When the discussion turned to the wrangling of delegates to the party’s nominating convention in Cleveland this July — an issue that has dogged Mr. Trump and his skeletal campaign organization for months — Mr. Priebus explained that states all had different rules governing how they were selected.Trump has been using his "businessman" template for everything. He presents himself as a businessman with a lifetime's worth of skill and savvy, and he offers to plug BUSINESSMAN into the role of President. He's got an awful lot of confidence that this will be a wonderful experience for us, that it will make America great again. But it looks as though the businessman had not yet noticed that the fight for delegates extends beyond the primary/caucus day and requires campaign people on the ground who know the local rules and how to play the game. Mr. Trump turned to his aides and suggested that they had not been doing what they needed to do....
... Mr. Trump mentioned Louisiana, where he won the primary, but where Senator Ted Cruz is likely to come away with more delegates after exploiting peculiarities in the state’s system, according to those briefed on the meeting....
But when Mr. Priebus explained that each campaign needed to be prepared to fight for delegates at each state’s convention, Mr. Trump turned to his aides and suggested that they had not been doing what they needed to do....
In his businessman life, perhaps, Trump has assembled so much support around him that he can do his bit at the top — whatever it is... figurehead, idea man, starring role, big talker — and he can pass off everything that doesn't demand — doesn't command — his attention to his people, his people who've been with him for so long, making what needs to get done get done within his well-established operation. But the campaign is a new operation, and they're shown here — perhaps the NYT is distorting — failing, crucially, to understand and succeed within the one task that confronts them.
So the businessman template hasn't worked so well in the relatively simple fight for the nomination. How can there be any confidence that BUSINESSMAN will plug brilliantly into the presidency and make America great again?
I'm recalling what Trump said when he talked to The Washington Post about how he wanted to "open up" the libel law. I wrote a very detailed examination of the text of the absurdly digressive conversation — you can read that here — because I wanted to see how he relates to the law and what he thinks could or should be done to the freedom of the press. At one point the interviewer said "how would you change the law?" and Trump answered "I would just loosen them up." Somebody said what I would have said: "What does that mean?" And Trump's answer displays exactly the problem I'm talking about this morning:
"I’d have to get my lawyers in to tell you, but I would loosen them up. I would loosen them up."
He assumes he has people, good people who know what's needed and how to get it and they will attend to the details. He'll float above it — setting goals, doing face time, being interestingly expressive — and the real work will get done, don't worry about it, he has people for that.
But he doesn't have people who know how to do want needs to get done — not for this campaign and obviously not for the presidency. He must know that, and yet he asks that we trust him: Go ahead, plug BUSINESSMAN into the presidency. It will be great. He must know that doesn't make sense. What on earth is he going to do about that if he happens to win?
Mr. Trump turned to his aides and suggested that they had not been doing what they needed to do....
পোস্টগুলি
১৩৮টি মন্তব্য:
Trump floats above it and leaves it to the American people to do what is wanted. That's a good model for government.
Deal means mutual benefit to a businessman.
Cruz is running zero sum stuff. No mutual benefit.
I work in the business world and his response makes sense to me. The CEO isn't expected to know everything, he manages things and relies on his people to do a comptent job. Of course he has to understand a little bit about everything, but expecting Trump to be an expert on vague state delegate laws is a bit much.
Nobody is perfect. No plan comes off perfectly.
Perhaps you would like to provide us with the angel you support to compare and contrast. It is far easier to be critical than to be correct. At least he notices problems and changes course. Can you show us either side of the political elite doing that, except to stamp on the gas while aimed at the cliff?
And do you really think the delegate selection process is 'relatively simple'? 50 seperate arcane state rulebooks?
"My girl will call your girl" writ large.
The weakness isn't with businessmen, it's with Trump. Real estate is a different business than most. The difficulty is up front setting up the partnerships rather than the execution. In more traditional businesses the execution is vastly more important than the setup. I think this is why Trump has been able to succeed in politics where the politicians at least only value the legislation and care little about execution.
A traditional businessman thinks "do I have a plan to run the country" while Trump thinks "can my branding drive a deal?"
I suspect Trump has known this all along.
Ann, I'm dissapointed in how you've mis-represented this editorial comment by the times. The full article quote includes the following, "Mr. Trump turned to his aides and suggested that they had not been doing what they needed to do, the people briefed on the meeting said."
So in other words, people not in the meeting who were briefed on the meeting represented that at some point in the conversation Mr. Trump may have suggested his aides need to do more work in winning delegates.
And this is somehow representational that his business acumen is faltering? Quite the opposite - he had this meeting with the RNC to smooth feathers and build support.
Further, you don't know what he said or how he said it. Kind of important.
Lastly, it's the NYTimes representing unquoted individuals who were not present. Perhaps the actual quote was completely different.
Rick is exactly right about the real estate business (my husband works on the execution side in this industry and I see this clearly- there are other guys who do the deals and then people like my husband do all of the follow through.) This is probably also why most of Trump's non-real estate ventures have failed.
It's not that this can't work, if Trump gets the right people in place- but it doesn't seem as though he's even put in the effort so far to do even that much. And even in the best case scenario, if he were to hire competent staff and choose a cabinet and advisors wisely, ypthere's still his shoot from the hip style that can create chaos.
I'm no New York scumbag liberal masquerading as a republican presidential candidate, but even I know that states are responsible for organizing their own election laws and rules. All I did was read a few founding documents and a really yuge (!) fabulous (!) but not so luxurious book called the federalist papers.
Will no state rid us of this fool?
True, it appears to be a management failure, but it could happen to any candidate who was counting on someone to be competent with current law that failed. I doubt Ted knows the intricacies of Louisiana delegate law. Clearly, Ted just hired the better Louisiana guy. In a corporate environment, Trump's guy would be fired (which it appears is the threat he was making to his people) and replaced with someone more capable. That is the difference between government and corporate - nobody gets fired in the government when they screw up.
I have to do the typical "Trumps, not MY guy" statement, of course. But, some of this nitpicking is just silly.
Trump is employing his usual WINNING BUSINESSMAN stratagem: line up a scapegoat.
Zestyguesty, I think the more likely form of management failure is that Trump (or somebody he delegated to) didn't realize this would be important, so they optimized for some different goal when hiring their Louisiana person. That's the kind of mistake that a president can't really afford.
I agree with the Professor. Scott Walker is the answer. He understands political maneuver that get stuff through the system successfully. And so does Kasich. And so does JEB. And so does Christy. And so does Fiorina. And so do all of the career politicians.
