The "What Will the Crazy Climate Change-Believing Liberals Do to the Economy" card is an interesting angle, and it certainly could help Trump stoke working class fears of another economic downturn, but that just underscores his broader path to victory -- his only chance, really -- which is to foster and encourage fear as such: fear of another recession, fear of terrorists, fear of brown-skinned people generally, fear of "liberal elites", etc. His entire schtick is nothing other than the usual GOP bullshit writ large (or YUGE, if you prefer).
If Clinton didn't have so many negatives affecting people's perceptions of her, there would be no discussion about Trump's possible path to victory. The man is electoral poison. But he actually has a vanishingly slim chance to turn his campaign around, despite doing his damnedest to tank it at every turn. I think it's too little too late. But if he can stay on point and relentlessly hammer on Clinton while playing on peoples' insecurities . . . he could see a spike in support come October. I doubt he is that disciplined, and the electoral math doesn't favor his chances at all. But then, if anyone had asked me in 2004 about Bush's prospects for re-election, I would have burst out laughing. We know how that went. Fear is the Republican brand these days, and it is a dangerous and heady brew.
@ScienceAF: By all means, read Rand. Then cleanse your mental palate and read something good. I suppose she is one of those writers all people should read at some point (preferably at your age), but I think you'll find yourself outgrowing her 'charms' pretty quickly. I find her narrative voice shrill and unpleasant in the extreme. Her fictional prose is wooden; her characters (heroes and villains alike) are bloodless cutouts; and she never met a caricature or straw man she didn't like and wouldn't apply to her perceived philosophical/cultural/political enemies. I remember reading some of her non-fiction and just gaping at the page in disbelief as she 'dispensed' with one philosophical better after another in the most ham-handed and unfair manner possible. But look on the bright side, once you're done with her, your copy of Atlas Shrugged will make a nice door jam, or you can use the fucking thing to press flowers.
If Clinton didn't have so many negatives affecting people's perceptions of her, there would be no discussion about Trump's possible path to victory. The man is electoral poison. But he actually has a vanishingly slim chance to turn his campaign around, despite doing his damnedest to tank it at every turn. I think it's too little too late. But if he can stay on point and relentlessly hammer on Clinton while playing on peoples' insecurities . . . he could see a spike in support come October. I doubt he is that disciplined, and the electoral math doesn't favor his chances at all. But then, if anyone had asked me in 2004 about Bush's prospects for re-election, I would have burst out laughing. We know how that went. Fear is the Republican brand these days, and it is a dangerous and heady brew.
@ScienceAF: By all means, read Rand. Then cleanse your mental palate and read something good. I suppose she is one of those writers all people should read at some point (preferably at your age), but I think you'll find yourself outgrowing her 'charms' pretty quickly. I find her narrative voice shrill and unpleasant in the extreme. Her fictional prose is wooden; her characters (heroes and villains alike) are bloodless cutouts; and she never met a caricature or straw man she didn't like and wouldn't apply to her perceived philosophical/cultural/political enemies. I remember reading some of her non-fiction and just gaping at the page in disbelief as she 'dispensed' with one philosophical better after another in the most ham-handed and unfair manner possible. But look on the bright side, once you're done with her, your copy of Atlas Shrugged will make a nice door jam, or you can use the fucking thing to press flowers.
