Trump. Kaine hasn't and seems on the basis of his past positions and statements to be a thoughtful, reasonable sort of person. The sort, in fact, who is desperately needed and yet will never be selected in the normal way.
Agree with your summation Mr ydoethur, they really are an objectionable brace of candidates imho, I fear however, your hope of Kaine usurping Clinton’s position is highly unlikely.
There must also be some value in a few of the others, I'm already on Johnson for beer money, maybe Pence is worth a few, well, pence?
Anyway, must dash, it's time for me to do more exploring of Jerusalem.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3720751/Banned-taking-legal-aid-firm-hounded-British-troops-Victory-Mail-lawyer-faces-struck-off.html
has everyone seen this already?
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
"In December of 1987, a month after the book was published, Trump hosted an extravagant book party in the pink marble atrium of Trump Tower. .....
Schwartz got more of an education the next day, when he and Trump spoke on the phone. After chatting briefly about the party, Trump informed Schwartz that, as his ghostwriter, he owed him for half the event’s cost, which was in the six figures. Schwartz was dumbfounded. “He wanted me to split the cost of entertaining his list of nine hundred second-rate celebrities?” Schwartz had, in fact, learned a few things from watching Trump. He drastically negotiated down the amount that he agreed to pay, to a few thousand dollars, and then wrote Trump a letter promising to write a check not to Trump but to a charity of Schwartz’s choosing. It was a page out of Trump’s playbook. In the past seven years, Trump has promised to give millions of dollars to charity, but reporters for the Washington Post found that they could document only ten thousand dollars in donations—and they uncovered no direct evidence that Trump made charitable contributions from money earned by “The Art of the Deal.”
"
If for instance McCain decides he stands a better chance of retaining his senate seat by dumping Trump then it becomes a problem. At the moment it seems relatively straightforward to bat away the switchers as a minority of malcontents.
http://us.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/donald-trump-campaign-election-2016/index.html
But you are also correct that we are still in the post convention froth phase,
Hitler.
Still a monster, of course.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-republicans-campaigning-226583
But since you ask, other examples are Mugabe and Ferdinand Marcos.
EDIT: And Erdogan of course.
In December 2015, Godwin commented on the Nazi and fascist comparisons being made by several articles on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying that "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician."[13]
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/senate-2016-the-democrats-strike-back/
Any person or party democratically elected can be a threat to democracy if they:
- Change the system overtly to prevent accountability and destroy the mechanisms that removed the last government (hence the Hitler point)
- Change societal norms or the application of power so that the illusions of democracy remain while it becomes increasingly a show (see any number of former African dictators - or Mugabe in the present - or some Pakistani governments, or possibly Erdogan in Turkey today).
- Govern in such a way that it allows or encourages the rise of extremist anti-democratic forces, either within their own party or in opposition to them.
That hasn't happened, and it might never happen, so it is hard to see how Trump gets enough votes in the right places to win. I'd not be backing him at less than 4/1, at present.
But with swing voters seemingly finally facing up to the possibility of Trump winning outright, why would Hillary resign when the goal is in her sight?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-koch-idUSKCN10C2W8
It might even be that Trump turns his fire back onto Hillary rather than anyone who crosses his sights.
28% of Labour voters will stick with party whoever is in charge - 30% will follow Corbyn https://t.co/asIatkCop2 https://t.co/kxTeSaUJGF
The only person who could have done it, IMHO, is FDR, when he won absurd majorities in Congress, between 1932-40.
I've spent a month in the US and met many Republican-leaners who will hold their noses and vote for HRC. Have met no Democrat-leaners who will vote Trump. So I don't think Trump will make it based on what I've seen - he may be enthusing previous non-voters, but I doubt there are sufficient of them to swing the outcome.
Anyway, I thought we'd just stay in the EU, so take the above for what it's worth.
There are other forces at play that means movie remakes and political retreds prosper at the moment.
To me, the Internet has a large part to play. The cultural and political archive is so easy to explore and retrieve from precisely. It crowds out new, rough and fragile ideas.
Trump is stronger than Romney.
