2016 United States Election

[Inanna]

As I said - this would not pass any basic plagiarism detector software.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

For what it is worth, according to the New York Times, a draft of the speech was written by two veteran speechwriters, who sent the draft to the campaign weeks before the convention, and never heard anything back. They were as shocked as anyone to hear the portions that seem to be taken from Michelle Obama's 2008 speech, as those portions were not in the draft they had written. Mrs. Trump apparently rewrote it herself, with help from Meredith McIver, a New York City-based former ballet dancer and English major who has worked on some of Mr. Trump’s books, including “Think Like a Billionaire" and none of the usual fact-checking that any campaign would do on a major speech like this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/po ... .html?_r=0

Do I think it is a big deal? Not really. Do I think it is symbolic of a much bigger problem with the Trump campaign and more to the point, how a Trump presidency would be conducted?

You betcha!

[Griffon64]

That's exactly the problem I have with it - it smacks of amateurism, of being in over your head. This is a basic dang thing to grasp: if you're going to say something at a national convention for your party, you bet people will be scrutinizing your words. So you make that stuff solid, no leaks, no cracks, nothing to criticize. You hire professionals to help you cover your bases and you have several set of eyes signing off on it. That is the sign of somebody understanding the scope and importance of what they are dealing with. Defending, lying, and drawing comparisons to My Little Pony ( !!! ) is not.

In this case, it is distressingly obvious that this campaign does not take its responsibility seriously and doesn't know enough about campaigning. Can you imagine what the presidency would be like? Whoopsie, we forgot to check if that nation was our allies before we declared war? Erhm, there totally WAS WMDs here, promise! Yeah, huge tax cuts and increased war spending would make America great, I tell you, just great.

Buh.

PS: In case I have to spell it out, those last three sentences are hyperbole meant to create a satirical effect.

[Inanna]

Bingo!

[Cerin]

For what it is worth, according to the New York Times, a draft of the speech was written by two veteran speechwriters, who sent the draft to the campaign weeks before the convention, and never heard anything back. They were as shocked as anyone to hear the portions that seem to be taken from Michelle Obama's 2008 speech, as those portions were not in the draft they had written. Mrs. Trump apparently rewrote it herself, with help from Meredith McIver, a New York City-based former ballet dancer and English major who has worked on some of Mr. Trump’s books, including “Think Like a Billionaire" and none of the usual fact-checking that any campaign would do on a major speech like this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/po ... .html?_r=0

Well this is interesting. Thanks for the info, Voronwë.

So it wasn't the fault of anyone officially employed by the Trump campaign, and that doesn't support the idea of ineptness by the Trump team. Either the wording was a coincidence, or Mrs. Trump herself or Ms. McIver read Mrs. Obama's speech and was unconsciously influenced by it or deliberately used portions of it with changes. If this info is true, I'd say what it shows is Mrs. Trump's political naivete. I daresay she won't take initiative again without clearing her plans with someone.

[yovargas]

Ehh. It obviously is plagiarism by somebody somewhere but I very much don't think it's a "sign" of anything. Certainly less so than, say, Clinton's email teacup-tempest.

[JewelSong]

I'd say what it shows is Mrs. Trump's political naïveté. I daresay she won't take initiative again without clearing her plans with someone.

...I very much don't think it's a "sign" of anything.

I think that theTrump campaign's response to it is more of a "sign" than anything else. This happens; it happens all the time. Whether consciously or unconsciously, Mrs. Trump lifted some of her speech, intact, from Michelle Obama's speech. Okay, fine...so admit it, already. Point out that this kind of thing is new for Mrs. Trump, mention her earnestness, even point out that both she and Michelle are wives and mothers, that they have these sentiments in common - whatever.

But doubling down on it, denying it completely, coming up with at least half a dozen different explanations...this is not the mark of a well-organized campaign.

[CosmicBob]

And then there's this analysis:

http://www.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box ... ump-speech

According to Turnitin, there is a 1 in 1 trillion chance that two writers would write the same 16-word sequence by coincidence. The longest matching sequence of words between the Trump and Obama speeches was 23 words.

And I agree with JewelSong, it's the response to the issue.

