Campaign-ending gaffes.

[Arkady]

Historically, even fairly small missteps have mortally wounded political campaigns. Howard Dean once yelped too enthusiastically at a rally and was basically done. Biden got caught plagiarizing and from that point the writing was on the wall for his campaign. Perot had his "you people" phrasing, which opened him to suspicion of racism and helped to sap his momentum. George Allen imploded based on ridiculing a member of his audience with a racial epithet, Mitt Romney had his "47 percent" line that he never lived down, Todd Akin had "legitimate rape," etc. Gore barely took a majority, fighting desperately against a meme that he was a compulsive liar, based on some resume puffery (e.g., his taking credit for the initiative in creating the Internet). Dukakis took serious damage simply from getting photographed looking a bit goofy in a tank. That history makes it strange to see the way Trump has thrived while stepping on dozens of equivalent landmines.

These are among the gaffes that could easily have killed other campaigns: the comment about Mexican immigrants being rapists, criticizing McCain for having been captured, suggesting Khan's mother wasn't permitted to speak at the convention, saying Khan's father has no right to criticize him, not realizing Russian forces were already in the Ukraine, being in the midst of a major fraud case against one of his businesses, suggesting the judge in that case wasn't qualified because of his ancestry, setting new records in political mendacity throughout the campaign according to fact-checking outfits, making fun of a reporter's disability, suggesting that his opponent's father had a role in killing JFK, making creepily sexual comments about his own daughter, retweeting white supremacists -- multiple times, prominently featuring plagiarism in his convention then denying it, talking about "my African American," his false claims about seeing cheering NJ Muslims on TV after 9/11, bragging about penis size during a debate, using playground taunting against multiple opponents ("Little Marco," "Lyin' Ted," "Crooked Hillary,") the vile "blood coming from her wherever" smear against a reporter, etc.

The bizarre thing is that despite putting together a list of Trump gaffes that matches up, in terms of volume and fame, with the combined campaign-ending gaffes of all major candidates from both parties over the prior few decades, I'm sure it's not a comprehensive list. What else did I miss?

 

[Dino]

Historically, even fairly small missteps have mortally wounded political campaigns. Howard Dean once yelped too enthusiastically at a rally and was basically done. Biden got caught plagiarizing and from that point the writing was on the wall for his campaign. Perot had his "you people" phrasing, which opened him to suspicion of racism and helped to sap his momentum. George Allen imploded based on ridiculing a member of his audience with a racial epithet, Mitt Romney had his "47 percent" line that he never lived down, Todd Akin had "legitimate rape," etc. Gore barely took a majority, fighting desperately against a meme that he was a compulsive liar, based on some resume puffery (e.g., his taking credit for the initiative in creating the Internet). Dukakis took serious damage simply from getting photographed looking a bit goofy in a tank. That history makes it strange to see the way Trump has thrived while stepping on dozens of equivalent landmines.

These are among the gaffes that could easily have killed other campaigns: the comment about Mexican immigrants being rapists, criticizing McCain for having been captured, suggesting Khan's mother wasn't permitted to speak at the convention, saying Khan's father has no right to criticize him, not realizing Russian forces were already in the Ukraine, being in the midst of a major fraud case against one of his businesses, suggesting the judge in that case wasn't qualified because of his ancestry, setting new records in political mendacity throughout the campaign according to fact-checking outfits, making fun of a reporter's disability, suggesting that his opponent's father had a role in killing JFK, making creepily sexual comments about his own daughter, retweeting white supremacists -- multiple times, prominently featuring plagiarism in his convention then denying it, talking about "my African American," his false claims about seeing cheering NJ Muslims on TV after 9/11, bragging about penis size during a debate, using playground taunting against multiple opponents ("Little Marco," "Lyin' Ted," "Crooked Hillary,") the vile "blood coming from her wherever" smear against a reporter, etc.

The bizarre thing is that despite putting together a list of Trump gaffes that matches up, in terms of volume and fame, with the combined campaign-ending gaffes of all major candidates from both parties over the prior few decades, I'm sure it's not a comprehensive list. What else did I miss?

Flaw in your logic- these missteps sunk numerous campaigns, but there were multiple missteps and faux scandals charged against winning candidates as well.

It's the vetting process, it's never pretty because no one's perfect.

