August 15, 2016

Let's assume that Trump is actually flexible enough to get out of the race while the getting is good.

He got out of Atlantic City at the right time, didn't he? He likes to win, and winning can be defined as getting out at a high point and not being there for the big loss. And — as the post title jogs you to think — Trump likes to be flexible. He believes in surprises.

So I'd like to assume that he'd consider the ploy of dropping out and letting someone else take the race to the finish line. The question I want to focus on is: Where is the high point? It's not right now, obviously. He shouldn't be bullied and humiliated out of the race. So where, down the road, can we see a high?

He should think about how to do the most damage to Hillary and then jumping out and making it irrelevant that he was the one who did the damage. Someone else — somebody clean — will be slotted in, and then how can Hillary fight back? She'll have to redo everything and deal with this new person, this Mr. Clean — maybe Pence, but how about Scott Walker? Pick someone hard to attack, someone who'll look just completely normal. That would flummox her after she'd premised so much of her campaign on the idea that she's normal compared to Trump and normal is what we want. If not Trump was so desirable in August, then not Hillary (and not Trump) could be the relief we're all dying for by October.

I'd say he should stay in through at least the first debate. Only he will know that he's planning or considering dropping out. She will waste effort attacking him, her ultimate non-opponent. And he can be as cruel as he thinks could be effective — and as showy and outrageous as will serve his interest going forward in his media career. He's been attacking the media, but he is media, and he will be media in the future (unless he's stuck being President, slogging away in that humble abode, the White House, and getting brutalized by absolutely everyone for 4 years).

What freedom he has right now! What power! 

164 comments:

Rob said...

States have differing deadlines for when ballot changes can be reflected in printed ballots. If Trump drops out but it's his name that appears on the ballots, query what percentage of voters will think he's the candidate.

bigkat said...

nero is playing golf! oh that's right it was a black cop

mockturtle said...

I watched his foreign policy speech today. Why should he drop out? He's got the good ideas.

traditionalguy said...

WWAJD?

Hint: find out what General Packenham and Admiral Cochrane found out about What Would Andrew Jackson Do when his small force of backwoods volunteers faced certain defeat by an overwhelming 14,450 man trained Professional Army along with the cannons on 60 ships of the Royal Navy on a mud flat two miles south of New Orleans.

Chuck said...

I just now had to check the url to make certain I hadn't mistakenly gone to the Dilbert blog.

mockturtle said...

Right, tradguy! And if Trump drops out, the media will have won. Having Hillary win would be bad enough but letting the self-important media win would be even worse.

Thomas W said...

Has the media ever spent significant time wondering if a Presidential candidate will drop out? Were they asking whether Goldwater or McGovern would drop out when they were behind in the polls?

I think the "Trump will drop out" stories are a bunch of wishful thinking, hoping if they say it enough it will happen.

Bay Area Guy said...

Wishful thinking in 2016.....


1. Hillary will be indicted
2. Joe Biden will replace Hillary as nominee.
3. Trump will fade in the primaries
4. Trump, after having won the primaries, will drop out 2 months before the election, because he is down by 6 points.

HT said...

Oh Ann - so few people like Scott Walker.

"mockturtle said...

I watched his foreign policy speech today. Why should he drop out? He's got the good ideas.

8/15/16, 6:27 PM"

The litmus test thing will grab people, yes, but probably not enough people. What I did not hear (maybe I missed it) was how he is going to tighten immigration in order to preserve jobs (the whole "jobs no american wants to do" canard). Now, that, that will bring people in.

Mark said...

The `will Trump drop out' endless questions are a great method to shout `squirrel' by Trump supporters. A way to keep the story on the Donald without it being about something he said, his campaign manager, his spokesperson and her issue with the word `literally', or the next dumpster fire Trump decides to set.

Scott Adams would be proud. The rest of us laugh at the ballot issues and the sheer impossibility of the idea.

And you think the current Trump supporters would vote for some party guy they found last minute? I thought you were arguing that the liberals considered the Trump supporters stupid ...

Jonathan Graehl said...

What a lovely fantasy. I don't see Trump dropping out but I love the picture you paint.

Hagar said...

Tradguy, it was Jackson's artillery that won the day, not "the small band of backwoods volunteers" of whom General Jackson said unkind things after the battle.

Tank said...

Palin?

Unknown said...

Trump has a right to and should absolutely stay in the race. The conservative base picked him and they should reap the rewards of their choice. As for the debates, IF he shows up for them, it will be the final humiliation for him. Maybe he knows this already, hence all the excuses regarding debate times and moderators. Most Trump supporters will be enraged if he were to be forced to resign, or they thought he had to drop out because of one of the many excuses Trump has already put out there. Roger Stone predicts a "bloodbath" if Trump gets cheated out of the presidency.

HT said...

Why is there all this talk about quitting, and quitting at this juncture?

boycat said...

The only decision Trump will have to make anywhere near along these lines will come next January 20 when he decides whether he wants to take a step down and live in the White House, or continue to live on the much higher level he lives now.

gspencer said...

Why all this kind of talk?

To discourage Trump supporters in order to enhance the Harridan's [*] chances.

Haven't you noticed the sheer number of negative Trump stories?

* Give her credit: if nothing else, she's Depends-able.

Siduri said...

Would he mind a loss to Hillary?

Would he, really?

mezzrow said...

If I didn't know better, I'd accuse you of just trolling, Ann. (thinks)

Come to think of it, I don't know better, do I?

Robert Fulton said...

Mark has it right. Scot Adams could go through this post and spot the "tells". Full disclosure: My take is that this election is Brexit II where the folks rise up and overturn the mess that the liberal elite has created. I did not read the stuff written by the media in the UK before the Brexit vote, but the few samples I saw quoted for the purpose of showing how far off the elite liberals were in their appreciation of who would turn out to vote what, match up with what I am reading now in blogs. I wonder what Cameron is doing now? Hillary is likely to end up like Martha Stewart.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FullMoon said...

Trump is thin skinned and wants to be liked. As commander in chief, would he have the strength to commit troops to die fighting ISIS? Or to bomb civilians as collateral damage Could he handle the guilt? For all her faults, Hillary has proven she has no problem in that particular area.

traditionalguy said...

@ Hagar...The Kentucky Militia across the River were criticized by Jackson after the Battle. And LaFitte's pirates were the experts with canon, but the Tennessee Volunteers stood their ground steadily mowing down British Officers from a half mile on in.

machine said...

this talk of him pulling a Palin is illuminating...

PB said...

Only Hillary would drop out of the debates. She'll claim he is unworthy of her time.

traditionalguy said...

Seriously, anyone who thinks Trump will surrender is out of their mind.

Yancey Ward said...

The idea for Trump dropping out and letting Pence carry it the rest of the way seems to have come from elements within the Republican Party that are NeverTrumpers. Seriously, this is deranged thinking. If Trump dropped out, lets say next month, the Democrats would never allow Pence or anyone else be slotted to the top of the ticket. They would file suit in every state in the country, and they would find the judges to back them. Trump is it, like it or not.

Big Mike said...

Let's assume that he's in it to win it. What he's slowly coming to realize is that what got him the nomination isn't going to get him the presidency.

mockturtle said...

I could see Trump resigning early in his Presidency after implementing some of his pet projects but I don't see him quitting the race. He carefully picked a viable VP who could take the helm.

