GOP to Run Against Clinton. Again.

[IMPress Polly]

Yep, they're running against Hillary Clinton again (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/2018-campaign-republicans-are-running-against-hillary-clinton-again-n861261). The Congressional Republicans are running re-election ads for this year's midterms in November attacking Hillary Clinton. Fox News still gives her roughly equal air time with President Trump even though she was defeated nearly a year and a half ago and will, obviously, not be on the ballot. And of course, the "Lock her up!" chants remain a staple of President Trump's (yep, already-underway) 2020 "re"-election rallies. It's what they've got, I guess.

The new ads and critiques being leveled against Mrs. Clinton by the aforementioned revolve primarily around her recent claim that Republicans are backward-looking. I wonder where one could have gotten that idea from? :rollseyes:

[Cletus]

Mostly from being ill informed, malicious, dishonest, and stump stupid.

Do you share that view?

[Scerab]

The republican terrorist organizations base was so indoctrinated last election, so these terrorists are hoping to rally their base to the same cry. I suppose some zombies will cry out “lock her up” hopfully they follow Flynn, spit, in his disgrace.

[IMPress Polly]

Cletus wrote:
Do you share that view?

I don't agree with the way Hillary Clinton over-simplistically described urban areas as progressive and other parts of the country as backward, if that's what you mean. I'm someone who grew up in a rural area that consistently votes for the Democratic Party. There are those parts of the country and ways that Democrats CAN win in rural areas, including in rural areas that feature overwhelmingly white populations, and I just don't think that Clinton really wants her party to even try. The accusation that she's kind of an elitist in these sort of ways I find to be true.

But as to whether ideological Republicans broadly tend to think in backward-looking ways? Yeah, I'd say that's a fair assessment.

[Boris The Animal]

So according to Communists like Polly, there should be no Conservatives in the US. Move to Cuba where your sick ideology is welcome!

[The Xl]

It doesn't even matter, they're all the same in the end.

[Chris]

I don't agree with the way Hillary Clinton over-simplistically described urban areas as progressive and other parts of the country as backward, if that's what you mean. I'm someone who grew up in a rural area that consistently votes for the Democratic Party. There are those parts of the country and ways that Democrats CAN win in rural areas, including in rural areas that feature overwhelmingly white populations, and I just don't think that Clinton really wants her party to even try. The accusation that she's kind of an elitist in these sort of ways I find to be true.

But as to whether ideological Republicans broadly tend to think in backward-looking ways? Yeah, I'd say that's a fair assessment.


Right, they're not liberal progressives divorced from culture and nature, time and place.

[Boris The Animal]

It doesn't even matter, they're all the same in the end.Not really, Democrats' true Communist colors have shown through.

[Crepitus]

Yep, they're running against Hillary Clinton again (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/2018-campaign-republicans-are-running-against-hillary-clinton-again-n861261). The Congressional Republicans are running re-election ads for this year's midterms in November attacking Hillary Clinton. Fox News still gives her roughly equal air time with President Trump even though she was defeated nearly a year and a half ago and will, obviously, not be on the ballot. And of course, the "Lock her up!" chants remain a staple of President Trump's (yep, already-underway) 2020 "re"-election rallies. It's what they've got, I guess.

The new ads and critiques being leveled against Mrs. Clinton by the aforementioned revolve primarily around her recent claim that Republicans are backward-looking. I wonder where one could have gotten that idea from? :rollseyes:

Demagogue tactics work better when there is a clear "bad guy" to aim them at.

[Cletus]

But as to whether ideological Republicans broadly tend to think in backward-looking ways? Yeah, I'd say that's a fair assessment.

You would be wrong, of course.

[Common]

All elections and All campaigns run against whatever they think is a winning strategy, its all been done before by both sides.

[texan]

Yep, they're running against Hillary Clinton again (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/2018-campaign-republicans-are-running-against-hillary-clinton-again-n861261). The Congressional Republicans are running re-election ads for this year's midterms in November attacking Hillary Clinton. Fox News still gives her roughly equal air time with President Trump even though she was defeated nearly a year and a half ago and will, obviously, not be on the ballot. And of course, the "Lock her up!" chants remain a staple of President Trump's (yep, already-underway) 2020 "re"-election rallies. It's what they've got, I guess.

The new ads and critiques being leveled against Mrs. Clinton by the aforementioned revolve primarily around her recent claim that Republicans are backward-looking. I wonder where one could have gotten that idea from? :rollseyes:
Be cool if any of you idiots on the left understood marketing. But you don’t.

I will I’ll say as long as Clinton hangs around she will be a target. I will also say until the Dems find someone that can be the clear choice by the party they will run on what works. As soon as Cory Booker or Joe Biden or some other idiotic dip $hit gets in front of the pack it will be what you see because it works.

BTW they will have plenty of good things to run on but races are won on a lot on driving negatives. See the Steele fake ass Steele Dossier. They will also run on all the lefts idiots running their mouths stupidly on gun control. Oh yes they will because it works. Not to mention the left feeds it. They will take your guns people!

Its about winning not your pointless post on Clinton. Marketers do what works.

[donttread]

Yep, they're running against Hillary Clinton again (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/2018-campaign-republicans-are-running-against-hillary-clinton-again-n861261). The Congressional Republicans are running re-election ads for this year's midterms in November attacking Hillary Clinton. Fox News still gives her roughly equal air time with President Trump even though she was defeated nearly a year and a half ago and will, obviously, not be on the ballot. And of course, the "Lock her up!" chants remain a staple of President Trump's (yep, already-underway) 2020 "re"-election rallies. It's what they've got, I guess.

