From "The Daily 202: Ted Cruz’s war with Matt Drudge could become a huge problem for his campaign" by James Hohmann in The Washington Post.
IN THE COMMENTS: eric said: "How did Cruz cheat?" And I said:
Who decides what counts as "cheating" and what the consequences of cheating are?Then I see that Thorley Winston also answered eric's question:
Isn't the answer: The People.
It reminds me of “The Gambler” (the movie based on the Kenny Rogers song) where after the title character wins the game, the villain wants to keep playing until he wins.And that reminds me of our favorite Russ Feingold quote — which I video'd during the Wisconsin uprising: "The game's not over until I win. This game's not over until we win."
Hopefully Cruz remembers to pack his Derringer.
पोस्ट्स
१८६ टिप्पण्या:
So Trump's lickspittles are saying this--much like they parrot anything that might help their Superman--and somehow we're supposed to give this legitimacy?
The only people who are going to feel bad about Trump not getting the nomination are the people who are still in the mindset that this guy (a) could win the general election and (b) could be a decent president. Something tells me the more that group sees of the Donald the smaller that group will be.
It's easy right now to deny the polls (because we have several months until November) and assume that the Trump Magic will break all the rules this year. But as the months march by and Trump keeps doing incredibly stupid things and saying incredibly stupid things, it becomes harder and harder to cover for him. Eventually, they'll face the reality that this guy's going to be a disaster for them.
Cruz thinks he will have the party behind him.
Not so fast.
They will cut his legs off the way they have gone after Trump.
The way things appear and the way they really are don't often line up well in politics, and appearances are far more important than reality when emotions are high like they have been. Cruz needs to be able to convince voters that he didn't "cheat" (and objectively he did not, but that doesn't matter) and Trump needs to convince voters that Cruz is a shady sneak thief who cheats. Reality doesn't matter this election.
No matter what happens there's going to be a bunch of people that are going to be very unhappy and feel disenfranchised at the end of all this.
How did Cruz cheat?
I haven't been able to figure out what all the hubbub is about.
Politics is about alliances of small groups, usually of five or less persons, that 1)have enough inner circle contacts to 2)outer circle community contacts 3) to friends to be able to call in 4) a winning vote wave on election day.
I watched Newt Gingrich on a long, slow learning curve finally master it.
Trump has used his communication skills on TV to go directly to step 4. That is being resisted as unfair to politicians and donors that control step 1. It literally freaked Scott walker out.
But Trump apparently has spent 45 years learning steps 1,2,and 3 in order to build his NYC Real Estate Development business into a world Empire.
And he is clearly the superior candidate running by a factor of 10.
Trump, Cruz, or whoever the nominee will be is relying on disdain for Hillary to drive the vote among GOP voters and those who lean GOP. Hillary is counting on disdain of Trump or Cruz to drive Dem voters and those who lean Dem.
So Trump's lickspittles are saying this--much like they parrot anything that might help their Superman--and somehow we're supposed to give this legitimacy?
Drudge runs hot and cold on Trump and will likely end up pro-Cruz.
Breitbart has just bastardized the vision of its founder. I only look at their international coverage from the London desk and their Tech site. The rest is just...blech.
As I said, the whining about how rules known in advance aren't fair is the kind of thing losers do. If Trump, somehow, lost NY, he'd whine that the registration his family couldn't be bothered to do is not fair eiher. If you know the rules in advance and don't spend ANY effort to pursue your goal, that is all on you.
This is like saying "Hey, passing the ball for a touchdown isn't fair! You should run the ball every down!".
The only people who are going to feel bad about Trump not getting the nomination are the people who are still in the mindset that this guy (a) could win the general election and (b) could be a decent president. Something tells me the more that group sees of the Donald the smaller that group will be.
I think both are possibilities, but not terribly high ones. We've had a whiny President for 7 years now. I'm over it. He is still better than Hillary, but it's not a slam dunk improvement.
How did Cruz cheat?
He played the game by the rules and beat Trump in CO. That is...bad. Somehow.
Drudge's bias this cycle is fairly disgusting. I was a regular reader. No more. He's completely in the tank for Trump.
Andrew Stiles said it best on twitter.
"Trump on bankruptcies: I used the rules to my advantage!
Trump on Cruz using delegate rules to his advantage: Cheating!"
Trump's complaints about Cruz are akin to a novice chess player's complaining its unfair that his opponent's queen seems to be able to move anywhere on the chess board. The new player's failure to understand the rules of the game does not mean he's being cheated. Following the rules isn't cheating.
But Trump apparently has spent 45 years learning steps 1,2,and 3 in order to build his NYC Real Estate Development business into a world Empire.
I worked in Atlantic City. Worked the Borgata when it first opened. The Trump properties got curb stomped, honestly. Terrible locations.
I wonder how many of his other entities are any better. The Trump Marina was a dead zone. Taj Mahal was just abysmal.
The Party helped orchestrate Cruz's Colorado win. Trump delegates were shut out, placed last on a ballot of fifty. Lots of bullshit behind the scenes. Doesn't seem fair to me. When some of the young apparatchiks Tweeted the NeverTrump shutout succeeded, the Party elite vanished the Tweet.
"Cruz needs to be able to convince voters that he didn't "cheat" (and objectively he did not, but that doesn't matter)"
That's what Trump brings to this--lie about something enough and people will just believe it. Like that he never declared bankruptcy (actually "never" means four times), or that he's worth $10 billion (too bad he won't release his financials), or that nobody discussed illegal immigration until he made it an issue (which is absolutely true if history itself began in the summer of 2015 and we didn't have the Gang of 8 controversy, the 2012 election, etc.). The premier liar of this race (who is so bad that various public fact checkers have just stopped trying to keep track of his many braze piles of BS) gets to call Ted "Lyin' Ted" and his people lap it up.
As an observer, it's fascinating. As someone who still plans to live in this country for the next four years, it's sad. Sad!
Cruz couldn't even manage to use the Transporter without having an unfortunate accident.
...
And he is clearly the superior candidate running by a factor of 10.
No, he's not. He's garnered a group of disaffected voters who want to burn everything to the ground. There's not nearly enough people in the electorate who feel the same way for that to be a winning platform in the general election. Even if it were, it's NOT a governing strategy. It's Obama's "I won." attitude on steroids.
Is Trump the candidate of grassroots activists? That is not my perception. I would consider Cruz the candidate of grassroots activists, and that Trump's supporters are mostly low information voters with no strong ties to either the Republican party or the conservative movement.
4) a winning vote wave on election day.
Ah, I see. So the long promised preference cascade has now been delayed until election day. I was wondering where it went.
"I wonder how many of his other entities are any better. The Trump Marina was a dead zone. Taj Mahal was just abysmal."
His properties never really had a good reputation--more about the appearance of quality (lots of gold trim) than actual quality. Sort of like the difference between driving a Mercedes and a Ford Escort that is covered in diamonds.
But his business for the past couple decades has been more branding than development, so there's that.
Cruz;s "brilliance" was confined to not being Trump, when the Party was out to screw Trump.
"No, he's not. He's garnered a group of disaffected voters who want to burn everything to the ground. There's not nearly enough people in the electorate who feel the same way for that to be a winning platform in the general election. Even if it were, it's NOT a governing strategy. It's Obama's "I won." attitude on steroids."
There's a strain of GOP-leaning voter that considers Obama's only problem to be that he is fighting on the other side, but that there is nothing wrong with his tactics or contempt for the law, and certainly nothing wrong with his "to hell with anyone not on my side" attitude. Lost on them is the fact that Obama's agenda has run aground for those reasons.
"Ah, I see. So the long promised preference cascade has now been delayed until election day. I was wondering where it went."
I remember four years ago a lot of people believed all the polls were wrong and Romney was secretly ahead of Obama (Dick Morris was especially fond of this view, which might be why no one has seen Morris in a while). I figure if Trump is nominated, he can be down 20 points on election day eve, and they'll still say he's going to win by the "Bradley Effect".
"Cruz;s "brilliance" was confined to not being Trump, when the Party was out to screw Trump."
If the party was able to screw Trump, why would they do this for Cruz and not someone they could stand?
How did Cruz cheat?
It reminds me of “The Gambler” (the movie based on the Kenny Rogers song) where after the title character wins the game, the villain wants to keep playing until he wins.
Hopefully Cruz remembers to pack his Derringer.
Colorado isn't about Trump being outmaneuvered. It's about 1 Million registered Republicans being denied any voice the nomination for President in their state.
Let's not forget how important the collar counties around Denver and the outlying "other Colorado" ranchers were in handing the 2014 Senate victory to Cory Gardner. Figure what, 30% to 40% of those voters are Trump supporters?
To frame this as simply a fight with Trump in some isolated chamber misses the point about what it means to vote, and what it means to be a selected representative to voters whether it is a delegate at a convention, a local alderman, or a member of congress.
Good for Drudge. He knows his readers.
Poor Trump. He's such a victim.
Never mind that he didn't engage with CO at all. Not a single speech.
Trump uses lies and smear tactics. I'm not impressed.
ACE and Ben Shapiro are not impressed.
Seriously guys, Trump's support comes from men who know what good leadership is and how important it is in a world of staged chaos and confusion used to establish a World Government. That would be our Police, Military, established Evangelicals leaders, and Union men.
The strange Cruzbots are followers lead astray by Glen Beck's cult illusions of Conservative Purity and the Messiah is here theocracy. It is kindergarten stupid.
Using Cruz to stop Trump and immaculately nominate Ryan is at least a rational plan, but it will not work.
Wow...the editors over at National Review must be having their feewings hurt. They have been on an anti-trump full blown conniption for months and no one is listening.
Oh and those polls...
"When asked about Trump as the GOP nominee in November instead of Cruz, registered voters are split between Clinton and Trump, though the race is tighter: Thirty-eight percent would vote for Clinton and 36 percent would vote for Trump. Another 16 percent would vote for a third party candidate and 8 percent would abstain from voting. "
If the party was able to screw Trump, why would they do this for Cruz and not someone they could stand?
Because Cruz is the only stooge close at this point. They plan to screw Cruz at the convention, substituting Mittens or Ryan.
There's a strain of GOP-leaning voter that considers Obama's only problem to be that he is fighting on the other side, but that there is nothing wrong with his tactics or contempt for the law, and certainly nothing wrong with his "to hell with anyone not on my side" attitude.
More broadly, there's a large group of human beings who really like the idea of an authoritarian strongman. Just look at Vladimir Putin's domestic approval ratings. Most revolutionary autocrats at least start off being widely loved. I foolishly used to think that America was largely immune to that sort of seduction
Cruz cannot even get along with Druge or Breitbart or Congress or the Senate or the RNC or anyone.
Great, great candidate. Sure to really connect in the general.
If you want to sign up for the Caucus in CO - you do it. 40% of this years caucus goers were new. They changed the rules back in August, long before any "NeverTrump" began. The rule change revolved around the non-binding straw poll - one where Santorum won a few years back. Colorado's Caucus rules have been in place since 1912.
They changed the straw poll rule, but the distinct caucus goers still met at the convention in CO Springs. Trump cancelled.
