Oct 24, 2016

Mud Wrestling And Politics


Seasoned readers of this blog know that I'm not shy about criticizing officials or policy, when I feel that things are not in the public's best interest. Aggressive as that may be, I am offended by smear tactics and negative campaigning. Certainly, the Trump/Clinton campaigns have been self-described as nasty, and I expect and accept that blood letting. Trump was known as a brawler, and behind those  easy smiles, the Clintons have a long time reputation for viciousness. Locally, I've never seen so much continuous television advertising, nor the low smears being used by McGinty against Pat Toomey.

The national polling released on Friday shows that Trump may have weathered the mud storm. Although, many voters feel that when it came to women in his past that he was no gentleman, they are more concerned about their own future, and change in Washington.

Pundits believe that Toomey's fate lies in Clinton's margin of victory in Pennsylvania. They assume that Clinton will carry the state, and McGinty with her, if she wins by five or six points.

If voters have indeed become immune to mud and sexual escapades, Trump's chances will probably only improve between now and November 8th.  With the news from Iraq, and a lackluster economy, security and prospersity are messages that resonate.

13 comments:

Scott Armstrong said...

Democratic Credo;Toomey is a Republican therefore he is evil, or is it I think therefore I think Republicans are evil.

Jamie Kelton said...

What we are seeing is the worst examples of push polling I've ever seen in politics. What that is, is first, when you deliberately sample groups of people more favorable to a product or a candidate, rather than use a random sample in order to obtain polling results which (usually the client) wants to see, or in this case, the media wants to project. Secondly, and just as important is that once you have the results you wanted from (1), you "push" these results hard in the media to convince the public that the majority of the people like product X over product Y and to downplay the competition.

Now with regards to Trump's women, it's quite clear that Mr Trump is a coarse man, he says what is on his mind and many times doesn't temper his thoughts. Although I'm sure the one we see on the campaign trail has been muted some from the Mr Trump that works in the boardroom.

The Clinton, however, take a back seat to no one with regards to sexual escapades and sleaziness. I was in college when we all learned that oral Sex wasn't really sex, what semen was on a blue dress, and of course, the beginnings of the MoveOn agenda by the Democrats. You do know why it was called the MoveOn agenda, the Democrats wanted the country to "Move On" and forget about Monica Lewinski and all the other sleaze that put Bill Clinton in the Senate on impeachment charges, worse than Nixons, actually.

What makes me cringe as a woman is all of the bimbos that Hillary Clinton is dredging up over the past month after the coordinated "Billy Bush" tape that came out of the NBC archives. There is no such thing as coincidence in politics. And it seems that all of these women were encouraged to "come out" by the Cllinton Campaign. The actually is that Hillary Clinton herself represents the "Feminists" of the 1960s and 1970s that would "act up" saying they are "feminists", but the ones of us who are truly feminists are those who can beat men at their own game, not by playing a "woman's card" but by outperforming them though our work and determination. Unlike Hillary, who needed a man, Bill, for her "success" as her being his wife opened up doors for her that would otherwise be unobtainable. All Hillary does is to make other miserable women like her an excuse to be more miserable.

Jamie Kelton said...

To continue, the polls say that Trump is not liked by women because of his statements, and also the sleaze that has been pushed onto the public over the past month by the Clinton campaign. The push polling I described before is being used to drum that into the minds of the voters relentlessly. I suspect again that the polls are slanted to obtain the results desired as well. None of my girlfriends likes Hillary Clinton at all, and the word "bitch" is not an uncommon term with regards to her. She appeals to other miserable women who for one reason or another don't like their lives. If anyone bothers to take some realistic, accurate polls a year from now, you'll find that Hillary's "support" by women is a bunch of hot air. My mom and dad raised me as the pink dress kind of girl. Went to Junior Assembly with the yellow dress and white gloves and learned to ballroom dance. But hey, we know all about sex also, without us, all men have is their hands ;)

Jamie Kelton said...

Toomey isn't the ideal Republican, but there is no way I'd vote for McGinty. She supports government funding of Planned Parenthood, I don't. And she's a Clintonite. Gag me.

TRENT HALL said...

Not-with-standing Trump's "polls," modern polling has become pretty evidence based and accurate. Even Karl Rove basically concedes that the reliable polls indicate a Trump loss. Put another way, if Trump were to win, it would be the biggest polling upset of all time, and there just aren't any indicators that "something else" is occurring that is changing that. The big shift in down ballot Republican advertising....."send me as a check on Hillary" is proof enough that the pros figure Trump is toast.
People used to split their vote; the trend in the last 15 years is less and less of that happening. Hence, the insight that if Hillary carries Penna. by more than five points Toomey is in trouble.
Republicans used to be the ones pushing/supporting/and in favor of Planned Parenthood because they felt the birth control counseling reduced the number of potential undesirables...the poor, black, immigrants, yadda yadda. It is now only with the abortion issue that Republicans are opposed to funding for it. Apparently polling must show that the majority of women still favor Planned Parenthood, or else
Hillary won't be so strong in favor of it. She changed her position on gay marriage only after the public sentiment changed. The Clintons focus group every issue; they don't get ahead of public opinion, but, follow it.