HT said...

Big Mike said...

Let's assume that he's in it to win it. What he's slowly coming to realize is that what got him the nomination isn't going to get him the presidency.

8/15/16, 7:33 PM

Ya think?

Oso Negro said...

Again with the Scott Walker fantasy. He didn't have the sand to even make a single primary.

Mick said...

Bullshit. Trump rallies are full capacity rock concerts. The Crooked Old Lady has half filled snooze fests that are totally scripted. The polls sample 15% more "D Team". MSM totally and obviously in the tank as are the career politician grifters, who are protecting their seat at the corrupt table.

Trump by a LANDSLIDE!!

And they will say, "who could've seen that coming"?

IT'S OBVIOUS.

mockturtle said...

My daughter is on Facebook and she finds a lot of younger people are reluctant to 'come out' about supporting Trump but plan to vote for him, anyway, regardless of what the media tell us.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Give Trump the choice of being called a loser or a quitter, and call it freedom!

Dance...dance to the radio said...

Ann, why do you keep fomenting this point of view?

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gadfly said...

He got out of Atlantic City at the right time, didn't he?

Truth be known, Trump should never have "gotten into" Atlantic City casinos in the first place. Under-financed and over-committed as to the size and grandiosity of his Atlantic City casinos, Trump tried very expensive junk bonds to cover his short and the bonds used up all the cash generated by his cash-on-the-barrelhead gambling business and then some. His poor business judgement almost cost him his fortune and had it not been for his bankruptcies, where he spread much of the cost of his misadventures to vendors, investors, and employees. So Trump could have been toast, since it is likely that his worth is far, far less than the $10 billion he claims today.

gadfly said...

@coupe said...
Did you see the picture of Clinton and Biden today?

Holy shit. She looks like she is on chemotherapy. She's all bloated, and I think that must be a wig she is wearing. Biden next to her, 5 years older, looks very healthy, which makes her look even worse.


Hillary always wears a wig and rumor has it that Plugs is fresh from a new face stretch.

Bob Boyd said...

"I think she is going to drop out, because she looks terminally ill."

Heck, why shouldn't we have a deceased candidate? We certainly have plenty of deceased voters.

chickelit said...

The question for everyone fantasizing about a Trump dump is who would replace him? Would the choosing be democratic? Who decides?

Bob Boyd said...

Reince Priebus calls a meeting:
"Okay, Trump quit. Who wants to be Hitler?"

Jupiter said...

FullMoon said...
"Trump is thin skinned and wants to be liked. As commander in chief, would he have the strength to commit troops to die fighting ISIS?"

Why would he want to? North Korea is a bigger threat to us than ISIS, and a bigger ongoing humanitarian disaster, too. I'm surprised the Democrats aren't all hot to import North Korean "refugees" -- males of military age. I have to say, I'm fairly certain that the average North Korean GI would make a much better American than any God-damned Muslim.

Paul Ciotti said...

Big Mike said: "Let's assume that he's in it to win it. What he's slowly coming to realize is that what got him the nomination isn't going to get him the presidency."

I agree with you. But now that Trump has figured out that he can't win, what does he do? He's not the kind of guy to sit around and wait for events to unfold. He wants to influence them. But how? I don't think he would want to go out a quitter. The people who supported him would all turn on him in a flash. His name would be mud forever. So, what's to do?

Richard Dolan said...

The professor is giving you a little quiz, based on a counterfactual assumption. So don't bitch about the question-- just run with it.

Assume T wants to quit when the "getting is good." When is that? Good for whom, is really the question -- T personally, the T brand, the Rep team, the country? T is quite the narcissist but even he can see beyond the end of his nose. As it happens, there is one scenario in which T can get out and serve all four interests -- getting out when ( if ) he can pull close to even in the key states.

chickelit said...

Bob Boyd said...
Reince Priebus calls a meeting:
"Okay, Trump quit. Who wants to be Hitler?"


Walker was called Hitler and overcame his opponents. Too bad he only has regional appeal.

Jupiter said...

Besides, Hillary is the one who is going to drop out of the race. The human race! She's past her expiration date. She'll be lucky to make it to election day. She may not even make it to the debates!

mezzrow said...

Hillary is likely to end up like Martha Stewart.

Making brownies with Snoop Dog?

AprilApple said...

If he's still losing in the polls - yes - out. Will his ego let him?

Mark said...

Walker has regional appeal? What region?

His favorability has been underwater since dropping out and under 40% all year. Lots of local talk of someone challenging him from his own party next time.

Jupiter said...

Blogger Richard Dolan said...
"The professor is giving you a little quiz, based on a counterfactual assumption. So don't bitch about the question-- just run with it."

She neglected the fact that if Trump were to drop out, he would not get to choose his replacement. Kind of undermines that "power" notion.

Right after Hillary passes out on stage in the middle of the first debate, would seem like kind of a high point in Trump's campaign. But I doubt he will take that moment to pass up the opportunity he has worked so hard for.

Laslo Spatula said...

"What freedom he has right now! What power! "

That is so Br'er Rabbit.

I am Laslo.

HT said...

Trump is not really a good businessman who has had plenty of financial setbacks. It won't be all that big a deal to him to lose again (if he does). Most astute financial people and business people saw right through him on that stupid show on NBC.

jdniner said...

See Sarah Palin for how that works out. He would be branded a loser not a winner. Trump is plenty good at business. Better than all of us. Better than Bill Gates who had a monopoly on an idea. Soros and Buffet might be better.

HT said...

I disagree. Further, he lacks taste in his work(s).

AprilApple said...

It always comes back to - How badly to you have to suck to be losing to Hillary?

AprilApple said...

The DNC media wanted Trump. If Trump gets out - their heads will explode.

Clayton Hennesey said...

Whatever led us to this assumption in the first place?

HT said...

Clayton Hennesey said...

Whatever led us to this assumption in the first place?

Boredom?

traditionalguy said...

Trump is a Real Estate Developer. That takes an eye for a good location and favorable financing from Mega Banks and Insurance Companies followed by a good Construction done by a loyal crew of sub-contractors, all of which a good businessman can control...and then comes the part which no one can control which is a financial investment demand by end purchasers as soon as the building is finished and not a month later after approximately 2 years.

Farmers planting crops have more control over the next two years weather than real estate developers have over their future development's profits and losses.

David Begley said...

I'm sorry, Ann, but that's absurd. Trump is not dropping out. It would be humiliating and he would be a laughingstock for the rest of his life.

Big Mike said...

Polls, schmolls. I don't think the polls are anything like accurate this year. But the lack of a GOTV and all around ground organization this late in the race is pretty scary. Trump thinks he can win with an unconventional campaign, and perhaps he's right, but there are still some things that need to be done to win. I would make the analogy that a guy can show up to Indianapolis with an unconventional race car and have a real chance to win, but you still have to put fuel in the tank.

chickelit said...

AprilApple said...
The DNC media wanted Trump. If Trump gets out - their heads will explode.

Are you kidding? They want another 4 years (possibly 8) of snoozing and smoozing in The Circle City.

walter said...

Wisco folk: Trump's in Milwaukee and West Bend tomorrow.
Anyone know how long ago this has been planned?

Big Mike said...