Darrell -- Cruz began working in Colorado last year. Trump began working in Colorado 15 minutes before the convention started. He worked for and earned the victory. That's the best explanation of why Cruz cleaned Trump's clock in Colorado.
Cruz personally appeared at several of the Republican county conventions. Trump didn't show up, he sent surrogates. Cruz had lots of well prepared volunteers at the state convention. Trump's far smaller number of workers were ill-prepared. Trump's team couldn't even put out an accurate list of the delegates he wanted! This was the campaign's most basic task and they couldn't even generate an accurate list of 26 people. You want us to believe Trump was screwed out of a win by "the party" and ignore the fact on candidate worked long, hard, and effectively while the other candidate couldn't get his act together.
"How did Cruz cheat?
I haven't been able to figure out what all the hubbub is about."
Darrell explained it above.
Rush Limbaugh did, too.
Cruz thinks he has the party backing. He won't feel the knife in his back until it is too late.
Ace and Ben Shapiro are never Trump. Gotta calculate their bias when you read anything by them about Trump. They both write almost continuously about Trump now.
As for Cruz and my asking, how did he cheat, no one has answered me yet. Except for sarcasm, I guess.
But seriously, does anyone know the full story here?
Ann Coulter keeps asking on twitter for the rules that allows Colorado Republicans to do what it did. So far, no on has given her an answer.
On Levins radio show last night he had several Coloradoans call in and they all said that the numbers were wrong. From what I could figure, each delegate has a number assigned. Trumps team sent out a pamphlet saying, vote for # and # and # and when it came to the voting, all the numbers had been switched up.
Michelle Malkin also complained on twitter (and she lives in Colorado I think) that the system there is all screwy.
So, when I ask how did he cheat, it doesn't seem like they are just tossing that out there. What's the full story?
The news media is worthless these days to get any actual facts. That's why I'm asking here. The internet and Althouse blog in particular is filled with well informed people.
So, what happened? Anyone have the straight scoop?
"Seriously guys, Trump's support comes from men who know what good leadership is and how important it is in a world of staged chaos and confusion used to establish a World Government."
Good leadership? Where has Trump demonstrated that? And I'm not even going to ask about this World Government that I suppose Jeb Bush and Co. are part of.
"Because Cruz is the only stooge close at this point. They plan to screw Cruz at the convention, substituting Mittens or Ryan."
If they're delusional enough to think they can pull that off, fine--but it's looking more likely that they'll just get Cruz as nominee. I don't think they're the ones playing him, but the other way around. Those Cruz delegates are supporters his team picked out, not the party.
"More broadly, there's a large group of human beings who really like the idea of an authoritarian strongman."
And at the same time they rail about Obama overreaching his own executive authority. Irony is lost on them.
"If you want to sign up for the Caucus in CO - you do it. 40% of this years caucus goers were new. They changed the rules back in August, long before any "NeverTrump" began."
The system was never set up to screw Trump--it was set up to reward anyone who did the slightest bit of homework. Which of course DID screw Trump, but then it was he, not they, who decided not to hire competent advisers or get anyone on the ground who could rally supporters. He easily could have won some delegates there, and only has himself to blame. But why would Trump blame himself? Does he seem like the sort who is capable of self-reflection?
He said we'd get tired of winning so much. If this is "winning" I can agree we're a bit tired of it.
If you don't like Trump, you get tossed into the bin.
Note that all the intellectuals on the right are in the bin. Bigger bin needed.
Oh wow - Trump has Brietbart, Roger Stone, Drudge, and.... Jim Hoft. All to help with the lies and smears.
At least Drudge didn't fall into the Pecker trap. (yet)
"So, when I ask how did he cheat, it doesn't seem like they are just tossing that out there. What's the full story?"
I also would be interested in hearing a non-BS argument that what Cruz did was cheating. Not in the "he had teams organized to rally supporters" and "appealed directly to delegates" sense, but actually doing something against the rules. Because so far from Trump it just sounds like the usual "I lost, so it's unfair" whining of a bratty child.
Is there more to that?
Trump is such and incompetent politician.
He only figured out how gain huge portions of the GOP Primary votes, and maintain frontrunner status by using the media, twitter, and his own airplane while steering clear of obligation to big money party donors.
Those pesky voters. What a pain in the ass they are!
Trump is such a piss poor leader, he has only lead the GOP primary polls and vote totals from the beginning.
Cruz isn't cheating but he's not winning enough votes either. If Trump is passed over, then it will be easy to pass over Cruz as well. He has 32% of GOP voter support.
Trump is a man with such little influence on the election that no one is even talking about immigration, trade deals, restructuring NATO, or calling bullshit on political correctness. It's like he's not ever there.
I am getting the same feeling about the Great Colorado Steal Cover Up, that I got the day of Vince Foster's staged suicide at Rock Creek. Both Cintons repeated over and over for days, " We will never know how this happened."
Bottom line is that a Trump vote is now sudenly a vote for a democratic reform of corrupt GOP Politics.
Old Hickory is back.
If Trump was so smart you'd think he could have found a way to quickly put and end to the Jeb Bush campaign.
Let Cruz explain it in "tongues."
Not the kind they talk about in the Bible where every nationality can understand, but the kind that is obvious gibberish.
"Trumps team sent out a pamphlet saying, vote for # and # and # and when it came to the voting, all the numbers had been switched up."
It wasn't just that. They omitted numbers from Trump delegates and put additional numbers for Cruz delegates.
The photo at the top of that post is of the ballot.
It wasn't just Cruz who did this. It was the Colorado GOP which was willing to lose a Senate seat rather than support a Tea Party candidate. Ken Buck would have won that election if the party had supported him. He almost won without them.
How that happened is interesting.
According to Open Secrets, Bennet raised $13,164,844 and spent $12,405,432. Buck raised $4,884,114 and spent $4,677,295. Both received the majority from individual contributions, making up 85% of Buck’s total and 75% of Bennet’s. The top campaign contributor for Bennet was ActBlue and for Buck it was Hensel Phelps Construction. This shows the different industries backing each candidate. Buck’s top three contributors broken down by sector were construction, ideology and then finance while Bennet’s top sectors were ideology with $2 million followed by finance and then lawyer/lobbyists.
Notice the difference in money. Buck got 85% from individuals. None from the party.
The Colorado GOP would rather lose than support an insurgent.
Stop me if you've heard this: Well perhaps we've come back to the election of 1860. Lincoln, Douglas, John Breckingridge, and John Bell. Lincoln received just 40% of the popular vote but won in the electoral college. A few weeks later South Carolina seceded from the Union and the rest you know, lives destroyed, billions of dollars spent, at least half-a-million dead, and repercussions still felt.
Cruz, like Henry Clay, of whom Andrew Jackson reportedly said, "It is one of the great disappointments of my life that I didn't shoot him," will never be president. Other than parroting Trump on the wall, fighting terrorists, and healthcare, what exactly has Cruz said that would energize an electorate? Billionaires are propping him up and will let him fall when the time comes.
There are some people who consider themselves very smart here, who look with opprobrium at a Trump candidacy, missing the fact that Trump has revealed what a crime the election process has become or maybe always was. This is a struggle between powerful interests wanting a free hand in your pocket and someone who seems to sincerely want to stop that. A vote for Cruz is a vote for snout stuffing. Trump also has all the right enemies. Go Trump!
Is Cruz now invoking the Obama view that how a campaign is managed shows competency for the presidency?
traditional guy said...
Bottom line is that a Trump vote is now suddenly a vote for a democratic reform of corrupt GOP Politics.
And after NY, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and California voters waste their time going to the polls, and Trumps vote and delegate margin is wider, this will become bigger.
Members of Congress are going to have a hard time swallowing the fix in areas where Trump won their districts.
It'll still be easy for Milwaukee Radio hosts.
Gusty--overall your points only serve to drive home the fact that while Trump led the field in the polls for a long time, and leads in delegates and states won, he still can't seem to wrangle delegates properly and secure a majority--something that hasn't happened to a front runner in the GOP since they've started making the primaries count. Maybe you want to overlook his obvious flaws in ground organization, his general weakness with the GOP (where he has an unusually large number of people despising him) and his weakness in the general electorate, but these all exist and have to be dealt with if he's going to be president.
As for this:
"Trump is a man with such little influence on the election that no one is even talking about immigration, trade deals, restructuring NATO, or calling bullshit on political correctness."
That's just flat out BS. Immigration has long been a major issue in the GOP, and no Trump did not "bring it up". Look up the 2012 election--Romney took a strict anti-amnesty position (one which Trump criticized as being too insensitive to Hispanics). Trump pretending it's "his issue" is as nonsensical as most of what comes out of his mouth.
Apparently Cruz cheated by letting Trump be incompetent:
Addressing the audience, Trump’s new Colorado state director Patrick Davis told supporters to vote for the three pro-Trump delegate candidates on a glossy brochure the campaign distributed. “Look for them on the back when you vote Donald Trump!” Davis said. “He’s going to make America great again!” There was only one problem: Two of the three names weren’t listed on the ballot....To be fair to Davis, who is a veteran operative in the state, he didn’t have much time to get the campaign up to speed. He only joined Tuesday, right as a Trump aide assigned to the state, James Baker, was let go by the campaign. By the time he showed up for work, Cruz had already swept the six delegates in two Congressional District convention sover the last week. In some ways, Thursday’s performance was an improvement: The campaign didn’t even distribute brochures with delegate slates in those two events.
Let's have a moratorium on Muslim immigration until we can fix the system to vet people properly.
Whoa! Hold on there Hitler.
Doesn't the GOP despise Cruz, too? Where are the endorsements for him from his colleagues?
Anyone think Trump or Cruz will win Colorado in November? Me, neither.
Adopting the "#NeverTrump" position is a mistake.
Adopting the "#OnlyTrump" position is a mistake.
Adopting the "#BurndownTheGOPestablishment" position is a mistake.
Adopting the "#Let'sTryASocialist" position is a mistake.
I'm surprised at how many mistakes are being made.
At the end of the day, there will be an election. One Dem v. One Rep. One of these 2 will win. We do this every 4 years. Half the voters in the country will be elated, the other half will be disappointed. A big chunk won't care, they didn't vote.
True, there are some variables.
1. Sometimes the close winner of the popular vote doesn't win (Bush v Gore 2000)
2. Sometimes a 3rd party challenge siphons off many votes from the major candidates. (Perot 1992)
3. Sometimes, an election is held in a tense pre-war setting, with many different factions running for Prez (Lincoln 1860)
4. One time, a front-runner got murdered a mere 5 months before the election (Bobby Kennedy 1968)
5. One time, a major party candidate got shot at a campaign rally 6 months before the election (Wallace 1972).
6. Many years ago, no candidate got a majority of electoral votes, so the House picked the President (Quincy Adams 1824)
For real conflict and drama, this election season is absolutely NOTHING compared to past elections. So why does it FEEL so tense?
The answer is because we have a 24/7 news cycle and an unforgiving permanent record (the internet) which documents every zig and zag, every minor, trivial, inconsequential event or word spoken, as a proxy for real news.
