June 21, 2016

"Donald Trump’s campaign money problems aren’t problems at all, the presumptive Republican nominee said..."

Politico reports:
"We want to keep it lean. I'm not looking to spend all this money. You know, I hear people spend a billion dollars. I’m saying, how do you spend a billion dollars? It's impossible. Politicians are the only ones who can spend a billion dollars,” Trump said. “Hillary Clinton will spend a billion dollars of Wall Street money and money from the Middle East. She's got a lot of money from the Middle East. She's got money from people you don't want her to have money from, but she's going to spend more than a billion dollars. I don't want to do that.... I can go a different route, I can just spend my own money.... I have a lot of cash and I can do like I did with the other — just spend money on myself and go happily along, and I think I win that way. There are many people that think I do better that way, by being a little bit of the insurgent, the outsider and, you know, not working along."
This emphasis on how little money he has lets the old billionaire look like a scrappy newcomer, fighting the powerful. As we the people watch this spectacle, he's the one who looks like the hero. He's the character you'd root for if this were a movie. Clinton supporters are choosing to glory in the massive size of her "war chest"32 times larger than Donald Trump's — but in movie logic, that casts her as the villain.

And I know some people are sick of George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language":
Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print... [T]here is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves....
I know you're too lazy to come up with fresh expressions for everything. But at least notice when your crusty old metaphor isn't working in its typical, serviceable, boring way and has become ludicrous. Stop talking about a lady's chest!

85 comments:

Michael K said...

It's an interesting new take on running for office. I wonder if it will work ?

Chuck said...

One good thing about Trump's saying that campaign funding doesn't matter to him, is that it ought to prevent wayward Republicans and Trump supporters from straying into the anti-Citizens United brigade.

And another good thing is that while Democrats raise millions and spend it to defeat Trump, they should never again be heard from, whining about Citizens United.

eric said...

Being a Republican means never being right.

If you've raised a billion dollars, we need laws to control all the money in politics.

If you've failed to raise as much as the Democrat, you're way behind, you've got no organization, and you're going to lose in epic proportions.

What if he wins?

Can we endlessly point to Trump from then on out and say, why do we need campaign finance laws again?

I doubt it. They'll say, Trump was different, because reasons.

mccullough said...

It didn't matter to Romney either. He lost. It matters to political consultants and TV stations that make money off political spending. Political consultants should be paid on a contingent basis. If the candidate doesn't win, the consultant doesn't get paid

damikesc said...

The corrosive curse of money in politics isn't a problem this year, apparently. Good to know.

It almost makes one wonder how legitimate the Dems complaint has been for years. Or the media. The media isn't overly worked up over it.

Original Mike said...

The thing about "this time it's different"; it rarely is.

Unknown said...

"As we the people watch this spectacle, he's the one who looks like the hero. He's the character you'd root for if this were a movie. Clinton supporters are choosing to glory in the massive size of her "war chest" — 32 times larger than Donald Trump's — but in movie logic, that casts her as the villain."

Yes this is real life, not a movie. It takes a good imagination to turn Trump into the hero, for "we the people". A powerful country doesn't need an imaginary hero to lead it. Could we simply have a president that won't talk about his penis size in public? Too much to ask?

Hagar said...

You got any idea of how many people's livelyhood is at stake if Trump wins the presidency without spending tons of money on TV ads and "organization," etc., etc.?

Not just campaign workers and consultants, TV networks and newspapers, and pundits, but lobbyists and donors, whose money turned out to be not that powerful after all?

EsoxLucius said...

The Replication Party is a dumpster fire and Trump is looting it - $423K for Mar a Lago and $350K for Trump Air. At this rate, when he looses in November, he might be worth $10B after all. And the thing is Donald Pumpkin-head told everybody he was going to do this 15 years ago. http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2000/04/03/277110/index.htm

WisRich said...


"We want to keep it lean. I'm not looking to spend all this money.


I think this is Trump's Pee Wee Herman "I meant to do that" defense.

n.n said...

The pro-choice religion (i.e. selective principles) ensures that its followers are inherently unpredictable in what is ironically a predictable way (e.g. err on the side of abortion, exclusion, corruption).

mccullough said...

Trump is turning a profit on the campaign. Shrewd

eric said...

Trump has spent 350k on air?! 350k!!!!

Isn't that what the president spends on one vacation with his wife and kids on McDonald's food alone?