What AprilApple wrote -- in both comments up thread.

AprilApple said...

Not kidding. The DNC media wanted Trump - they rolled out the red carpet for him and made it easy for him, now they have him. Take Trump away - and boowinga- exploding DNC media heads.

The DNC media is entrenched with or without Trump.

I'll take facts, hold the narrative said...

Suggest that you read a 1988 article in the L.A.Times about the battle between Trump and Merv Griffin for control of Resorts International.

Bob Boyd said...

Clinton lead over Trump in Bloomberg poll

March 2016: 18 points

June 2016: 13 points*

August 2016: 3 points**

*including Libertarian in race
**within the margin of error

https://sharylattkisson.com/clinton-lead-over-trump-shrinks-to-margin-of-error-bloomberg-poll/

Unknown said...

"Donald Trump continues to trail behind Hillary Clinton in the latest national polls, with her lead extending to nearly 7 points.

According to the latest Real Clear Politics average, Trump is behind Clinton 41 to nearly 50 percent two weeks removed form the Democratic national convention.

August hasn't been kind to the billionaire businessman, who entered the month only 2 points behind Clinton before the former secretary of state's lead surged to nearly double digits nationally.

Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight currently gives Clinton a 92 percent chance of winning the White House in November, with must-win swing states Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio all heavily favored for the blue team."

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/08/15/donald-trump-trails-hillary-clinton-by-sizable-gap-in-latest-pol/21451395/

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, FWIW forget about Scott Walker being POTUS. I don't know what he's missing, but he's missing it.

mockturtle said...

I see all of the Hillary trollsters are reporting tonight.

Big Mike said...

As to Hillary, don't you think she looks tired?

walter said...

Blogger Bob Boyd said...
Clinton lead over Trump in Bloomberg poll
August 2016: 3 points**
**within the margin of error
--
Yeah..but Bloomberg's so in the tank for Trump..wait...

Bay Area Guy said...

@Bob Boyd,

You made my night with that poll!

I'm a very simple guy. I made the calculation 1 year ago that Hillary would be worse for the country, than ANY of the GOP candidates, including George Pataki.

A left wing Prez plus a LeftWing majority on the Supreme Court is bad for nearly everything sensible people hold dear.

So, Trump is our only hope, the only resistance to the liberal hordes. Yes, he's made some mean "statements." But Hillary's policies will hurt the country.

walter said...

1st debate, first question to Trump: Orange crush holds index finger up. Struts over to Hil's po..err..lectern..and says
"America? It's high time. (points) She wants it."

John Taylor said...

...going ethnic on this conceptual trash talk. Trump has Scot roots: individualism, warrior culture built on extended familial groups (the "kind of people who would die in place rather than retreat") and an instinctive mistrust of authority. Will never back out.

walter said...

Funny, JT. Before you posted, I googled Scottish strategic procrastination to what would turn up.
(not much)

chickelit said...

AprilApple claimed: The DNC media wanted Trump - they rolled out the red carpet for him and made it easy for him, now they have him.

That's projection. At no time did they support, welcome want Trump. Your assertion makes sense rewritten as "The DNC media wanted Hillary - they rolled out the red carpet for her and made it easy for her, now they have her."

The DNC only ever wanted for Hillary. They spent the entire time running down Trump and Sanders.

Bob Boyd said...

@ Bay Area Guy

Agreed. As I've argued before:
Trump would be restrained by everybody. Congress, courts, media, bureaucracy, even Ivanka.
Who would restrain Hillary?
If Trump turns out to be the monster he is portrayed to be, he could be easily impeached.
With Hillary, like Obama, impeachment is not an option. She is already above the law.
Trump = short term pain.
Hillary = Long term pain.

Unknown said...

I guess we're fiatting the part where the party becomes a joke when its candidate drops out or is forced out and doesn't exceed 25% of the vote.

Your best bet is to have him die and deal with that hypothetical. He will die before he drops out, let me put it that way. Professor, we may as well treat a hypothetical where you, Ann Althouse, push gays off of roofs. While eating egg salad sandwiches.

walter said...

chickelit said...The DNC only ever wanted for Hillary. They spent the entire time running down Trump and Sanders.
--
Dunno..they crowned him king of free media time...and that helped him.
Some predicted he would be attacked more after the primary and it sure seems that way to me.

Rt1 Rebel said...

@ Bob Boyd

That's my take exactly, even in the worst case scenario regarding Trump and the expected case Hillary. And yet, I still see some upside for Trump and some downside for Hillary beyond that premise.

chickelit said...

Dunno..they crowned him king of free media time...and that helped him.

The media were played. They thought they could character assassinate him along aong. Look at the "friendliest" one, FOX. It looked to me that Megyn Kelly thought she would destroy Trump after their first encounter. I'll never forget the sincere and frank-sounding admission by those same FOX anchors after securing the nomination that somehow Trump understood the mood of the American electorate better. And they still don't get it! Neither did Bush III. I think it's a wealth bubble they live in. Trump, though even wealthier, is able to connect to those who aren't. How does he do that? Don't even guess unless you've seen him live.

Bob Boyd said...

"And yet, I still see some upside for Trump and some downside for Hillary beyond that premise."

What do you mean?

chickelit said...

@walter: Caveat: I watched all the debates on the channels required to do so; I watched the conventions on C-Span which lacked commentary. If the networks were supportive of Trump and rolling out red carpets during the RNC convention, I would have missed that. I would have missed Hannity slurping wine and laughing.

Jeff Norman said...

I think I missed the part about why we're considering this premise. Because Trump is flexible? Is that it?

Unknown said...

Boy these nevertrumpers are nothing if not persistent. I have to ask why on earth would Trump "give up" now or even concede at this point as he's not even spent a dime yet and Hillary has shelled out $60 million and is only ahead a few points or virtually tied in other polls. And this observation comes from someone who voted for Perot in 92' and saw how hopeless it was by July. I don't think Trump will consider quitting until he's put a few more torpedos into Shillary's backside. She is "unsinkable" very much like the Japanese Battleship the Yamato.

David Begley said...

Media Research Center should put a clock on poll coverage. I don't care about polls. They add nothing to the conversation.

gadfly said...

As Jonathan S. Tobin points out at Commentary,"Why the RNC's Stuck With Trump," it is likely too late to do anything at all. Trump couldn't get out if he wanted to do so. He is on or will shortly be on all official ballots, which means that someone running in his place would have to be written in. Good luck with that, unless your name is Lisa Murkowski or Joe Liberman.

Then there is the difficulty of shutting down the Trump campaign and turning on a dime to convince voters to go with someone else in just twelve weeks. The only alternative strategy that would even have a tiny chance is to throw Republican Party support behind Gary Johnson, but the Trump Trolls would push the Trump button anyway. They made their bed and now they will do their best to sleep in it. Too bad Trump and his hive didn't play nice-nice with the GOP Conservative base.

chickelit said...

I have to ask why on earth would Trump "give up" now or even concede at this point as he's not even spent a dime yet and Hillary has shelled out $60 million and is only ahead a few points or virtually tied in other polls.

Imagine an NFL season peppered during game times only with anti-Trump, pro-Hillary messages. Football fans yearn to see contests, not one-sided nagativity. I predict fans will revolt and invent new drinking games during her non-stop commercials.

walter said...

