Miracle on K Street

[clarkkentvotes]

I think it was the movie Miracle on 34th st - where the Macy's Santa recommended another store to buy a product and the person was so thankful it actually helped Macy's business in the end -

I know this is going to sound like - "cant we all get along" - but . . .

there is the soft sell and the hard sell - the soft sell is for those who engage and are confident - not afraid of competition and the hard sell makes people pledge and act on impulse and fear (don't miss out - urgency) - the hard sell is more likely to want a refund later.

so I don't really have examples per se - but do you think a politician could actually win like this - I know some could - especially if they are well established already, and have nothing to lose - but things do seem urgent always right? and we are in the politics of fear or maybe we always have been.

What I am saying is it's a tight race - and I think HRC would do better - to embrace letting the 3rd party candidates in the debates - and leave it to Donald to demand they not be in - put him on the spot; it makes her seem more inclusive and confident and less afraid. You might not agree but I don't agree with you not agreeing. It is much like a relationship - if someone is over your shoulder vs confident. The same with the tactics against Bernie - you might not be losing overall via playing hardball however you are also not getting your full potential either. But it does require some confidence and being able to step back - which is what many cannot do - they will not jump first. It is rare. Actually George W acted like this in 2000 but the thing was it was an act - and actually Perot showed some urgency and that is why he did do well until he dropped out and that no longer showed urgency anymore and reduced trust in him - but he was also cool and calm too.

I guess the main thing is be yourself - Al Gore should have just said - I am a stick - I am a hard nosed stiff, I exaggerate - and I like being so - and if had done that he would have won uncontested.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. Bringing the third party candidates,

even if we limit them to Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, forget all the dozens of others who are running, in all honesty runs the risk that those who do not like either Hillary or Donald suddenly see one of the others as a viable alternative. I'm not about to predict who would lose more voters to those two, but this is not a year to set up the possibility of a total cluster-fuck in November.

Most of the voting public would simply not get the nuance of Hillary embracing additional candidates for the debates but Donald objecting. The majority of voters are simply aware there are debates and will (or won't as the case may be) watch them.

It is, of course, highly possible that in a genuine three or four way debate potential Stein or Johnson voters would learn exactly what each of them stands for and therefore be able to make a much more informed decision about voting for them, but I wouldn't count on it.

Plus, it's not Hillary's decision to make about who to include.

[clarkkentvotes]

2. she could be winning by 10 points instead of 2

it will probably fluctuate many times however she by doing this would seem more confident then Trump and when GJ or JS voters decide who they might vote for they might just feel more comfortable with the person who embraced their candidate at some point -

just like it is not up to her - it also is not up to us either BUT she can suggest it and you know what she will get credit for it and since it isnt up to her it wont happen anyways - so I guess you could say she could safely say that - I just don't think it would hurt and if anything it would help - but again that is the soft sell - and you actually need to have that confidence.