GRW3 said...

I think Trump is planning big things for the convention. He sees that as a huuge media opportunity. One the republicans often flub.

The myth is that June to convention swamped Romney. Nonsense, it was his embarrassment at being rich and the hard work it took to be rich. It was his failure to punch back (more of that Bush type noblesse oblige BS). It was his failure to keep pushing in the final debates like he did the first one.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I've never hear the term "war chest" used except to refer to a politician's money.

rhhardin said...

There are no galvanic stirrings of the dead metaphor from Hillary's war chest.

She'd have to go with 50s missle nose-cone bras or something to get any notice at all.

shiloh said...

BS notwithstanding and Althouse being Trump's #1 cheerleader er apologist aside, a quote that could easily apply to Trump and this blog.

We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.

Paraphrasing another quote that applies to Trump ~ 240 years of tradition unhampered by progress!.

Indeed, $$$ problems are not and will never be problems if you don't and never did expect to win. Trump's bottom line has and always will be his bottom line.

Crimso said...

"because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves"

So let's give it a shot. In this case, we could say "Hillary has more citizens united than does Trump."

Unknown said...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-economy-moodys-analysis-224535

Donald Trump’s presidency would “significantly” weaken the country, driving the U.S. into a “lengthy recession” with nearly 3.5 million job losses and a 7 percent unemployment rate, according to a Moody’s Analytics analysis released Monday.
The analysis examined the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s economic plans at face value, based on interviews, speeches and his campaign website. The authors of the report, however, warned that quantifying the real estate mogul’s economic polices “is complicated by their lack of specificity.


Use your imagination, or utilize this analysis.

cubanbob said...

Suppose Trump had a billion cash to spend on the campaign today and were to buy all the media buys a billion can buy today, the media wouldn't run the ads he would need to run to beat Hillary. The ads he would need to run would be mostly of the following: Clinton is a crook, criminal and traitor. Obama allowed this criminality and treason to occur on his watch. Every Democrat running office from congress, to governor,to state legislator to mayor to city council supports the corrupt criminal traitor-the Democrat Party is the party corruption, crime and treason so vote NO to every Democrat. While the ads would be absolutely true the media would never run those ads.

Jeff said...

Trump is counting on free media, which is more credible with voters than paid media is. The trouble is that the candidate can easily control paid media, but it's not so easy to get the free media to cover you in an advantageous way. Trump managed it pretty well in the primaries, but most of the liberal free media didn't really care much who won the Republican nomination. Now that he's up against the media's favored candidate, he may have a much more difficult time getting the kind of coverage he wants.

Brando said...

Well, ALthouse has gone full-on Trump shill. Here's a news story that reveals sheer campaign malpractice, and Trump is now scrambling to raise money (which will first go towards paying himself back, because he is totally rich by the way and not in any personal financial trouble) and she still finds a way to try and spin this as a plus for him. See, he's not beholden to anyone! Neither is Bernie Sanders.

This also doesn't just affect Trump. In presidential election years, the nominee is usually the best fundraiser for downballot candidates, as their star power can fill events and get wallets opened. I haven't heard anything about Trump doing this for any Republican candidates--has that even happened? If he loses, the GOP wants to at least have one house of Congress to stop Hillary's plans.

gadfly said...

Donald doesn't have to spend money as long as Fox News, CNN, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Drudge, Conservative Treehouse, Gateway Pundit, Breitbart, Ann Coulter, and Don Surber keep blasting the broadcast and internet media in his behalf.

Donald will show a profit from this campaign, win or lose, when he over-bills the government's Presidential Election Fund for his company-incurred expenses.

shiloh said...

"Well, ALthouse has gone full-on Trump shill."

About 3 or 4 mos. ago, but who's counting ...

cubanbob said...

Unknown said...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-economy-moodys-analysis-224535

Donald Trump’s presidency would “significantly” weaken the country, driving the U.S. into a “lengthy recession” with nearly 3.5 million job losses and a 7 percent unemployment rate, according to a Moody’s Analytics analysis released Monday.
The analysis examined the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s economic plans at face value, based on interviews, speeches and his campaign website. The authors of the report, however, warned that quantifying the real estate mogul’s economic polices “is complicated by their lack of specificity.

Use your imagination, or utilize this analysis."