Unknown said...
Boy these nevertrumpers are nothing if not persistent. I have to ask why on earth would Trump "give up" now or even concede at this point as he's not even spent a dime yet and Hillary has shelled out $60 million and is only ahead a few points..
--
This is why (in part) I googled Scottish strategic procrastination

walter said...

By the way,
While Ann catches up her Trump quotient, I take great comfort in having Obama at the helm during these contentious times in Wisco.
Maybe Barette can entice Obaama to visit us with a trolley ride.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

To abort, or not to abort, that is Trump's choice.

All evidence indicates that the campaign was viable from conception, and that Trump intends to keep it alive and healthy until the birth of his administration.

He's already chosen a name for it: Republican, after the Republic for which it stands.

John said...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/31/donald-trump-is-splitting-the-white-vote-in-ways-weve-never-seen-before/

White men: Trump (69%), Clinton (22%) = Trump +47pts
White women: Trump (47%), Clinton (43%) = Trump +4pts

Considering whites comprise 70% of the voters, if the increased white voter turnout we saw in the primaries is reflected in the general, 2016 will be Reagan/Mondale part deux. So my guess is that Trump will peak on the evening of 11/8/2016.

StephenFearby said...


Deus ex Machina II & III:

Daily Beast Aug 3

The RNC Can Legally Dump Donald Trump but It Has to Act Fast

'...Or, imagine if Trump himself that sees he’s about to get shellacked (by a woman, no less) and to save himself the humiliation, blames the rigged system and drops out. Again, unlikely—but not impossible to imagine. What then?

I asked Nathaniel Persily, Stanford law professor and a pre-eminent scholar of election law ... what would happen if Trump were to quit, or to be formally dumped by the GOP. Could someone else be the Republican choice for president?

His answer? “Yes—but it depends on timing.” And there are three sets of rules that affect what would happen next...'

'...[So,] If Trump withdraws, there’s really no problem, legally speaking, even at the last minute. While his name would be on the ballot, electors would vote for the party’s actual nominee, or courts would declare Trump no longer the “candidate.”

All this, of course, is unprecedented. And obviously, the political upheaval would be far more significant than the legal provisions in play. “It’s not likely,” Persily says of the legal machinations. “But who thought that Trump was likely?”'


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/03/the-rnc-can-legally-dump-donald-trump-but-it-has-to-act-fast.html

Of course, there's always Deus Ex Machina IV.

Before the election a majority of the members of the House and 2/3 of the Senate declare they will impeach and convict Trump the day after he is sworn in for the high crime and misdemeanor of Trump being Trump. Trump wins in a landslide and Pence becomes the new President.

And everyone lived happily ever after.

mockturtle said...

n.n. @11:57
Well said.

richardsson said...

What Bay Area Guy said.

cyrus83 said...

I don't see it happening at this stage of the game. Even if his own internal polling is abysmal, the packed houses of enthusiastic supporters at every stop will likely keep him going and keep him believing he can win this thing. It's a gamble that enthusiasm and turnout on the stump will mirror the election in November, but seeing how far Trump's gambles have taken him this year, I'm not ready to bet against him just yet.

I also think from a practical standpoint the Republicans couldn't replace him now even if they wanted to. Sure it may be possible to change the ballots and all but what are the odds that some judge in a swing state somewhere is going to rule that it's too late for a substitution? Sure it would smell to high heaven, but the opportunity to get "payback" for Bush v Gore would be rather tempting, and I'm sure some judge can be found somewhere to rule this way.

Achilles said...

Hillary is more likely to leave the campaign early than Trump is. She is having seizures on camera. She also misses her booze so much she is taking weekend off to get drunk. The media can't cover for her forever. This information is getting out.

The Oligarchs got a "conservative" on the ballot in Utah. They are pulling out all of the stops. They know that they can't keep Hillary's brazen and unprecedented corruption away from the public forever. They are trying to convince enough apparatchiks in the GOPe to get Trump off the ballot now because they see the long term trends in this race.

Hillary will have to be on camera more as the race closes in on the end. There will be debates.

eric said...

The names are already on the ballots. By the first debate, your have to tell people, a vote for trump is a vote for Walker.

Won't happen and won't work.

Alix Barrett said...

Let's brand it the: #TrumpicelliOption

320Busdriver said...

Tom A. Coburn MD

Unknown said...

If Trump quits or stays his new moniker will be "Loser Trump". Trump's ego can't handle that. Catch-22 for Trump.

Most Americans do not want the President of their country to be an insane lunatic. Sane people know insane when they see and hear it.

Sane Republicans will vote Clinton, Liberterian, Green or abstain.

Sane and insane Democrats will vote Clinton.

Brando said...

This is insane--Trump is not going to drop out because it would make him look like he knew he was going to lose. There is simply no way for him to do it.

What he will do is he will set up conditions for his most fervent fans (the true believers who actually think he's a brilliant businessman, decent human being, and political genius) to believe that he totally would have won if not for some underhanded unfairness and mass fraud. He's already setting up those conditions by claiming he would only lose Pennsylvania if there was widespread cheating going on (never mind that the GOP hasn't won PA since 1988--Trump totally would have won even though at this late date he is still campaigning in Connecticut).

He doesn't need to win, of course--this is all about a bigger plan than taking a $400K a year job and having to have real responsibilities (i.e., not branding your name on other people's buildings and tweeting 140 characters of nonsense every hour). But he needs to make his fever swamp followers believe he was cheated of something, so he doesn't look like the dumpster fire that he is. It won't fool anyone else though.

Mick said...

This is a psyop dis-information campaign being undertaken by the liars in the Hussein Obama propaganda media. Any look at the methodology of these polls shows that they are massively oversampling Democrats. All talk of "Trump getting out" is projection-- that is what liars do. This psyop is meant to discourage Trump voters, it is a media gone totally into campaign mode for their masters in the political and banking class. The Crooked Old Lady is spending multi millions in advertising with the useful idiots, who the public HATES, and does NOT TRUST. Trump has spent virtually nothing, why should he, when all they do is attack him relentlessly? Everyday they breathlessly report the latest "awful thing" that Trump says, while ignoring all of the TREASON committed by the Crooked Old Lady.
They report that making America first in all endeavors with foreign countries is a bad thing. That bringing jobs back to the United States is a bad thing. That giving jobs away to foreign H1B workers is a good thing. That allowing (and encouraging) the country to be overrun and invaded by diseased, untraceable and unemployable third worlders is a good thing. They are insane and evil, and the public is waking up to it.
Full Tilt packed house rallies mean to the media that "Trump is losing". They are beginning to feel the hate that the public has for them, I was there. Long Rope and Lamposts for the media and political class. Trump is telling them all to go F%#*K themselves, and so is the public. They have both sold out America for the last 50 years.

Mick said...

Is the "law prof" participating in the media Psy-op? After all, she, a "Constitutional Law prof" helped put the Usurper Hussein Obama in office. She probably finds that Trump supporters are "uncivil" when viewed from the Ivory Tower of Academia, the Tower of Babel of America.

Brando said...

"This is a psyop dis-information campaign being undertaken by the liars in the Hussein Obama propaganda media. Any look at the methodology of these polls shows that they are massively oversampling Democrats. All talk of "Trump getting out" is projection-- that is what liars do. This psyop is meant to discourage Trump voters, it is a media gone totally into campaign mode for their masters in the political and banking class."

