Mr. Trump began June with just $1.3 million in cash on hand, a figure more typical for a campaign for the House of Representatives than the White House. He trailed Hillary Clinton, who raised more than $28 million in May, by more than $41 million, according to reports filed late Monday night with the Federal Election Commission.Yeah, well, at least it deprives Hillary Clinton of her big talking point about that terrible Citizens United case.
He has a staff of around 70 people — compared with nearly 700 for Mrs. Clinton — suggesting only the barest effort toward preparing to contest swing states this fall....
Mr. Trump’s cash crunch marks a stark reversal from the 2012 presidential campaign, which seemed to inaugurate a new era of virtually unlimited money in American politics, buoyed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision two years earlier....
२१ जून, २०१६
"Donald J. Trump enters the general election campaign laboring under the worst financial and organizational disadvantage of any major party nominee in recent history..."
The NYT reports:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६८ टिप्पण्या:
Citizens United is toast. In Hillary's America, it will be a crime to criticize Hillary.
This morning, CNN was spinning it as Funding Shows Strength, where, in reality, it shows Business as Usual, a candidate bought by special interests.
And he still manages to tie her in PA and OH. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
That Hillary has been bought a dozen times over is hardly news. She's about as fresh as a 50-year old hooker.
Nonsense. Trump got the most Republican votes in Primary history, and will garner many more Independent votes, and crossover from Bernie supporters. MSM uses any lull in the campaign season to dampen the popularity and momentum of the Donald. His rallies are still epic in size and enthusiasm, while Clinton's are small and boring.
NYT (Clinton, and Obama campaign headquarters) desperately try to degrade the popularity of Trump in support of their champion, the criminal HRC. The "Polls" are purposely skewed and not to be believed.
Anyone who thinks anybody gives more than a little crap about Citizens United or election financing is delusional.
What Trump is doing is inexplicable if you believe he is serious about winning (and while it's possible he really is serious about winning, he isn't acting any different than he would if he didn't care about winning and was just in this for attention). It wouldn't have taken much to encourage his supporters to build a network and raise funds and begin the process of registering all these "new voters" I keep hearing about, in order to set up the GOTV operation the GOP did well with in 2012 but not well enough to counter Obama's operation. It can be worth a point or two in a swing state, and wouldn't take much of the candidate's time. The benefit of being able to say "see, I don't need organization or funds" doesn't seem worth the risk of letting the Dems get a step ahead on that game. Why not just get it done for insurance?
If Trump does pull off a victory this fall, it will be in spite of a lot of inexplicably dumb moves.
Hillary Clinton, The best candidate that money can buy.
Trump needs votes not dollars. He's doing OK by modern standards. Sure, why not let some of that Jeb money buy some influence. That's what the NYT wants to see.
Plot twist: media gloats over preferred candidate's big money in politics, suggests the other guy ought to get bought, too.
Except it's not really that much of a plot twist, is it.
Forbes: "Trump’s campaign – and his entire business empire – have the feel of a Potemkin village, a brand without any material substance, a giant shell game." His standard MO. A possibility Baudrillard failed to contemplate: what do you call a fabrication that lacks even the substance of a simulacrum?
Can his marks sue him? Or is he going to sue Hill and Bill for conning him into running? ("They never told me how hard and expensive it was gonna be! They promised to help me! They led me to believe it was gonna be good for my brand! They set me up!")
"Yeah, well, at least it deprives Hillary Clinton of her big talking point about that terrible Citizens United case."
Nice try. The reason that Trump is lagging behind on financial support is because Republicans donors are not putting their hands into their pocket.
Trump has been boasting for a year that he is running the Primaries with his money and so cannot be bought-off. Well, all he needs to do is walk to the bank in Trump Tower and cash a check for a 1 billion dollars. Trump can do this right now, today.
Guess what? Trump can't because he ain't got the money or if he has got the money he ain't going to risk it.
Rope-a-dope.
If he's going to spend the money, I suspect he's going to wait until after the convention and make all the spending in October but only in the states he has a chance of winning.
Juggernaut isn't very much like astronaut but I wish it were.