Let's skip the BS from Moody's. Moody's is a bond rating agency, anything that might affect the artificially low rate of interest is bad for them. Higher rates make it harder for the government to make bond repayments, harder to sell bonds and harder to get higher deficit spending that is financed by bonds. And setting that all aside, what recovery? And how would Hillary's higher taxes, higher indebtedness and greater regulation improve the economy?

Ann Althouse said...

From the OED:

war chest n. (a chest or strong box for) funds used in waging war; freq. used fig., esp. of funds used by a political party to finance an election campaign.

1901 F. W. Rolfe Chron. House Borgia 34 The papal jewels were pawned, and their price added to the war-chest.
1912 W. Deeping Sincerity xvi. 124 He had about forty pounds left, no great sum to start a war-chest with.
1932 Sun (Baltimore) 30 Aug. 1/6 (heading) War chests practically empty, parties curtail on campaign.
1973 R. L. Simon Big Fix iv. 34 All the guilt-stricken celebrities contributing to their war chest.

Brando said...

"About 3 or 4 mos. ago, but who's counting ..."

It's gotten more pronounced lately. Hell, I'm no Trump fan but I can come up with more plausible spin--"Trump is challenging the notion that campaigns need to be expensive" or "at what point does campaign money bring diminishing returns?"

I get "cruel neutrality" but what we're seeing now is "cruel Trump fanboy syndrome". Reminds me of Andrew Sullivan and Obama, where Obama could do no wrong, and if he did wrong, it was really just a more brilliant form of right.

Sebastian said...

Unlike Orwell, I'd never dip into a "huge dump" of worn metaphors. Ha!

"Donald will show a profit from this campaign" No. He is in the name-leasing business. (Of course, right now, the intended payer, the GOP, doesn't want to pay up to lease his name for its campaign.) His name will be tarnished. His brand will be worth less. It's all he cares about, so the prospect must worry him. But there's no good exit strategy: if he gets out now, he's a loser, and if he loses, he's a loser. So he must soldier on with his non-campaign, and put the best faux-gold sheen on it, as illustrated in the post.

Unknown said...

"Trump spent $6.7 million on his campaign last month.

But he’s not advertising or building a serious field operation. So where did all the money go?

Records show the campaign paid out more than $1 million to Trump-owned companies and to reimburse his own family for travel expenses.

In addition, he spent $838,774 on air charters, of which nearly half went to Trump's own TAG Air.

Another $830,482 was for event staging and rentals – of which the largest portion ($423,317) went to Trump’s own Mar-A-Lao Club.

The Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, Florida, got $35,845, while the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Fl., was paid $29,715.

And Trump’s son Eric’s wine company received nearly $4,000."


Trump raises money from the Trumpsters and then pays Trump's companies to provide his election services.

Let that sink-in a while.

boycat said...

I like how to libtards covering Trump honestly and straight up is being his "shill." Not enough dishonest sliming going on for their tastes.

Unknown said...

"Stop talking about a lady's chest!"

In essence, "Shut up." Or, "Don't say things I dislike or disagree with."

OK, do we have the same right to tell you to shut up or knock it off on some topics? Or "that's stupid," or "that's not funny?"

May we expect you to listen and heed our feedback?

Do you expect us to listen and heed?

Do your above answers seem fair and equitable, or are you the boss or something?

...

No interest in the topic or specifically in ladies' chests, only in wondering: if you are the boss of us, when do we get paid?

Michael K said...

"It matters to political consultants and TV stations that make money off political spending."

Yes. Big Time and they hate him for it.

I think it's interesting to see these new commenters with blank profiles.

They all seem to have an anti-Trump message. Maybe the Hillary people are not as confident as they say.

Unknown said...

shiloh stu said...Mommy mommy mommy! Look what I can do!

Shiloh, take that out of your mouth!

Brando said...

""Donald will show a profit from this campaign" No. He is in the name-leasing business. (Of course, right now, the intended payer, the GOP, doesn't want to pay up to lease his name for its campaign.) His name will be tarnished. His brand will be worth less. It's all he cares about, so the prospect must worry him. But there's no good exit strategy: if he gets out now, he's a loser, and if he loses, he's a loser. So he must soldier on with his non-campaign, and put the best faux-gold sheen on it, as illustrated in the post."