I agree about Trump not getting out (besides, what good would that do the GOP? It's too late to get another viable candidate in there. The ship sailed several months ago). But if you truly believe the polls are wrong (and aren't just trying to comfort yourself) you may be in for a big shock this fall, shades of 2012. Hell, it was the exact same argument last time. If you read up on the polling methods you realize that what looks like "oversampling Democrats" is actually reflecting the moods of the people sampled (as it's based on how people identify themselves, rather than what they're registered as--which most aren't registered with a party).

If there is a hidden reservoir of Trump voters that the polls are missing, that's possible--but it would have to be a phenomenon that was missed during the primaries.

Short of that, Trump is currently behind and needs a solid boost. Wishful thinking isn't going to be it.

Brando said...

"Is the "law prof" participating in the media Psy-op? After all, she, a "Constitutional Law prof" helped put the Usurper Hussein Obama in office. She probably finds that Trump supporters are "uncivil" when viewed from the Ivory Tower of Academia, the Tower of Babel of America."

I think our "law prof" is on Team Trump, and has been since he won the nomination. If she's participating in a "psy-op" she's doing so unwittingly.

Bruce Hayden said...

This is the MSM trying to drag Crooked Hillary's barely breathing corpse across the finish line. Trump won't drop out now because it would seriously tarnish his brand. Financially, it is much better for him to fight and lose, than to run away. Trump voters are often Trump consumers. While it was construction and building management in the past, now it is brand management, which has made him and his family as rich as they are. Trump this and Trump that. He has made his name synonymous with some sort of glamor, and that is what they are selling now, more than anything. And there wouldn't be glamor in quitting, but resentment, when the demoralized Reoublicans surely also lose the Senate and maybe the House too. Landfills around the country would fill up with Trump brand stuff dumped by his disgusted supporters.

Wake up everyone. You are being played. Trump isn't going to quit. But as someone above pointed out, this is intentionally designed to keep the debate about him personally, not about Crooked Hillary, and not about what he is saying. And it seems to be working. In a just world, the discussion would be about the continuing evidence of Clinton corruption that keeps surfacing, esp now with the latest revelations about their foundation, and that her minions at the State Dept were working to the foundation's advantage while collecting federal pay checks. And about her rapidly deteriorating health. And now dropping her promise that women claiming sexual assault should be believed, because of resurfacing claims by her husband's victims. How else do you explain her surge after a mediocre convention and speech?

Brando said...

"Financially, it is much better for him to fight and lose, than to run away. Trump voters are often Trump consumers. While it was construction and building management in the past, now it is brand management, which has made him and his family as rich as they are. Trump this and Trump that. He has made his name synonymous with some sort of glamor, and that is what they are selling now, more than anything."

I think what he's going for post-election is a different sort of brand--one more political and cultural in nature, appealing to the sort of people who supported him from the beginning. This is why he doesn't need a majority--if you have even 30% of the country behind your brand, you can make a killing off of it and get all the attention and love you need.

This is why he has to stay in until the end, and why if he loses he still wins because he can claim to be a martyr to Hillary's and the media's fraud and unfairness. And during a Hillary presidency, his new brand becomes more valuable than ever.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that you can see the hands behind this. Before the conventions, whenever Trump opened his mouth, it made the news. All of a sudden though, it isn't Trump getting on the next gutless news, but at best, short snips of him, taken out of context. Instead, it is Trump is failing here, Trump is failing there. Crooked Hillary is winning bigger and bigger in the polls. No more free publicity, but instead, much of the MSM acting, as they usually do, as Dem party operatives. They now see what works, and are likely going to stick with it throughout the rest of the election. Sure, ratings would be better if they would actually cover Trump (which is why he should be advertising like crazy now). But the MSM aren't the ones who will take the biggest financial beating for this - their employers will, but will deserve it for letting it happen. Always remember, for the left, winning is everything, regardless of how the win is achieved, because along with the winning comes the power of government to be used for fun and profit.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that Brando points out something I hadn't thought through enough. Trump's demographic is primarily working and middle class. It really does cross racial lines. He does offend the upper middle class, esp the best educated and best credentialed - the lawyers, doctors, etc, who used to form the leadership of the Republican Party. He is just to brash for their likes. Rather he attracts those who are less established, less polished, and more confrontational. If he runs a good campaign and loses, esp if it looks like the other side cheated, as they always do, I think he will come out stronger as a brand. As Brando said - a martyr. Buying something with his brand is likely to be seen by many as a stick in the eye of the establishment that had to cheat to beat him. But he has to keep fighting until the bitter end for this to work.

Mick said...

"If there is a hidden reservoir of Trump voters that the polls are missing, that's possible--but it would have to be a phenomenon that was missed during the primaries".

Bullshit. You are still not believing what is right before your eyes-- (Cognitive Dissonance)
Massive oversampling of Democrats is obvious. Oh yeah, they wouldn't lie. What I see is more real than what the liars are trying to tell me. If Trump wasn't winning YUUUGE the media wouldn't be attacking him so desperately. You also fail to mention the blackout of anything negative about the Crooked Old Lady. Why would that be?

Massive LANDSLIDE for Trump is underway. The public hates the lying media almost as much as Congress. Their negativity towards Trump is self re-assuring. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Brando said...

"Bullshit. You are still not believing what is right before your eyes-- (Cognitive Dissonance)
Massive oversampling of Democrats is obvious. Oh yeah, they wouldn't lie. What I see is more real than what the liars are trying to tell me. If Trump wasn't winning YUUUGE the media wouldn't be attacking him so desperately. You also fail to mention the blackout of anything negative about the Crooked Old Lady. Why would that be?"

Yes, just like the "massive oversampling" from 2012 which is why the polls incorrectly showed Obama ahead and Romney pulled off his stunning upset. Amazing that Fox News got in on the leftist media lying too!

Seriously, you think the "media attacking Trump so desperately" must mean he is ahead? If he were losing, you think they'd give him softball coverage?

As for the "blackout" of anything negative about the Crooked Old Lady--well, I'd suggest the principal reason for this is that Trump is sucking all the air out of the room. You Trumpits argue that this is a brilliant master plan of Trump's to stay the center of attention, but now you're saying it's really a media trick to help Hillary. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Brando said...

"But he has to keep fighting until the bitter end for this to work."

Yep--if he wins, I'm not sure what he'd do--maybe outsource the "everyday" stuff to Pence or someone (Paul Ryan probably hopes it would be someone he could vet, but I don't think Trump would care what Paul Ryan thinks--more likely someone who would be first and foremost loyal to Trump), but it would be legally difficult for him to focus on the new brand-related business ventures while serving as president.

But if he loses, expect a lot more than the usual claims of fraud--maybe lawsuits?--and for the next four years, Trump front and center every time Hillary has a misstep (which will be frequent) and maybe a new media conglomerate (to compete with Fox News and Breitbart--ironic considering how much they helped his rise, but hey, it's business) gaining steam during an era when most people are more enraged than ever at Hillary.

It's a great business plan.

Unknown said...

Come on you guys. Trump's core competency is high end real estate. How many gold plated condos in Dubai, or Pittsburgh, do you think he can sell to unemployed coal miners?