"AWOL Bush"...didn't sink W.
Bill's sex scandals didn't stop him from winning in the 90's.

 

[reason10]

Historically, even fairly small missteps have mortally wounded political campaigns. Howard Dean once yelped too enthusiastically at a rally and was basically done. Biden got caught plagiarizing and from that point the writing was on the wall for his campaign. Perot had his "you people" phrasing, which opened him to suspicion of racism and helped to sap his momentum. George Allen imploded based on ridiculing a member of his audience with a racial epithet, Mitt Romney had his "47 percent" line that he never lived down, Todd Akin had "legitimate rape," etc. Gore barely took a majority, fighting desperately against a meme that he was a compulsive liar, based on some resume puffery (e.g., his taking credit for the initiative in creating the Internet). Dukakis took serious damage simply from getting photographed looking a bit goofy in a tank. That history makes it strange to see the way Trump has thrived while stepping on dozens of equivalent landmines.

These are among the gaffes that could easily have killed other campaigns: the comment about Mexican immigrants being rapists, criticizing McCain for having been captured, suggesting Khan's mother wasn't permitted to speak at the convention, saying Khan's father has no right to criticize him, not realizing Russian forces were already in the Ukraine, being in the midst of a major fraud case against one of his businesses, suggesting the judge in that case wasn't qualified because of his ancestry, setting new records in political mendacity throughout the campaign according to fact-checking outfits, making fun of a reporter's disability, suggesting that his opponent's father had a role in killing JFK, making creepily sexual comments about his own daughter, retweeting white supremacists -- multiple times, prominently featuring plagiarism in his convention then denying it, talking about "my African American," his false claims about seeing cheering NJ Muslims on TV after 9/11, bragging about penis size during a debate, using playground taunting against multiple opponents ("Little Marco," "Lyin' Ted," "Crooked Hillary,") the vile "blood coming from her wherever" smear against a reporter, etc.

The bizarre thing is that despite putting together a list of Trump gaffes that matches up, in terms of volume and fame, with the combined campaign-ending gaffes of all major candidates from both parties over the prior few decades, I'm sure it's not a comprehensive list. What else did I miss?

Give it up. NOTHING is going to stop Trump from kicking that criminal bitch's ass and being the next president.

The only thing that would hurt him is if he apologized or reversed himself. That killed Romney, Allen and all those pussy politicians. THE DONALD is the real deal.

 

[as seen on tv]

the odd thing is:

• trump is more extreme than allen on immigrants, and its helping him.
• the 47% thing is actually true, although not pleasant to contemplate

you left out gaffes such as promising to avoid war (LBJ), then sending 500,000 troops to Vietnam. that's an example of a lie/gaffe which certainly helped him get elected.

 

[Arkady]

Flaw in your logic- these missteps sunk numerous campaigns, but there were multiple missteps and faux scandals charged against winning candidates as well.

It's the vetting process, it's never pretty because no one's perfect.

"AWOL Bush"...didn't sink W.
Bill's sex scandals didn't stop him from winning in the 90's.

Fair enough. Still, I can't think of any successful candidacy in history that has even had a fraction this many serious blunders. Can you? If Trump manages to win, after having stumbled over a whole minefield full of explosive gaffes, it'll be something new under the sun.

 

[reason10]

Fair enough. Still, I can't think of any successful candidacy in history that has even had a fraction this many serious blunders. Can you? If Trump manages to win, after having stumbled over a whole minefield full of explosive gaffes, it'll be something new under the sun.

How was that delivery room for you LAST NIGHT?

The press did NOTHING but plaster the airwaves with every single Reagan line that wasn't 100 percent grammatically correct. He did what Trump is doing now. He's going over the heads of the media directly to the people. That's why he's going to win.

And everything he said about that rag and his wife was 100 percent correct.

And remember, he was being asked this question by a Clinton supporter Stephanopolis. He didn't put this in one of his speeches. This is something that piece of shit was trying to catch him on. His answer was 100 percent correct and liberals can [Unwelcome language removed] off if they don't like it.

He's going to be the next president.

 

[Arkady]

Give it up. NOTHING is going to stop Trump from kicking that criminal bitch's ass and being the next president.