It's just a silly revolt by ANGRY VOTERS. And we can fix that by refusing to nominate the winner.
Or as Karl Rasputin Rove says, we just need a fresh face.
How can there be any confidence that COMMUNITY ORGANIZER will plug brilliantly into the presidency and make America great again?
How can there be any confidence that LAWYER will plug brilliantly into the presidency and make America great again?
How can there be any confidence that ACTOR will plug brilliantly into the presidency and make America great again?
Makes the point kind of irrelevant.
But he doesn't have people who know how to do want needs to get done — not for this campaign and obviously not for the presidency.
I'm no fan of Trump, but this is silly. Compare how well the businessman is doing compared to every career politician he has so far competed against. Sure, he has made some mistakes, and in doing so lost some delegates he could have had. But it's silly to hold him to a standard of perfection, when everyone else ( in the Republican primary ) is doing much, much worse.
Now, if he fails to get enough delegates to secure the nomination, and loses at a brokered convention, then he will have failed. If he gets the nomination and loses the general, he will have failed. Then it makes sense to say he was not good enough for the presidency, and call him a loser.
"Okay, it's all set. I'll have my people get in touch with your people."
People still don't understand the level of animosity and virtiol aimed at Washington's federal population by people who were always easy going and tolerant. The people who have been shit on repeatedly by both parties.
The ignorance astounds me.
I've never been even slightly persuaded that Trump is The Most Brilliant Businessman EVAR(TM). He does excel at getting people to buy into that notion, however.
Trump has been using his "businessman" template for everything. He presents himself as a businessman with a lifetime's worth of skill and savvy, and he offers to plug BUSINESSMAN into the role of President. He's got an awful lot of confidence that this will be a wonderful experience for us, that it will make America great again. But it looks as though the businessman had not yet noticed that the fight for delegates extends beyond the primary/caucus day and requires campaign people on the ground who know the local rules and how to play the game.
This flip side of this is Mr. Obama's claim in 2008 that he had the experience to be President because he knew how to to manage a successful campaign. Which he did.
This isn't a point in Trump's favor. "His very lack of experience is what we need." No. What we need is someone that has a coherent vision, political capability, and experience in a broader world than Obama's academic-political cloister or Trump's sycophantic wasteland.
Daniel Richwine said...
...expecting Trump to be an expert on vague state delegate laws is a bit much.
The issue is not that Trump doesn't know the vague state delegate laws. The issue is the people he hired to handle that sort of thing didn't learn about those laws. Hiring the right people to handle the details is exactly what Trump's supposed to be an expert on.
I'm not claiming this shows he is not fit. If he goes on to garner enough delegate to win the nomination, then maybe that shows that he was correctly focusing his attention on other, more important, aspects of the campaign
Not knowing that vague state laws even exist shows a fundamental ignorance of our country and form
Government.
I mean, the best schools, the smartest people!
And the competition is Cruz, Kasich, Hillary!, and Sanders.
We are sooo screwed!
CAPTAIN BUSINESSMAN The superhero of businessmen.
Yeah, we need another Washington insider who knows how the system works. The system that has given us a $19 TRILLION (acknowledged) public debt, diminished the labor participation rate, diminished the middle class, increased government regulation, given control of local schools and local police to Washington, etc. Keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome.
EMD said...
How can there be any confidence that COMMUNITY ORGANIZER will plug brilliantly into the presidency and make America great again?
How can there be any confidence that LAWYER will plug brilliantly into the presidency and make America great again?
How can there be any confidence that ACTOR will plug brilliantly into the presidency and make America great again?
If BUSINESSMAN is also on the list of options I'm choosing BUSINESSMAN, and it's not really a close call.
No, "businessman" isn't the perfect preparation for the Presidency.
But neither is governor, senator, general, or community activist.
All these prior experiences have some relevance ... but not enough.
"This flip side of this is Mr. Obama's claim in 2008 that he had the experience to be President because he knew how to to manage a successful campaign. Which he did."
No. That's not the flip side. Obama — his people — ran the campaign brilliantly... in ways similar to what Cruz is doing now. Of course, it was ridiculous that running the campaign was the only example of executive experience he could offer and putting Obama into the job was a huge risk. We can argue about how much of a disaster the Obama presidency has been, but whatever, it doesn't argue for going ahead and plugging some other inexperienced person into the presidency, and it remains the fact that Trump has not taken care of the technical side of running his campaign. He's trying to do all the political work in the form of thrilling rhetoric.
"There is a simple rule here, a rule of legislation, a rule of business, a rule of life: beyond a certain point, complexity is fraud. You can apply that rule to left-wing social programs, but you can also apply that rule to credit derivatives, hedge funds, all the rest of it." – P J O’Rourke
Monsieur Devereaux understood the Importance of Competent Help..
I am Laslo.
good job pick apart conversations like the other's who attack ANY little thing trump says, here's an idea .. why you target that #lyinted on his affairs ...reminds me of another Bill Clinton but hey, this country has gone so far down ya'll don't mind anymore who has affairs in public offices i mean, after all the president IS a role model for children
plugging some other inexperienced person into the presidency -- AA
Wouldn't anyone who is running for their first term as POTUS be inexperienced?
"No, "businessman" isn't the perfect preparation for the Presidency. But neither is governor, senator, general, or community activist. All these prior experiences have some relevance ... but not enough."
But he's not just saying this is good background — as good as other things. He's saying this is the template for the presidency. He wants to take the skill set of his business work and plug it right in and make exciting new things happen. He lacks the modesty and the restraint to take care. He asserts wildly and confidently that he knows how to do it, he's the one person who can solve these things, and you do it with deals, deals like he's been making in his business life. Such arrogance, such willingness to accept risk, like the whole country is a thrill ride. Why do people want to get on that ride? Are they so angry and left out and ready to see what happens? Bombs away!
Ann Althouse said...What on earth is he going to do about that if he happens to win?
Not much reason to worry about that as everyone keeps reminding us.
Go ahead, plug BUSINESSMAN into the presidency. It will be great. He must know that doesn't make sense.
I dunno, "community organizer" worked out really well so I'm not sure why businessman wouldn't. What would you prefer? Politician, governor, what? President is an odd case in that (other than VP of course) there's no job directly underneath it.
The American cursus honorum isn't very well-defined. Trump's outside of it, that's for sure, but that's obviously also a large part of his appeal to lots of people.
I reacted to Henry's first paragraph in isolation.
Here's his second paragraph: "This isn't a point in Trump's favor. "His very lack of experience is what we need." No. What we need is someone that has a coherent vision, political capability, and experience in a broader world than Obama's academic-political cloister or Trump's sycophantic wasteland."
I agree with that. Very well put.
He relies on his staff to know the minutiae of state party primary rules. It would be absurd to think otherwise. Although it is expected that someone outside of business, hostile in most ways to business people, would think that the CEO would know everything about everything.
So we now consider it a plus to have another bureaucrat, another insider, deep in the weeds of how to win when the voters said otherwise. Great. Just great.
And the all-caps used in this blogpost reflect a certain unhinged view of the matter. The point can easily be made by repetition of the word sans all caps. My view on all caps on blogs, emails, etc. Is that the writer has revealed a loose screw.
Trump's rhetoric is thrilling?
That's a new one for explaining this phenomenon.
The Creole State is one of the most politically corrupt in the nation, so it's not surprising that there's been a delegate do-si-do. Hardly an indictment of Trump.
That's what people want in a Presidential candidate/President, "modesty and restraint." They don't want someone who makes promises that can't be kept, who talks in grand terms about starting a movement or fundamental change, who pronounces/prognosticates about wild claims like their own election being a turning point in history somehow (like, just to make something up, their election being the moment when the oceans begin to recede or the planet heal)...people hate that kind of thing, someone like that could never get elected.
Mr. Trump mentioned Louisiana, where he won the primary, but where Senator Ted Cruz is likely to come away with more delegates after exploiting peculiarities in the state’s system
In addition to Louisiana:
How the GOP Elite Plan To Rob Donald Trump
Rule 16(d)- ...nobody can be a delegate if he is from a state where voters who are not registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primary. Like Massachusetts, where Trump got 22 delegates. Not like New Hampshire, where Democrats and Independents can officially re-register as Republicans going into the polling booth, vote on a Republican ballot, and re-register as a Dem on their way out, all on the same day. But like Arkansas, where Trump racked up 16 delegates.
Missouri’s rules regarding delegate selection are clear and simple to follow: the winner in each of the state’s eight congressional districts gets 5 votes. The winner of the entire state then gets an extra 12 votes. Easy, peasey, right? WRONG. Missouri law doesn’t require county election authorities to report votes by congressional district, only by county.
Rule 38 – which prohibits states from requiring their delegations from voting as a unit, by a majority vote of all members of their state delegation—could,be interpreted to mean that delegates are not bound at all, even on the first ballot!
""There is a simple rule here, a rule of legislation, a rule of business, a rule of life: beyond a certain point, complexity is fraud. You can apply that rule to left-wing social programs, but you can also apply that rule to credit derivatives, hedge funds, all the rest of it." – P J O’Rourke"
Great quote.
And yet the idea works in the other direction: Beyond a certain point, simplicity is fraud.
We need to notice when someone is overcomplicating or oversimplifying. These are both ways of lying to and tricking people and covering up inadequacies.
Dealing with Supreme Court opinions, I'm continually swamped in the complexity version of fraud. I try to paraphrase things into a form where we can look at it clearly and judge it. But oversimplifying is deceptive too. And as my father might have said: "It's all rhetoric." It's very hard to use words to get to the precise point where what you've got is not tweaked to some extent. It may be impossible. It's who we are.
Now, just to get it out there, I'll remind everyone that weirdos like me want to shrink the size and scope of government in part because the less power the government has the less risky any person in charge actually is--the less the .gov controls the less you have to worry about what it'll do with that power.
If the problem is that we can't be sure of the caliber (and competence) of our leaders and we can't take steps to ensure only good leaders get elected one solution that reduces risk is to decrease the number (and scale) of things they can possibly fuck up.
That's not compassionate, though, and people like me obviously hate the poor, minorities, and other victim classes, so we shouldn't be listened to.
Wouldn't anyone who is running for their first term as POTUS be inexperienced?
Some more than others.
Opportunity knocks.
I know what. We should ask thousands of people whose public slush fund careers depend on raping the Government to bundle their friends donations and raise billions of dollars and buy the political Super Team's campaign services and buy up all TV ad slots until election day and recruit a perfect young sexy candidate and RULE.
Oh, never mind. That has already been tried and Trump defeated them all.
Look, it's pretty clear. Trump's approach (using his credentials as a businessman as his argument for his fitness for office) makes Professor Althouse feel nervous--she doesn't trust it. You're not going to overcome that feeling of hers. [I first typed "you're not going to overcome that feeling with logical arguments no matter how good" but the truth is you're not going to overcome it with anything.]
Trump makes Professor Althouse feel uncomfortable. The thought of him becoming President makes her fearful. She won't vote for him and she likely won't think much of people who would (or do). There are probably quite a lot of people who feel the same way, so it's very likely that Trump can not win the general election. Simple.
"Well, I won't lie to you. 'Exploiting peculiarities' in the every state’s delegate system is not my bag, baby."
Beyond a certain point, simplicity is fraud.
A quote commonly attributed to Einstein, though probably not something he ever phrased this way:
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
How Trump lost 'er: He seems terribly unprepared, rude, and like a big risk.
How Cruz lost 'er: He's sanctimonious and smug--too much God talk and no warmth or compassion.
How Bernie lost 'er: He's too extreme; though a good dude overall he's just too far out there.
Who else? It's not news that this will be a "pick the best of the available bad choices" election. Get ready for President Clinton 2: Electric Pant Suitaloo.
Seriously, Trump has no intention of actually being president. He tells us this everyday, but we just aren't listening. This campaign is just one big exciting amusement ride for him. He's having the time of his life.
No. That's not the flip side. Obama — his people — ran the campaign brilliantly... in ways similar to what Cruz is doing now. Of course, it was ridiculous that running the campaign was the only example of executive experience he could offer and putting Obama into the job was a huge risk. We can argue about how much of a disaster the Obama presidency has been, but whatever, it doesn't argue for going ahead and plugging some other inexperienced person into the presidency, and it remains the fact that Trump has not taken care of the technical side of running his campaign. He's trying to do all the political work in the form of thrilling rhetoric.
4/1/16, 8:19 AM"
Althouse the problem with your argument is the rest of the field.
Let's see: aging semi-hippie Communist Senator. Lots of experience there. Scandal encrusted failed Secretary of State and criminal. Lots of experience there. Senator whose principal experience in government was as a solicitor for the State. A Governor who hasn't done an exceptional job and blew an opportunity to do the taxpayers of his state a favor by curbing public sector unions and further endangered the states's fisc by engaging in the Obama Medicaid expansion when as Governor he didn't have to.