Here's an analogy:
You take a nice woman out to dinner, you're dressed nicely, you open the doors of the clean, nice car, you've washed, you've demonstrated exquisite manners, good taste and good cheer. After a pleasant evening, you drop her off at her house, she invites you in and....you spend the entire weekend, examining her naked body in the bedroom, head to toe, with a portable microscope, and commenting/note taking on each trivial detail of her figure, until you both are too exhausted to do anything.
That's this election season.
"This is a struggle between powerful interests wanting a free hand in your pocket and someone who seems to sincerely want to stop that. A vote for Cruz is a vote for snout stuffing. Trump also has all the right enemies. Go Trump! "
We are heading into an existential crisis with fools in charge.
Why not ask Richard Fernandez his opinion ?
Putin will realize that a tremendous opportunity is open to him, that his Western counterparts are fools and therefore to be taken advantage of. Knowing this, Putin may try to take them to cleaners this Spring and see how far he can roll the the self-styled Best and the Brightest; discover how much he can extract from their pockets.
The danger to the world is he will try when with any reasonable president, Putin would never have tried at all.
What fools these mortals be. Obama may get his best revenge on Hillary by helping her to be in charge when his world falls apart,.
It's not Cruz's fault that Trump -- who claims to be the guy who can get things done -- keeps proving himself to be ignorant and incompetent, in addition to being, along with his supporters, a whiny crybaby.
Colorado isn't about Trump being outmaneuvered. It's about 1 Million registered Republicans being denied any voice the nomination for President in their state.
They never "had a voice". Non-binding straw polls are not a "voice". Never have been. If Trump had a ground game worth a damn and expended any energy, he could've picked up some and been praised by his fans for his cleverness.
The strange Cruzbots are followers lead astray by Glen Beck's cult illusions of Conservative Purity and the Messiah is here theocracy. It is kindergarten stupid.
Funny, I haven't seen or heard a word Beck has said/written in over a decade now. Again, if Trump is so good at playing the system (as he has boasted of doing), why is he so unbelievably terrible at it here?
Cruz cannot even get along with Druge or Breitbart or Congress or the Senate or the RNC or anyone.
He managed to hire people who don't get indicted for assault.
So he has that in his favor.
Trump is hated by Congress, the RNC, National Review, The Federalist, Red State...I can go on, if you'd like.
Keep in mind, as Brando can verify, I was hardly opposed to Trump. His supporters, though, are terrible.
Ace and Ben Shapiro are never Trump. Gotta calculate their bias when you read anything by them about Trump. They both write almost continuously about Trump now.
When did it start?
Ace of Spades was quite pro-Trump for a LONG time. Trump's meltdowns have turned him. I was pro-Trump (Cruz was always my #1 pick) until recently. But, yes, EVERY conservative just hates this guy. All of them. Sure.
Has Ace ever donated to Hillary? Shapiro? Did HE do that?
Gusty--overall your points only serve to drive home the fact that while Trump led the field in the polls for a long time, and leads in delegates and states won, he still can't seem to wrangle delegates properly and secure a majority--something that hasn't happened to a front runner in the GOP since they've started making the primaries count. Maybe you want to overlook his obvious flaws in ground organization, his general weakness with the GOP (where he has an unusually large number of people despising him) and his weakness in the general electorate, but these all exist and have to be dealt with if he's going to be president.
As terrible as Dole and McCain were as candidates, they managed to pull that off. I won't bash Romney because I still say he's the most gifted candidate President we've ever seen and we're immensely poorer for not electing him.
But Brando's point is completely apt: Why could EVERYBODY except Trump pull it off? You can blame "haters" all day long, but the only people who seem to like him are people who need clicks as part of their internet business strategy.
I'm a conservative. Why the hell would I support Trump over Cruz? Especially since Trump has walked back almost every policy position he's publicly stated.
The Colorado GOP would rather lose than support an insurgent.
Don't know how that race is relevant here. Are you arguing that the GOP has always supported Cruz or something?
Meanwhile Trump, who always was fairly obviously a Democrat running as a faux Republican, and his machine are sounding and acting more and more Clintonian everyday.
The WaPo does not receive my trust.
Brando said...
Gusty--overall your points only serve to drive home the fact that while Trump led the field in the polls for a long time, and leads in delegates and states won, he still can't seem to wrangle delegates properly and secure a majority
Only an idiot or someone completely foreign to voting in America would assume that winning at the polls with the voters would help secure a political victory and help 'properly secure as majority'.
Wrangling millions voters just doesn't cut it in today's GOP.
And only a fool would pretend that the two major political parties might adhere to some basic democratic principles that apply to the government and nation they wish to run.
Trump's lead in votes, delegates, and States will widen in the next few weeks, as will the distance between the GOP and a large percentage of its voting base.
Cruz is whining that the RNC shouldn't change the rules so that an electable candidate can get the nomination. He whines about the establishment. He whines about Obama and Hillary. He's a whiner as much as Trump is. Trump just has more supporters.
Cruz is whining that the RNC shouldn't change the rules so that an electable candidate can get the nomination. He whines about the establishment. He whines about Obama and Hillary. He's a whiner as much as Trump is. Trump just has more supporters.
Hilarity. A Trump supporter saying another candidate is whiny.
Your guy is, to be blunt, a whiny bitch.
Only an idiot or someone completely foreign to voting in America would assume that winning at the polls with the voters would help secure a political victory and help 'properly secure as majority'.
Wrangling millions voters just doesn't cut it in today's GOP.
He's the only guy who CANNOT do it.
Why?
He's so supported and all. You'd think he'd have wrapped it up by now.
And only a fool would pretend that the two major political parties might adhere to some basic democratic principles that apply to the government and nation they wish to run.
Like "Abide by rules set before the election occurred". They should just confer with Trump for the rules for that moment.
Trump's lead in votes, delegates, and States will widen in the next few weeks, as will the distance between the GOP and a large percentage of its voting base.
He'll do great in states where corruption is their primary language.
Of course he'll do well.
Cruz will whine a lot less than Trumpster does.
The voters have a different sense of what fair rules are than the rule makers do, so there you are.
You're going over their interests with club rules, they notice.
That fits Trump's appeal.
Another rule is political correctness over everything. Trump's against that too.
Poltical correctness is a rule that keeps blacks down. Someday blacks may notice that. There's a large potential Trump faction.
We should repeal the 17th amendment to the United States Constitution and reverse the popular election of United States Senators.
It is much easier for political parties to fix elections of State Legislatures at the local level, so it would be safer to pick our American version of the House of Lords in a pre-1913 manner as originally prescribed by the Founding Fathers.
Drudge has absolutely turned into an arm of the Trump campaign.
Gusty, we should absolutely repeal the 17th Amendment.
damikesc said...
He'll do great in states where corruption is their primary language.
You're so right. There's no way Trump would stand a chance in uncorrupted States like Colorado where voters aren't allowed to participate in the nomination process.
And in all the States he's won, it is well known that his voters are closest to the inside political corruption and benefit from it more than the politically connected delegates.
That Trump is being touted as being for the little guy and always sticking to what is fair rather than what is legal is part of the delusion about Trump. Of all people, Trump is somehow on the side of the regular folk?
Talk about a complete disregard for the last 30 years.
It's like Richard Dawkins seeking Evangelical of the Year award and getting the support of the Southern Baptists.
Trump is embarrassing. A pyramid scheme pusher?
Trump isn't my guy. None of the candidates on either side is. They all whine a lot. So do you
"How did Cruz cheat?"
Who decides what counts as "cheating" and what the consequences of cheating are?
Isn't the answer: The People.
Trump said he's a winner.
Therefore if he lost, someone must have cheated.
Or something.
The difference is that Cruz' everyday speech, never mind his whining, is so adenoidal as to suggest acute di-ver-ti-cu-li-tis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFs0eyBcP7c
Trump will soon call Cruz Lyin&Cheatin Ted.
Cheating isn't the relevant term. Playing a rigged system is. When Trump's appeal is based largely on the resentment or anger of voters who feel cut out of a tilted game, openly tilting the game and then crowing "#NeverTrump and "hey look what we can do when we cut out the voters!" is stupid stupid.
Isn't the answer: The People.
No. It's the media.
People, in general, already feel like the whole system is rigged. From Hillary getting away with breaking all sorts of laws that other people have been indicted for, to the IRS stomping on the Tea Party and throwing its weight around and threatening taxpayers, to the insiders in corporate america getting special treatment. The suspicion that the game is rigged against the ordinary citizen and that special interests as well as "special groups" get all the breaks is a very STRONG suspicion and is becoming in many people's minds the truth.
So whether there was actual cheating, ballots that left off delegates, delegates being disallowed who would have supported Trump or just arcane rules twisted to favor some candidates and disfavor others....or whether it was just a lapse on Trump's part to not have a competent ground game in place to play the rigged system.....the people, in general, are going to buy into the meme that the system was rigged and Trump was cheated. It fits with the reality that they have been experiencing over these last decades, so why not? The system is rigged against them, why not also against Trump?
It doesn't matter if it is true, if enough people find it to be plausible and feel it to be true, then it WILL be what people believe.
It. Does. Not. Matter.
Trump didn't engage in Colorado and he expected it to be - A) easy. (or) B) not worth it.
This goes to the nature and sources of political power, and how they can appear legitimate or otherwise.
There is a very important question of legitimacy, if the acquisition of power is perceived as a matter of an inscrutable, gnostic system. This is one reason why regimes fall, because the loss of confidence due to a crisis of legitimacy. The Tsar fell, for one, because the court acquired the reputation of corruption and whimsical dealing (Rasputin, the Tsarina, etc.) which led to the formerly solid aristocratic bureaucracy to doubt their leaders, in particular the court-induced sacking of Grand Duke Nikolai and Minister of War Polivanov, and the musical chairs of the Prime Ministers and Ministers of War. Nobody knew who was "on first" when the crises came, and the court had lost the confidence and loyalty of their traditional supporters.
In the US there is a general crisis of legitimacy brewing, in the political system and the structure of government, where the unaccountable class that owns the bureaucracy and the courts is being perceived as self-serving, aristocratic, internally focused, whimsical and corrupt. The structure of the Republican party is seen by many as part of that general system.
The playing of games with rules like this is, on one level, legitimate, but to much of the public it looks terrible, and only serves to increase the general distrust of the system.
It is not that the game is not being played according to the rules, but that the game is seen as illegitimate.
Democracies really cant work if the fellow who specializes in, say, precision aluminum casting, feels that he is merely a slave to the specialist in bureaucratic manipulation.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that political parties are voluntary, private enterprises? Nobody makes you join the Republican Party, vote for its candidates or observe its rules. If you don't like the Party, or its "donors," or its "establishment," don't sweat it. You don't need to be involved. Chill out until November, when you'll have what I think will be a very clear choice.
And if you feel strongly that it won't be much of a choice, get busy with your friends and build your own new Party. Just don't expect to be treated nicely if what you want is to wreck somebody else's party.
For all the supposed 'crookedness' of the GOP what's the hell with the Democrats? I mean Superdelegates?
The horses are coming around the final turn and starting down the backstretch.