See, I'm not so sure this hurts his brand. His brand was already garbage by the time he ran--it was associated with various pyramid schemes, scams, and shoddy products (this guy is like Krusty the Klown when it comes to that--I'm just waiting for "Camp Trump" to come out). But now, even if only a quarter of the country thinks he's terrific, that's still a lot of people to market his brand to. If he's in as much financial trouble as I think he is, that could be a good way to pump extra money into his bank account for the next several years--not to mention book deals, merchandise sales, a TV show (Fox would probably offer him anything).

And notice any money he raises only goes to pay himself back for what he loaned his campaign. This could be a net win financially. And if the GOP gets destroyed this fall? Who cares? When has Trump ever cared about that?

shiloh said...

"at what point does campaign money bring diminishing returns?"

This is the case w/tv ads, especially Sept/Oct. The saturation pt. is achieved quite early. Again, independent moderates don't start payin' attention to after the conventions ie Labor Day.

But, but, but getting a head start never hurts. There are about 42/43% rock solid Rep voters being generous and about 47/48/49% rock solid Dem voters imo so very little room for error for Reps. Indeed, as always they have to run the table, whereas Dems have several different scenarios to win the electoral college.

The debates will be must see tv!

eric said...

Blogger Michael K said...
"It matters to political consultants and TV stations that make money off political spending."

Yes. Big Time and they hate him for it.

I think it's interesting to see these new commenters with blank profiles.

They all seem to have an anti-Trump message. Maybe the Hillary people are not as confident as they say.


You may be joking, but I'm not so sure.

Why not spend a few million bucks on board warrior trolls?

Advertising works. We don't have to believe in it. We don't have to accept it. Hell, advertisers probably hope you think you're immune to their influence.

What if commenters on websites have influence on our psyche as well? Just like advertisements do without our really noticing?

It all seems to conspiracy theory-ish. And yet, protesters outside Trump rallies have admitted to being paid for being there.

Is that such a leap? Going from a rally to online forums?

What a news story that would be for an outlet to get their hands on.

machine said...

...and he is paying Draper Sterling for advertising.

genius.

shiloh said...

In the age of mass media, this is where having a $$$ advantage and an established, well oiled campaign machine kicks in. Noting that several of Obama's 2012 team are now on Hillary's 2016 team:

Inside the Secret World of the Data Crunchers Who Helped Obama Win

It's hard to to target individual swing/undecided voters if you don't have the $$$ and campaign apparatus wherewithal.

Smilin' Jack said...

Clinton supporters are choosing to glory in the massive size of her "war chest" — 32 times larger than Donald Trump's....Stop talking about a lady's chest!

Lady? OMG has Trump gone transgender too?

Fabi said...

Politico makes very specific economic forecasts and then says it's difficult to say with certainty because of a lack of Trump's specific details -- is that correct? That's funny. Not as funny as Unknown linking to such garbage, but funny.

Brando said...

"But, but, but getting a head start never hurts. There are about 42/43% rock solid Rep voters being generous and about 47/48/49% rock solid Dem voters imo so very little room for error for Reps. Indeed, as always they have to run the table, whereas Dems have several different scenarios to win the electoral college."

Considering the demographic and electoral college advantages the Dems have, the GOP should not be missing any opportunity to score a few more votes. And much of the money on ads has to do with focus-testing the ads to get maximum punch with the most reachable voters (and when and where to air the ads as well). But I think the difference between airing an extra thousand ads in a given market when you're already on TV constantly vs. when you're barely registering is where the diminishing returns come in. That's where data research and targeted voter turnout comes in--there are lots of voters who simply don't make it to the polls for various reasons, even when they're otherwise motivated for their candidate. You can bet Team Clinton will be busing nursing home residents to the polls (the ones they've targeted as likely Clinton voters, of course) and getting absentee ballots ordered early.

I would have figured after the two Obama elections--where his turnout operation helped him win comfortably, if not in blowouts--the GOP would have learned from it. Maybe the RNC has some tricks up its sleeve. But the presidential nominee and his campaign are an essential part of that.

tim maguire said...

Hillary has a small lead. All the crocodile tears notwithstanding, it's the same small lead she's had for months.

So she's outspending Trump like crazy and getting nothing in return. Trump has barely begun to campaign against her and already has nearly tied her. Imagine what happens when donor fatigue sets in on Hillary while he comes out fresh and new in September.

Hillary has already lost. If the Democrats have an ounce of sense, they will dump her for Biden.

Matthew Sablan said...