What experience do any of the candidates have that objectively beats Trump? As political work, no kidding. That's what candidates do. I voted for Cruz in my primary, I hope he becomes the nominee but I do recognize that Trump has done what is up to now a rather brilliant job and has done so on the cheap. He has spent the least amount of money so far per vote cast in his favor than that of any of the current candidates and way less than supposed party favorite in the beginning Jeb Bush and I don't seem to see any SuperPacs spending tons of cash pushing for Trump.
Trump's approach (using his credentials as a businessman as his argument for his fitness for office)...
Your premise is that Trump's credentials as a businessman are net positive. There's a great deal of factual history to the contrary. But those are logical arguments.
Wait a second. I thought Trump was playing 12 dimensional chess! I guess either he is, and this story is not what it seems OR maybe he isn't as clever as many have professed.
Appears to me, that Trump is clever enough to have everyone talking about him. Every day. None of you anti-Trumps have anything good to say about your candidate.
Anyone who thinks that Corey Lewandowski would be a good, or even a capable, campaign manager needs to reassess his ability to choose political talent.
Trump apparently has hired the best of the best GoP delegate manager. But I agree with your larger point that he or his people should have known the rules of the game before indulging to play in it.
Heh heh heh.
Like I've said here before, if you think Trump supporters are going to be angry, you just wait and see what happens if Cruz supporters realize that their vote for Cruz was a de facto vote for Ryan or Romney.
As the folks at Emory would say: WowjustwowIcan'teventriggered
Assuming that this isn't just hot air in the media and Trump closes the deal solo, then Cruz is just strengthening his hand for when he makes his deal with Trump.
Because Cruz is going to get something, but let's be very clear here: If Trump wins the nomination and Cruz gets nothing, then Cruz still has a future. But if Cruz is viewed by his supporters as ultimately paving the way for the GOPe?
Game over.
@AllenS, Ted Cruz is one of the most brilliant lawyers in the United States today.
Oh, you wanted me to say something good about my candidate.
"whatever it is... figurehead, idea man, starring role, big talker" Sorry, no. He's in the name-licensing business.
Does Trump even want to be Prez?
Experience in winning elections is not the same thing as competence in governing while in office.
Hillary sure did win her Senate seat pretty easily, and breezed through a nomination process for SecState that could have, should have, derailed her as the corrupt wife of a debauched ex politician that she is. But as Senator and as SecState she was about as useful as teats on a boar hog and as competent as a box of broken hammers.
Trump? Who knows? But at least I doubt he will ever appear on TV to tell half the nation that they are lying about his spouse being a sex pervert when that spouse is caught pretty flagrantly in delecto.
Ann Alathouse said... "putting Obama into the job was a huge risk"
Orange is the new black.
"Yeah, we need another Washington insider who knows how the system works."
Yes.
"it remains the fact that Trump has not taken care of the technical side of running his campaign."
"Obama's people" ran his campaign and cemented their grip on the national teat. Crony capitalism has been running the country for 7 1/2 years. They've done such a great job that we are looking at a multifocal disaster. Of course, they just got a lot richer and, if things get too hot, they can move to Singapore or some safe enclave, if any still exist.
The shmucks who have to stay here are restless. They read about Islamic enclaves here that are run by Sharia Law and worry.
A whole new community sprang up. The area became an upscale enclave, featuring new houses with Arabic script over the doors and sparkling chandeliers. Mosque leaders built two schools and started a youth center for basketball and religious classes. New clothing stores, groceries and restaurants opened in Bridgeview. A floor-covering store turned into a Middle Eastern restaurant. A music store became an Islamic hair salon.
Men who attended the mosque grew their beards and traded their T-shirts for long tunics. Women draped themselves in loose, ankle-length robes.
Cook County was fast becoming home to more Palestinians than any other part of the nation. And the mosque was now one of the area’s largest Islamic centers.…
Nothing to see here. Move along. Stay away from Sanctuary cities, unless you have a Google bus to take you to work and back. Then you can afford to rent a box in your friend's living room.
"Such arrogance, such willingness to accept risk, like the whole country is a thrill ride. Why do people want to get on that ride?"
The ultimate risk is staying with the current uniparty establishment that will absolutely 100% continue us on a course to ruin.
I really don't get the logic of making decisions in a vacuum. If you were stuck on the 2nd floor of a burning house, sure, jumping out the window isn't ideal, but to just pontificate on how silly it is to jump out of windows without mentioning the burning house fire is just absurd.
How can someone be around as long as Althouse and not see the pervasive corruption? It blows my mind.
None of the present candidates are going to have much luck getting either the bureaucracy or Congress to work with them.
This isn't just about "who can do the job best". We aren't in middle school social studies, and our government does not work ideally like we were taught. This isn't some honest game where people smile, nod, and let the best man win. Idealism about our political process at this point is dangerously naive.
Corruption is absolutely endemic. This must be addressed, and it won't happen from inside the party structure.
Watch and wonder when the other shoe is going to drop for Cruz and Trump may be doing alright and not as bad as Althouse prognosticates.
Good assessment by Althouse.
The arcane rules of party allocation of delegates would befuddle even Albert Einstein. Then, multiply this by 50, because each state does it slightly differently.
You need a team of lawyers on this issue in every state - Trump the outsider, probably doesn't have this infrastructure - but he does have the money to build it.
The fact that Trump floats above this isn't a bad thing. I'm sure Reagan, himself, did not bog himself down in the political weeds. But he had reams of low-level Reaganites doing all the necessary grunt work. Trump needs those type of devoted troops.
TCom, if corruption is your primary concern, why Trump? Do you think Cruz is corrupt or secretly enmeshed in the establishment (are they just pretending to despise him?)
Sorry, I just don't get it. It's like in your burning house analogy, Cruz is standing below the window with a net to catch you but Trump is telling you to jump onto the pavement, it will be great, and he'll pay your doctor bills....and you choose to listen to him because Cruz looks kind of creepy and has no charisma.
People are taking Trump's campaign more seriously than he is. It's impressive he's managed to amass so many delegates and expose the national GOP as the fraud party it is. Maybe he can run as a Dem next time and take their party down. Both parties are running on the same tired, failed platform
For those who think that Trump, or his people should have known the rules for each different state primary, let me ask each and every one of you, do you do your own taxes?
Ha.. nice article with illustrations for the dummies about delegates We saw these shenanigans in 2008 Dem primaries and Obama's skullduggery (Althouse calls it running a brilliant campaign) in stealing delegates. So to run a "brilliant campaign" you have to be shady, corrupt, and play by crooked rules and not abide by majority voter intent.