The new ads and critiques being leveled against Mrs. Clinton by the aforementioned revolve primarily around her recent claim that Republicans are backward-looking. I wonder where one could have gotten that idea from? :rollseyes:

Washington is devoid of both foresight and long term planing

[Agent Zero]

Mostly from being ill informed, malicious, dishonest, and stump stupid.

Do you share that view?

The Banana Republicans? Yes.

[Green Arrow]

So according to Communists like Polly, there should be no Conservatives in the US. Move to Cuba where your sick ideology is welcome!

According to conservatives like Boris, there should be no members of any other anti-conservative ideology in the US. Why is one acceptable and the other not?

[Green Arrow]

Right, they're not liberal progressives divorced from culture and nature, time and place.

What does that even mean? Explain.

[Common]

According to conservatives like Boris, there should be no members of any other anti-conservative ideology in the US. Why is one acceptable and the other not?
The answer is neither is acceptable to the other but both ideologies exist always have and always will, its just never been this contentious in my lifetime anyway

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
Right, they're not liberal progressives divorced from culture and nature, time and place.


Green Arrow wrote:
What does that even mean? Explain.

Apparently that I either don't exist or am God. Or the omnipresent will of the Force (hence my avi :wink:). Or that Chris has no idea what he's talking about, one of those things. :tongue:


Boris wrote:
So according to Communists like Polly, there should be no Conservatives in the US. Move to Cuba where your sick ideology is welcome!

We both know that this isn't your best effort at contributing. I remember us not so long ago having a brief, but nonetheless constructive encounter on another thread beginning here (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/94977-Lady-Bird-Should-Win-But-Won-t?p=2299386&viewfull=1#post2299386), so I know you're fully capable of better than the quoted response above. I'd like to see more of that other Boris. Because you're not actually just a dumb troll like you usually try to present yourself as being. I'd like to see more of the real Boris. The one who is capable of constructive conversation. I have the feeling that he's not dumb or particularly mean at all, but actually a decent person.

[KathyS]

Demagogue tactics work better when there is a clear "bad guy" to aim them at.

And it works both ways, doesn't it? Democrat candidates in my area are running on the "fight Trump" platform. Very little mention of their views on the issues, just "I'll fight Trump if I get elected" spiel.

[IMPress Polly]

KathyS wrote:
And it works both ways, doesn't it? Democrat candidates in my area are running on the "fight Trump" platform. Very little mention of their views on the issues, just "I'll fight Trump if I get elected" spiel.

Not to defend strictly negative campaigning, but if I may point something out here, Donald Trump is the president, while Hillary Clinton is a private citizen not running for office. Do you see the difference in degrees of political relevance here?

[Boris The Animal]

According to conservatives like Boris, there should be no members of any other anti-conservative ideology in the US. Why is one acceptable and the other not?
Because Liberalism (See Also: Communism, Socialism, etc.) is based on nothing but lies and emotion. Only Conservatism is based on truth.

[Boris The Animal]

Apparently that I either don't exist or am God. Or the omnipresent will of the Force (hence my avi :wink:). Or that Chris has no idea what he's talking about, one of those things. :tongue:



We both know that this isn't your best effort at contributing. I remember us not so long ago having a brief, but nonetheless constructive encounter on another thread beginning here (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/94977-Lady-Bird-Should-Win-But-Won-t?p=2299386&viewfull=1#post2299386), so I know you're fully capable of better than the quoted response above. I'd like to see more of that other Boris. Because you're not actually just a dumb troll like you usually try to present yourself as being. I'd like to see more of the real Boris. The one who is capable of constructive conversation. I have the feeling that he's not dumb or particularly mean at all, but actually a decent person.Being decent does not mean subscribe to any form of Leftism because the only thing Leftism leaves is death and destruction (Peoples' Exhibit A; Detroit, Michigan)

[Cletus]

The Banana Republicans? Yes.

So, you concur that you form your opinions from being ill informed, malicious, and stump stupid.

That is not really news.

[Crepitus]

Anybody else notice that most of the conservatives really can't come up with coherent rebuttals anymore? Straight to the insults. They aren't even pretending to have brains anymore.

[KathyS]

Not to defend strictly negative campaigning, but if I may point something out here, Donald Trump is the president, while Hillary Clinton is a private citizen not running for office. Do you see the difference in degrees of political relevance here?
I understand your point however, Hillary continues to make herself relevant by making comments that reflect just out of touch with everyday Americans she really is. Even democrats are cringing these days.
My question is, do democrats agree with her, or not ?

[KathyS]

Because Liberalism (See Also: Communism, Socialism, etc.) is based on nothing but lies and emotion. Only Conservatism is based on truth.
True conservatism, yes.

[Crepitus]

And it works both ways, doesn't it? Democrat candidates in my area are running on the "fight Trump" platform. Very little mention of their views on the issues, just "I'll fight Trump if I get elected" spiel.

That is a good point, and to a certain extent I agree, however at this point Clinton is a private citizen with no involvement in government, not an opposing candidate.

[Common]

Not to defend strictly negative campaigning, but if I may point something out here, Donald Trump is the president, while Hillary Clinton is a private citizen not running for office. Do you see the difference in degrees of political relevance here?

I see the difference Polly but isnt it also true that since hillary has lost she has made excuses and blamed everyone under the sun for her loss instead of herself. Shes gone to other countries and bashed trump and blamed others for her loss.

She keeps herself in the limelight in a negative way. Isnt it also true that many democrats have come out and said she needs to go away. Why wouldnt republicans or democrats use a tool they believe can help them win an election.

Have politics and campaigns ever been fair