The only thing that would hurt him is if he apologized or reversed himself. That killed Romney, Allen and all those pussy politicians. THE DONALD is the real deal.

Trump has reversed himself, too. For example, his campaign initially pretended his wife's glaringly obvious plagiarism was just coincidentally similar text, and then they admitted the language had been pulled right from Michelle Obama's speech. That reversal didn't hurt him (in fact, it stopped the bleeding). You'd think his supporters would be a bit grumpy about that one, since so many of them made complete fools of themselves by mindlessly parroting the idea that it was a mere coincidence, only to look like jokes when the campaign admitted what was obvious to all thinking people from the start. Yet none of them seem to care that Trump hung them out to dry that way. As far a I can tell, there's nothing he can do to drive the marching morons away. He's their god-king, and they approach his mistakes the same way the faithful approach the topic of religious apologetics -- taking it as their job to reconcile the contradictions to preserve the fiction that their dogma is infallible.

 

[Cerulean Mutt]

Historically, even fairly small missteps have mortally wounded political campaigns. Howard Dean once yelped too enthusiastically at a rally and was basically done. Biden got caught plagiarizing and from that point the writing was on the wall for his campaign. Perot had his "you people" phrasing, which opened him to suspicion of racism and helped to sap his momentum. George Allen imploded based on ridiculing a member of his audience with a racial epithet, Mitt Romney had his "47 percent" line that he never lived down, Todd Akin had "legitimate rape," etc. Gore barely took a majority, fighting desperately against a meme that he was a compulsive liar, based on some resume puffery (e.g., his taking credit for the initiative in creating the Internet). Dukakis took serious damage simply from getting photographed looking a bit goofy in a tank. That history makes it strange to see the way Trump has thrived while stepping on dozens of equivalent landmines.

These are among the gaffes that could easily have killed other campaigns: the comment about Mexican immigrants being rapists, criticizing McCain for having been captured, suggesting Khan's mother wasn't permitted to speak at the convention, saying Khan's father has no right to criticize him, not realizing Russian forces were already in the Ukraine, being in the midst of a major fraud case against one of his businesses, suggesting the judge in that case wasn't qualified because of his ancestry, setting new records in political mendacity throughout the campaign according to fact-checking outfits, making fun of a reporter's disability, suggesting that his opponent's father had a role in killing JFK, making creepily sexual comments about his own daughter, retweeting white supremacists -- multiple times, prominently featuring plagiarism in his convention then denying it, talking about "my African American," his false claims about seeing cheering NJ Muslims on TV after 9/11, bragging about penis size during a debate, using playground taunting against multiple opponents ("Little Marco," "Lyin' Ted," "Crooked Hillary,") the vile "blood coming from her wherever" smear against a reporter, etc.

The bizarre thing is that despite putting together a list of Trump gaffes that matches up, in terms of volume and fame, with the combined campaign-ending gaffes of all major candidates from both parties over the prior few decades, I'm sure it's not a comprehensive list. What else did I miss?

He's been able to get away with the gaffes thus far because most of them occurred in the primaries, and the base of the GOP is a forgiving lot as long Trump keeps feeding them red meat.

He's SOL when it comes to the General Election, because that electorate won't be so forgiving.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Historically, even fairly small missteps have mortally wounded political campaigns. Howard Dean once yelped too enthusiastically at a rally and was basically done. Biden got caught plagiarizing and from that point the writing was on the wall for his campaign. Perot had his "you people" phrasing, which opened him to suspicion of racism and helped to sap his momentum. George Allen imploded based on ridiculing a member of his audience with a racial epithet, Mitt Romney had his "47 percent" line that he never lived down, Todd Akin had "legitimate rape," etc. Gore barely took a majority, fighting desperately against a meme that he was a compulsive liar, based on some resume puffery (e.g., his taking credit for the initiative in creating the Internet). Dukakis took serious damage simply from getting photographed looking a bit goofy in a tank. That history makes it strange to see the way Trump has thrived while stepping on dozens of equivalent landmines.