Steven Ramos said...

Republicans have never supported abortion as a party. We have had and continue to have a dialogue within the party on this question but the party has always supported the right to life, restricting any taxpayer funds for abortion, and supporting efforts to overturn the Supreme Court decision.

People who fall into the Progressive camp on the other hand have supported efforts to eliminate the "inferior" in our population. The Progressives have included Republicans and Democratics. A few years ago Hillary declared herself to be a Progressive in the old mold. She has even declared her support for the violent practice of crushing a fully formed child's skull via a late term abortion.

You can read every party platform and see that soon after the 1972 Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision the Republican party stated it's opposition to abortion funding, support of life, and support of an amendment to overturn the court.

URL: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php

1976 Party Platform: Because of our concern for family values, we affirm our beliefs, stated elsewhere in this Platform, in many elements that will make our country a more hospitable environment for family life—neighborhood schools; educational systems that include and are responsive to parents' concerns; estate tax changes to establish more realistic exemptions which will minimize disruption of already bereaved families; a position on abortion that values human life; a welfare policy to encourage rather than discourage families to stay together and seek economic independence; a tax system that assists rather than penalizes families with elderly members, children in day care or children in college; economic and employment policies that stop the shrinkage of our dollars and stimulate the creation of jobs so that families can plan for their economic security. URL: www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25843

michael molovinsky said...

steven@3:29, I had issues with Trent Hall's comment of 1:10 and was considering deleting it. Since you addressed it, I will let it remain, for now.

because it's very easy for comments to be taken out of context, and attributed to me as the blog owner, i ask readers to refrain from any sentiment that might be misused in that way. thank you

TRENT HALL said...

While Mr. Ramos is correct on the 1976 Republican Party Platform plank on abortion, the fact remains that individual Republican candidates whole heartily supported funding for Planned Parenthood. In fact, Barry Goldwater in Arizona and George Bush 41 & 43 in Texas helped found it in their respective states. I understand the division on the subject of abortion......but, try and tell parents of limited financial means who get a diagnosis of Zika virus or some horrible life threatening to themselves or to the healthy development of the fetus disease that carrying to term is advisable or desirable, and that the government or politicians should interfere with their patient/doctor decisions.

Michael is correct; I should have simply stated that much of the earlier Republican support for abortion services being provided by Planned Parenthood for the income challenged was based on the belief that reducing the number of likely future government dependents was a socially desirable & useful objective. That could have been said without specifically identifying said underclass; I assumed readers or outside critics of his blog would realize the viewpoints expressed in the Comments section reflect those of the testator, and not Mr. Molovinsky himself.
It is noteworthy that several advocate groups for the underclass specifically stated that abortion was a policy of the privileged, designed to ensure racial genocide of their impoverished communities.
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".....Alexander Pope.

Scott Armstrong said...

Trent,

Don't try to palm off Planned Parenthood on Republicans.Your side owns it! Your side/progressives have a long history of racism, and eugenics,all of this is now neatly swept under the rug because your side controls public education and most of the media. Hiding the truth however doesn't change it.

TRENT HALL said...

Hey Scott,
Why don't you try and loosen that tin foil hat....it's on too tight. Planned Parenthood is supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans...it's approval rating is over 70%. Republicans control BOTH houses of Congress, and you can't say only Democrats support it, or Republicans could have killed funding it many times. They don't, with the lame excuse to their rabid pro-lifers that "Obama would only veto it anyway, so, why bother, yadda yadda." Of course, in truth the only reason they don't do so on the federal level is because they don't want to have to campaign in non fly over states on the issue.
Now, to be fair, certain Republican Governors, like Abbott in Texas and Pence in Indiana, have signed bills to defund funding for PP in their states, but, it was all just theater to fool the rubes, because they know/knew full well that they have no authority to effect same, and the courts have made that clear.
Yeah, I know your rejoiner, "like Trump says, the courts are all rigged too, yadda yadda. Get real.....the public isn't buying the nonsense on defunding womens' health. Better stick to denying climate change and like Pence, denying evolution or that cigarettes cause cancer.

michael molovinsky said...

scott@8:22 and trent@1:47, although most blogs welcome dialogue between readers, I do not. Truth be known, I don't even encourage comments. I have no interest in partisan politics or planned parenthood. please restrict comments to the post topic.

Scott Armstrong said...

Mike,

Abortion is always at the top of the list of items that divide Republicans and Democrats. Therefore it is "on topic" for this discussion. If you don't want to entertain comments between posters then perhaps you should accept no posts or at least delete any and all posts that may draw a "partisan" response.
Now that would be an exciting blog to visit daily.

Scott Armstrong said...

By the way Trent, your response was a yawner. Predictable doesn't begin to describe it.