Wednesday, September 07, 2016

Trump could win

-- But I don't believe he will.  As terribly bad a candidate as Clinton continues to demonstrate herself to be, I still think she's going to hold on and win the presidency.  But it's going to be a much closer contest than it should be, and if she were running against anybody but Trump, she'd be losing.

Update: Just so there's no misunderstanding, Trump has a much better shot at defeating Clinton than Texas does of turning blue.

-- In a week where the media's focus will be on national security (which I interpret as 'who's going to drop bombs on somebody else first') there will be various war pigs trotted out in favor of their  preferred CiC ...and some snarky rejoinding to that.

[...] Clinton and Trump will participate in a joint forum Wednesday sponsored by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and broadcast on NBC and MSNBC -- their first joint appearance of the campaign.

Clinton is also bolstering her national security push with a new television ad called "Sacrifice," highlighting Trump's criticism of Arizona Sen. John McCain's war-hero status and his fight with the Muslim parents of an American soldier killed in combat.

And her super PAC, Priorities USA, is launching a $5 million ad buy in the swing states North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire on Friday with a spot titled "I Love War."

Featuring a mushroom cloud, it touts Trump's hawkish remarks about war and nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, Clinton's running mate, Tim Kaine, delivered a security-focused speech Tuesday in Wilmington, North Carolina, accusing Trump of flip-flopping on how the United States should handle the war in Iraq.

"He says whatever he feels like at any given time because you can do that when you're a TV star. But you can't do that when you're president of the United States," Kaine said.

First of all, it's impossible for Trump to love war more than Clinton.  That's not the bigger-dick  contest you might think in this case, though; baiting Trump into responding in some irrational way on Twitter to reinforce her message is, but so far he's only countering with a Pee Wee Herman-esque "I know you are but what am I".

"I just don't think she has a presidential look and you need a presidential look," Trump said of Clinton.

"I'm talking about general, by the way, she says things about me that are horrible," Trump said. "As an example, the single greatest asset I have according to those that know me is my temperament."

Yes, we're all laughing heartily.

This is simply the wrong conversation our nation ought to be having, as we are already bombing four different countries, seven if you want to include the three previously bombed during the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton -- you know, the one with all of the vast foreign policy experience -- thinks that's too few.

I won't be watching these "Bigger Balls" contests and I hope not to have to blog about them.  But Trump might say something like "I'll just use nukes", so I may be forced to comment.  (Pro tip to Trump's debate coaches: have him prepared for the nuclear question, and make sure he answers it less hawkish than Hillary.)

The truth is that I cannot stomach the fact that -- irrespective of how small his hands may or may not be -- Trump is probably smaller than Clinton in the macho/war/genitalia length and girth department.  And that fact is precisely as repulsive as you feel repulsed having read that sentence.

No comments: