Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Apr 22 2016 01:22pm)
It's definitely below his projections, which most models that I was watching had in the mid-to-high-70s iirc. But it still puts him behind those models when factoring in Colorado and Wisconsin where he got absolutely shellacked.
He's really tightening up though, now that he's actually hired some people who know how to politics.
The 90-5 split he got out of NY was actually more than people thought he'd win going in. Since he ended up with 60% instead of near the 50% mark where his polling was, there weren't the kind of 2-1 Upstate district splits that people thought there would be.
Almost all the successes of the past few weeks is owed to the new hires. It started as a chaotic parallel-structure with Manafort and Lewandowski at the top of competing/overlapping units but now it's basically a campaign that's eaten itself, with all of Trump's new hires and lobbyists (remember when he didn't like lobbyists?) pushing the old people out. Their field director, or what passes for a field director on a Trump campaign, resigned. With so many people loyal to him, I don't know if more resignations will follow or if that'll have the usual impact that it does on normal campaigns.
Quote (excellence @ Apr 25 2016 09:10pm)
What's funny about this to me is that so few people understand
why this works to Clinton's advantage, just as it worked successfully to the advantage of Obama in 2012. The same people who figured out how Romney would be defeated in the summer of 2011 work for Clinton now (principally among them Joel Benenson), and they're applying a similar strategy to Donald Trump because they can, even on steroids.
It isn't a commentary on the money, or the simple disparity between his worth vs. her worth. Looking past the pitch is half of what makes the attack as devastating as it was (on Romney) and as it will be (on Trump).
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.