Cruz has no ideas. Same old bullshit.
Maybe he can run as a Dem next time
Hillary showed the party up for the frauds they are in 2008 primary but nobody was paying attention and she didn't go far enough.
Ignorance is Bliss said...4/1/16, 7:54 AM
The issue is not that Trump doesn't know the vague state delegate laws.
The issue is that he didn't know that there are state delegation selection rules that extend beyond the primary.
The issue is the people he hired to handle that sort of thing didn't learn about those laws.
Or they didn't tell him. I don't think we're sure about their loyalties.
Allen, I do my own taxes with the help of software, to the extent out makes any difference. Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable to expect a man running for President to have competent people running his campaign? If he fails in that, why would you have any confidence in people he hires after he wins?
Why is Preibus still head of the RNC? Trump destroyed the RNC. Shouldn't Preibus be sending his resume out to donors
AllenS said...For those who think that Trump, or his people should have known the rules for each different state primary, let me ask each and every one of you, do you do your own taxes?
Bad choice of analogy, AllenS. If I hire a tax accountant to do my taxes it's up to me to hire a good one--if I use bad judgement and hire a shitty accountant and my taxes get screwed up it's partially the accountant's fault but it's mostly my fault--it's my responsibility to get someone competent (and we're not talking about outright fraud here). If I am applying for an HR job were I'll be in charge of hiring accountants and in the interview I volunteer that I hired a shitty accountant to do my own taxes that would rightly count against me...so I'm not sure your analogy does much to make Trump look better here.
Trump has spent way less on this campaign than all the others. The people who donate to the other campaign need their taxes raised immediately since they just piss away their money
In fact, Trump not knowing the full extent of skullduggery by party animals is a plus. May be he will show them up for the frauds they are. But of course, Althouse thinks he is not brilliant enough to run his campaign for not knowing/using corrupt rules from the party henchmen.
"Oh, never mind. That has already been tried and Trump defeated them all."
— Baghdad Traditionalbob
Patrick, is there something similar to a 1040 Instructions that the Trump people could download for each state primary, or maybe some software they could have bought? I doubt it. Sometimes, going through life is a live and learn experience.
AllenS said...
For those who think that Trump, or his people should have known the rules for each different state primary, let me ask each and every one of you, do you do your own taxes?
Trump needed to know it was important and communicate that to his staff - who are predominantly as inexperienced in politics as he is. I think this shows (a) he didn't expect to get this far, and/or (b) this is a natural consequence of his efforts to take a different financial path with less staff and fundraising. He's spent 6 months mocking others (over)-spending, now he's learning the costs associated with his model.
Allen S
Good points. But the real contempt for Trump is that he speaks plainly, including making the point that the people who work for him are supposed to know those rules. How rude! Why our present leader has not fired a single person over the last seven years despite some colossal screw ups. Plus he is a businessman, all caps omitted.
So you are up there with a keen understanding of the price of steel. Businessman, evil businessman.
"How can there be any confidence that ACTOR will plug brilliantly into the presidency and make America great again?"
There shouldn't be, not whatsoever. But, an actor can try running a state first and see what happens. Reagan was successful at that, and that gave him great experience. He did a fair amount between being an actor and being a president.
Schwarzenegger wasn't brilliant as governor. Not that Arnold could run for president anyhow, but if he could, people wouldn't have any confidence in him.
I have a feeling, by the way, that there are legions of people up there in Washington, D.C. who are willing to help any successful candidate in navigating the sea of rules.
This is another healthy example of Trump's non-politician DNA.
I can open my phone book and see an enormous amount of tax preparers, but nowhere can I see any listing for people to help me navigate the rules of a state primary.
Trump learns fast. He has learned that his old method to trust people until the do him harm must be replaced with a Trust. no one bias.
Or maybe not. Leadership requires trusting people.
Since our presidents don't follow the rules and make up their own power, Trump wouldn't have too much trouble as president. I'm sure he has a pen and a phone.
In fact, Trump not knowing the full extent of skullduggery by party animals is a plus.
Once again, we have Trumpism as absurdist nihilism. His very lack of competency proves his brilliance.
"Do you think Cruz is corrupt or secretly enmeshed in the establishment (are they just pretending to despise him?)"
No, he is a first term Senator who has never run anything. He seems to be running a competent campaign but does not impress me as a good general election candidate.
If he is the nominee, I will vote for him but I doubt eh will win.
Trump, I don't know the answer but he breaks all the rules and has done better than anyone expected.
He is also the only one willing to talk about the issues that are the real ones.
This is another healthy example of Trump's non-politician DNA.
There it is again.
We can argue about how much of a disaster the Obama presidency has been, but whatever
@Althouse, you may choose to argue about "how much of a disaster the Obama presidency has been," because you have a tenured faculty position at a major university. Pity you don't have more empathy for the 93 million people who are out of the labor force and exist on government handouts and/or charity or you'd have more appreciation for the scope of the Obama presidency's disaster. Oh, that's right, you had a couple posts about how empathy was an overrated virtue.
This just shows how corrupt the establishment rules are; we can't expect Trump to understand how evil things are.
Or something.
Anything other than he doesn't know what he's doing, he's has zero knowledge on policy matters, and he has the emotional maturity of a teenager.
Besides everyone already there is corrupt and Trump can't be worse.
People can rationalize anything.
The Trump supporters are such a reflection of their candidate. They are proudly conservative, except when the aren't. They are determined to win the nomination of the Republican Party, except when they express contempt for the Party and virtually all of its leaders. They are strong and unforgiving, except when they are whining about not getting things their way.
"Why do people want to get on that ride? Are they so angry and left out and ready to see what happens? Bombs away!"
I don't think that's what people who support Trump want at all. Rather, they feel like they are already on a runaway train and they are looking for the brakes.
I know a lot of people who like Trump. I don't buy the whole "they're angry" narrative, as though that explains everything. It's pushed by Trump Supporter detractors and it's a good example of simplicity as fraud. It's condescending and dismissive, it frames their point of view as less than rational and most importantly it flatters those who promote it.
The Trump Supporters I know aren't people who feel left out. If anything, they're wanting to be left out. By that I mean they don't want to be lab rats in some grand sociology experiment. They don't want their system of government changed without their consent. They don't think our Constitutional Rights go too far and need to be gotten under control. They don't want their government spending the earnings of their children's children to build a Mandarin Class of legally empowered busy-bodies looking to find meaning in micromanaging the lives of others. I could go on.