Drudge is leading with his jockey Trump. Breitbart is a close second also being ridden by Trump. And the two year olds Savage and Jones are also carrying Trump. The Fillie Coulter is calling the race for Trump.
Way behind the Levin and Beck Networks stumble along with Jockey Cruz screaming and whipping them bloody.
At the finish line, Rush Limbaugh is proclaiming, " I told you so." and Fox News is so stunned it is going off the air to retool as an all blonde Bimbo Megyn Kelly GoGo Dancer Channel.
"Meanwhile Trump, who always was fairly obviously a Democrat running as a faux Republican, and his machine are sounding and acting more and more Clintonian everyday."
So this is why half of the conservative base loves Trump? Makes perfect sense, ha.
Trump is terrified of the beautiful and intelligent Megyn Kelly - because she asks tough questions. Unapproved questions. That's where Trump is like Hillary. He demands "fair" treatment by the media - which is code for - "No Tough Questions, please."
"I won't bash Romney because I still say he's the most gifted candidate President we've ever seen and we're immensely poorer for not electing him. "
I agree but he failed, especially with the GOTV part of the campaign.
Amusing coming from those criticizing Trump because he did;t see the Colorado GOp maneuver coming.
"The Colorado GOP would rather lose than support an insurgent.
Don't know how that race is relevant here. Are you arguing that the GOP has always supported Cruz or something?"
No, just that they would rather lose an election than support non-GOPe candidate.
Fool me once....
"Trump is terrified of the beautiful and intelligent Megyn Kelly -"
She looked like a member of the cast of "Girls" in that first debate.
Guy running shell game: "You lose again"
The mark: "I think you're cheating."
Guy running shell game: "That's because you don't understand the game."
The mark: "I think you palmed the pea."
Guy running shell game: "Even if I did, that's not against the rules."
The mark: "But it's not fair."
Guy running shell game: "It's my shell game. Look, can't you find it in yourself to admire my shell-shuffling skills?"
Say what you will Trump is within two points of Hillary in the polls and Cruz is within five. Why then say - Trump can't win?
Two points means he is even with her. The attacks won't get uglier in the general campaign - how can they? So Trump would win. This is why the scuffling over delegates reminds me of the Civil War election - the Democrats no longer cared about winning in 1860. They wanted to exclude Stephen Douglas more than anything else. They did not want any limitations on slavery ever suggested in any way ever by their candidate. By cancelling discussions and compromises, they brought on a war. We aren't in that position but reform in Washington is off the table for both party establishments and it's what most voters want.
So how's #neverReform going to come out? If the e's (GOPe, DNCe) fool-with-rules and by sly tricks get someone into power and then that person has to deal the mess Obama is leaving? without a mandate? with a sullen electorate? and then the President does try to reform or faces a war in Syria having denied the need and the danger throughout the campaign? Campaigns are supposed to create support for policies - this campaign as led by e's is denying the need for policies. That's how campaign managers think now. But after the ball is over, so to speak... then suddenly the President(e) tries to rally people? to support what Cruz, or Trump or Sanders kept saying was needed and what the e-candidate denied. And people will just support the Presidente. I think not.
Isn't the answer: The People.
A sad statement. In a more ideal world, the truth wouldn't be based purely on a majority popular opinion. But that's not, nor has it ever been, the world we actually live in. People have always felt and intuited their own truth that is derived from their own personal experiences and belief system. Actual facts only serve as useful when they confirm one's beliefs. Fact's that don't support one's narrative are to be disregarded, dismissed, ignored at least, or otherwise assailed as falsehoods that are pushed due to conspiracy. We're fully ready to doom ourselves as long as we're right.
"Sour grapes?" Aesop spins in his grave.
LOL Feingold couldn't beat his sister even when playing "a little too aggressively" so he had to evoke the "play to I win" rule. What a fucking pussy.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Survey Firm Top Line Spread
New York President:
Trump vs. Clinton NBC News/Wall St Journal Clinton 61, Trump 32 Clinton +29
New York President:
Cruz vs. Clinton NBC News/Wall St Journal Clinton 61, Cruz 31 Clinton +30
New York President:
Trump vs. Sanders NBC News/Wall St Journal Sanders 64, Trump 31 Sanders +33
New York President:
Cruz vs. Sanders NBC News/Wall St Journal Sanders 65, Cruz 28 Sanders +37
New York President:
Kasich vs. Clinton NBC News/Wall St Journal Clinton 53, Kasich 38 Clinton +15
New York President:
Kasich vs. Sanders NBC News/Wall St Journal Sanders 57, Kasich 35
http://www.electionprojection.com/latest-polls/presidential-polls.php
A poll of 1000 Amandas.
Amanda is OK with a treasonous felon as president. Why am I not surprised ?
Monday, April 11, 2016
Survey Firm Top Line Spread
New York President:
Trump vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 53, Trump 37 Clinton +16
New York President:
Trump vs. Sanders FOX News Sanders 54, Trump 35 Sanders +19
Pennsylvania President:
Trump vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 44, Trump 44 Tie
New York President:
Republican Primary NBC News/Wall St Journal Trump 54, Kasich 21, Cruz 18 Trump +33
New York President:
Republican Primary FOX News Trump 54, Kasich 22, Cruz 15 Trump +32
New York President:
Democratic Primary Monmouth University Clinton 51, Sanders 39 Clinton +12
New York President:
Democratic Primary NBC News/Wall St Journal Clinton 55, Sanders 41 Clinton +14
New York President:
Democratic Primary FOX News Clinton 53, Sanders 37 Clinton +16
Pennsylvania President:
Republican Primary FOX News Trump 48, Kasich 22, Cruz 20 Trump +26
Pennsylvania President:
Republican Primary Morning Call Trump 37, Cruz 29, Kasich 28 Trump +8
Pennsylvania President:
Democratic Primary FOX News Clinton 49, Sanders 38 Clinton +11
You're so right. There's no way Trump would stand a chance in uncorrupted States like Colorado where voters aren't allowed to participate in the nomination process.
They could. If they couldn't be BOTHERED to do so, it's their own problem.
And in all the States he's won, it is well known that his voters are closest to the inside political corruption and benefit from it more than the politically connected delegates.
Shall we re-visit his NV caucus win?
Friday, April 08, 2016
Survey Firm Top Line Spread
California President:
Trump vs. Clinton Field Clinton 59, Trump 31 Clinton +28
California President:
Cruz vs. Clinton Field Clinton 55, Cruz 32 Clinton +23
New York President:
Trump vs. Clinton Emerson Clinton 54, Trump 36 Clinton +18
New York President:
Cruz vs. Clinton Emerson Clinton 58, Cruz 30 Clinton +28
New York President:
Trump vs. Sanders Emerson Sanders 51, Trump 38 Sanders +13
New York President:
Cruz vs. Sanders Emerson Sanders 56, Cruz 29 Sanders +27
New York President:
Kasich vs. Clinton Emerson Clinton 48, Kasich 41 Clinton +7
California President:
Democratic Primary Field Clinton 47, Sanders 41 Clinton +6
New York President:
Republican Primary Emerson Trump 56, Cruz 22, Kasich 17 Trump +34
New York President:
Democratic Primary Emerson Clinton 56, Sanders 38 Clinton +18
--------------------------
Get the picture?
Ann Althouse said...
Who decides what counts as "cheating" and what the consequences of cheating are?
Isn't the answer: The People. We'll see soon enough.
The next two weeks are going to be interesting to see if Trump gets a sympathy bump in his already significant east coast GOP lead. (NY 4/19, CT, DE, MD, PA, RI 4/26).
In Wisconsin, the stop Trump campaign successfully headed up the ramp, but immediately jumped the shark in Colorado. It was brilliant timing in a coordinated effort of political leaders.
"LOL Feingold couldn't beat his sister even when playing "a little too aggressively" so he had to evoke the "play to I win" rule."
U.S. Senate Race
"In Wisconsin’s race for U.S. Senate, Russ Feingold is supported by 47 percent of registered voters, with Republican incumbent Ron Johnson receiving 42 percent. In February, Feingold was at 49 percent and Johnson was at 37 percent. Among those likely voters who say they are certain to vote in November’s election, Feingold receives 48 percent and Johnson 45 percent.
Johnson is viewed favorably by 32 percent of registered voters, unfavorably by 31 percent and 36 percent say they haven’t heard enough or don’t know how they feel about him. In February Johnson’s ratings were 29 percent favorable, 33 percent unfavorable and 38 percent were not able to rate him.
Feingold is seen favorably by 41 percent of registered voters, unfavorably by 35 percent with 25 percent saying they have not heard enough or don’t know how they feel. In February Feingold’s ratings were 43 percent favorable, 31 percent unfavorable and 26 percent were unable to rate him."
https://law.marquette.edu/poll/
There is at least one poll (NBC/Survey Monkey) that gives Clinton just a 2% lead over Trump, but polling experts are skeptical of online polls compared to live-interview polls.
That NBC/Survey Monkey poll polls registered voters, not likely voters, and may not weed out non-registered voters despite its claim.
Amanda has better data.
I feel like Trump has cheated throughout his life. I identify Trump as a cheater. That's why I don't support Trump.
Feingold just has to be in the senate. He has no imagination or idea what to do with his life. He's a perfect senator. Pathetic guy
Deringer - with one r.
Politics is a self selective profession. Most of them are cheaters.
Amanda said...
"In Wisconsin’s race for U.S. Senate, Russ Feingold is supported by 47 percent of registered voters, with Republican incumbent Ron Johnson receiving 42 percent. In February, Feingold was at 49 percent and Johnson was at 37 percent. Among those likely voters who say they are certain to vote in November’s election, Feingold receives 48 percent and Johnson 45 percent.
This is exactly why we should repeal the 17th Amendment. Then the Wisconsin State Legislature, dominated by Republicans, could select Ron Johnson without the pesky voters getting in the way.
Bernie Sanders: We live in a rigged economy.
Donald Trump yesterday in Albany: We live under a rigged election system that needs to be fixed.
Seems like a huge percentage of the American electorate is fed up with what they believe is rigged.
And the Colorado GOP just handed Trump his new stump message from now until the convention. At least they knew the rules.
"As terrible as Dole and McCain were as candidates, they managed to pull that off. I won't bash Romney because I still say he's the most gifted candidate President we've ever seen and we're immensely poorer for not electing him."
I thought Romney would have been a fine president, though his campaigning could have been a lot better. But still, he did have a competent enough operation to wrap up the primaries as normal, and ultimately his results (coming to within six points in popular vote, and two states short in electoral vote against a strong incumbent) will compare favorably against Trump's Keystone Kops routine this season.
"Only an idiot or someone completely foreign to voting in America would assume that winning at the polls with the voters would help secure a political victory and help 'properly secure as majority'."
You understand how the nominations actually work, and if Trump were winning more at the delegate game you and Trump would think that's fine--after all I haven't heard you complaining that Trump has won more delegates than his percentage of the votes would indicate. So the rule seems to be in Trump World that if it helps Trump, it's fair. If it doesn't, it's unfair. And never blame Trump for being either too lazy or too ignorant to compete in the actual state contests.