Clinton is much weaker than Obama.
The election will be closer than 2012.
#illegalimmigration #Australia - Australia goes two years without illegal boat arrival https://t.co/c0MDQy9czf #tcot
As a matter of interest what happens if a nominated candidate withdraws/dies/is expelled? Nominations close early in many states, but do these allow a substitute candidate - presumably the VP pick - despite these being in the gift of Hillary and Donald?
Clinton may stagger over the line against an opponent who can't even get his own side on-side. Could 2020 be springtime for the next Republican challenger?
The results suggest that somewhere between 15% and 20% will tribally and unthinkingly vote Labour no matter what, which is a bit lower than I thought - I'd have pegged it as 20% - 25% (and about the same for the Tories).
Could never happen in Britain - Oh Wait!
Do we really believe that there is something intrinsically better about the political DNA of a Clinton, Bush, Kinnock, Milliband, Straw, Benn, Rees Mogg, Maude. Johnson, Hurd or Gummer?
I went to university from a council estate and after deciding to join a political society, found I had two options. The Labour Club was basically Harold Wilson, but the Socialist Society reviled him as being a class traitor. I joined and found the exaggeration ludicrous. No one just disagreed, they were nazis whose sole aim was to "literally" grind the poor into the dust and return us to Dickensian living. The full range of hyperbole was employed. Middle class know-it-alls explained how the streets of my council estate were populated by urchins with rickets dying of hunger.
I felt embarrassed. Deprivation in a relative sense, yes, but my mother remained pleased with having an inside toilet and enough to eat. I knew that if I'd introduced these people to my former school friends .... embarrassment all round.
Fifty years on, these hyperbole brigade are even worse. The posh have taken over. The hard left misuse words until they no longer have meaning. Perhaps they always have done. Inequality in the UK is not the same as mass starvation in Africa not matter what pampered public school boys think. I sometimes think I was never a proper socialist until I learned to exaggerate everything to a ludicrous degree. You can be angry but you need to retain realism.
Jezza et al will always fail that test. It's not Animal Farm so much as Lord of the Flies.
Mind you, it is possible for a party to cock up a nomination twice in a row. Miliband to Corbyn springs to mind.
Shadsys market on EV is interesting. I have had a little dabble on 310- 329 at 8, but need to do some sums to see how likely further up works.
Maybe, but we can work out roughly what Conservative lead would have been, judging from the effect of the adjustment in previous YouGov polling. I make it a Conservative lead of at least 13% and possibly more, their best post election polling with YouGov yet.
Mind you, Alexander Severus was a decent sort, so it can swing both ways.
Mr. Jonathan, alas, there is not a surfeit of talent on either front bench [if we assume, for the sake of argument, Labour has a front bench].
Dr. Foxinsox, best of luck. Not betting on the US result myself.
I'm a computer programmer because my dad was incredibly interested in computers - it's hardly surprising the same thing happens for politicians and their children.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/08/02/democratic-national-committee-ceo-resigns-dacey/87960580/
Not sure what to read into this TBH, the DNC have done their job in selecting a candidate, whose campaign will now take over.
The difference is that Trump is being put to the electoral test in November, whereas Corbyn has until 2020 (probably) to face the electorate.
If Trump gets well beaten in November I don't think his 'I'm a winner.' stance will work again in 2020.
Another difference with Corbyn is that Corbyn believes in something, Trump believes in Trump.
He is a man-child.
The difference between the way the Labour Party behaved then and the way Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum are behaving now is that it had humility. We did not think we had a monopoly of wisdom. We assumed that our election defeats meant that voters were trying to tell us something and we ought to listen. Our main activity was not the hosting of large, self-congratulatory rallies, though each of Kinnock, Smith and Blair was a hundred times more compelling an orator than Corbyn, capable of stirring tears of emotion not tears of boredom and despair. Rather it was to systematically go out and speak on the doorstep to millions of ordinary working people and listen to what they wanted.
http://labourlist.org/2016/08/luke-akehurst-we-had-an-election-winning-social-movement-20-years-ago-it-was-called-the-labour-party/