"And another good thing is that while Democrats raise millions and spend it to defeat Trump, they should never again be heard from, whining about Citizens United."

-- No, see. They're grass roots, bottom up, small donors vs. Dark Money. It's Different(TM).

Unknown said...

http://igsda.org/2016/06/15/trump-presidency-rated-among-top-10-global-risks-eiu/

Donald Trump winning the US presidency is considered one of the top 10 risks facing the world, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.

The research firm warns he could disrupt the global economy and heighten political and security risks in the US.

However, it does not expect Mr Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton who it sees as “his most likely Democratic contender”.

He is rated as riskier than Britain leaving the European Union or an armed clash in the South China Sea.

China encountering a “hard landing” or sharp economic slowdown and Russia’s interventions in Ukraine and Syria preceding a new “cold war” are among the events seen as more dangerous.

“Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies – and these tend to be prone to constant revision,” the EIU said in its global risk assessment, which looks at impact and probability.

The EIU ranking uses a scale of one to 25, with Mr Trump garnering a rating of 12, the same level of risk as “the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilising the global economy”.

shiloh said...

"he comes out fresh and new in September."

You can put lipstick and earrings on a hog and call it Monique, but it's still a pig!

You never get a second chance to make a first impression ...

Again, Trump is like manna from heaven to the Dems ~ praise be Jesus!

cubanbob said...

tim maguire said...
Hillary has a small lead. All the crocodile tears notwithstanding, it's the same small lead she's had for months.

So she's outspending Trump like crazy and getting nothing in return. Trump has barely begun to campaign against her and already has nearly tied her. Imagine what happens when donor fatigue sets in on Hillary while he comes out fresh and new in September.

Hillary has already lost. If the Democrats have an ounce of sense, they will dump her for Biden.

6/21/16, 12:25 PM"

How honest are the polls and are the polls of likely voters? In the end, Clinton's criminality and treason don't go away and as you said likely voters will finally get thinking seriously between the choice between and and worse from September forward. No doubt Trumps is way, way behind on the social issues but on the primary issues, the economy and security he is either slightly ahead or near parity with Clinton. And on those issues she isn't improving. The economy is always a major issue for the voters especially when it isn't good and it isn't good now.

Darrell said...

Sure. Everybody loves Felony Clinton.
And people will love her non-stop anti-Trump ads. So much so, they will vote for Trump--just to smite her.

Fernandinande said...

Billary.1 might say "That's no lady, that's my wife."

Michael K said...

"But the presidential nominee and his campaign are an essential part of that."

To some degree but I would think the RNC is concerned about all the GOP on the ballot.

The 21012 GOTV collapsed from everything I read. I wonder who was responsible and read two versions, typical when something fails miserably. It was Romney or it was the RNC. I still don't know.

Here is one piece on it.

One of the contributors to this problem is that while Democrats tend to talk about people, Republicans tend to talk about policy. Our ideas can sound distant and removed from people's lives. Instead of connecting with voters' concerns, we too often sound like bookkeepers. We need to do a better job connecting people to our policies.

That's one point.

There is a strong consensus that we have not invested the financial resources in a labor pool that can actively conduct and run "in-person" contact at the ground level. The Obama campaign budgeted its spending to ensure the most personal forms of voter contact were a priority. But they went beyond this. They gave volunteers and field staff flexibility in implementation and creativity in decision-making to get the most out of their field teams. And they acted based on information they received from volunteers through their voter contact operation. We need to write campaign plans that reflect an increased presence of field staff in states starting much earlier than we have done in the past.

That's another.

aritai said...

This should be easy to measure. Number of lines in print and all social media, square feet of signage bumper stickers, hats, etc. and sum of all airtime that arguably leans one way or the other, which computers can do using sentiment analysis the same way Madison avenue does to measure odds of a sale. Which includes eyeball time like Nielsen does for all media.

Wager people would be surprised. Granted Fan Time is cheating because no one liked the left or the tax wo),man, or inspector for this and that showing up at their home or business. No wonder the left is eager to get some "equal time" regulation, or BBC like licensing so they can tilt the discussion in their favor by forcing their definition of some truth on the sheeple. On our planet where we can read each other's thought's it makes no difference because lying or misrepresentation, saying one thing and meaning another only happens in our versions of your Greek tragedies where though they believe it will work out, sleeping with your mother can only come to bad end. No such reluctance by your left. Especially after suffering their forty years in the desert. Corruption can only end badly. especially as you realize that gun free zones though PC should be Sharia observant Muslims not welcome here. Go stone a gay somewhere else please.