"There is at least one poll (NBC/Survey Monkey) that gives Clinton just a 2% lead over Trump, but polling experts are skeptical of online polls compared to live-interview polls."
Yeah, when the Trump fans point to polls that can't be gamed by bots, I'll pay some attention. In the meantime he's down by over ten points. No one has lost by that much in a two-way race since the '80s.
"I feel like Trump has cheated throughout his life. I identify Trump as a cheater. That's why I don't support Trump."
He's the best kind of cheater--always accusing others of what he does all along. How many Trump fans think it's unfair that he has a greater percentage of the delegates than he does of the actual votes so far? All I hear is crickets on that one. Apparently it's only "unfair" if it hurts Trump.
Brando @1:59
So the rule seems to be in Trump World that if it helps Trump, it's fair. If it doesn't, it's unfair. And never blame Trump for being either too lazy or too ignorant to compete in the actual state contests.
Those are the rules.
Canadians don't cheat. It is not in their DNA. They only lie, and steal.
Well, except maybe those goons in Quebec, yea, they can cheat, but it's not personal, it's only business.
Romney would have needed at least three more states to win. He got about 1 million more votes than McCain and won North Carolina and Indiana. Obama got about 3.5 million fewer votes than he did in 2008.
@Brando -- I was surprised that anyone gave that Survey Monkey poll any credence at all, but it isn't considered a joke, just not that accurate.
Since Mitt Romney came up in this discussion, I have found it interesting that Trump's credentials as a successful businessman are never compared to Romney's. Compared to Romney's long success as a businessman, investor, executive, and manager, Trump is a guy with bad hair selling fake watches off a card table on the New Jersey boardwalk.
"Those are the rules."
Just imagine the next four years!
"Congress cheated by slipping a rider in that spending bill that my best people didn't read..."
"China cheated me on that trade deal by imposing a new tariff on our exports to them because my best people didn't read the agreement..."
"Mexico cheated us because the border wall they agreed to pay for is actually between them and Guatemala..."
Or, more likely:
"Hillary Clinton cheated because I won almost half the popular votes in California but she got all their electoral votes!"
What were Romney's successes as a businessman? He didn't start Bain Capital and didn't put any of his own money into it when it started. He was never even close to the majority owner of Bain Capital. He had a nice career in private equity but didn't start and build a company like Ross Perot.
I like the idea of hearing [insert whine] *But that's not F A I R* everyday out of the C&C's mouth.
"@Brando -- I was surprised that anyone gave that Survey Monkey poll any credence at all, but it isn't considered a joke, just not that accurate."
Yes, and this is pretty much all Trump has to rely on to suggest he's "competitive". Meanwhile pretty much every other poll in the country has her beating him by wide margins, and supermajorities of the country unfavorable to him on levels not seen in recent elections. Even "good" polls can be inaccurate sometimes, but this would have to be one hell of a "Bradley effect" for him to be really winning.
"Since Mitt Romney came up in this discussion, I have found it interesting that Trump's credentials as a successful businessman are never compared to Romney's. Compared to Romney's long success as a businessman, investor, executive, and manager, Trump is a guy with bad hair selling fake watches off a card table on the New Jersey boardwalk."
Exactly. Romney's an example of a guy who started out with privilege, but made a real name for himself in business and demonstrated a solid grasp of business consulting, restructuring and investment which could translate well into an understanding of the broader economy. Where Trump "excelled" (not counting his many failures and scams) was in using contacts and overborrowing to get deals done. Not nothing, of course, but more a sign that he knew how to play a corrupt game (and NYC real estate and construction is about as corrupt as it gets) than how to make a business sustainable or the nitty gritty of growth and operations. Beyond that, and considering his "branding" and association with numerous scams and lowlives, he's basically been a showman. As noted before, a poor man's idea of what a rich man should be. While for some that has a "Dangerfield in Caddyshack" appeal, it also means the guy doesn't really understand business in general, or at least how to be good at it.
"What were Romney's successes as a businessman? He didn't start Bain Capital and didn't put any of his own money into it when it started. He was never even close to the majority owner of Bain Capital. He had a nice career in private equity but didn't start and build a company like Ross Perot. "
Not to knock Perot, but Romney's business background is impressive (even considering he started out wealthy and connected). To grow Bain Capital into the moneypot it became (and is the major source of his wealth) he and his team had to understand how to make other businesses more profitable, where to invest, how to restructure, where to cut bait. Sometimes it means unpleasant choices (remember all the 2012 ads by Obama and unsavory primary opponents about "vulture capitalism" and having to lay people off and give their wives cancer) but his record suggests he knew that business and did very well at it. It's about as good a window into business in general as you can get.
Hell, look at what Romney did in saving the Salt Lake City Olympics Bid from the dumpster fire it was when he took over.
And Romney gave up most of his money young so he could make it on his own. He is a fantastic businessman.
Mark said...
Meanwhile Trump, who always was fairly obviously a Democrat running as a faux Republican, and his machine are sounding and acting more and more Clintonian everyday.
4/12/16, 11:54 AM
Or Clinton is sounding more like Trump.
Clinton camp: Sanders wants to rig system with superdelegates
"Clinton's press secretary Brian Fallon on Tuesday remarked that it is Sanders who is trying to rig the system by attempting to court superdelegates currently allied with Clinton."
Romney's net worth is $250 million. Bill Bain hired good people no doubt. That's why he's a billionaire. Romney ran Bain Capital but owned so little of it that he didn't cash in. Nor did he put much of his own money into the private equity fund limited partnerships that purchased or invested in other companies. He was very cautious with his own money.
Romney's dad was head of a big company and then governor of Michigan. He want to very good schools that his Dad paid for. He turned down his inheritance after he was wealthy. He had a very large family safety net as an adult. So he could do what he did. He's about as self made as Trump.
@mccullough -- Ross Perot is another businessman that puts Trump to shame.
Romney didn't start Bain & Company, but he co-founded the highly profitable spinoff Bain Capital. He eventually returned to Bain & Company as its CEO, leading it out of financial collapse.
I think he has some business cred.
Paul Ryan just held what surely will become ever after known on this blog as "Althouse Disappointment Conference": He resolutely declared, more stoutly than ever before, that he "does not want" and "will not accept" the GOP nomination.
That's technically short of a Full Sherman, I concede: He hasn't quite said that if nominated, he will not run. And he certainly didn't quite rule out the possibility that if he were elected after having not run, he might still serve. So, as in "Dumber and Dumber": Yes, we're saying there's still a chance, Prof. Althouse.
But seriously, I think the man deserves the courtesy of eventually, finally, taking him at his word.
"Who decides what counts as "cheating" and what the consequences of cheating are?
Isn't the answer: The People.
Not unless "The People" are deciding that by evaluation the pre-ante rules. (They do, I admit, always get to decide the consequences, in the end.)
If "The People" decide "cheating" means "any outcome they dislike", well ... they're not punishing cheating, they're throwing a tantrum.
"He had a very large family safety net as an adult. So he could do what he did. He's about as self made as Trump."
He certainly started with advantages--the same could be said for Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and even J.P. Morgan--but Romney built up a large eight figure fortune essentially through his abilities, and with no real business scandals (unless downsizing a company to keep it afloat is a scandal, which I guess to a populist it is). Trump's record is a lot more mixed than that.
"Paul Ryan just held what surely will become ever after known on this blog as "Althouse Disappointment Conference": He resolutely declared, more stoutly than ever before, that he "does not want" and "will not accept" the GOP nomination."
Confirming my belief he's a smart guy who knows better than to jump into the race now. Why would he want it? He's Speaker of the House, which may be the closest any Republican comes to the line of succession for a while, and he's still young. I don't see how anyone wants to be seen as parachuting into the race in summer while the party's largely split.
"Who decides what counts as "cheating" and what the consequences of cheating are?
Isn't the answer: The People."
Funny, I always thought cheating was defined by the rules. If you follow them, it's not cheating.
Sometime it's difficult to get the hang of this moral relativism stuff.
While Romney headed Bain Capital from 1984-1999, 5 of the companies they bought through private equity funds declared bankruptcy while the funds still owned the companies and Romney ran Bain Capital. So he has one more bankruptcy than Trump.
Again, Romney put no money into Bain Capital when it started and owned only a small percent of it. He had none of his own money on the line, which is why he ended up with so much less than those who did.
A poll of 1000 Amandas.
Astroturf smells when it starts to burn.
"So he has one more bankruptcy than Trump."
There's a big difference between buying failing companies to turn around and having some of them go into bankruptcy vs. running your own companies into bankruptcy.
Ironically enough, I understand that Colorado went to a convention primarily to thwart "crazy Tea Party candidates," and initially there were plenty of people who though "crazy Tea Party candidate" described Ted Cruz. But two things are going on:
(1) Donald Trump put together a campaign staff that doesn't know how to do the hard ground work necessary to win in caucus states, much less convention states. Cruz has a great campaign staff that is unafraid of hard work.
(2) Going as far back as Lincoln's nomination in 1860, movements to block a leading candidate who has the popularity to win a plurality of delegates but not the popularity to win a majority are pretty ineffectual until there is a single alternative candidate to unite around. If Rubio had survived, then he'd be that alternative candidate. But he didn't and Cruz did. Now the wind is in Trump's face and at the back of Ted Cruz.
So he has one more bankruptcy than Trump.
Bankruptcy isn't a metric for managerial failure. It can be used by an efficient manager as a valuable tool to save an ailing entity from death and ultimately create a sustainable thriving entity.
There is also a difference between putting your own money into a company that goes bankrupt and putting other people's money into it. Romney lost other people's investment money.
Bankruptcy is a metric for loss of investment. Those who invest lost. If the company is reorganized then the shares in the new company are issued to the creditors.
"Ironically enough, I understand that Colorado went to a convention primarily to thwart "crazy Tea Party candidates," and initially there were plenty of people who though "crazy Tea Party candidate" described Ted Cruz."
It's all relative. Had Trump not been in the race, a lot of moderates would have found Cruz unacceptable (and I'm sure a lot still do) but if anything this shows how Cruz is playing the game. He may be a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. It seems he's playing the establishment like a fiddle.
I also love that Trump's new delegate hunter calls out Cruz for "Gestapo tactics". Wasn't it just yesterday Trump fans said everyone else was hysterical for comparing Trump to fascists what with his fawning over authoritarians, quoting Mussolini favorably, and ordering people beaten up at rallies? Again, Trump Rules only apply to others.
And what's so "Gestapo" about organizing your voters to pick selected delegates? I must have missed the part where the Nazis did that.
I am amazed at the people who miss Althouse's point. Voters will decide whose behavior they admire and whose not. That judgment is not constrained by what party rules are. It will in part be a judgment on those rules, and those who make or exploit them. If the GOP held an auction of delegates and Cruz outbid Trump that would be within the rules. Would all Cruz's defenders here say "Yup, rulz is rulz, that Trump is a dolt, good on you Ted you showed'im." I think they would all have to, if they mean the arguments they are advancing here. If you do not see this you do not see Althouse's point.
If one wants a nice illustration of how "playing the game" is not a sufficient answer to the processes of political manipulation, I recommend the excellent French film "Ridicule", Leconte.