[Faramond]

I don't think voters are really going to care about [M] Trump one way or the other. And Trump's response to the whole strange affair may well be fair game, but I think its too abstract for voters to care about it either. "Don't vote Trump because he had a poor response to his wife's plagiarism." There are so many better, more direct arguments to make against him. Part of what makes attacking Trump so hard is that there is so much material -- he says something crazy or offensive everyday -- it's hard to stay focused.

I think a lot of voters might have the reaction Cerin's posts showed. Yes, the speech was clearly plagiarism, but to most people the phrases stolen are so banal and universal that they won't see the big deal, or even think it is plagiarism. I think to most people plagiarism is all about stealing unique and original ideas, and not the words themselves. And there was nothing particularly unique or original about the stolen passage.

[CosmicBob]

I don't think voters are really going to care about Melanomia Trump one way or the other. And Trump's response to the whole strange affair may well be fair game, but I think its too abstract for voters to care about it either. "Don't vote Trump because he had a poor response to his wife's plagiarism." There are so many better, more direct arguments to make against him. Part of what makes attacking Trump so hard is that there is so much material -- he says something crazy or offensive everyday -- it's hard to stay focused.

True. But it's just another straw to add to the camel's back, so to speak.

[yovargas]

"Don't vote Trump because he had a poor response to his wife's plagiarism."

I'd say it's more like "Don't vote Trump because (amongst other reasons) he is completely unable to take criticism of any kind or admit to making even simple mistakes, which is one of the many signs of his dangerously extreme narcissism, and his poor response to his wife's plagiarism is yet another in a long list of such examples".

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think it is highly unlikely that very many - or any - people who otherwise would have voted for Trump won't because of this issue.

[Frelga]

"Don't vote Trump because he had a poor response to his wife's plagiarism."

I'd say it's more like "Don't vote Trump because (amongst other reasons) he is completely unable to take criticism of any kind or admit to making even simple mistakes, which is one of the many signs of his dangerously extreme narcissism, and his poor response to his wife's plagiarism is yet another in a long list of such examples".

Or attract and hire professional, competent people.

[axordil]

Or just use one of the free plagiarism checkers online. But that would imply Mrs. Trump and the pal she got to redo the speech with her (after she decided the one the pros wrote for her wasn't "right") understood that plagiarism is a problem. It doesn't surprise me that at that level of entitlement, they would feel no remorse about using someone else's words.

In more fun news:Third Eye Blind trolled an RNC charity event hard last night.

[Cerin]

I feel I should clarify, particularly for Prim, who took the time to explain the term, that I'm not failing to grasp what constitutes plagiarism. I just can't bring myself to regard this as a bonafide example of intellectual theft.

I think the misrepresentation of Mrs. Trump's name is just awful (no matter how clever it is). She doesn't deserve to be called cancer, as far as I know. I think that's worse than any of the ways I know of that Mr. Trump has insulted women (and by this I am not meaning to suggest an equivalency of awfulness between Faramond and Mr. Trump).

It's not my place, Faramond, but would you consider editing that. I found it so offensive.

[JewelSong]

I'd say it's more like "Don't vote Trump because (amongst other reasons) he is completely unable to take criticism of any kind or admit to making even simple mistakes, which is one of the many signs of his dangerously extreme narcissism, and his poor response to his wife's plagiarism is yet another in a long list of such examples".

^^^THIS^^^

(And I agree about the "pun" on Melania's name...maybe clever, but not really appropriate.)

ETA: And here is the latest:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politic ... story.html

[Cerin]

This article includes a complete version of Ms. McIver's statement.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=U148DHP

[JewelSong]

And Cerin, you may not believe that it was actually plagiarism, but when the speech is run through a common tool used at high schools and colleges (Turnitin - we used it at my IB school in Zambia) it fails miserably. I think it is interesting to see the graph of the "problem areas."

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/07/20/ ... e-checker/

Basically, if this was a high school or college paper, the student would be called in and possibly flunk the course.

[Inanna]

Cerin, no one is saying its intellectual theft. They are saying its plagiarism - and that is what it is.

And now it's clear how the phrases are the same - because the phrases were taken from Michelle's speech & not changed enough. (And obviously, not cited ). That's plagiarism.

In all this, I just feel for Melania. She has all my sympathies.

[Dave_LF]

I like to imagine that M is a closet Democrat and this was her not quite subtle enough attempt at subverting her husband and what is now his party. But probably not.