Lem said...

Shouldn't the metaphor be in worse shape, for use, considering a presumptive Nobel Peace prize winner is in office.

I'm just saying.

jacksonjay said...

I hear that one secret of wealth creation is using OPM, Other People's Money. The Donald seems to be a Master OPMer. Several months ago we heard about his charitable giving often involves his properties or holdings. Now we learn about Draper Sterling. Brilliant!

When we are "persuaded" to choose him to be King of the World what will this mean for those of us who are lowly taxpayers, givers not takers? Never mind, I think I know the answer.

By the Way, what happened to Dilbert, Master Hypnotist Persuader?

Unknown said...

Trump has out-sourced writing of his Tweets. Seriously, go take a look.

With Corey Lewandowski fired, the GOP can get to work to make Trump just like a GOP politician. Oh, hang on. Wasn't the whole idea not to be like a GOP'er. Trumpsters stiffed again.

jr565 said...

This is not a good idea. All that money being spent by Hillary so going into attack ads against trump. Trump can't expect to win if all he has is a skeleton crew and a Twitter account. I'm doing my best to support the guy but I'm starting to think he doesn't want to win

jacksonjay said...

Think Ivanka as ValJar.

Alexander said...

It was this time last year that I believe I was the first Althouse commenter to go all in on Trump. Which means while other chumps were going 0/17 (+1 more if we count iCarly twice), I've racked up a perfect prediction kill count.

I thought my fun was over, but I see I was wrong. This time last year I was enjoying Trump will never stay in/win over 10% of vote, and it looks like I'm going to get to enjoy the exact same lines.

Trump isn't quitting now. Trump has no intention of going so far as to have illegal aliens from Britain trying to shoot him, egged on by a third of the country and nine-tenths of the media... to be an almost-president. And to be hated by his former supporters.

Tearing up the playbook got Trump this far, and money isn't an end game in itself. What's money supposed to buy - media coverage? Public awareness? A platform for your platform?

Yeah, Trump's really down on that front.

I put the odds of Trump winning somewhere in the same ballpark as there being another 25-100 bodycount Muslim attack on a western city before the election.

jr565 said...

"tim maguire said...
Hillary has a small lead. All the crocodile tears notwithstanding, it's the same small lead she's had for months.

So she's outspending Trump like crazy and getting nothing in return. Trump has barely begun to campaign against her and already has nearly tied her. Imagine what happens when donor fatigue sets in on Hillary while he comes out fresh and new in September."
It has given her a pretty substantial lead. If you are already near mad speed then yes continuing to put your foot on the gas does lead to diminishing returns in the sense that your ill hit your max speed at some point.
But if trump can't speed up and catch her then that was enough to get her over the hump. What is trump doing to catch up? If putting in as little as he has means a 10 pt difference he probably hasn't spent enough.

Unknown said...

Too bad that Trump doesn't have anyone to speak for him. That's when he continues to put his foot in his mouth. Still waiting for the pivot.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-questions-hillary-clintons-faith-we-dont-know-anything/

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump warned that there was no way of knowing what religion his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton belonged to.

“We don’t know anything about Hillary in terms of religion,” Trump said. “Now, she’s been in the public eye for years and years, and yet there’s nothing out there,”

Donald TrumpDuring a meeting with evangelical pastors Tuesday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump warned that there was no way of knowing what religion his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton belonged to.

“We don’t know anything about Hillary in terms of religion,” Trump said. “Now, she’s been in the public eye for years and years, and yet there’s nothing out there,”

“There’s like nothing out there,” Trump repeated. “It’s going to be an extension of Obama but it’s going to be worse, because with Obama you had your guard up. With Hillary you don’t and it’s going to be worse.”

For what it’s worth, Clinton has always been open about the fact that she is a Christian: a lifelong United Methodist, to be exact. In the lead-up to her candidacy, Clinton even gave a speech at the gathering of United Methodist Women to discuss her faith.

Michael K said...

"Unknown" how is that Hillary job working out?

Are the checks clearing OK ?

You are certainly putting in the hours.

I understand why you are too busy to let us know who you are and stuff.

Michael K said...