None of you is even willing to entertain, even as a punchline, that he is deliberately sacrificing a great deal trying to pull this country out of a flat spin? Easier to believe that he wants to recoup all this through hat sales? I pity you. Many of you are smarter than this. What is the cause of your blindness?

Bruce Hayden said...

And, I expect that a Crooked Hillary Administration would be rocky, giving Trump those opportunities. The left had something to believe in, with Obama, and so continues to protect him to this day. She doesn't. Rather, she is the candidate they are stuck with until the election, and, if she wins, many will likely turn on her. At least the ones she hasn't scared into submission. I expect that the pressure to push her out would start fairly quickly, given her apparent health. Can't push out the first female President, just like they had to go on loving the first Black President. But it would be for her own good, so ok to push her out. Probably after the midterms so that her VP could serve two full terms. Something like that.

Brando said...

"Come on you guys. Trump's core competency is high end real estate. How many gold plated condos in Dubai, or Pittsburgh, do you think he can sell to unemployed coal miners?"

At one time, yes, but his business for the past decade plus has been branding and promotion. It's one thing he has been very good at--marketing. He's not going to try and sell "gold condos" to his fans--I mean, who is going to say "I like his politics, so I'm going to love his housing!"? But the brand he'd be selling now is not just merchandise (though there will be that) but creating a media empire--maybe a new television channel, news sites, etc.--geared towards his specific consumers. Frankly I think he'd be crazy not to do something like that--the information on the demographics of this consumer base is already out there and can be gauged on their reaction to every move in his campaign. Why not cash in when this is over?

"But it would be for her own good, so ok to push her out. Probably after the midterms so that her VP could serve two full terms. Something like that."

I'm guessing she makes it the full term--it'd be impossible to get a Clinton to give up power. GOP gets gains in 2018, and see where they're at for 2020. Health reasons might keep her from running for a second term, but I'd be surprised if she doesn't have more scandals and less popularity at that point as well.

machine said...

Donald Bialystock isn't going to pull a Palin...too many rubes to fleece.

AprilApple said...

Chickie - It's not difficult to see that a media that wants to help Hillary would help the nominee that helps Hillary.

Mick said...

"Yes, just like the "massive oversampling" from 2012 which is why the polls incorrectly showed Obama ahead and Romney pulled off his stunning upset. Amazing that Fox News got in on the leftist media lying too!

Seriously, you think the "media attacking Trump so desperately" must mean he is ahead? If he were losing, you think they'd give him softball coverage?

As for the "blackout" of anything negative about the Crooked Old Lady--well, I'd suggest the principal reason for this is that Trump is sucking all the air out of the room. You Trumpits argue that this is a brilliant master plan of Trump's to stay the center of attention, but now you're saying it's really a media trick to help Hillary. Which is it? You can't have it both ways".



Pure relativist Bullshit. Relativist thinking means that no logic can exist, as logic is an equation based on absolute reality, not relative reality (If this, then that). And there is why there can be no logic on the left. They all think in relative terms. Absolute does not exist. The FACT is that these polls are oversampled Democrat--- every one. You think that's an accident. You deny what you see with your own eyes? Trump rallies are massive rock concerts, and Crooked Old Lady rallies are half filled snooze fests.

Mick said...

FACT. The "media" is blacking out all of the Crooked Old Ladies crimes, while they worry that Trump is a meanie. They are children.

Brando said...

"The FACT is that these polls are oversampled Democrat--- every one. You think that's an accident. You deny what you see with your own eyes? Trump rallies are massive rock concerts, and Crooked Old Lady rallies are half filled snooze fests."

On the possibility that you're not trolling, I think I made it clear that what you consider "oversampling" is merely a reflection of more respondents identifying with the Democrats. Most people aren't "branded" Democrat or Republican, their attitudes towards the parties are what is being identified by the pollsters. But hey, if you have to tell yourself that those polls are intentionally skewed by a master conspiracy among dozens of independent polling companies--some that are conservative run!--and then spend every after the election saying it must be fraud that got your guy beat, then be my guest.

And rallies? That's your counter example? McGovern had huge rallies. So did Mondale. A very intense minority of voters is still a minority of voters. It's the non-rally-goers that decide elections.

Unknown said...

As for the "blackout" of anything negative about the Crooked Old Lady--well, I'd suggest the principal reason for this is that Trump is sucking all the air out of the room.


Oh, so that explains why CNN regularly pulls the plug on any guest who manages to land a punch on Hillary (Jill Stein being the latest of many). And there I was, thinking it was the alliance! Thanks for straightening me out. Good to know that CNN and everybody is dealing strictly off the top of the deck.

You need to discount for your personal distaste/hatred for the man. It is altering your perceptions.

AprilApple said...

The polls are fairly accurate. Wishful thinking doesn't usual end well.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Brando said...And rallies? That's your counter example? McGovern had huge rallies. So did Mondale. A very intense minority of voters is still a minority of voters. It's the non-rally-goers that decide elections.

More to the point, so did Bernie.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Brando said...Yep--if he wins, I'm not sure what he'd do--maybe outsource the "everyday" stuff to Pence or someon

I bet Sec. Carter's available. WSJ: President Ash Carter

AprilApple said...

@ Brando

You Trumpits argue that this is a brilliant master plan of Trump's to stay the center of attention, but now you're saying it's really a media trick to help Hillary. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Exactly. Every time a new horror show about Hillary's corrupt life comes to light - Trump gives the media a silly useless gaffe.

Brando said...

"Thanks for straightening me out. Good to know that CNN and everybody is dealing strictly off the top of the deck."

I've never said the media wasn't biased (at least many of the major outlets)--I'm saying Trump makes it easy for them with his attention-grabbing stunts. The same stunts that we were just recently told were all part of a master persuader plan to stay on everyone's minds. So now the media can focus on that and give little coverage to the sort of things that should crack up Hillary's coalition or raise her negatives with voters.

"More to the point, so did Bernie."

Excellent example. Bernie had the excitement, but it was regular Democrats--my guess is a mix of moderates turned off by the populist stuff and racial minorities who somehow are drawn to the Clintons--who decided their nomination.

"Exactly. Every time a new horror show about Hillary's corrupt life comes to light - Trump gives the media a silly useless gaffe."

I get whiplash from hearing on one hand that this is part of a brilliant Trump master plan, then right after that hearing that it is the evil media that is overcovering him and letting Hillary go free.

Just maybe the two are related?

chickelit said...

Brando wrote: Excellent example. Bernie had the excitement, but it was regular Democrats--my guess is a mix of moderates turned off by the populist stuff and racial minorities who somehow are drawn to the Clintons--who decided their nomination.

Excellent counterexample: The Dem super delegates. They gave her a electoral invincibility which she always needed to stop Sanders' momentum. Really, Brando, you should applaud a movement to get them into the RNC to prevent any future upstarts in both parties. It's not too early for you to get your way forever.

dreams said...

"The polls are fairly accurate. Wishful thinking doesn't usual end well."

I don't agree. The Brexit polls were off 10%.

AprilApple said...

You're dreaming - dreams. Brexit polls were close - just like the end result.

chickelit said...

AprilApple said...
You're dreaming - dreams. Brexit polls were close - just like the end result.

Correct polls explain the "shock" in the media?

AprilApple said...