"I keep hearing about, in order to set up the GOTV operation the GOP did well with in 2012 but not well enough to counter Obama's operation. "
I heard that the GOP GOTV program collapsed. It was a farce and destroyed Romney's image of competence, I read letters from volunteers who had no voter lists or call lists.
I think what we see here is a donor strike. The donor class is comfortable with Hillary. The only big donors that are not, are the NRA and a few civil liberties outfits that don't come up with the big money anyway.
I suspect that Trump will have to do this without the donor class and, if they see he is winning anyway, they will shift to Hillary big time.
The question is whether there is enough money in the world to make her look honest.
Let's see: Polls are skewed. He needs voters, not dollars. His rallies are epic. He's running even in PA. He got the most primary votes evah. He's saving his money until after the convention. Hill is bought by big money. Did I miss anything? It's all very, very reassuring.
Yes, we need to consult 'unskewed' polls again.
That worked so well for Romney.
Republicans need a safe space, free from those polls that represent reality.
Its time for Ann to revisit some of those polling threads, so we can read these same idiots use the same talking points about polls 4 years ago.
"Sure, why not let some of that Jeb money buy some influence."
Just because campaigns can spend money foolishly doesn't mean campaigns don't need money in general. Campaign money can be put to good use, too.
"Can his marks sue him? Or is he going to sue Hill and Bill for conning him into running? ("They never told me how hard and expensive it was gonna be! They promised to help me! They led me to believe it was gonna be good for my brand! They set me up!")"
One thing we can count on is that it's someone else's fault.
"Nice try. The reason that Trump is lagging behind on financial support is because Republicans donors are not putting their hands into their pocket."
Don't fault Althouse, since she decided to be a Trump booster she has had to really stretch with some of these blog posts. It's fascinating sometimes.
"I heard that the GOP GOTV program collapsed. It was a farce and destroyed Romney's image of competence, I read letters from volunteers who had no voter lists or call lists."
Those things can happen even with competent campaigns, but I'd read Romney's operation wasn't bad--it just wasn't as good as Obama's. Obama had his running long earlier and with far more data.
"I think what we see here is a donor strike. The donor class is comfortable with Hillary. The only big donors that are not, are the NRA and a few civil liberties outfits that don't come up with the big money anyway."
I think there are a lot of big donors that would have gladly put in for Trump, even if they didn't like him in the primary, but the way he's been going the past few months has them wondering if he'd waste the money. He's spending far too much time in non-swing states (rallies in CA, NY) and showing no real ground organization, and spending a lot of time on subjects that baffle them (attacking Gov. Martinez, the Curiel mess, etc.). I can't blame them for wanting to at least wait and see if he can get his act together before writing checks.
Hillary was always going to have a money advantage--she's been raising for years. But the GOP candidate usually can at least get enough to run a national campaign. We'll see if this shoestring strategy works for Trump.
"Let's see: Polls are skewed. He needs voters, not dollars. His rallies are epic. He's running even in PA. He got the most primary votes evah. He's saving his money until after the convention. Hill is bought by big money. Did I miss anything? It's all very, very reassuring."
The only thing I'd say that the Trumpites can hold on to is that major events can swing this thing and help him win despite his own best efforts. So far last week's terror attack didn't seem to do it (events can only help you if you handle them well) but maybe there'll be something else. Still, I wouldn't bet on it. Every time Hillary seems to be reeling Trump jumps in to save the day for her.
Trump did not spend much money in the primaries either, and in fact, those who spent the most failed also failed the most abysmally.
Could it be that money and "organization" will not necessarily win an election campaign if that is all you have?
Oh, noes!!!
You mean that when the news media reported that Hillary! raised gazillions of dollars in campaign contributions in May that wasn't intended as a criticism?
The money garnered (take THAT, Althouse) by Hillary! will be used to attack Trump nonstop from here on out. A little about her, focusing on her many years in the corridors of power, and a lot about what a blustering, devious, erratic sleezebag Trump is and always has been. I think Trump is at risk with a 20-25% chance of winning.
Loretta Lynch, with her compliant behavior last weekend, swept away any lingering hope that legal process might snare Hillary, but as I heard Stephen Moore say last night, the worst thing that could happen to Trump would be to have Hillary replaced on the ticket with Biden or some other Democrat who would initially be more popular than she is.