And "Jacksonjay" too bad you haven't had time to do a profile or any posts on that "blog" of yours.

Amazing what comes out of the woodwork.

eric said...

Michael K.

There is something to be said for how powerlineblog does their comments now. Attached to your Facebook. Keeps a lot of people out of the comments section and dials down the rhetoric a bit.

Unknown said...

FYI
There are several "Unknowns" that comment here.

jr565 said...

We'll know soon enough won't we. At the end of the day he's 10 pts behind Hillary. If he can't close the gap everyone will say hs not spending any money was not a sign of strength but a true bone headed move. Kind of like when Rudy Giuliani put all his eggs in winning one state and by the time we got to that state he had lost all
The other states before it AND also lost the state he was hoping to win. We never had a president Giuliani did we.

Unknown said...

Trump surrogate on TV saying "he needs to get more disciplined". Ha. Surrogate says Trump "defends people of faith", unless they are Muslim people of faith.

shiloh said...

"There are several "Unknowns" that comment here."

At least 3 in this thread. MK is easily confused regardless.

Michael K said...

"At least 3 in this thread. MK is easily confused regardless."

No, just by all the trolls. I am curious to know if they are paid less than minimum wage, like Bernie's workers.

Michael K said...

"There is something to be said for how powerlineblog does their comments now."

I comment there all the time. I'm not sure they allow anonymous commenters.

Joe said...

The real story is Where is Hillary getting all her money?

The thing is, the national media knows, but pretends they don't.

Marty said...

Yeah, some unusual trolls today. Guess they got all worked up by the failed hit attempt on Trump in Vegas. But still, the lefty "logic" they regurgitate is at least consistent if not particularly persuasive. And I must say I miss Garage and Inka--a bit. And I'm glad ARM and Cookie hang out with us as well.

jacksonjay said...

I've been commenting here for at least 5 years. Been scolded by the Professor several times (the last time for not understanding her explanation of affirmative action), expressed bro love for Meade several times (I was especially impressed with Meade's pull-up prowess) and even pissed you off a year ago in comments about the ebola missionary doctor. You won't recommend a creation believer for med school, as I recall. Went toe-to-toe with Crack several times.

It is good to know that you've made yourself the keeper of the gate at Althouse. Do I need to start my own blog now to gain entry here? Are you that smitten with The Donald? What an asshole!

jacksonjay said...


Oh yeah, Dr. Michael K, I've been mocked by Drago for not being a real Republican!

bagoh20 said...

Who is this Trump guy? If he wants to win, he's gonna need some money to buy some name recognition and to get his message out. I've never heard of him.

Michael K said...

"Are you that smitten with The Donald? What an asshole!"

Aside from the compliment which I must, in all modesty, decline, it's nice to see a real person among all the new trolls.

I was observing all the unknowns and those with empty profiles who have appeared here the past month or two.

jacksonjay said...

Yeah well it is kinda creepy to stalk other commenters. As I recall, I apologized to you a year ago for not being informed about your long list of accomplishments. You see, I don't stalk the profiles of others.

Your apology is accepted.

Jason said...

What happened to Garage Mahal?

grackle said...

Donald Trump’s presidency would “significantly” weaken the country …

Just where I want to read about economics – an article in Politico.

Trump can't expect to win if …

Folks have been saying this about Trump from the beginning, sometimes with a slightly different syntax:

Trump cannot win because …
If Trump wants to win he must …
This time Trump has really gone too far because …

This is either stated outright or strongly implied. But the funny thing is … Trump keeps on winning. Trump always does what they believe he should not do and does not do what they think he absolutely MUST do … and keeps on winning.

One of the factors that probably trip up their predictions and declarations is an over-reliance on the polls, you know, the polls which Trump consistently out-performs, always surprising them, always leaving them puzzled and a little disturbed.

But they’ve got real hope this time. Those pesky primaries, the primaries in which Trump set records in votes, blowing up dire predictions of defeat and exceeding the polling, are over. No more primary victories to illustrate how hollow their judgements are. They get to pass their crap around without contradiction from any type of reality-check.

They’ll have this fun until November – then their dick-dance will be over and they can settle into trying to sabotage President Trump.

jr565 said...

"Trump cannot win because …
If Trump wants to win he must …
This time Trump has really gone too far because "

He is not exactly showing that he can win, considering he is behind in the polls.

jr565 said...