A man from the provinces looking for permission for a practical public work goes to Versailles (the Bourbon system being what it was) and finds that he needs to acquire the very artificial skills of a courtier in order to be permitted to do something practical.
In the US we see a very similar system, where the system requires a purely artificial but time consuming song-and-dance, much like the verbal jousting of the Bourbon court, best performed by professional specialists. It wouldn't be so bad if the system was of little consequence to the common person, but in the US it is no longer so, the nature and particulars of of government policies being of great consequence, as it is no longer possible to continue in ordinary business without being constantly constrained by some imposition of the government. This is a poisonous situation.
The ultimate end of such situations is, as history shows us in enormous volume (and considerable variety), very unhappy.
"Bankruptcy isn't a metric for managerial failure. It can be used by an efficient manager as a valuable tool to save an ailing entity from death and ultimately create a sustainable thriving entity."
It can be--which is why with each bankruptcy you have to look at the circumstances leading to it, the type of filing and end result. In some cases it's the wise thing to do and the least bad option, and it can be due to forces outside the manager's control.
With Romney's bankruptcies, the doors closed and the assets were sold to pay the creditors. Bain's funds, like most private equity funds, bought the companies with mostly borrowed money secured by the assets of the companies they bought. Not much money down from the funds investors. Leveraged buy outs. Banks took most of the risk.
buwaya:
Self-immolation seems to be the inevitable outcome of unqualified progress which is further exacerbated by establishment of a pro-choice or selective religion.
I always thought it would happen somewhere else, to someone else, but not here, not in my time.
Oh, well. Democrats offer the anti-Christ's path to short-lived material prosperity, and, the Republicans... They can't seem to reconcile their own differences, let alone individual dignity and intrinsic value with natural imperatives.
Romney lost other people's investment money.
Bill Bain hired good people no doubt. That's why he's a billionaire. Romney ran Bain Capital but owned so little of it that he didn't cash in.
So Romney made other people rich while losing their 'investment money'?
Also, how would you know the economic history of Bain partners, anyways?
Colorado isn't about Trump being outmaneuvered. It's about 1 Million registered Republicans being denied any voice the nomination for President in their state.
Its all about Trump being outmaneuvered. He has no ground game, and that is what happened here. Cruz has a very good one. One of the best, which is why he was able to hang in there, when most of the other candidates dropped out. A ground game is important in caucus states, and much less so in primary states, which is much of what Trump has won.
Don't feel sorry for Trump here - he could have put a ground game into place, but thought that he could cruise to the nomination without. That may turn out to have been a problem.
The other thing is that Trump was never going to do well in Colorado. Lifelong Colorado Republican here, and everyone I have talked to there is appalled that I would consider him. Comment above about the ranchers, etc. - they are most likely in the Cruz camp by now. Why? He (naturally) wears boots, and talks more like they do here in CO than Trump ever could. We may dislike Texans, but they are almost neighbors, and there is almost no sympathy (except from expats) for New York and New Yorkers, and, most particularly, those from NYC, and esp. Manhattan. We view them as a big part of the problem, esp. with their parochial view of the rest of the country, including us in flyover country.
uh oh.. Althouse house of cards came tumbling down.. Paul Ryan does not want the nomination and he is saying the nomination should go to one of the people who ran. There will be hell to pay if Trump wins most of the delegates and Cruz is awarded the nomination.
Romney made money for some, and lost it for some. MY understanding is that, overall, he had a good track record. That is the thing about his line of business - you win a few and lose a few, and the average is what matters. He wouldn't have been able to raise the money that he did, if he hadn't made more money than he lost. And, probably ditto for Trump - he made money and lost money (for others and himself), and ultimately ended up ahead.
Romney's dad was head of a big company and then governor of Michigan. He want to very good schools that his Dad paid for. He turned down his inheritance after he was wealthy. He had a very large family safety net as an adult. So he could do what he did. He's about as self made as Trump.
Except he had an absurdly good return on investment. Isn't Trump's return on investment miniscule?
While Romney headed Bain Capital from 1984-1999, 5 of the companies they bought through private equity funds declared bankruptcy while the funds still owned the companies and Romney ran Bain Capital. So he has one more bankruptcy than Trump.
That's like arguing that the hospital with the highest death total for patients is, necessarily, the worst possible hospital. Trump didn't take heavily distressed properties and attempt to them around. Bain did. Some worked. Some didn't. Romney can always point to Staples. What can Trump point to?
There is also a difference between putting your own money into a company that goes bankrupt and putting other people's money into it. Romney lost other people's investment money.
Might want to revisit that. Trump lost others TONS of money with his bankruptcies.
Colorado is a caucus state. If you want to be part of the caucus, you must involve yourself and volunteer - early.
Too many whiners are screaming about the CO process. WE ARE NOT A PRIMARY STATE.
@ Bruce Hayden
Its all about Trump being outmaneuvered. He has no ground game, and that is what happened here. Cruz has a very good one. One of the best, which is why he was able to hang in there, when most of the other candidates dropped out. A ground game is important in caucus states, and much less so in primary states, which is much of what Trump has won.
...and the rest of your 3:28 comment. THIS.
Romney didn't invest much of his own money. He was cautious with his own money. That's why he didn't put any in when Bain Capital started and why he didn't reap the big rewards. Nothing stopping him from turning his $250 million into $50 billion. Nothing stopping him from starting his own company. But he won't and didn't because he is risk averse with his own money. He was not risk averse with other people's money because the risk was up to them. He has a low tolerance for his own risk.
Ann Althouse said...Who decides what counts as "cheating" and what the consequences of cheating are?
Isn't the answer: The People.
Who decides whether a generic slogan chalked on a sidewalk is emotionally-traumatic intimidation & hate speech? Isn't the answer: The People?
Who decides what the Constitution really means (whether a given law is Constitutional, say)? Isn't the answer: The People?
It's fine to say objective standards don't exist and we shouldn't pretend that they do--that the only question is one of power and "persuasion," so that if enough people believe something it's true (in fact and/or for all practical purposes)...but you have to be willing to apply that line of thinking to other areas and I have a feeling you won't like the result.
Who decides whether men in shorts should be considered "unfashionable?" Isn't the answer...
Romney and Trump have both made and lost other people lots of money. Trump made himself more money than Romney made himself because Trump risked more of his own money. Investors and lenders know the risks. So did Trump and Romney.
The movie this kerfuffle reminds me of is Steve McQueen in The Cincinnati Kid, wherein the better poker player (McQueen) loses to the older, wiser, cheating Edward G. Robinson, who earlier tried to "fix" the game with Karl Malden.
McQueen, as is expected of Republicans, loses with some grace, despite the obvious nature of the scam to all involved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI6pSkIs_tc&t=2m38s
Most people quote the line by Edgar G. Robinson, "You're good, Kid, but as long as I'm around, you'll always be second best. You might as well learn to live with it."
I prefer the final statement of the movie, by the shoeshine kid who takes McQueen after his loss for a last nickel through pitching coins, "You tried too hard, man. You just ain't ready for me yet."
Stop me if you've heard this: Well perhaps we've come back to the election of 1860. Lincoln, Douglas, John Breckingridge, and John Bell. Lincoln received just 40% of the popular vote but won in the electoral college.
Says the commentor. I say it is uninformed BS. The readers will decide.
Some people would be stunned to learn that a lot of Presidents didn't win on the first ballot. Hell, Lincoln's strategy wasn't to be the #1 guy..
I guess I have to point out that primaries and today’s method of choosing candidates are vastly different than what pertained in Lincoln’s day. Primaries did not exist until 1910 at the earliest and that was only one state, Oregon. The primaries as we know them did not exist until 1968. Here’s Wikis take:
The impetus for national adoption of the binding primary election was the chaotic 1968 Democratic National Convention.
http://tinyurl.com/j5k2w3c
Show me an example after 1968 of where a candidate with the most primary wins and the most votes at a GOP convention was denied the nomination because they did not have a majority and you may have a point. Examples from a hundred years ago are meaningless. Do your homework, read the history and try to offer examples that are relative to today’s situation.
That's just flat out BS. Immigration has long been a major issue in the GOP, and no Trump did not "bring it up".
The commentator keeps getting this wrong and I’m beginning to believe it is on purpose. In this election cycle immigration was not an issue among ANY of the candidates until Trump brought the issue to the forefront.
And what happened after Trump did this? Every GOP candidate castigated Trump for it. Trump was called every name in the book for even talking about immigration at his rallies. The attitude among the so-called “experts” in the GOP was that the GOP must not upset the Latinos with talk about illegal immigration.
After Trump’s stance on the issue proved to be a vote-getter for Trump they quickly changed their tune and jumped onto the issue.
" In this election cycle immigration was not an issue among ANY of the candidates until Trump brought the issue to the forefront. "
Yes and the GOP will lose badly unless whoever is the nominee gets this right.
The GOP can't out promise the Dems. That has been the theme since Reagan.
"Trump lost others TONS of money with his bankruptcies."
In Chapter 11 ? I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that the debts have to be paid, even if the payment is delayed.
The point about immigration not being an issue is why I said above that the media is the one who decides. The media gave Trump attention. I know I was hearing about immigration for quiet a while before Trump talked about it, like repeatedly. But maybe that's because I was paying attention to the issue beyond the bombast.
Can you provide evidence that Trump is actually worth more than Romney? Trump won't do it, but maybe you will.
Grackle, can you think of a situation where the guy who won the most states was unable to win a majority of delegates? Seems Trump can't close the deal.
damikesc said...
Can you provide evidence that Trump is actually worth more than Romney? Trump won't do it, but maybe you will.
I'm second to no one in my contempt for Trump, but I think cold-eyed analysts would say so.
Trump claims a net worth of $10 million and that is no doubt a fabrication.
Forbes just published Trump's net worth at an estimated $4.5 billion, due to the sharp rise in Trump's real estate holdings in the post-Great Recession years.
Mitt Romney's net worth is nowhere near to that. But this business of comparing wealth is not pretty for Trump. Mitt Romney's tax returns were released, and they demonstrated a couple that has donated lavishly to their church and to charity. It is widely and credibly suggested that even more than revealing Trump's true net worth, the release of Trump's tax returns would reveal a man who has given shockingly little to charity.
I know I was hearing about immigration for quiet a while before Trump talked about it, like repeatedly. But maybe that's because I was paying attention to the issue beyond the bombast.
Paying attention? Was the commentor paying attention in 2013 when the RNC completed an autopsy of Romney’s defeat? The report wrongfully came to the conclusion that the GOP needed to repair its image among Hispanics by stating that the party should "embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform." In other words – open borders, catch and let go, etc.
http://tinyurl.com/c966ge8
On page 8 of the report we come across this quote:
If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay attention to our next sentence. It does not matter what we say about education, jobs or the economy; if Hispanics think we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our policies.
later on that page:
… we must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform.
on page 15:
In essence, Hispanic voters tell us our Party’s position on immigration has become a litmus test, measuring whether we are meeting them with a welcome mat or a closed door … Too often Republican elected officials spoke about issues important to the Hispanic community using a tone that undermined the GOP brand within Hispanic communities. Repairing that relationship will require both a tone that “welcomes in” as well as substantial time spent in the community demonstrating a commitment to addressing its unique concerns.