These are among the gaffes that could easily have killed other campaigns: the comment about Mexican immigrants being rapists, criticizing McCain for having been captured, suggesting Khan's mother wasn't permitted to speak at the convention, saying Khan's father has no right to criticize him, not realizing Russian forces were already in the Ukraine, being in the midst of a major fraud case against one of his businesses, suggesting the judge in that case wasn't qualified because of his ancestry, setting new records in political mendacity throughout the campaign according to fact-checking outfits, making fun of a reporter's disability, suggesting that his opponent's father had a role in killing JFK, making creepily sexual comments about his own daughter, retweeting white supremacists -- multiple times, prominently featuring plagiarism in his convention then denying it, talking about "my African American," his false claims about seeing cheering NJ Muslims on TV after 9/11, bragging about penis size during a debate, using playground taunting against multiple opponents ("Little Marco," "Lyin' Ted," "Crooked Hillary,") the vile "blood coming from her wherever" smear against a reporter, etc.

The bizarre thing is that despite putting together a list of Trump gaffes that matches up, in terms of volume and fame, with the combined campaign-ending gaffes of all major candidates from both parties over the prior few decades, I'm sure it's not a comprehensive list. What else did I miss?

I believe that in the end, there is strong correlation between the forgiveness for Trump's "gaffes" and voters' thirst for something truly outside of the box.

I put gaffes in quotation marks because even that is subjective. But as an example, I would say his attack on the Khan family is a gaffe. Going after the family of a fallen soldier has optics with too much downside to have made that a good move.

 

[worldlymrb]

You can't compare past elections to that of today. A much larger percentage of the population is awake to the systematic, in your face, open fraud by the establishment. Corp-state media conglomerates have a 6% trust rate.

Then you have a presidential candidate getting a free pass committing crimes which any everyday American would be thrown in the slammer for.

A majority of Americans see through the illegal immigration policy of the democrat party as nothing more than a illegal voter registration drive for a declining political party.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY: Americans have seen the blatant lies of both dictatorial establishment parties and how they are using stealth to defy the constitution. Deals are replacing treaties. Presidential directives/memorandum/dictates usurp public law and on/on.

Conclusion: The ruling class can no longer piss down the backs of everyday Americans and tell us it's raining.

 

[Dino]

Fair enough. Still, I can't think of any successful candidacy in history that has even had a fraction this many serious blunders. Can you? If Trump manages to win, after having stumbled over a whole minefield full of explosive gaffes, it'll be something new under the sun.

Not really, I think the Democrats are enjoying their playing the Victim card.

Both sides do it, and both candidates are needing to overcome healthy doses of it.

Too much scandal-mongering reminiscent of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. People become inured to such propagandizing.

 

[Arkady]

the odd thing is:

• trump is more extreme than allen on immigrants, and its helping him.

Xenophobes have long been an "underserved demographic." On the one side, you had the prior Republican embrace of H1Bs, and their enthusiasm for free trade, and their reluctance to commit demographic suicide by turning Latinos as solidly Democratic as African Americans have become. On the other side, you had Democratic identity politics plus the pro-free-trade position of the DLC-style Democrats who have dominated the party since 1992. There just wasn't anyone will to speak in a full-throated way for the xenophobes, at the national level. So, that's probably the single biggest factor in Trump's appeal..... and it's probably a big part of how arguably the least honest major candidate in modern history is seen as a "straight shooter" by so many: he's saying the stuff they believe that nobody else in either party has been willing to say

the 47% thing is actually true, although not pleasant to contemplate

No.

First, I don't think there are 47% of people who'd vote for Obama no matter what (Romney's claim). For a reality check, just check the state-by-state 2012 election results. Obama got well under 47% of the vote in a lot of states, including states where well over 47% of people don't pay federal income tax (the basis for that number). In fact, eight of the ten states where the highest percentage of people don't pay federal income tax are solidly red states. Mississippi had the highest percentage of non-payers, and only 44% of people there voted for Obama. The next worst are Georgia and Arkansas, where Obama got 45% and 37%, respectively. So, Romney's rhetoric, linking Obama's support to government dependency, was the kind of thing his rich donors wanted to hear, but bears no resemblance to what happens in the real world. Take a look at the list of the most dependent states and see if you spot Romney's error:

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

you left out gaffes such as promising to avoid war (LBJ), then sending 500,000 troops to Vietnam. that's an example of a lie/gaffe which certainly helped him get elected.

No, that would be an example of an unfulfilled promise. If he'd run for reelection, after sending 500,000 troops to Vietnam, and got voted in anyway, we might have treated that as equivalent. But, in reality, the damage from his broken promise was so horrendous he didn't dare seek reelection.

 

[Arkady]

How was that delivery room for you LAST NIGHT?

The press did NOTHING but plaster the airwaves with every single Reagan line that wasn't 100 percent grammatically correct. He did what Trump is doing now. He's going over the heads of the media directly to the people. That's why he's going to win.

And everything he said about that rag and his wife was 100 percent correct.

And remember, he was being asked this question by a Clinton supporter Stephanopolis. He didn't put this in one of his speeches. This is something that piece of shit was trying to catch him on. His answer was 100 percent correct and liberals can [Unwelcome language removed] off if they don't like it.

He's going to be the next president.

I think you do an excellent job illustrating why Trump is bullet-proof in the eyes of his supporters. A huge number of them are flat-out bigots, who throw around epithets like "rag." As long as Trump provides a megaphone for their ignorant hate, they just don't care how often he embarrasses himself.

 

[Arkady]

Then you have a presidential candidate getting a free pass committing crimes which any everyday American would be thrown in the slammer for.

I assume you mean Clinton, but as you should know, she was investigated and cleared. As for why Trump isn't behind bars for the crime he committed, that's a different matter.

 

[Arkady]

Not really, I think the Democrats are enjoying their playing the Victim card.

Both sides do it, and both candidates are needing to overcome healthy doses of it.

Too much scandal-mongering reminiscent of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. People become inured to such propagandizing.

Can you think of any Democrat who has ever committed this many serious gaffes and blunders in a single campaign? If so, who?

 

[marvin martian]

I assume you mean Clinton, but as you should know, she was investigated and cleared. As for why Trump isn't behind bars for the crime he committed, that's a different matter.

What crime?

 

[worldlymrb]

I assume you mean Clinton, but as you should know, she was investigated and cleared. As for why Trump isn't behind bars for the crime he committed, that's a different matter.

Yeah.. She was investigated and cleared when everybody saw with their own eyes the thousands of classified as well as top secret emails that were reluctantly released by the State Department under court order. LMAO!

Tell me Arkady, as a Bernie supporter, how does it feel that the DNC/Hillary campaign openly bragged/laughed at stealing the election from your guy? <link> Are you not the least concerned about your so-called "democrat party" when a super delegate openly states that it has already been decided months before the primary election that Hillary is the candidate? Just curious.

 

[Arkady]

He's been able to get away with the gaffes thus far because most of them occurred in the primaries, and the base of the GOP is a forgiving lot as long Trump keeps feeding them red meat.

He's SOL when it comes to the General Election, because that electorate won't be so forgiving.

I hope you're right that he's SOL, but I'm skeptical enough about the wisdom of the masses not to be that confident.

 

[Arkady]

I believe that in the end, there is strong correlation between the forgiveness for Trump's "gaffes" and voters' thirst for something truly outside of the box.

I put gaffes in quotation marks because even that is subjective. But as an example, I would say his attack on the Khan family is a gaffe. Going after the family of a fallen soldier has optics with too much downside to have made that a good move.

I think this has something in common with the Brexit vote, in that there's a certain share of supporters who are more in "emotional outburst" mode, instead of really thinking things through. I have a number of British colleagues, and they indicate that a significant proportion of Brits who supported Brexit weren't so much trying to bring about that particular outcome as they were just to send a message and blow up the status quo. I think we get that with the Trump supporters -- which is a less flattering way to say your point about wanting something "truly outside of the box." I think a lot of them haven't really thought through what a Trump presidency would be like, because this isn't really about trying to bring about that particular outcome. Instead, it's about sending a message of disgust for the establishment, and wanting to blow up the status quo. But, if they win, there will be a Trump presidency, and we'll need to cope with the disastrous consequences. It's a bit like being so annoyed at your P.O.S. lemon of a car that you drive it off a pier with yourself inside. There may be a moment of catharsis during the freefall, knowing you'll never have to listen to that screeching axle or to deal with the inexplicable stalling again, but that water is coming up fast.

 

[marvin martian]

But, if they win, there will be a Trump presidency, and we'll need to cope with the disastrous consequences.

Will these consequences be as disastrous as the ones you predicted for the Brexit, or less so?