Former Hillary Clinton press secretary: 'Peril' to underestimate Donald Trump
Source: CNN
Former Hillary Clinton press secretary: 'Peril' to underestimate Donald Trump
By Jake Tapper and Tal Kopan, CNN
Updated 1:01 PM ET, Fri May 13, 2016
Washington (CNN) — A former spokesman for Hillary Clinton is sounding off on Donald Trump -- and warning Democrats not to underestimate him.
Jay Carson was Clinton's 2008 press secretary and worked for her family's foundation, and he recently took to Instagram to sound the alarm on the GOP presumptive nominee.
"Here's the bad news -- this guy can win the general election pretty damn easily," Carson, who is now a producer on the Netflix series "House of Cards" and a Principal at Bloomberg Associates, wrote on his private account. "I hear far too many of my liberal friends calling him a 'joke' and acting like the general (election) is in the bag which is nuts because he's dangerous and he has a path to victory."
Carson told Democrats that underestimating Trump would be perilous.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/13/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-peril/index.html
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/13/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-peril/index.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)with an advantage based on the millions who will be illegally prevented from voting because of unconstitutional, illegal voter ID laws.
Add to that the votes that will be lost, miscounted by GOP controlled districts and personnel, and Drumpf starts out in the lead by several million votes as to the popular count.
apnu
(8,756 posts)If the 2000 debacle taught us anything that was it.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)But right now she is in the primary with Bernie.
niyad
(113,318 posts)hitler was underestimated, dismissed as a joke in many circles. look how that worked out for the world.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)
C Moon
(12,213 posts)the GOP will fall in line behind Trump—Ryan already has.
lark
(23,102 posts)Look at Reagan and Schwartzenegger (sp?) . No experience, terrible politicians, but elected because of their acting ability. Trump says whatever the audience wants, then changes it the next day, and then changes it again the week after. They just don't care. He's Youge and that's what's important to them. He's the result of the dumbing of America, ignorant people don't pay close attention but love the big show.
He's extremely dangerous and I think will try to bankrupt the country and steal our $$. It's what he's always done before and he's craven enough to have no conscience, so think he's trying to do it again, only on a really large scale.
He's both scary and dangerous and could be our own Hitler? That's why it's so important that every non-batshit crazy person votes for whoever is running against him, be it Bernie (hopefully) or HRC.
Roy Rolling
(6,917 posts)Donald understands the show biz creed, "The most important thing is sincerity. If you can fake that you've got it made."
pampango
(24,692 posts)We should not underestimate demagogues or actors. They can be great campaigners even if they would make lousy presidents.
Gene Debs
(582 posts)lies in the way that her most breathless supporters simply cannot fathom that everybody doesn't see her as the most awesome thing in the history of awesome the way they do. Their blinders are going to be a big problem.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)That was impressive.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)
Bodych
(133 posts)What an election we Dems are running on: we pulled out the always-reliable fear card, which is our new Trump card. It's all we've got, isn't it?
Funny that the opposing party members don't seem to have that same mind-numbing, paralyzing fear: Are we even talking about the same candidate?
In any event, I won't be intimidated any longer with this fear crap, which has been the main staple of American life since September 11, 2001.
Gene Debs
(582 posts)"opposing party members don't seem to have that same mind-numbing, paralyzing fear" because they're too goddamn stupid to have the sense to be afraid of anything.
If you think there's absolutely no cause for even slight concern, you're living in a delusion bubble.
Bodych
(133 posts)If you think the millions of opposing party members who vote for Trump are "too goddamn stupid", you're clueless about your fellow Americans. You keep up that divide-and-conquer attitude about your neighbors, the mockery, the incredible disdain.
Goose-step to that tune, as a matter of fact. Dance to it in your dreams. You'll go far, I'm sure.
Talk about living in a delusion bubble.
there's a lot of "Democrats" who think that way. I hardly recognize the Democratic Party du jour.
Welcome to DU.
#NotMeUs
#BernieOrBust
#DropOutHillary
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)Bernie is a tough and strong candidate without all the baggage and distrust of Secretary Clinton.
She's not a fighter against the billionaires like Trump.
And she's out of touch with the working class that will decide who is elected President.
Bodych
(133 posts)Sanders' attitude is fearless, which is something the rest of us should respect...and emulate. That's not part of the Clinton strategy, however.
Angel Martin
(942 posts)will pound Sanders into a motionless heap.
Sure he represents change on the economy. His problem is that he is weak on counter-terrorism and national security.
Someone who spent the entire Cold War cheering on the other side, and thinks terrorism is caused by climate change, is not a credible Commander in Chief.
A competitive Democratic candidate should represent change, and be a plausible CIC.
Neither Clinton or Sanders qualify.
I suggest James Webb.
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)That sounds like the line Trump will use against whoever the Democratic candidate is. They use the same, old tiring line every four years.
And this sounds even more like the line of bull shit that Trump would use against Bernie: "Someone who spent the entire Cold War cheering on the other side, and thinks terrorism is caused by climate change, is not a credible Commander in Chief."
That won't fly anymore than the propaganda hit piece about Obama being a Kenyan born communist follower of Islam!
Angel Martin .... Where did you get those anti-Sanders talking points from?
Angel Martin
(942 posts)populist democrats, who actually did things to maintain blue collar incomes, and were willing to send our military against the enemies of this country.
In terms of Sanders past statements on cold War opponents, I got them from that well known right wing source known as Salon.com
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/11/bernie_sanders_has_a_big_problem_why_his_decades_old_statements_about_castro_sandinistas_are_trouble/
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)We don't need someone who wore a uniform. It's unnecessary. That's just your fears talking. We need personal strength. Like Bernie.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Your true colors are showing.
Angel Martin
(942 posts)they have figured there is a big problem there.
For some people it will take until Nov 8, I guess
At one point I thought, maybe if Sanders chose a really strong military figure for VP...
It won't work. Bentsen was a war hero and conservative Democrat, but it didn't help Dukakis.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)billionaire that uses politicians, or the politician that uses billionaires? How do you decide?
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)the calculation would be determining who you dislike more...then cast your vote for the one you think is a bit less evil...
Of course, one does not have to vote...
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I finally realized the lesser evil is still evil. Then I realized there is a 3rd choice 4th choice, etc.
I will now only vote for the most liberal candidate available. It's the only way the best, or worse, candidate can get elected, by voting for them.
I most certainly do not subscribe to the "if you don't vote for A you are helping B to win. No, the only way you help B win is by voting for B. If I vote for C I am helping C win, not B. It only requires the simplest of logic. Then there are the "if you don't vote" people that claim by not voting you are actually voting for the wrong candidate. Do these people actually listen to themselves?
To simplify how I determine who to vote for, I will no longer vote against someone, I will always try to find someone to vote for. Just seems to make more sense to me. What I mean is, if I don't like either of you, why would or should I vote for either of you? That is not to say I don't have criteria that will automatically eliminate a candidate, I do, I will no longer consider a pro-war candidate for any position. Surprising how much that speeds up the process.
I probably won't live to see it but I expect the two party system to collapse within a few years anyway, both major parties are showing signs of breaking up and have been for a few years. Hopefully it does, In a country this diverse there should be more parties and a coalition system makes much more sense and is more likely to get fair laws enacted. Both major parties are already actually minority parties with unaffiliated being the major "party."
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)It's just a fact.
WhoWoodaKnew
(847 posts)The guy is an expert at manipulating people. It's the undecideds, as usual, that will determine the election. They're not like us. They don't pay attention like we do. They can easily get caught up in the Trump excitement.
Best used car salesman of our generation.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
forest444
(5,902 posts)Because if it had been Bernie Sanders, it would be a different story - to say nothing if Biden parachutes in.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)They are woefully over-optimistic. It's going to be close.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Looking at the demographics, and the intense dislike for him on a general level tells me he should have no chance. But I also thought there was no way in hell the Republicans would nominate him in the first place, so I don't know anymore.