Is Trump going to be able to make all that better? Hell, who knows? I have my doubts. But what is the risk of continuing down the path we're been on? The ground proximity alarm is screaming and the crew (who are all trained and experienced experts) are fighting over the last donut.
Allen, if you have lots of resources, and want to run for president, there are plenty of people who know what needs to be done, in every state. All it takes is the intelligence to hire them. It is a very elementary task that even out current president was able to navigate. If Trump can't even meet Obama's low standard, how on earth is he qualified?
Trump's business aides are likely for the most part competent. They know what they are supposed to do and they do it. Not so his political aides. Who is Trump's James Baker? Or Carl Rove for that matter? He does not have any. I'm a little surprised one of his kids has not stepped up to take over this job. Or his spouse. Where is the next Nancy Reagan when you need her?
"No sir, President Trump, you weren't supposed to send the nuclear codes to our people to see what happens."
But his supporters will say it was great, just great, anyway. Look at the pretty lights. Besides, we're going to hell anyway; Mr. Trump is just getting things done faster. Look at the money he's saving!
These aren't conservatives; they're radical nihilists. They've given up and don't care that Trump is unqualified for the office. Since ideas like qualifications don't matter.
Ann Althouse said...Of course, it was ridiculous that running the campaign was the only example of executive experience he could offer and putting Obama into the job was a huge risk.
Not too ridiculous nor too big of a risk to vote for him (as did millions of others). Why do we keep framing arguments this way? Obama won election, everyone, and re-election too! It makes no sense to ignore that fact when making comparisons of a relative nature. We live in a world where he was elected (with is inexperience, his riskyness, all of it). That's a data point. If you think he's been a terrible President that data point might argue against putting in another inexperienced person, sure. But to say "America won't vote for someone without X, or someone who's a risk" when America has voted for someone like that, recently, is just weird.
Isn't this a little self defeating?
If he wins, then he does know. If he loses, then why should we care?
Bob Boyd said...
The Trump Supporters I know aren't people who feel left out. If anything, they're wanting to be left out. By that I mean they don't want to be lab rats in some grand sociology experiment. They don't want their system of government changed without their consent.
I think these people need to think about how Trump is likely to act, game theory it out a little. Assuming arguendo Trump becomes President what do you suppose he's going to do? He's on record saying he can get deals done and work with anyone - and ultimately this is how Trump will be judged as President. We know he's going to be focused on something huge, I think we can all agree he's not going to be a caretaker President. It goes against his nature.
So he's handing leverage to everyone else at the negotiating table, especially on immigration. If a deal doesn't get done Democrats and establishment Republicans are strengthened, their BATNA is positive. No deal = failed presidency = "See we told you" in the next election. Trump has to have the deal. You may think he's not willing to abandon the principles you support, but consider his comments he could shoot someone and his popularity wouldn't change. Doesn't this suggest he believes he can get his supporters on board no matter what the details are? Meanwhile Trump knows even if he can't bring conservatives along he becomes the biggest media and left wing political star since at least FDR.
If you're looking for the best deal you want the candidate who says "we'll look at their offers but let's face it their ideas aren't great."
Interesting to see the new names of Trump haters.
""No sir, President Trump, you weren't supposed to send the nuclear codes to our people to see what happens."
Hillary already took care of that, thank you.
AA: Such arrogance, such willingness to accept risk, like the whole country is a thrill ride. Why do people want to get on that ride? Are they so angry and left out and ready to see what happens? Bombs away!
I'd like to see a government-experienced "moderate" elected if only to observe reactions when we get the thrill ride, regardless.
I think we're already chugging up the first ramp of the thrill ride, I don't think anybody on offer has the "coherent vision, political capability, and experience in a broader world" to get us off, so I can't get too excited or dismayed about their alleged competencies or lack thereof. (A problem with "coherent visions" per se is that there's nothing inherently correct, or necessarily palatable, about a coherent vision. Crackpots often have visions that are marvels of consistency and coherence. Hillary Clinton has a coherent vision of where she wants to take us. George Soros is a man with a coherent vision. I think Ted Cruz has a coherent vision, but it's extremely narrow-field, and thus inadequate for an executive of an enormous, riven, fracturing post-republic on a thrill ride.)
I reacted to Henry's first paragraph in isolation.
Here's his second paragraph: "This isn't a point in Trump's favor. "His very lack of experience is what we need." No. What we need is someone that has a coherent vision, political capability, and experience in a broader world than Obama's academic-political cloister or Trump's sycophantic wasteland."
I agree with that. Very well put.
So do I. (With stipulations about the definition of "vision" and "broader", and that "political capability" doesn't mean "you know, like Paul Ryan").
And the people in hell want ice water.
Hagar: Trump's rhetoric is thrilling?
That's a new one for explaining this phenomenon.
At this point I'd settle for any useless moderate technocrat who could demonstrate an understanding of "this phenomenon" that rose above this sort of pundit drivel. (But then he wouldn't be a useless moderate technocrat, would he?)
"Interesting to see the new names of Trump haters."
Saying the truth about Trump - that's he's not qualified - is now being a hater. Besides I'm not new; I've been saying this for awhile.
If I said that about Hillary Clinton I would be praised for my insight.
The Trump supporters are the biggest bunch of whiners and victimization believers outside of our campus crybabies. And we can see with their use of words like "haters" how much they resemble the left.
This is only surpassed by their inability to respond to any criticism of Trump. And their unwillingness to hold him to any standards. Whatever he says or does is fine with them.
As others have noted, it's not a movement it has a lot of qualities of a cult.
I know exactly why I want Cruz to win. He has said he wants to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. He has done what he promised he would do in other circumstances. As president he would be a strong voice, giving cover to RINO squishes, to pursue his (and my) policy preferences.
Passing budgets for each of the federal agencies, avoiding omnibus crap, and reducing discretion for regulatory agencies to pursue their efforts at oppression would help across the board. I believe Cruz will be able to see the weak points in his opposition toward these critical tasks because he has demonstrated the intellectual capacity to juggle many profound tasks at a time.
Althouse: "...Obama — his people — ran the campaign brilliantly..."
Respectfully:
His people? You mean the legions of academics, teachers (pre-K on, having the little children sing "Obama, Obama..."), thousands of Acorn-ish corrupt networks, union thugs, Soros et al, AND the media all inculcating, bullying, or bribing people into supporting him? And Trump has what--Twitter, and all the above-mentioned groups and then some fighting (literally and figuratively) against him? I'd say he's done very well considering just about every group above, plus many on the right, from the MSM, to once disliked for their Catholic views academics, trying to bring him down.