That is true in Sanders case, Chickel -

Sanders won CO, for example, but the CO delegates went for Hillary (I'm looking at you, Jared Polis(D-pot head))

AprilApple said...

The polls were close. Many of the Brexit polls were accurate. Polls are a snapshot and what does Brexit have to do with Trump other than wishful thinking?

Trump's negatives are higher that the she-Chavez. Spin that all you want.

Brando said...

"Excellent counterexample: The Dem super delegates. They gave her a electoral invincibility which she always needed to stop Sanders' momentum. Really, Brando, you should applaud a movement to get them into the RNC to prevent any future upstarts in both parties. It's not too early for you to get your way forever."

She was well ahead even without the superdelegates counted in. If you're suggesting that the superdelegates she had pledged to her gave her an "invincibility" argument that worked to help her win actual primary votes, remember she had the same "superdelegate" lead on Obama 8 years ago, and of course superdelegates can switch at any time and they did in 2008.

I'm no fan of the superdelegate system, either. If the parties want to have primaries decide their nominees, they should abide by whatever lousy decision their voters make. I don't like Trump, but he won his primaries and earned the right to be the nominee. Too bad for the GOP, but that's what their voters chose.

"Correct polls explain the "shock" in the media?"

Media shock this year has had more to do with expecting voters to break a certain way when they don't. See also Trump's success in the primaries--which the polls correctly predicted. Media figured as others dropped out, someone else would rise enough to beat him, and it didn't happen. With Brexit, polls showed it close but the media expected the voters to break on the "pro" side of the margin of error.

M Jordan said...

Brexit polls were off the final week by 8 points. They were close prior to that but the conventional wisdom and getting markets always gave Remain the big lead.

Brando said...

"Trump's negatives are higher that the she-Chavez. Spin that all you want."

To be charitable to Trump, some demographics work in the Dems' favor in presidential elections--the electoral wall, younger voters, technology allowing microtargeting to get more voters to polls than in the old days (where Dems had lower turnout), and large, growing minority groups becoming more Democratic. The fact that the Dems picked someone with very high negatives plus very poor political skills, in a year where voters have "8 year syndrome" and the economy is mixed, the GOP had a great opportunity, which could overcome the Dem advantages.

Alas, this is what we have. Trumpits can pretend there's some "wave" about to prove the polls wrong, and Trumpologists (Trump-skeptics who will grudgingly support Trump) can hope he learns to calm down long enough to let Hillary self-destruct, but if the current trajectory doesn't change we're heading towards a blowout.

dreams said...

"Polls are a snapshot and what does Brexit have to do with Trump other than wishful thinking?"

Because it was a poll and before the vote the poll was positive for the establishment elites, the same type of people as Hillary and our out of touch elites.

And if polls are just a snapshot then why all the angst? And doesn't that prove my point that the polls shouldn't be taken so seriously.

M Jordan said...

On Brexit, the last 12 polls had Remain by an average of 3%. Nine of the 12 Remain, 3 Leave. Leave ultimately won by almost 4 points. That means the polls were off by 7.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#

In 2012 the RCP average of polls had Obama winning by .7. He won by 3.9. This shows an error of 3.2.

Polls this far out from an election are unrestricted by anything other than the herd. If pollsters want to put their thumbs on the scales now, what's stopping them?

Polls are one guage; there are many others. Trump may be behind right now, but it's close.

Brando said...

"And if polls are just a snapshot then why all the angst? And doesn't that prove my point that the polls shouldn't be taken so seriously."

Polls can change of course--but the point is that that snapshot can tell you whether a candidate needs to gain or can just sit pretty until the election. It doesn't of course matter a whole lot for us observers--polls aren't going to change our behavior--but the campaigns need to take the polls very seriously as it affects their strategy and where they put resources.

For example, Trump's recent rally in Connecticut suggests he not only thinks Connecticut is winnable for him but that Connecticut's seven electoral votes are worth spending some of the limited amount of time left campaigning for.

AprilApple said...

Trump is losing badly in ALL the polls.

His primary win wasn't as big as Trumpers assume.

If Trump doesn't figure it out and fast, it is really over. The best thing he could do for this nation is drop out.

dreams said...

"And if polls are just a snapshot then why all the angst?"

It was rhetorical.

Unknown said...

To be charitable to Trump, some demographics work in the Dems' favor in presidential elections--the electoral wall, younger voters, technology allowing microtargeting to get more voters to polls than in the old days (where Dems had lower turnout), and large, growing minority groups becoming more Democratic.

Why is this technology even proprietary to the candidates? Why is is not operated by the parties and supplied on an equitable basis to all party candidates and then to the nominee?

Campaigning is the opposite of governing, and should be commoditized so the candidates can be judged on their merits. Chuck said something a while back about the Trump team "borrowing lists from RNC" - what borrow? How are the RNC resources not all automatically at the disposal of the candidate?

No wonder only professional politicians can win these things!

Brando said...

"Why is this technology even proprietary to the candidates? Why is is not operated by the parties and supplied on an equitable basis to all party candidates and then to the nominee?"

I don't know why the parties don't have this (at least to the level that Obama's campaign did). I think to some degree they do have that apparatus, but the campaigns tend to do it much better. Probably because their donor lists are more effective (when's the last time you know anyone who donated just to a party rather than a campaign?), and their info is more targeted to a personality, and also maybe more timely.

I guess the next RNC head could try and build that up for the next cycle, though it would be expensive and time consuming to maintain.

Unknown said...

I gave to McCain/Palin. Since then every Tom Dick and Harry has been hitting me up off that info.

Unknown said...

though it would be expensive and time consuming to maintain.


WHAT OTHER REASON TO EXIST HAS THE RNC?!? Wining and dining fatcats?

Maybe part of the "support pledge" should be that e.g. Ted Cruz' GOTV effort be kicked into the general election pool at the service of the winner, whether Cruz wins or not.

Unknown said...

Or, if not capitalist enough, let it be privatized, though then Hillary's IRS or DOJ audits or SWATs them or whatever.

Brando said...

"WHAT OTHER REASON TO EXIST HAS THE RNC?!? Wining and dining fatcats?"

Basically. Party organizations became vestigial organs over the years.

"Maybe part of the "support pledge" should be that e.g. Ted Cruz' GOTV effort be kicked into the general election pool at the service of the winner, whether Cruz wins or not."

I think part of the problem is those microtarget efforts aren't easily "plug and play" for any user. To some extent, that info is useful--breakdowns of an individual's voting patterns, income, job history, social media activity--but some of the info that would be useful to one campaign might not be useful to the other. Apparently Hillary is building off of Obama's, but her team had to adapt it more to suit this year and that candidate. Any way you slice it, the candidate's campaign has to do quite a bit, even if another campaign gives them info to work with.

Unknown said...

Basically. Party organizations became vestigial organs over the years.


DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE



I think part of the problem is those microtarget efforts aren't easily "plug and play" for any user.

What can I say, try it and see. To some extent - there's the data sharing and any programming secret sauce; let the candidate use it as he and his advisers see fit.

But on the people side, Ted's vols may not go out and work for Don because bitterness; I get that; but that's also part of what "support the candidate" is supposed to mean.

Cruz (and the others, but his seems to be the only worth mentioning) should have turned over the keys to Trump upon conceding if not by the RNC itself, and should have at least formally exhorted his people to turn to the greater task.

