Home | About | Donate

Donald Trump’s Strategy for Victory Is Clear, but Are Democrats Able to See It?


#1

Donald Trump’s Strategy for Victory Is Clear, but Are Democrats Able to See It?

Sonali Kolhatkar

There is an adage, based on Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”: “Know your enemy.” After watching Donald Trump’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, I wonder just how well Democrats really know Trump and his strategy.


#2

It Can't Happen Here Sinclair Lewis (1935)


#3

Obviously not, they are tunneled visioned on the status quo, even if it means losing to Trump.


#4

He has successfully defined her a s the establishment candidate and will continue to proud her with discontent from voters on the left and discontented voters from tHe right. Hillary's response is to repeatedly and arrogantly poke the progressive dems in the eye.


#5

Democrats are able to see it but will choose wilful blindness instead, since a sensible counter-strategy would require them to abandon their world view of aristocratic entitlement.


#6

To, "Recent internal documents leaked by Wikileaks have shown the contempt the party had for the candidate best suited to usher in a decisive win" , I would add, "and for what is best for America"..


#7

Fair analysis. But its too late for Hillary to change (again) and fear of Trump won't do it. If the DNC really cared about who wins more than they cared about their Wall Street bribes, they would have been fair to Bernie, the one who could beat Trump.

Democrat's chance to win would increase if Bernie retracts his endorsement for reasons of electoral fraud, re-enters the race and maybe for Hillary to drop out. But no, they would rather have Trump than take a chance on losing Wall Street to Bernie.


#11

The author claims that while Sanders would have been a better candidate , that it "Too late to do anything about it now" as she suggests people need to vote for Clinton and then perhaps hold her feet to the fire and force her to do the right thing .

That of course is poppycock. Not only is it not too late ,but the time opportune to abandon said party and vote Green or an alternative.

This and only this will force change in that party. If this opportunity missed and those 13 million go to Clinton out of fear, than it over for the left for another 50 plus years.

Even should a Trump prevail , a Democratic party in opposition will be far more likely to use the Congress and Senate to delay or oppose his policies when they recognize that the eyes of those progressives that abandoned them are upon them.


#12

If we would know our enemy, we ought to take a closer look at the Clinton campaign. Trump can be purchased, and there are buyers in the market.

Sure, Trump is playing with racist and nationalist tropes, and flyover-vs-metropolitan tropes, too. And they are absurd and they appeal to some and he can do it because he is a showman and no one else in the race is. But Kolhatkar is at least partly off-base here, for all the good work she has done elsewhere.

Clinton is pulling most of the same cards, without the colorful rhetoric. She talks nicer gender and race, but tougher class and war. She is campaigning at least partly to the right of Donald Trump, and that might be more obvious were his rhetoric less confused or hers more honest. Too many people will vote Clinton just because Trump is so offensive personally.

Has no one noticed that the Clinton candidacy and presidency will become a debacle for feminism? She will sell women faster than Obama sold blacks and poor people, and things lurch towards some moment when our horrors will become acute rather than chronic.

Along with the larger problems of intercontinental war, tightening surveillance and oppression and secrecy, increasing poverty and cleaner corporate control, Clinton will bring genuine reason for a gender backlash and an excuse for genuine and deplorable misogyny.

We already have a large and largely self-serving confusion between criticism of imperial Israeli slaughter and antisemitism. We also have a very dangerous extension of the "safe space" that developed in college classrooms, as faux-liberal and faux-left entities enlist sympathies of out-groups and identity politics in order to quash criticism of power structures.

It is not like racist rhetoric never had a pull before. But no American bigot has had the freedom that Trump has to swing from the heels about racism against traditional American minorities since George Wallace, despite all of the anti-Muslim rot that has infested American discourse for decades now. For eight years, we have watched the Democratic Party make excuses on Obama's race. Of course he gets racist criticism as well, and from some plenty authentic bigots; that just does not mean he is doing anything right. Already we see professional commentary so confused as to treat Clinton as outre in an election rigged against Sanders because he's "an old white male" or even "an angry white male," to confuse honest political passion with some Clint Eastwood movie.

I will vote for Stein. Were there no third name on the ballot in my district, I would leave that slot blank.


#13

"If Democrats want to beat Trump in November, they need to recognize this strategy fast and adopt the progressive-sounding economic proposals that Trump is offering as he tries to reconcile conservative white voters with economic liberalists. In other words, Clinton needs to embody Sanders, and fast."

Right. No one will notice that she's killed and gutted him and is now walking around in his skin.

Clinton has already shown she's a shape-shifter. A Sanders skin suit isn't going to help her.


#14

It doesn't matter what Trump's strategy is. At least his nomination wasn't rigged. A vote for Clinton is a vote for corruption and election fraud.

This is what everyone is watching online today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM It's the new documentary film "Clinton Cash." It documents the way in which the Clintons made an enormous fortune by influence peddling. Of course, the film doesn't prove influence peddling. It just documents what would appear to any reasonable person to be influence peddling. A corporation or foreign government makes an enormous donation to the Clinton Foundation and pays Bill an enormous amount of money to make a speech. Then that donor's weapons deal or project is approved by Hillary's State Dept. Maybe it's just a coincidence that happened over and over again.

If the Democratic Party leadership really cares about defeating Trump, they will nominate Bernie Sanders, who would already be the candidate if the fix hadn't been in from the beginning. There is no way that Hillary can win the votes of Berners like me, who will under no circumstances vote for a lying, influence-peddling, warmonger. (This is assuming that the election fraud doesn't continue in November; we know that many states use readily-hackable voting machines and tabulators, and we know that Hillary did best in the states that had no paper trail for elections.)

Luckily, we can get behind a candidate with integrity, Jill Stein, if Bernie doesn't run. #NeverHillary #StolenElection #StillSanders #JillNotHill


#15

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#16

"Along with the larger problems of intercontinental war, tightening surveillance and oppression and secrecy, increasing poverty and cleaner corporate control, Clinton will bring genuine reason for a gender backlash and an excuse for genuine and deplorable misogyny."

The above scares me, too. If the first female President were to be someone like Jill Stein (or Jill Stein), then all of the values represented by True Feminism would have a chance to shine and lift lives.

Instead, the faux brand will leave men who don't like the idea of women in leadership roles even more convinced--by Hillary's performance--that "they were right" in their long-lasting prejudice.


#18

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#19

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#20

I wouldn't vote for Trump or HRC, but the more I think about it, the more I think it would be less of a catastrophe for Trump to win.

They are both horrific, in some similar and some different ways, and so the next four years is going to be horrific either way. But if Trump wins, that means in four years the Democrats will have a chance to produce a non-horrific nominee who could win, and the Democrat should win if Trump is half as bad as the Democrats say, and so we will only have to endure four years of a horrific president. But if Hillary wins, then not only will we have a horrific president for the next four years, but in 2020 the contest will be between Hillary and some other horrific Republican nominee, ensuring that we will have a horrific president for at least the next eight years! Sure, Hillary's health might mean she wouldn't run again, but then her VP would be strongly positioned to become the nominee and we know that he is almost as horrific as her (some would say more horrific), so again we would have at least eight years of a horrific president.


#21

Best I could find, they were active from 1905-1949l. I am going to roll back the clock to
Voltaire. What's next? Shakespeare? Plato?


#22

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#23

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#24

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.