"His people" employed the Chicago way, (commencing with Oprah's "Barrrrack Hooosein Really-long-O bama" to thrust him into the limelight) and the Chicago way is what we've had for almost eight long years. Sadly, most people have zero idea of the 100's of billions in "Recovery" funds that were 'awarded' as payback, and did nothing to help unemployment levels, our liberties, or our economy. In short, it was used to hasten the slide of our Republic into a corrupt, perverted, pseudo-commie State that if a Hillary or Bernie should take the Presidency, will look similar to Cuba and it's iron fist by the end of their term.
I'm not a huge fan of Trump, but given the creepy Cruz and his zero chance in the general; my utter disgust for Hillary, her policies, her practices, her disdain for this country and its laws, her piss-poor job as SOS etc. (I shudder at the thought of her being the first female president); let's see, oh, then there is Bernie! Can't you just picture the somewhat endearing old fart in the Oval Office? (At least he'd be practically harmless, just a bunch of nothing will be accomplished during his tenure, it'll just be a long pause.) That leaves me with two options--Trump or Sanders. For now, I'm going with real world experience--Trump. (Although I still contend there is a very good chance none of the aforementioned will be in the general. My guess is Ryan/Kasich and Biden/Warren. And all hell will break loose.)
"AA: Such arrogance, such willingness to accept risk, like the whole country is a thrill ride. Why do people want to get on that ride? Are they so angry and left out and ready to see what happens? Bombs away!"
Yes. In so many words.
They view the establishment - which has no meaning and every meaning at the same time - as so corrupt that they don't care that Trump is unqualified. Since concepts like qualifications are meaningless. "Look at Obama! Look at the so-called qualified people who've ruined the country!"
Whatever he does, whatever he says is fine with them.
Don't blame Trump's failure to organize properly on the fact that he is a BUSINESSMAN. As in all endeavors there is a bell curve regarding success , smarts, you name it. Trump's failure is that, unlike most successful BUSINESSMEN, he did not acknowledge that he was getting into a new field that he knew very little about. Had he done that he would have immediately realized that he needed to hire some people who were experienced in running a presidential campaign. No different from having a problem in law, or rocketry. You hire someone who knows what they are doing and you learn from them.
The last couple of weeks have brought about the Trump implosion that I had, at first, thought would come quickly and then thought might not come at all. I was not happy with the "never Trumpers" who seemed to prepared to bend the rules and ignore the wishes of the electorate. The open opposition to Trump has certainly brought him into a new light for the electorate and it is not flattering. I don't have a problem with the open opposition, but coming this late it is going to create a tremendous problem unless Trumo is somehow able to pull himself together to get the delegates he needs. Unfortunately I think Trump does not have the strength of character to resist a third party run. I am not happy that it appears that Cruz will be the second choice , but anything is better than Hillary.
Althouse's friends: Can't you see he's no good for you? He's crass. He's vulgar. And his accent! Can you imagine him at one of your father's parties? What will people say?
Althouse: You don't know the man I do. He says what's on his mind. He is bold and always interesting. People are drawn to him, and so am I.
Althouse's friends: But what about the vanity, the scapegoating, the endless bragging, the refusal to ever admit a mistake?
Althouse: You think never admitting a mistake is a failing? People want you to admit a mistake so they can control you. It's a form of manipulation. His refusal to knuckle under to the betas of the world is what I love about him most.
Althouse's friends: What about the thin skin? Staying up all night attacking with Twitter. Never letting go of petty insults. This is who you want to be with?
Althouse: Donald is asserting his dominance. He's showing there is a price to be paid for getting on his wrong side. Can't you see how sweet he is when people treat him with proper respect? It's all a game and nobody plays it better than my Donald.
Althouse's friends: Look what he's doing now. He's said one positive thing after another about dictators around the world past and present: Putin, Kim Jung Un, Castro, Mussolini. Does none of this give you pause?
Althouse: I am unmoved by ridiculous and exaggerated comparisons to Hitler.
Althouse's friends: Who said anything about . . .? (sigh) OK. Fine. What about the calls to violence? He's stirring up his supporters who are already in a rough mental state what with the economy. Is it responsible for him to offer to pay the legal fees of those starting fights with protesters. Is this the man you fell for?
Althouse: Ted Cruz made joke about running over my Donald.
Althouse's friends: But that's. . . It's not. . . I don't even. . . OK. Well I see you've given this a lot of thought. I hope your very happy.
(Hours pass)
Althouse: You know. Now that I think about it. This whole businessman template is unlikely to work in practice.
Althouse's friends: Huh? What was that?
Althouse: Businessman. Businessman? Donald approaches things as a businessman. I think that is unlikely to work out with me. I think I'm going to call it off.
Althouse's friends: Sure sweetie. I'm sure you know best.
I agree 100% with your point Ann.
Trump looks like a buffoon by not understanding ground game and how the rules work.
Although I have long advocated a Businessman for POTUS, I think the job has expanded beyond what is possible for anyone to succeed in. Just look at the abject failure of Obama to gain the counterpoint that a political background is no help either.
Yet how does Warren Buffett manage 400,000 people and do it so damn effectively? Because he is famous for staying within his "circle of competence."
Like Trump or Obama, Buffett has people to handle the details and he inspires them beyond simple understanding; many of his managers say he is hands-off to a fault but they simply do not want to disappoint him. Obama has in no way inspired that kind of loyalty or competence.
Yet what Buffett is also famous for is running his company based on reason and rationality. This is what is missing in Washington and how you get to a world of $2000 toilet seats.
A businessman is still the best background for this job. We just need the right businessman/woman. Failing that a governor is always best as they've had accountability.
If you think Hillary, Bernie, Ted or John will do any better than Trump we are wishful thinking. Maybe Kasich but certainly all the others have proved in spades they are not up to the job
Which is why a small government is best!!
So what are the templates that work for President? The COMMUNITY ORGANIZER template hasn't worked out so well. We're used to electing men who have the GOVERNOR template. Sixty-plus years ago we had a 5-STAR GENERAL template. After that we had a few with the SENATOR template.
Are there any others that could work?
Has Donnie come up with his Top 10 Supreme Court nominees yet?
I'm convinced he's not running for president, just the republican nomination. He's a Sharon Angle and Richard Murdoch writ large, and if the GOP doesn't change it's processes there's going to be more. Notice how he's not self-financing, he's loaning his campaign money. After Cleveland, when Trump for President get $50M in matching funds, see how fast those IOUs get filled, and how much he spends of his own money. Then Clinton has to deal with the motley good ole boy army that he whipped up, just like Obama had to work with Palin's.
