Animosity against President Donald Trump is a campaign killer
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Historic evidence will demonstrate that a negative campaign is rarely a successful campaign. The negative mantra of the Left is approaching a catastrophic effect for Democrats of whatever brand to which they wish to sub-subscribe: Liberal, Progressive, Socialist.
Animosity: a negative thrust of attitude toward another; in this case, one candidate, and those voters who support that candidate vs another candidate
Donald Trump: who is the president
Campaign: From a political perspective, an organized effort to encourage voting for a particular candidate [or policy]
My opponent said “Trump's entire platform was based on negativity, but he still got an overwhelming support from right wingers of all ages.”Would we like to know why my opponent’s last admission is correct?
What is typical of presidential campaign promises, or do they all “just tell us what we want to hear?” The standard is actually not bad, and Trump, to date in on track.
Note, first, that my opponent’s claim is unaccompanied by any citation, let alone a credible citation. That’s just fine. Let’s see what Trump’s campaign promised, and what has been accomplished to date. PolitiFact has offered a “Trump-O-Meter to gage the results of his “negative” campaign, since my opponent claims it was “entire[ly] negative.”
However, there are two issues with the Trump-O-Meter. First, it declared that the goal to withhold funding to sanctuary cities failed, but the Trump administration won the court battle over the issue, so it should be scored as a promise kept, not broken, and this will be reflected in the numbers below in section 1.a.
Second it calls a promise to release his tax returns after the audit is completed as a broken promise. However, no legal mandate exists for a presidential candidate, or a president, to release tax returns. Therefore, this cannot be considered as a broken promise.
I.a Trump offered a total of 99 campaign promises
1. of the 99, 20 [20%] have been completely fulfilled
2. of the 99, 11 [10%] have been fulfilled with compromises
3. of the 99, 27 [27%] are in process
4. of the 99, 26 [26%] are in process, stalled
5. of the 99, 16 [16%] are broken [however, the President is still 287 days until inauguration of a second term, if re-elected.
Take note that 30% of Trump’s first term promises are complete, and an additional 27% are still in process to be fulfilled. That is more than half of promises, refuting my opponent’s claim that his campaign was “entire[ly] negative.”
II.b Trump accomplishments
Further, let’s take a look at Trump’s accomplishments since taking office from a successful campaign compared with the related accomplishments of the last seven Democrat presidents:
1. Roosevelt could have done something for Israel, like predict a U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, but he did nothing. He did not even raise alarm about the Nazi death camps.
2. Truman could have dealt with North Korea directly, and he could have done what Roosevelt didn’t, but he didn’t.
3. Kennedy could have made the largest tax cut in history, and he could have done what Roosevelt and Truman didn’t, but he didn’t.
4. Johnson could have lowered black unemployment, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy didn’t, but he didn’t.
5. Carter could have told Iran where to get off, and he could have done what Roosevelt Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson didn’t, but he didn’t.
6. Clinton could have made a better deal with North Korea, at least by meeting with them, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter didn’t, but he didn’t.
7. Obama could have recovered our economy by more than just breaking even, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton didn’t, but he didn’t. If one still insists Obama recovered the economy
So, again, just how negative was Trump’s campaign? Some negativity is part of every presidential campaign, but my opponent’s arguments have failed to impress that Trump’s was an “entire[ly] negative” campaign.
III Animosity against Trump by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign
One of the most vicious of Hillary Clinton’s attacks on Trump during her 2016 campaign went beyond Trump, while obviously including him, was effected by her famous claim in a New York fundraiser, September 9, 2016, “half of Trump supporters fit into a basket of deplorables.” The article included a comment reminiscent of this debate’s title: “Memo to candidates: Stoop generalizing and psychoanalyzing your opponents’ supporters. It never works out for you.”
The Atlantic published an article in the summer of 2017, looking back at the Hillary Clinton campaign of 2016 which was titled: “What’s Wrong with Democrats,” and subtitled: “If the party cares about winning, it needs to learn how to appeal to the white working class.” Yes, indeed. You know, that “deplorable” class.
“…liberals’ fears were softened by a widely shared belief: that the candidacy of Donald Trump would shatter the Republican Party… His trail of wreckage would force a painful reckoning… the narrowness of its coalition, the cloistered cluelessness of its elites… After a season of Trump’s destruction, the party would lie in rubble.
“On November 8, that prophesy was realized, true in every regard, except that it described the Democrats.”
“And as[Clinton] finally wriggled out of the primary to face Trump, the [campaign]strategy was still evolving, producing dramatic tactical shifts — from embracing disaffected Republicans to firing up liberals, from previewing an uplifting closing stretch to savaging Trump with an unprecedented television ad barrage.
Savaging? Well, that’s telling, but there’s more:
The article highlights the fact that the Democrats, in late fall of 2015, were considering using “…Trump as more than a tool to destroy Bush. In fact, Mook took him so seriously that his team’s internal, if informal, guidance was to hold fire on Trump during the primary and resist the urge to distribute any of the opposition research the Democrats were scrambling to amass against him.”
Weren’t the Democrats surprised when their strategy completely fell apart as Trump bested Bush, and everybody else in the Republican primary campaign.
“…Clinton’s campaign—a multimillion-dollar effort with the most talented operatives and innovative tech available—had a problem explaining what she stood for.” Little wonder. She referred to herself as “a little wonky” in her presidential campaign strategy.
Wonky, like, “Donald Trump says he's qualified to be president because of his business record. A few days ago, he said, quote, 'I'm going to do for the country what I did for my business.' So let's take a look at what he has done. He's written a lot of books about business -- they all seem to end at Chapter 11."
Wonky, like, "We know that happened for at least a few years -- he paid (no taxes), or close to it. Or maybe he isn't as rich as he claims or that he hasn't given away as much to charity as he brags about. Whatever the reason, Americans deserve to know -- before you cast your votes this November."
Wonky, like, "He has no real strategy for creating jobs, just a string of empty promises. But then maybe we shouldn't expect better from someone whose most famous words are, 'You're fired.'"
Wonky, like, Hillary Clinton. as previously quoted: “…had a problem explaining what she stood for.”A deer in the headlights tends to do that.
I Trump campaign promises & accomplishments:
I.a My opponent’s round 2 rebuttal to my request for citation of Trump’s negative campaigning, and specifically by her claim in round 1 that “Trump’s entire platform was based on negativity”claimed “everyone has heard this man make negative comment after negative comment while campaigning.”Fine. She acknowledges that “everyone” is a generalization. But generalization is not the issue. What I contend is that there is no offered source for the claim, “Trump’s entire platformwas based on negativity,” implying that there was no positive campaign statements regarding what Trump would do for the country if elected President.
I.b I have already demonstrated in my round 2, arguments of Trump’s 99 campaign promises [argument I.a] and current level of keeping those promises by percentage, and a brief listing of his accomplishments, just in terms of the lack of action by the past seven Democrat presidents which Trump has enacted [argument II.b]. This demonstrates that Trump has not only euphemistically promised a chicken in every pot, but with 200-plus days remaining in his first term, by the percentages given in my round 2, I.a argument, Trump has delivered chickens 57% of the time. That’s an entirely negative campaign?
I.c My opponent argues that all presidents make promises that are broken. I make no argument. My opponent argues that examples of Trump’s negative campaigning can be easily googled. I make no argument. My opponent argues that I said, “Some negativity is part of every presidential campaign.” I make no argument; I did say that. What I argue in response is the my opponent claimed that Trump’s “entire platform was based on negativity.”Must we really need to define “entire,” or is that also a generality? Sorry, that ship has sailed. The dock is empty.
I.d “Entire” stands as delivered by my opponent, and I will demand citation of a credible source for her claim. After all, this debate’s contrary position is entirely based on that claim, so it better have legitimate citation. No, I will not accept an unsubstantiated claim by Cartoon News Network, MessNBC, or any other outlet that has been campaigning for Trump’s removal ever since he was elected. God knows they have tried since 2015 to derail his primary, nomination, and election victories. They have tried to have him removed from office by a whore’s dismissed claims, by her lawyer, by Russia, Russia, Russia, by Bob Mueller’s investigation and report, and by Impeachment. He’s still in the Oval, still succeeding in keeping promises.
I.e My opponent claims that I have “destroyed[my] very own argument”by acknowledging that I said, “Some negativity is part of every presidential campaign.”
No, I categorically reject the claim. My opponent needs to re-think the notion that “some” carries the same heavy weight as “entire.” Words mean things and have consequences, just like elections.
II Hillary Clinton: A shot in the foot through a glass darkly
III Select is just elect with an ‘s’
III.a Well, “surely,” as my opponent concluded, or not, that makes a nice sound bite, but not such a convincing reality. The Constitution has a word about that, and it is sure: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows”[ bold added for emphasis]