I invite the commentor and the readers to read the complete report, as I did when it came out in 2013. All told it touches on the subject of Hispanics 98 times.
http://tinyurl.com/ldw8mj3
The message: Shut up about illegal immigration and push comprehensive immigration reform. And that’s the way it stood until Trump came along. The “base” never liked this conclusion but when does the eGOP EVER listen to its base?
It is true that prior to the Romney defeat that illegal immigration was often an issue. After the report? Nada, not until Trump happened on the scene.
Oh, I'm not aware that the RNC was the voice for every Republican candidate. It's not authoritarian and there actually were discussions and disagreements about the establishment positions for a while. I seem to recall a certain movement in the Republican party, what were they called, grape juice? No, tobacco? That's not it. Tea? Yeah, something like that, where they were pushing back against establishment positions and making a big fuss about stuff.
It's almost like immigration really became talked about at the very next presidential election when issues get national news. Meanwhile, it continued to be discussed in various places. Those of us who listen beyond those who the national media choose to highlight for their own purposes have been getting a lot of discussion about it.
What Trump did do, and I think this was in fact a strength of his, was he leveraged the media coverage and pushed back against the PC assumptions. But, we see this happening before, just not with the same media attention. Too bad he hasn't been able to seal the deal quite yet or draw in more supporters (he's losing them).
Of course, what Trump would actually do about immigration is completely up in the air.
Never lose sight of the fact that most of this Trump-hatred among Republicans is coming from people who would be just peachy-keen with serving us all up a helping of yet another Bush excrement sandwich, this one flavored Jeb.
Immigration, grackle, is one of those things where I think a good debate could be had, between our best conservative economists, business leaders and the Coulter/Ingraham nativists. If I were part of that debate, I'd listen very respectfully to Ann Coulter as long as she could do the same.
Trump wouldn't have much of a place in that debate, since he doesn't have much of any substance to add to any debate.
"Comprehensive" immigration reform is -- to be sure -- a Democratic Party moniker. Comprehensive = amnesty and citizenship. And that is why "comprehensive" reform keeps failing. To their credit, the Republican establishment that you so loathe won't let it happen. And to their discredit, Democrats vilify Republicans on that one issue and refuse to do anything about immigration without that element.
But grackle; immigration is such a small issue in reality. Only in the minds of Trump supporters is it the central issue that you make of it. It's not anywhere close to the importance of growing the economy (Trump wants a trade war to rival the 1930's); reforming entitlements (Trump says he positively won't); rolling back the federal regulatory morass; appointing a conservative federal judiciary (Trump's statements about federal cases are bordering the bizarre); and lawsuit reform (Trump loves litigation, to a clownish degree.)
"Comprehensive" immigration reform is -- to be sure -- a Democratic Party moniker. Comprehensive = amnesty and citizenship. And that is why "comprehensive" reform keeps failing.
Actually, the problem is that "comprehensive" immigration reform means that immigration amnesty is combined with other types of changes to immigration law, notably the H1B visa program. Republicans tried to separate them, but Harry Reid, esp. when he was still Majority Leader, made sure that the Republican bills never went anywhere in the Senate. The Democrats, of course, want illegals legalized so that they can vote for Democrats. What was in it for the Republicans? The other parts - high tech companies were willing to pay millions (in lobbying) to get more, and more restrictive, H1B visas. But, someone else pointed out that the other thing going for "comprehensive" immigration "reform" is that it was a Christmas tree, a big bill that inevitably contained all the special pork programs that were there to justify the votes of a number of members of Congress. So, while they may not like it, they could justify it by getting something special for their district. Separate bills wouldn't have provided near as much room for this sort of politicking.
As a note - the weird thing, for me, about comprehensive immigration reform was that it would have made it much easier for people with very limited education to get legalized, while the best and brightest, in the H1B program would have had an even harder time getting citizenship, and staying in the country if they quit their job with their sponsor (apparently, they couldn't switch employers without going back home first). I would have thought that the opposite would have been better - making it easier for PhDs to become citizens, and harder for those with 3rd grade educations.
"And what happened after Trump did this? Every GOP candidate castigated Trump for it. Trump was called every name in the book for even talking about immigration at his rallies. The attitude among the so-called “experts” in the GOP was that the GOP must not upset the Latinos with talk about illegal immigration."
Nope--simply untrue. The various candidates held a wide range of views on immigration, the idea that Trump was the only one who was anti-amnesty is simply false. Cruz, for example, always opposed it. What got Trump so much criticism is that his plans for immigration were simply stupid. He is not going to build a wall or get Mexico to pay for it--simply not happening--and his "touchback amnesty" makes the whole exercise pointless (not to mention him not understanding that half our illegal immigrants don't cross that border but actually are visa overstays). And what's gotten him attention is his incorrect (not politically incorrect, but simply incorrect) statement that Mexico is sending us its worst people--rapists, etc. So yes, Trump got a lot of attention on this issue by making the dumbest statements on it, and turning it from an important matter to a joke, but if that's what fires you up I suppose that's all that matters.
"If I were part of that debate, I'd listen very respectfully to Ann Coulter as long as she could do the same."
I'd agree, but leave Coulter out of it. She's a professional troll rather than a pundit. But there are thoughtful opinions on every side of the issue worth debating.
"What Trump did do, and I think this was in fact a strength of his, was he leveraged the media coverage and pushed back against the PC assumptions."
See, if that's what he in fact did I'd be in full support, or at least respect it. But it's not a "PC assumption" that his wall proposal is never going to happen, or that Mexico isn't sending us rapists and murderers (the per capita crime rate among illegal aliens is lower than our overall crime rate--that's a fact, regardless of what Trump thinks). To me the whole point of being anti-PC is to tell uncomfortable yet accurate truths, not to spread BS and then when people call you on it to say "hey you're just PC".
"Can you provide evidence that Trump is actually worth more than Romney? Trump won't do it, but maybe you will."
A reporter named Tim O'Brien analyzed Trump's net worth a few years back and came up with less than $1 billion. Of course Trump sued for $5 billion and it was thrown out of court. I'm inclined to believe that until Trump proves otherwise, he's not even worth $1 billion.
But grackle; immigration is such a small issue in reality. Only in the minds of Trump supporters is it the central issue that you make of it.
Strange way to look at events. Trump has been speaking about illegal immigration from the start and continues to do so at every rally to cheering crowds of thousands. He has been roundly criticized for this by the MSM and some of his eGOP opponents. The MSM has been especially critical and has distorted Trump’s actual viewpoints. Trump has gotten a lot of mileage out of illegal immigration and it has definitely contributed to his popularity among the GOP primary voters. And I notice that Cruz devotes a lot of space on his website to – wait for it - illegal immigration. You might want to take a look at Cruz’s website now and then, Chuck.
http://tinyurl.com/zkye4h3
It's not anywhere close to the importance of growing the economy (Trump wants a trade war to rival the 1930's);
Chuck, you’ve got to quit relying on MSM reports about Trump. Trump has not promoted a “trade war.” That’s a false MSM narrative. And a lot of so-called conservatives have drank the same Kool-Aid. Trump wants to renegotiate some trade agreements that take unfair advantage of the USA. Chuck do you realize how large our trade deficit with China is? Do you pay attention to such things or do you believe they are unimportant?
reforming entitlements (Trump says he positively won't);
Not really. What Trump has actually said is that with his economic policies in place that we will not have to reform Social Security. But the MSM and some of Trump’s opponents on the Right have perpetuated the version you have just regurgitated.
rolling back the federal regulatory morass;
Do you have any quotes to justify this part of your statement? Chuck, you are assuming again. You’ve got to start looking this stuff up before you go off half-cocked.
appointing a conservative federal judiciary (Trump's statements about federal cases are bordering the bizarre);
Here again – you need to justify your words. Give us a couple of “bizarre” Trump quotes about the “federal judiciary.” If you can find any, that is.
and lawsuit reform (Trump loves litigation, to a clownish degree.)
“Clownish?” Chuck I think you do not like it that Trump is a fighter. That’s your problem. Trump fights too much for your tastes. But to go from the subject of Trump’s legal battles to a specious conclusion about Trump’s non-existent views on lawsuit reform is just too much of a logic-leap. Find me a quote that shows that Trump is against “lawsuit reform” and I might give your opinion more credibility.
What got Trump so much criticism is that his plans for immigration were simply stupid. He is not going to build a wall or get Mexico to pay for it--simply not happening—
Commentor predicts no wall. I predict yes, wall. Aren’t predictions fun?
And what's gotten him attention is his incorrect (not politically incorrect, but simply incorrect) statement that Mexico is sending us its worst people--rapists, etc.
Readers I think this commentor needs to read the GAO Report on Criminal Alien Statistics. In that report he will find this:
Specifically, in 2005, GAO reported that the percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons was about 27 percent of the total inmate population from 2001 through 2004.
Readers, that’s 27% of the TOTAL INMATE POPULATION OF AMERICA!
http://tinyurl.com/ottxgdz
"Trump has been speaking about illegal immigration from the start and continues to do so at every rally to cheering crowds of thousands."
And what "start" was that? In 2012 when he criticized Romney for being insensitive to Hispanics with his own immigration remarks? Or has history begun in 2015?
"Trump has not promoted a “trade war.” That’s a false MSM narrative."
So I guess when Trump said he'd be okay with a "trade war" we shouldn't take him at his word. Duly noted.
"“Clownish?” Chuck I think you do not like it that Trump is a fighter. "
Yes, a "fighter" who repeatedly files frivolous litigation. You seem to think a rich bully who abuses the system is a "fighter". Sad!
"Commentor predicts no wall. I predict yes, wall. Aren’t predictions fun?"
They are fun! Except your prediction is wrong because Trump can't get the funding appropriated for it, cannot secure the land to build it on, definitely won't get Mexico to pay for it (if you think we can just deduct it off our trade deficit, then you don't actually understand what a trade deficit is), and cannot legally acquire the private land necessary to do it (unless you think your president has dictatorial powers). If you think the only reason we don't have a wall now is because the GOPe prefers people sneaking across the border, you're wrong.
"Readers, that’s 27% of the TOTAL INMATE POPULATION OF AMERICA!"
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798
I'd agree, but leave Coulter out of it. She's a professional troll rather than a pundit.
I say we do not leave Coulter “out of it.” In fact I believe it may be instructive to the readers to take a look at part of her latest offering:
Congratulations to Ted Cruz for winning his fourth primary! Usually Donald Trump wins the primaries -- where you go and vote, like in a real election. Cruz wins the caucuses -- run by the state parties, favored by political operators and cheaters.
Cruz has flipped to Trump's side on every important political issue of this campaign -- which only ARE issues because of Trump. These are:
Quadrupling the number of foreign guest workers to help ranchers and farmers get cheap labor: Cruz was for it, and now is against it. Legalizing illegal aliens: Cruz was for it, and now is against it. The Trans-Pacific Partnership deal: Cruz was for it, and now is against it. Building a wall: Cruz was against it, and now is for it.
These are all positions Cruz has changed since being a senator -- most of them he's flipped on only in the last year.
http://tinyurl.com/zkye4h3
My view? If you dislike Trump for changing his viewpoints on the issues – you’ve got to hate Cruz.
But I’m not surprised at all that Trump’s critics do not want the readers to look at what Coulter has to say.
"But I’m not surprised at all that Trump’s critics do not want the readers to look at what Coulter has to say."
Yeah I give Coulter about the same weight as Bill Maher. They're there to entertain and get attention by pissing off critics, but they're not in the business of making convincing arguments.
So I guess when Trump said he'd be okay with a "trade war" we shouldn't take him at his word. Duly noted.
Readers, do you notice what I notice? Not one quote or link to justify the “trade war” BS.
… your prediction is wrong because Trump can't get the funding appropriated for it, cannot secure the land to build it on, definitely won't get Mexico to pay for it … and cannot legally acquire the private land necessary to do it …
Predictions! They are so much fun! And so meaningless. But they’re fun!
The link the commentor provides leads me to the WSJ’s firewall. Hey, how about giving us a link we can access?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798
What little I could read seems to justify my previous contention: That the GOP power brokers and pundits have been trying to downplay immigration problems, that illegal immigration criminality is opined by them as insignificant. And I have to say that I trust an impartial and official GAO report more than I trust the WSJ’s opinion on the criminality of illegal immigrants.
Yeah I give Coulter about the same weight as Bill Maher. They're there to entertain and get attention by pissing off critics, but they're not in the business of making convincing arguments.
Coulter’s arguments that I quoted are accurate and true. At the Coulter site she provides links to examples of every one of Cruz’s immigration flip-flops. But when the commentor sees that he cannot win this mini-debate on Cruz’s immigration flip-flops on the merits he resorts to condemning the messenger.
"In Chapter 11 ? I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that the debts have to be paid, even if the payment is delayed."
IANAL, but I don't think this is correct. Debts might be paid, depending on the nature of the bankruptcy court's settlement. But in many cases only some of the debts get paid. As an example, I don't think junior creditors in the Washington Mutual bankruptcy got diddly, though my only direct evidence of this is the following snippet from the FDIC:
Please note that under federal law, 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(11), claims by subordinated debt holders are paid only after all claims by general creditors of the institution. At this time, the FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank does not anticipate that subordinated debt holders of the bank will receive any recovery on their claims.
(Emphasis mine.)
Grackle, can you think of a situation where the guy who won the most states was unable to win a majority of delegates? Seems Trump can't close the deal.
It’s a bit early for Trump’s critics to be claiming he “can't close the deal.” I believe that Trump will get the necessary delegates before the convention, in which case the example the commentor urges me to provide is moot.
grackle;
Step up your game. About your doubting that "trade war" is an inappropriate term to use with Donald Trump. Because here is Trump himself, in his own belligerent and intemperate words, saying that he would "welcome a trade war with China."
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/transcript/donald-trump-welcomes-trade-war-china
And as for Trump's stupid statements about the federal courts, there was his idiotic criticism of Justice Scalia in the University of Texas case. And his comment about judges signing "bills." And too many others to count.
And there's never been a candidate for president with Trump's record of laughable frivolous lawsuits.
Don't make me detail all of that stuff again, because I am too busy with real work today to bother with that.
Step up your game. About your doubting that "trade war" is an inappropriate term to use with Donald Trump. Because here is Trump himself, in his own belligerent and intemperate words, saying that he would "welcome a trade war with China."
Chuck, I’ll have to admit that you got me on this one point. Now you have me wondering what a trade war with China would look like. Chuck, let me ask you a question:
In a trade war with China who would win the war, the USA or China?
And there's never been a candidate for president with Trump's record of laughable frivolous lawsuits.
Says the commentor. I say the opposite.
Chuck, what you are really saying when the ad hominem is deleted is that when someone tries to screw Trump he uses all legal means to strike back. For me that’s a plus for Trump.
grackle I think that economists universally agree that in a trade war, everybody loses and the only people who might be able to claim a purely temporal win, are regulators.
In other words, neither the US nor Chinese consumer wins. The winners would be establishment government non-business regulatory types.
grackle, explain (just by way of ONE example; there are many more) the Donald Trump libel suit for $5 billion, wherein the claim was all about an estimate of Trump's net worth. A case that was summarily kicked out of court.
Chuck, you are proving why you are such a GOP apparatchik. You're just ignorant. So worried about a trade war, as if it takes two sides to fight a war.
China already is fighting it, and winning. You are just scared to death of fighting back.
The other commenter is right. You're scared of fighting, Chuck. You want another Bush to kick the can down the road. That's all.
I surely hope Grackle doesn't actually believe we would "win" a trade war, even if the trade war would be devastating to China. For his sake I'll just assume (s)he's playing around with hypotheticals for fun.
For that matter I doubt Trump himself really believes we would win a trade war, or has any intention of waging one, or even gives the issue more than a passing thought on the level of a normal person wondering if it has been five or seven days since their neighbor last mowed their lawn. But Trump does know his base, and knows if people are worried about their jobs, telling them it's the fault of our China Trade and that if we could "win" a negotiation by beating up our opposite party a bit we could have all those jobs back is a sure way to win votes. I mean, it has worked to some extent. Though this is less to credit Trump than it is to remark on the sad state of his supporters.
"grackle, explain (just by way of ONE example; there are many more) the Donald Trump libel suit for $5 billion, wherein the claim was all about an estimate of Trump's net worth. A case that was summarily kicked out of court."
This one's easy--everything about Trump is the value of his "brand." His "brand" is that of very rich flamboyant master of the universe, who is worth about $10 billion. The problem is, he's not worth nearly that much and anyone calling him on it by committing the crime of actual journalism is destroying his brand, and his brand is worth about $5 billion out of that $10 billion (and yes, both his self-stated value of his brand is about as made up as his self-stated net worth of $10 billion).
Now, a decent lawyer will tell his client when his case is frivolous, and an ethical lawyer won't file a knowingly frivolous case, but then despite Trump's assertions he is not really known for hiring the "best" people, so there you go.
Somehow, this qualifies to the grackles of the world as being a "fighter". It's like watching a screaming out of control toddler have a hissy fit and wildly slap away at everyone, and some adult says "what I like about that toddler, is he fights!"
"China already is fighting it, and winning. You are just scared to death of fighting back."
So let's delve into this a bit. What sort of fighting back do you recommend? Traditionally trade wars involve import quotas, tarrifs, etc.--are those what you propose or something else? And once imposed, what do you imagine will happen?
Besides of course China telling us "ok, we'll make our companies, or our government itself, buy a bunch of American products we don't want, or just send you gold or something, if that will make you end these tariffs".
Gee, I think we are mislabeling this whole thing. “Trade war” maybe should read trade ‘disagreement.’ Somebody always wins a war. What we have here is a trade imbalance that needs to be corrected, not a war.
Readers, here’s some info about the China trade deficit:
The U.S. trade deficit with China was $365.7 billion in 2015 This is a new record, up slightly from last year's record of $343 billion.
The trade deficit exists because U.S. exports to China were only $116.2 billion while imports from China hit a new record of $481.9 billion. The deficit keeps growing because imports are rising faster than exports.
That’s $365 billion taken out of our economy every year and growing. The commentors debating me are apparently satisfied with this situation and want to keep it the way it is. Trump wants to renegotiate and get a better trade deal. But to the anti-Trumpers Trump is a rascal and a cad for wanting to change it. Doesn’t make sense to me but there it is.
grackle, explain (just by way of ONE example; there are many more) the Donald Trump libel suit for $5 billion, wherein the claim was all about an estimate of Trump's net worth. A case that was summarily kicked out of court.
Explanation: Someone tried to screw Trump and he fought back. Ask me something hard.
It’s a bit early for Trump’s critics to be claiming he “can't close the deal.” I believe that Trump will get the necessary delegates before the convention, in which case the example the commentor urges me to provide is moot.
Given his abysmal ground game, it is unlikely at this point he does it. Cruz's people are competent in a way Trump's simply are not.
Who decides what counts as "cheating" and what the consequences of cheating are?
Isn't the answer: The People.
No.
Not only "No!", but "what the hell is a law professor doing saying that rules are meaningless, all that matters is the passion of the mob?"
Are you following the rules? Then you're not cheating, and anyone who clains you are is wrong.
Did you follow the law? Then your actions weren't criminal, even if you're black and the mob doesn't like blacks.
WTF? How is this even a question?
Michael K said...
Cruz thinks he will have the party behind him.
No Michael, Cruz thinks that he will have the delegates behind him, because the majority of the delegates are the kind of grass roots Republicans who support Cruz, and because he's working the nominating conventions to make sure as many of the delegates as possible are Cruz people.
Working for what you want instead of sitting on your butt and hoping. What a concept!
In other words, neither the US nor Chinese consumer wins. The winners would be establishment government non-business regulatory types.
There it is.
I might add. The winner will bbe the party with the least business regulations.
… the majority of the delegates are the kind of grass roots Republicans who support Cruz.
I do not think so. The eGOP hates Cruz. The eGOP hates Trump. Therefore the eGOP is going to select Cruz after rejecting Trump? Not if Kasich is available.
The Cruz supporters must be hoping Cruz will be seen as the lesser of two evils. And that might even be a valid assessment if it were not for Kasich. For that to happen Kasich would have to drop out of the race before the convention. But if Kasich dropped out, Cruz probably would not end up with enough delegates to stop Trump from getting it on the first ballot. What a dilemma!
grackle shows its complete ignorance...
… the majority of the delegates are the kind of grass roots Republicans who support Cruz.
I do not think so. The eGOP hates Cruz. The eGOP hates Trump. Therefore the eGOP is going to select Cruz after rejecting Trump? Not if Kasich is available.
Yes, the majority of DC hates Cruz. So what? The majority of delegates to the Convention aren't from DC. Their from grass roots Republicans, their being recruited by the Cruz camp based on their support for Cruz, and they hate the eGOP far more than do some brand new newbie Trump supporters
Yes, the majority of DC hates Cruz. So what? The majority of delegates to the Convention aren't from DC. Their from grass roots Republicans, their being recruited by the Cruz camp based on their support for Cruz, and they hate the eGOP far more than do some brand new newbie Trump supporters.
I think that every politician sitting in the Senate and the House have local political connections in their home districts. These are local politicians and supporters and the DC pols support the locals and the locals support the DC types. They are not unconnected to each other as the commentor seems to believe. These two groups are to a certain degree each dependent on mutual support. They support each other during campaigns and money-raising. And they do not like Cruz.
I think that just about EVERY Senator and Representative in DC will be participating in their parties’ conventions. And the Republican DC-types will not be lobbying for Cruz. They hate Cruz. If it gets to that point they will give the nod to Kasich, a made-to-order eGOP candidate.
Sure, the locals temporarily jumped onto the Cruz bandwagon, but only to stop Trump. After Trump is safely out of the way, they’ll choose Kasich. Cruz is a pawn.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा