2016 USA Presidential Elections

[Interrobang]

[...]The local chairman feels very strongly now that Clinton could have won Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan if she had just kept her eye on economic issues and not gotten distracted by the culture wars.

?Look, I?m as progressive as anybody, okay? But people in the heartland thought the Democratic Party cared more about where someone else went to the restroom than whether they had a good-paying job,? he complained. ??Stronger together? doesn?t get anyone a job.?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/11/22/daily-202-rust-belt-dems-broke-for-trump-because-they-thought-clinton-cared-more-about-bathrooms-than-jobs/58339cf3e9b69b7e58e45f1b/?wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1

"We should have thrown the Immigrants, Muslims and other minorities under the bus long before Trump got the chance to bait our voters that way!" is all I read there ... going high? Someone is digging a tunnel there ...

 

[mpicco]

I'm not aware of any failed presidential candidate who was angry enough to undermine their own country in that way.

Candidates aren't briefed in top secret national securities issues are they? Candidates are not president-elects who were then not chosen by the electoral college, either.
Small chance as it might be, seems too big for national security matters.

 

[PelicanHazard]

Candidates aren't briefed in top secret national securities issues are they?

They are, but after winning their party nomination. (I would call them 'nominees' for clarity, since 'candidate' also encompasses all the competitors during the primaries).

 

[argatoga]

"We should have thrown the Immigrants, Muslims and other minorities under the bus long before Trump got the chance to bait our voters that way!" is all I read there ... going high? Someone is digging a tunnel there ...

I didn't read that in the article. The issue for Clinton was that Trump was more focused on preserving jobs in the Rust Belt, while Clinton ignored the issues for the most part. I mention again the "I'll put coal miners out of work" quote from Clinton. Trump spent much of his campaign harping on NAFTA, and repatriating manufacturing jobs. This tactic paid in dividends. These voters fear they won't be able to feed their families; given a choice between your children or someone you don't know, you choose the former.

I don't see your argument that one must throw out immigrants, Muslims, and other minorities, to advocate the return of US manufacturing.

 

[mpicco]

They are, but after winning their party nomination. (I would call them 'nominees' for clarity, since 'candidate' also encompasses all the competitors during the primaries).

All of them? Johnson, and the others, too?

 

[_HighVoltage_]

Clinton's campaign focused too much on Trump and urban cultural issues, while those in the Rust Belt feared their jobs were to be offshored. Trump took the effort to appeal to them, while she kamikazed herself with lines like "I'll put coal miners out of work" in her West Virginia campaign rally.

I'll admit, I had tunnel vision at the time. I heard her say that in front of West Virginians and thought, "Finally an honest candidate! Coal is dead/dying/mechanized...let's move on and find a future for West Virginia." Then I heard Donald Trump cater to West Virginians promising to bring back all the coal jobs. I wasn't surprised by the reaction of West Virginians, they are gullible enough and Trump is smart enough to sell them a bridge in Brooklyn. But I thought it didn't matter, and to be sure, West Virginia still doesn't matter. But it represented the way rural Americans felt and it ballooned to other states. I had this misguided belief that logic and reason would prevail and people will realize that coal jobs are never coming back.

 

[PelicanHazard]

All of them? Johnson, and the others, too?

No, generally just the Democrat and Republican nominees. The last 3rd party to get an intelligence brief was in 1980.

I'll admit, I had tunnel vision at the time. I heard her say that in front of West Virginians and thought, "Finally an honest candidate! Coal is dead/dying/mechanized...let's move on and find a future for West Virginia." Then I heard Donald Trump cater to West Virginians promising to bring back all the coal jobs. I wasn't surprised by the reaction of West Virginians, they are gullible enough and Trump is smart enough to sell them a bridge in Brooklyn. But I thought it didn't matter, and to be sure, West Virginia still doesn't matter. But it represented the way rural Americans felt and it ballooned to other states. I had this misguided belief that logic and reason would prevail and people will realize that coal jobs are never coming back.

When I heard her say that, I knew she shot herself in the foot. Doesn't matter that I believe it's right, I live ~15 minutes from some of the communities hardest hit when the steel industry left Pittsburgh, and I knew they'd embrace Trump wholeheartedly; you can often find some of them in the comments section of local news articles clamoring for the return of steel to the area. They also allowed themselves to get fleeced on a cracking plant deal because they overpromised on jobs when pitching it.

 

[jack_christie]

I'll admit, I had tunnel vision at the time. I heard her say that in front of West Virginians and thought, "Finally an honest candidate! Coal is dead/dying/mechanized...let's move on and find a future for West Virginia." Then I heard Donald Trump cater to West Virginians promising to bring back all the coal jobs. I wasn't surprised by the reaction of West Virginians, they are gullible enough and Trump is smart enough to sell them a bridge in Brooklyn. But I thought it didn't matter, and to be sure, West Virginia still doesn't matter. But it represented the way rural Americans felt and it ballooned to other states. I had this misguided belief that logic and reason would prevail and people will realize that coal jobs are never coming back.

There are stories about Clinton campaign that have come out, saying Bill wanted to spend more time on rust belt

 

[_HighVoltage_]

Cute.

Secret Service considering renting a floor at Trump Tower to protect future first family
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/25/politics/secret-service-trump-tower/index.html

Key parts:

What is also unprecedented is that the building is owned by the Trump Corporation so the USSS would be renting the space from Trump's company for protecting him and his family.

A separate law enforcement official said the number of NYPD cops protecting Trump Tower could grow to 300 at a cost of about $1 million a day.

And all because the White House is not good enough for the King.

 

[Firecat]

I don't think it's particularly excessive (the cost for renting out the floor). Although if it costs 1 million a day for NYPD that's insane.

 

[DanRoM]

I don't think it's particularly excessive (the cost for renting out the floor).

The act of rejecting the home that comes with the office and is designed to give you, the office holder, and your family the necessary protection and then charging the agency that protects you for the room they need at your own place is outragous, however.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

I don't think it's particularly excessive (the cost for renting out the floor). Although if it costs 1 million a day for NYPD that's insane.

What about the principle? Trump is not just getting free (funded by taxpayers) protection by Secret Service, he will actually get paid for the service they are providing him. It further adds to the objections and demands that he needs to remove himself from the Trump organization and put the company in a blind trust.

 

[narf]

I don't think it's particularly excessive (the cost for renting out the floor). Although if it costs 1 million a day for NYPD that's insane.

A million a day seems reasonable to have 300 people plus equipment around the clock.

Let's assume protecting Trump in his Ivory Gold Tower would cost an additional $400 million a year... that'd be roughly a quarter of the Secret Service budget, with loads of duties besides protecting POTUS and family.

 

[jack_christie]

How the Trump Campaign Built an Identity Database and Used Facebook Ads to Win the Election

the Trump campaign used data to target African Americans and young women with $150 million dollars of Facebook and Instagram advertisements in the final weeks of the election, quietly launching the most successful digital voter suppression operation in American history.

https://medium.com/@MedicalReport/h...s-to-win-the-election-4ff7d24269ac#.qpk72dsuv

Exclusive Interview: How Jared Kushner Won Trump The White House

?It?s hard to overstate and hard to summarize Jared?s role in the campaign,? says billionaire Peter Thiel, the only significant Silicon Valley figure to publicly back Trump. ?If Trump was the CEO, Jared was effectively the chief operating officer.?

?Jared Kushner is the biggest surprise of the 2016 election,? adds Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, who helped design the Clinton campaign?s technology system. ?Best I can tell, he actually ran the campaign and did it with essentially no resources.?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenb...shner-won-trump-the-white-house/#5d95ec272f50

 

[Firecat]

It's circumstantial. He happens to live and own a building in a very prime spot. Granted, it's a little cringeworthy.....but they need to setup somewhere. If they staged somewhere else it arguably could cost more and be less effective. Taxpayers are footing the bill to protect the first family regardless. They should work within the confines of their budget. If protecting him goes over budget then I would more likely have an issue with it.

If the secret service didn't take the whole floor....how much income would Trump derive from renting out the rooms to normal guests? Im just trying to see if he is profiting or if its a wash (or even a loss)

A million a day seems reasonable to have 300 people plus equipment around the clock.

.

Not sure if that's sarcasm lol? I can't even wrap my head around a million a day. If each person on the detail were earning 100k, it would amount to about 30 million a year. Is the cost of equipment etc costing 335 million? Maybe i'm missing something.

How much does local law enforcement spend on protecting the president in D.C?

 

[jack_christie]

How much does local law enforcement spend on protecting the president in D.C?

But Trump Tower is an additional target they could do without, and its very hard to defend. Putting everyone around that building in harms way. Anyway he's probably doing it for the advertising.

The other factor is his business in now a target and he's do so much to fuel the flames of his enemies.

 

[narf]

Not sure if that's sarcasm lol? I can't even wrap my head around a million a day. If each person on the detail were earning 100k, it would amount to about 30 million a year. Is the cost of equipment etc costing 335 million? Maybe i'm missing something.

In essence, they're burning 900 person-days per day if you assume 300 people times three eight-hour shifts... at $1k per person-day including equipment and command structure and pensions and whatnot, that's $900k a day - around a million.

- - - Updated - - -

How much does local law enforcement spend on protecting the president in D.C?

That's going to be spent anyway, a Whitehouse without POTUS in it is still going to be protected. After all, it is the nerve centre of the executive branch.

- - - Updated - - -

If the secret service didn't take the whole floor....how much income would Trump derive from renting out the rooms to normal guests? Im just trying to see if he is profiting or if its a wash (or even a loss)

I wouldn't be surprised if other tenants left. I'd imagine it takes quite a while to get in and out of the building, looking at what Obama caused in Berlin by choosing to walk out the front door of the Adlon... loads of pissed guests who were forced to stay inside.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

It's circumstantial. He happens to live and own a building in a very prime spot. Granted, it's a little cringeworthy.....but they need to setup somewhere. If they staged somewhere else it arguably could cost more and be less effective. Taxpayers are footing the bill to protect the first family regardless. They should work within the confines of their budget. If protecting him goes over budget then I would more likely have an issue with it.


How much does local law enforcement spend on protecting the president in D.C?

But that's the whole point - they are already setup somewhere else, the White House. And it's not like they will stop protecting the White House, with Trump they would have to protect both his tower and the White House. That is, simply said, wasteful and unnecessary.

And as an additional insult, that additional cost in rent that we as taxpayers would pay, is going directly to the Trump organization. It's a double whammy.

 

[jack_christie]

But that's the whole point - they are already setup somewhere else, the White House. And it's not like they will stop protecting the White House, with Trump they would have to protect both his tower and the White House. That is, simply said, wasteful and unnecessary.

And as an additional insult, that additional cost in rent that we as taxpayers would pay, is going directly to the Trump organization. It's a double whammy.

Plus New Yorkers are not happy about the way the traffic in the area will be permanently restricted, but maybe good for De Blasio re-election campaign.

Data firm in talks for role in White House messaging ? and Trump business

Trump strategist Steve Bannon apparently involved in talks despite being on board of Cambridge Analytica, which helped president-elect to victory

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/donald-trump-cambridge-analytica-steve-bannon

 

[TC]

And as an additional insult, that additional cost in rent that we as taxpayers would pay, is going directly to the Trump organization. It's a double whammy.

It is mildly annoying, but it's not like Trump is profiting off it, so to speak. He could rent that floor to anyone and make money, giving it up rent free to the secret service would end up costing him a lot of money. Which is not something we usually expect our presidents to pay for out of their own pockets. Of course the problem here is whether it's really necessary. But it's not like there aren't other locations our past presidents frequented regularly that needed enhanced security.