(cont) Now, he might turn it around and suddenly pull even. But until he does we can't say that his meager spending is actually producing results.
If he wants to spend money he should hire more talking heads to go on programs who can actually defend him without looking like idiots. Twitter isn't enough.

Mike said...

It's hard to to motivate individual swing/undecided voters if you don't have an enthusiastic candidate.

There. FIFY.

Michael K said...

" I apologized to you a year ago for not being informed about your long list of accomplishments."

Oh gee. Could you repeat them again ?

I love hearing all of them.

Just kidding. Good night.

Jon Ericson said...

Terminal "whatthefuckwasithinking" I imagine.

JamesB.BKK said...

What happened to this guy just after?

https://www.google.co.th/search?q=image+of+rocky+late+in+fight&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=767&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik_pnmhLvNAhXHOo8KHfLaChgQ_AUIBigB&dpr=1#tbm=isch&q=image+of+rocky+late+in+fight+swollen+eyes&imgrc=qwePdgZf-uXZyM%3A

JamesB.BKK said...

Has Brando gone over the edge or this just routine concern trolling? Just askin'. It's not nice to be rude to the hostess.

JamesB.BKK said...

"He is rated as riskier than Britain leaving the European Union or an armed clash in the South China Sea.

China encountering a “hard landing” or sharp economic slowdown and Russia’s interventions in Ukraine and Syria preceding a new “cold war” are among the events seen as more dangerous."

So, the Economist IU is against Britain departing the sclerotic EU superstate run by Germans out of Brussels, and thereby regaining some freedom for its people. Because, fewer transfer payments (and MENA immigrants invited by German politicians) and empty threats to restrain trade by EU-crats. Who'da thought it? Just how did Britain get by before the common market / EU project, authorized by no meaningful voting population when asked? Does the Economist IU not know?

Russia's interventions in Ukraine and Syria are more risky than Donald Trump? Here's a man that has not (yet) authorized the killing of a single person (that we know of); pretty brave assessment there, Economist IU. The US-EU axis black ops started that anyway.

Trump's the only candidate in years that isn't using Russia like so many small country politicians to create fear and loathing of others in the local population in order to "garner" votes. Anyway, there must be a few guys in the Economist IU that think some war will be good for the "economy." You know, because consumption. Remember, World War II ended the great depression, according to our brightest. Woohoo!

The Economist used to have writers that knew something besides runaway Statist, Keynesian (but I repeat myself), debt creation and monetization. So there's that. We're just stumbling from crisis to crisis under the watch of the current smart set. They're just unwilling to admit their serial, and obvious, blunders and failures. Used to be the Economist would do that for us, instead of peddling more of their wares for them.

wildswan said...

So there are three or more Unknowns in the commenter equation. Good to know. What's it about?
I was never good in algebra and three unknowns is probably pretty hard to solve. But here's some clues.
First, the Unknowns all suffer from acid reflux politicus in which a person ostensibly commenting actually regurgitates current political memes as "comment" - even being so lazy as call URL's referring to well known stories like the Moody's analysis as "comments." Second, they also have acid reflux althousieus in which a commenter jumps up and down like a little kid needing the bathroom while shouting that our blog hostess has to admit that she is either a Obama supporter or a Trump supporter or a Madison liberal or whatever a commenter finds worst in life. Then, Unknowns are Totally-Knowns in that by studying them you can absolutely get a fix on the current Democratic themes and arguments just as Garage used to do for us all.

The current theme - which takes three commenters to support - is: Throw the kitchen sink and everything in it at Donald Trump. While not explaining or discussing Hillary. That's why three.

The Donald is new and no Republican knows what will happen.
But we do know the status quo is not working. We know Unknown & Co. is pointing away from reality-now as hard as they can. Meaning reality-now is bad for the Democrats. We know Hillary will continue reality-now as far as policy goes. Perhaps Russia, China, and Islamic terrorism will work to maintain America's ability to defend itself or perhaps not. If not, Hillary's sellouts will be very bad for us all. Unknown & Co doesn't care. Unknown & Co doesn't have an alternative, even a short comment indicating a thought beyond Jason Easley's talking points. Not even one new idea among the three "commenters". In short, Democratic operatives without a by-line or a thought for our common future.

The meaning of Unknown & Co? Things with Hillary are so bad they need three stooges shouting at once to try to put down real comment on a blog.