(If this was on the table, Trump may have had more reason to treat him better, perhaps.)

I can't even understand this. You have to essentially reinvent the wheel for each candidate each election? How stupid is that? Republicans deserve to lose. -- Not Trump, Republicans. How can anyone possibly compete? WTF?!?

Brando said...

"What can I say, try it and see. To some extent - there's the data sharing and any programming secret sauce; let the candidate use it as he and his advisers see fit. "

It's what I'd do if I were RNC head--try to build the sort of national operation that can work in concert with campaigns to meet or surpass the Dem advantage. We all should have learned this from Obama's 2008 operation--instead we seem to have gone backwards.

"I can't even understand this. You have to essentially reinvent the wheel for each candidate each election? How stupid is that? Republicans deserve to lose. -- Not Trump, Republicans. How can anyone possibly compete? WTF?!?"

At the very least, they should have people keeping that info up to date, then when the "presumptive nominee" is known (or at least soon after) the campaign has to pick up from that and target it towards what the candidate needs to know.

It's also about micro-organizing. Obama had people in every neighborhoods doing meetups and crap--to build excitement and a sense of ownership among his supporters, and it paid off with high turnout. If the GOP has anything like that, I certainly haven't heard of it--and I'm not hard to find. I keep getting spam requests for donations and the last time I donated to a candidate was 2009.

Unknown said...

The people who fail this have no right to exist in their current positions.

Chuck? Any thoughts since you seem to be plugged in here?

Mark said...

Pardon me if someone else has pointed this out, but you are assuming that Trump isn't in it to assure Hillary's victory. If anything there's a lot of evidence that he hates the Republican Party more than he hates Hillary.

Unknown said...

Perhaps I should hate them too, if they are Hillary Lite! Hillary and water! Hillary trying to make you think they're not! Napoleon selling out to Mr. Jones! Is that what they are?

Unknown said...

But the 'throw the election to Hillary' theme is garbage. What could he possibly have to gain? Numbers please.

John said...

There's not a massive pollster conspiracy.

The reason there is a higher Democratic representation in the polls is because the polls are weighted to reflect the trends of the last few elections. Over the last few elections, Republican turnout has declined, so the polls basically assume that trend will continue. Likewise, the white voter turnout % has declined and the polls are reflecting that trend as well. If those trends reverse come November, the polls will be off. And it doesn't take much to produce huge swings. For example, a few percentage points increase in (say) white voter turnout and share would produce a 10 million vote swing in favor of Trump. So the question is will those trends reverse. If you think the increased Republican turnout in the primaries is indicative of such, then yes. If not, then no.

richardsson said...

I doubt that Trump pulls out, but the comparisons to the casino deals and his candidacy are not far fetched. What Trump has achieved, as had Obama in 2008, is a hostile takeover of the political party, Both are similar to Al Dunlap's stock machinations and takeover of the Sunbeam Corp. Like Dunlap did to Sunbeam, Obama brought down ticket ruin to the Democratic Party. What effect Trump has on the Republican Party remains to be seen. In the next few weeks, we should begin to see some prominent #NeverTrump people fold. It will finally occur to them that if Trump wins, they might as well move to Palm Springs and take up shuffleboard or golf. If Trump loses, they will be blamed. But, it is really hard to say how this election turns out because Trump has aroused gut level emotions like no candidate since Bobby Kennedy. People have forgotten because he was murdered that Bobby Kennedy was a much hated as well as much loved man. Trump arouses similar passions, and the journalists and pollsters have their thumbs on the scale.

John said...

Richardson said

People have forgotten because he was murdered that Bobby Kennedy was a much hated as well as much loved man.

I was around in the 60's, (12 in the 1960 election) and this is the first time I have ever heard Robert Kennedy called "much loved". He was always, from serving McCarthy, to being JFKs campaign manager, to being the vicious Kennedy. The one who would run over you with a truck, back up and run over you again then jump out and kick you in the crotch for good measure.

He could carry a grudge to an extreme even for an Irishman. His father said he was his favorite because "He hates like me."

The only reason Kennedy got any support either in the NY Senate race was 1) Sympathy for his dead brother and 2) He was going to run that truck over Uncle Cornpone (LBJ) a couple of times and get that embarassment out of the WH.

I don't think anyone ever loved Robert Kennedy. Not even his family.

There was never much love in any branch/generation of the Kennedy family so he was normal in that regard.

John HEnry

richardsson said...

@John

I don't think anyone ever loved Robert Kennedy. Not even his family.

In the days leading up to the California Primary in 1968, he drew huge crowds in the Los Angeles Area. There was a campaign rally at what is now Cal State Northridge, which I attended. and it was a highly enthusiastic and a very large crowd. He won the California Primary. He was a highly popular figure at the time, especially popular with Latino voters. Had he lived, he probably would have been Democratic nominee (although Johnson would have moved heaven and earth to stop him. It would have been quite a battle.)

Now there is truth in what you say about the people who had personal dealings with him. He was a pitbull. I know he was hated, my uncle had dealings with him and he really hated him. But you over state your case. There are lots of people in public life who are creeps in private life and treat people who work for them like crap.

Now that the Kennedys are long since dead, the other side of the story is coming out, but shortly after their deaths, there was much mourning.

Bobby Kennedy was loved and hated, which was my point in comparing him to Trump.

Unknown said...

There are lots of people in public life who are creeps in private life and treat people who work for them like crap.


And I'm guessing that if they were all defeated, we would be better off.

dreams said...

Just now on Lew Dobbs, Helmont Norpoth says there is still an 87% chance Trump wins the election.

http://www.stonybrook.edu/experts/profile/helmut-norpoth

dreams said...

Remember there is an all out media war on Trump because they are scared and are trying to take him out. The liberal media are as corrupt as crooked Hillary.

dreams said...

"87%-99% Certain Trump Will Be President

Primaries Predict Election Winner -- Cycle Also Favors GOP —

Forecast Model Batting 5 for 5 (since 1996)

by Helmut Norpoth

It is 87% to 99% certain that Donald Trump will win the presidential election on November 8, 2016; 87% if running against Hillary Clinton, 99% if against Bernie Sanders.
These predictions come from primarymodel.com"

http://primarymodel.com/

Brando said...

"In the days leading up to the California Primary in 1968, he drew huge crowds in the Los Angeles Area. There was a campaign rally at what is now Cal State Northridge, which I attended. and it was a highly enthusiastic and a very large crowd. He won the California Primary. He was a highly popular figure at the time, especially popular with Latino voters. Had he lived, he probably would have been Democratic nominee (although Johnson would have moved heaven and earth to stop him. It would have been quite a battle.)"

RFK is a good example of that "big crowds don't mean the majority is behind them" idea. People have this idea that RFK would have been elected president if he wasn't shot, but they forget that the primaries he was winning (most notably California) weren't contested by the Dem establishment favorite at the time (Humphrey). RFK had his admirers at the time, but he had a lot of enemies, from the War Moderates who preferred LBJ/HHH, and the anti-war types who thought him a phony compared to Eugene McCarthy.

Nixon also might have beaten RFK if RFK was nominated. The wild card that year was Wallace's candidacy, and with RFK in the race it may have scrambled things from the way it turned out.