Cruz can't wait to do a 180 on amnesty. "It's the right thing to do."
Fuck him.
I guess "aide" is one of those things you call someone subordinate, but important, when you don't know what else to call them.
Only insiders know how to game the State primaries. Trump proves he is honest about being an outsider. Cruz lies again.
Will said..."Trump looks like a buffoon by not understanding ground game and how the rules work."
Keep in mind, it is a NYT piece.
Making the Republican look like a buffoon who lacks understanding is the starting point.
Agelyne wrote: So do I. (With stipulations about the definition of "vision" and "broader", and that "political capability" doesn't mean "you know, like Paul Ryan").
When I wrote that I was actually thinking about Eisenhower.
Only insiders know how to game the State primaries. Trump proves he is honest about being an outsider.
There it is again.
" it's not a movement it has a lot of qualities of a cult."
Says the fellow who is not a hater.
nowhere can I see any listing for people to help me navigate the rules of a state primary
Unfortunately, I know a lot more about this than I want to, as my husband ran for the state house and then for Congress. I hate to argue with you, AllenS, because I really like you, but yes, there are people who can help with these things and they are not at all hard to find if you are plugged into political circles at all.
I would have started with an experienced campaign manager who had run a federal-level campaign and asked, "What do I have to do to get on the ballot in each state and then what happens after that?"
Blogger pm317 said...
Trump apparently has hired the best of the best GoP delegate manager. But I agree with your larger point that he or his people should have known the rules of the game before indulging to play in it.
Again. You're assuming he doesn't. He didn't get where he is by ignoring the details. He knows exactly what the rules are and how to manipulate them in his favor. He and his people are running different scenarios about delegate distribution every day. The man is a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them.
1. Mr. Trump turned to his aides and suggested that they had not been doing what they needed to do....
He verbally thrashed his staff in the meeting with RNC? Filming a new season of "The Apprentice"?
2. Rick at 0727: ...in politics where the politicians at least only value the legislation and care little about execution.
Ah yes, that's what comes to voters who score their Legislators by quantity rather than quality of new legislation.
The Gold Digger said...
there are people who can help with these things and they are not at all hard to find if you are plugged into political circles at all
I'm not plugged into any political circles and I doubt if Trump is either. We are not politicians.
TradionalGuy at 0742: I agree with the Professor. Scott Walker is the answer. He understands political maneuver that get stuff through the system successfully.
'S what Hammond said months ago. Walker has uniquely demonstrated ability to accomplish a move Government of a largely Progressive polity in the direction we need to be moving. Very saddened that he left the Pres. Candidate field so early.
Cruz is being aided by the Party elite--the globalists trying to derail Trump. Add to that, the people in control of the rules are talking about making changes in those rules to stop Trump. Cruz--or any of the other original candidates--wouldn't know jack shit about "navigating" those obstacles. Trump will have to put together a team to deal with the issues that past candidates didn't have to, and it will ultimately come down to voters and donors telling the Party to cut the shit.
If and when Cruz gets the nod, he will have to face those Soros protesters that were trying to shut Trump down. His words about Trump being at fault will come back to bite him in the ass.
Hagar at 0905 None of the present candidates are going to have much luck getting either the bureaucracy or Congress to work with them.
Nor the People at large having much luck either.
Nor should we forget that this is a REPUBLIC of SEPARATE STATES, not a Democracy with a National Primary Day.
Darrell:
I appreciate your conspiracy theories. Do you have a newsletter to which I can subscribe?
I'm not plugged into any political circles and I doubt if Trump is either.
Donald Trump’s rather large political contributions and his claims that he could get politicians do whatever he wanted them to do (including attending his wedding) suggests that he very much considers himself to be “plugged into” political circles.
I appreciate your conspiracy theories. Do you have a newsletter to which I can subscribe?
You haven't been following the words of party insiders, like when they talked about putting Mittens or Ryan in? You are either stupid or a liar. Perhaps both.
"No. That's not the flip side. Obama — his people — ran the campaign brilliantly... in ways similar to what Cruz is doing now."
No, the flip side is that the Democratic Establishment didn't work to undermine Obama and thus make him fight a two-front war for the nomination.
The flip side is that if Obama, even if he or his people didn't know the rules, would have been denied the nomination because it has been "stolen" from him, it's likely the party would have lost the African American vote as a result.
So, party support = seasoned advisors + too afraid of being called racist to "steal" the black man's victory -> Looks like Barack ran a "brilliant" campaign where Trump is having issues.
With the delegate race likely to come down to the final primaries, and the possibility of going to a second ballot, Trump needs every delegate he can get. Any way you cut it, failing to have good campaign people who could understand each state's delegate rules is an embarrassment for him and belies his argument that he puts in the "best people." There's really no good way for Trump to spin this.
But reliably as ever, his supporters STILL try to spin this as a plus--see, he's not an insider! (Even though he prides himself on knowing how the insiders work, and brags he can buy and sell people all day long) A good businessman is big picture, and delegates to others! (Sort of exactly the point--he obviously didn't delegate his delegate issues (delegate delegation?) to the right people--not a plus in the leadership book) Who cares, Trump will win the most delegates anyway! (He very well may, but he also very well may come down to a razor thin margin at the convention where snafus like this can haunt him--plus, what does this say about his campaign organization when they're about to go up against Hillary's which will ruthlessly use every trick in the book? Cruz's team at least seems sharp on the ground campaign)
Trump is right--he could shoot someone in the street and his fans will still find a way to make that look like a plus for him.
AA wrote, "He's trying to do all the political work in the form of thrilling rhetoric." I listened to probably a total of two of the debates but have never listened to one of Donald Trump's campaign speeches etc. Does he really utilise 'thrilling rhetoric'? I'd probably describe what he does as 'expert media manipulation' but what do I know. Going back to my Quintilian and Varro now.
I'm still for Trump, even though he is a BUSINESSMAN and got outfoxed by party veterans and didn't manage to hire the right foxes himself. Nearly every establishment pol is against him, so perhaps he won't get the nomination. My support for him doesn't rest on some myth of superhuman automatic competence + success.
So much commentary (what, 136 now?) and I don't see where anyone has addressed TreeJoe's 7:31 point. NYT writes "...Trump said.... [according too] the people briefed on the meeting said." and you all are off and running.
So we have the NYT reporting on what people, who weren't in the meeting, said that Trump said in the meeting. Now that's what I call reliable evidence.
So, Darrell... I was told you had a newsletter.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন