Is the feud with the Kahn family Trump's 47 %?

[UWS]

Is the feud with the Kahn family Trump's « 47 % »?

[ElectionsGuy]

No. The 47% was a deathblow to Mitt Romney, there just won't be a deathblow to Trump, otherwise we'd have already seen it by now.

[evergreenarbor]

Too early to tell, but it has the potential to be as bad or worse.

[OwlRhetoric]

It's a bad flub, but I don't think it's quite as fatal as Romney writing off half the country. Plus Mittens was already seen as an out-of-touch elitist. His gaffe just confirmed existing suspicions.

[freedomburns]

That funny, ironic feeling you get when you realize a Muslim woman decimated Trump's campaign.

#KhanFamily

[Suburbia]

Too early to tell, but it has the potential to be as bad or worse.

[Likely Voter]

After the DNC Obama got a bump and led the polls by around 4%, the 47% comment was first reported 11 days after the DNC and polling didn't really change much, but perhaps it sustained Obama's bounce until the first debate 2 weeks later when Romney rallied and pulled into a tie race. And for the rest of the race the polls were fairly close. 

I think the Kahn thing may have the same effect of 'locking in' Clinton's convention bounce. But (like with Romney) a new event that favors Trump can turn things around.   

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

No. Nobody outside the beltway actually cares about this manufactured controversy.

[ProudModerate2]

No. Nobody outside the beltway actually cares about this manufactured controversy.

Wrong clash,
The brand new poll released just this afternoon by Fox News shows ...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ProudModerate2]

I voted No.
I think it will hurt and "stick" all the way till election day.
But it wont be as devastating as the "Romney 47%" debacle.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Not really.  It's something else.

Trump could have gotten by with this had he moved on and not deliberately ramped up the drama by getting into a needless urinating contest with Paul Ryan.  People can deal, somewhat, with his lack of apologies, but ramping up the drama is something else.  That goes to what kind of President he'd be.

If the election were held today, I wouldn't vote for Trump, and I don't know what I'd do.  He could POSSIBLY win my vote back because I agree with him on issues more than any other candidate, but he'd have to conduct himself in a way that is conducive to being a President and getting things done.  At one time, I imagined he'd be a less conservative Ronald Reagan.  Now, I can't imagine him acting on the campaign trail like a person who'd be able to be a successful President, regardless of what he stood for.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think Fuzzy is right (something I haven't said for a while )

The 47% was bad and it did hurt Romney's polling (but only about 1% nationally, but killed him in the rust belt) but what it did more was hurt his personal numbers which had spiked during the RNC.

This is something much more guttural. This speaks not only to views of a candidate, but also their fundamental decency and capacity to do the job. So, to me, this is different and has the capacity to be something more easily cemented than Romney's f*** up.   

[Bandit3 the Worker]

It's actually even more damaging, and it might actually stick. Republican controversies like this very rarely stick, but this one might.

Todd Akin's rape comments, and Jean Schmidt's attack on John Murtha stuck. Those are some of the very few Republican controversies in recent years that stuck.

[Mehmentum]

If anything, this is worse.

[Figueira]

Trump's entire campaign thus far is his 47%.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

This is much worse than Romney's 47% comment, although it's unclear if it'll damage the campaign as much.

[RINO Tom]

Even if you think it was classist to say or exposed how terrible the GOP is, Romney's comment was statistically true, and we all knew he (and just about every GOP nominee ever) believed that behind closed doors.  47% of the population benefits from increased government control of the economy, whether that'a those who work in public education, government employees, union members, welfare recipients or whomever.  Anyone who found that comment appalling was already voting Democrat for the exact reason Romney cited.

Trump just blatantly insulted an American hero's parents, the type of shlt I'd expect from the fringe left (though certainly from a different bent), not from the GOP.  Much worse.

[Vosem]

No. Trump's 47% (the speech wherein he doomed himself) was the one when he announced his campaign.

[Lyin' Steve]

No, there's no snappy encapsulation of it.  47% was an easy, three-syllable number and everyone immediately knew what it meant.  It captured the entire controversy in one little number, one little statement, one five-second quote from Mitt.  You could putt it in a campaign ad and still have 25 seconds to go.

[cwt]

No. This is much worse.

[Badger]

No. This is much worse.

Concur. This fatally scratched the Teflon

[Fuzzy Bear]

No. This is much worse.

Concur. This fatally scratched the Teflon

This I don't see.  It's a long way to November.  I still assert that what the Khans did was a partisan political act, and that responding to it, however inelegantly, is not out of bounds.

Mr. Khan has already removed his immigration website from the internet.  Now I've seen that website; there's nothing wrong with it, but the only reason for him to remove it is to counter the politicization of his own comments, which were, truthfully, political on their face.

The internet is abuzz with information about Mr. Khan and Sharia Law.  A goodly amount of that comes from trashy right-wing websites that would give my computer a virus if I clicked them on, but Mr. Khan has injected himself into the campaign whole hog.  What DOES Mr. Khan believe about Sharia Law?  More importantly, if Mr. Khan DOES believe in the application of Sharia Law, what implications does this have for Hillary Clinton, who has gone to bat for the Khans?  Or for the Democratic Party, who put the Khans on their podium?  Or for the Feminist Left, which has made "sexism" a feature in the campaign against Trump?  None of this makes Mr. Khan a bad guy, but some of this, if there turned out to be anything at all to it, would deflate the air in this particular balloon.

Ordinarily, Mr. Khan's opinions about Sharia Law wouldn't be relevant.  But he's injected himself into the campaign, and he's not going away; he's appeared on TV after saying he was done with the whole thing.  And he's invoked the Constitution.  I certainly cannot see how Sharia Law is compatible with both the Constitution and the liberal principles on gender/LGBT and religious issues that the Democratic Party has asserted, particularly when their targets are conservative Christians.  The Democrats are not shy when it comes to voicing where they stand on conservative Christians and the church/state thing.  Let them clarify their true position on Sharia Law while they're at it.

[Stranger in a strange land]

No. This is much worse.

Concur. This fatally scratched the Teflon

This I don't see.  It's a long way to November.  I still assert that what the Khans did was a partisan political act, and that responding to it, however inelegantly, is not out of bounds.

Mr. Khan has already removed his immigration website from the internet.  Now I've seen that website; there's nothing wrong with it, but the only reason for him to remove it is to counter the politicization of his own comments, which were, truthfully, political on their face.

The internet is abuzz with information about Mr. Khan and Sharia Law.  A goodly amount of that comes from trashy right-wing websites that would give my computer a virus if I clicked them on, but Mr. Khan has injected himself into the campaign whole hog.  What DOES Mr. Khan believe about Sharia Law?  More importantly, if Mr. Khan DOES believe in the application of Sharia Law, what implications does this have for Hillary Clinton, who has gone to bat for the Khans?  Or for the Democratic Party, who put the Khans on their podium?  Or for the Feminist Left, which has made "sexism" a feature in the campaign against Trump?  None of this makes Mr. Khan a bad guy, but some of this, if there turned out to be anything at all to it, would deflate the air in this particular balloon.

Ordinarily, Mr. Khan's opinions about Sharia Law wouldn't be relevant.  But he's injected himself into the campaign, and he's not going away; he's appeared on TV after saying he was done with the whole thing.  And he's invoked the Constitution.  I certainly cannot see how Sharia Law is compatible with both the Constitution and the liberal principles on gender/LGBT and religious issues that the Democratic Party has asserted, particularly when their targets are conservative Christians.  The Democrats are not shy when it comes to voicing where they stand on conservative Christians and the church/state thing.  Let them clarify their true position on Sharia Law while they're at it.

Khan does not believe in imposing Sharia Law. This from Breitbart of all places:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sir Mohamed]

No, it's far worse.

[Holmes]

If anything, this is worse.

I agree. This is a comment following a great DNC (which followed a poorly received RNC) that affirmed what people believed in Trump in a sort of "last straw" way, and his constant doubling down was it for too many people, especially his softer supporters.