The best thing that could happen for Trump would be for him to settle down, come up with a pro-growth economic plan, continue to take potshots at Hillary, and really probe what has happened to America over the past eight years.
I can think of a hundred reasons not to vote for Trump, but three reasons to do so:
1. He is not Hillary Clinton.
2. His election would be a great counter-punch to the infestation of PC culture in America.
3. I will like his Supreme Court nominees better than I will like Hillary's.
If he comes up with an economic program that focuses on growth, that will be a fourth. Also, he needs to get John Kasich or a comparable person on the ticket as VP.
Trump can win, but he has to do a lot of things right from here on out.
During the primaries Trump exploited an enormous loophole in our nation's campaign finance regime: free airtime provided by the MSM. He has shone a light on in-kind media campaign contributions, even though the media who "paid" him mostly despised him.
An editorial in the NYT endorsing Hillary Clinton is conceptually a campaign contribution. The difference is that sort of contribution is not regulated by the FEC.
BDNYC: "An editorial in the NYT endorsing Hillary Clinton is conceptually a campaign contribution."
I'm sure that somewhere there is a ruling that for a "campaign contribution" to have occurred the thing being contributed must be of some discernable value.
I wonder if an editorial by Pravda on the Hudson actually qualifies under that criterion.
Maybe Trump already won his chief goal: clear out the Republican primary.
It's also true, though, that at this stage there's not a lot of benefit to heavy campaigning or fund-raising. He's coasting at a near tie, without spending money. A burst of money/energy in the late Summer and Fall would be more strategic, to gain momentum at the election peak.
I still think it's the first, but I'm open to it being the second.
I have said from the beginning and I still believe Trump has no real desire to become the President. He might just end up as President--though I think Hillary will take it--but, if so, it will be despite his actions and actual intentions.
Gramma says your pTb doesn't need anything beyond an assistant who can preannounce the appropriate persona and tools to recognize caller Ids and he can represent himself as one of his one hundred staff, continuing his last paragraph from the previous call with this persona in whatever role is appropriate, since he has an eidetic memory like Bois Alterman. Gramma says he's the best sockpuppet she's ever seen, this is the way he's always handled all his business, with one person doing the jobs of 10s, but there are hundreds of very untalented people needed to play the political game so it's trivial for anyone that plays a 10 wide simul, with a blindfold. Saves a lot of money and time arguing unless you like to argue with yourself. He's also his own security staff since he's armed as are enough of his staff. So his claim about killing someone in NYC is something he’s already thought about as perhaps a sad necessity. Consider the level of civil society suggest when he’s not uncomfortable having his fans carry at an event. Granted, this makes the protesters very well behaved, no throwing of poop or deadly bottles of frozen water.. When was the last election where guns were not permitted? There were plenty at Andrew Jackson even though he was a traitor to his class and most slave-owners expected him to set the stage for freeing the slaves, since the slave trade into the county had ended fifty years earlier, and the economic benefit was largely gone compared to a free and much more productive north. Granted, a number tried to kill him duels, mostly initiation by AJ, including one with someone who had shamed his wife in front of his children, who he killed, just deserts. this should have happened to the head of the Anti Trump PAC who published pictures of his wife. Makes people much more civil and eliminates any need fo a Libel law which can only destroy the first amendment.
A gun free zone would have made pTb and his fans targets. Surprised this didn’t make the Left’s heads explode. No way the left, communists or Nazis collected the guns. They would have all died. By the same token the 1 in 4 that carry in Florida if let inside the club (who says gun owners are not law abiding) would have stopped if not eliminated other mass murders in gun free countries and cities around the world, of course when people carry, there is almost no violent crime and carrying makes even the timid angry, and quick to act where even the timid will throw their body between the attacker and the victim, because they know they are not powerless, and odds are better than zero someone else will take the attacker out. Australia collected their guns and saw the number of Home invasions go up by 10x, making people very afraid and insecure, feeling very unsafe in their person and property. Where if only one person in a block had a weapon the uncertainty protected the entire block. Which can’t happen when citizens realize that police can only respond not protect. Taking away guns only reduces to near zero suicides and accidents, which should not be counted in the same way. Like deaths due to bathtubs. Well it’s your world. And you like to kill millions of innocents in the Womb so what’s few 10s of thousand more. Gramma says they have a special place in he!! for those who sacrifice the innocent on the altar of political correctness. Even more amusing is if the sign said “Muslim Free Zone” odds are zero Florida would have happened to say nothing about eliminating 6 hour waits at major airports (three hours early plus three hours in line). You Idiots.
"the way he's been going the past few months has them wondering if he'd waste the money."
Oh, I don't disagree but I think they are also comfortable with Hillary. The Koch Brothers have already announced they are supporting her.
The issues that drive the Trump voters, and I am one but not all that enthusiastic, are not important to the big capitalists.
Guns ? Not important to those with bodyguards and restricted housing.
Immigration? They want more.
Muslims ? Opportunity for virtue signaling.
Not a bad analysis by Claire Berlinski.
Fascism is what comes if Trump loses.
A vast political space is thus left vacant by the Republican/Tory non-sequitur, on the one hand, and moderate Left particularism and assistentialism, on the other. That was the space briefly occupied in the USA by the 1992 election-year caprices of Ross Perot, and which Zhirinovsky’s bizarre excesses are now occupying in the peculiar conditions of Russia, where personal economic insecurity is the only problem that counts for most people … And that is the space that remains wide open for a product-improved Fascist party, dedicated to the enhancement of the personal economic security of the broad masses of (mainly) white-collar working people. Such a party could even be as free of racism as Mussolini’s original was until the alliance with Hitler, because its real stock in trade would be corporativist restraints on corporate Darwinism, and delaying if not blocking barriers against globalisation.
"It's also true, though, that at this stage there's not a lot of benefit to heavy campaigning or fund-raising. He's coasting at a near tie, without spending money. A burst of money/energy in the late Summer and Fall would be more strategic, to gain momentum at the election peak."
That's the thing--with universal name recognition (and our two-party system) there really isn't much need for money to "get the word out". Campaigns I think at the presidential level anyway tend to raise and spend a lot more than they need (there's only so many commercials you can air, and a lot of consultants are overpaid boobs, and organizations can be top heavy, etc.). But there is a critical amount that a campaign needs to get a ground game--local organizers to go door to door, registering voters, getting people absentee ballots or transport to the polls, even volunteers cost money for gas or snacks or literature. The polls will continue to be tight (Hillary's lead will settle back to a few points, and Trump may swing past her from time to time) but the polls generally assume an about-even GOTV operation. If you give up a point or two because you have none of that, it seems a pointless risk to run.
I'm trying to imagine Trump deciding that winning might bust his budget. After all, at 70, there will be countless future opportunities to run for President, but personal funds spent to not end up a loser can never be replaced.
"Oh, I don't disagree but I think they are also comfortable with Hillary. The Koch Brothers have already announced they are supporting her."
Many are, she and her husband are longtime members of the Wall Street wing of their party. Though she is foolish enough to pick Warren, which may make some of them bail...
A lot of big money donors (companies, mostly) give to both sides to hedge their bets. I suspect some will give something to Trump, certainly if he keeps it close by October, but it won't be the bigger donations that Republicans are used to.
If his team is smart, they'll figure out how to spend their money wisely, but these rallies in CA only make sense if Trump really has something else in mind besides winning.
We still hear a lot about Trump needing the women's vote but seldom hear about Hillary and the man's vote. I don't know even one man who is voting for Hillary!
Citizens United is bad bad bad - unless it helps Hillary.
Hillary has her hand out for big-corporate money, all while she bashes her donors. *wink* The media let her get away with it. They are part of it.
Blogger Mark said...
Yes, we need to consult 'unskewed' polls again.
That worked so well for Romney.
Republicans need a safe space, free from those polls that represent reality.
Its time for Ann to revisit some of those polling threads, so we can read these same idiots use the same talking points about polls 4 years ago.
I find this line of thought fascinating. Polls are wrong all the time. Ann linked to Nate Silver not too long ago explaining why he got the rise of Trump wrong. I've seen so many wildly inaccurate polls in my day that I've lost almost all my faith in polls.
Then, one year, unskewed polls comes along. And they get it wrong. Make adjustments and get it right the next time? No no. They got it wrong before therefore they'll always get it wrong. Forget how often we see that polls are inaccurate, unskewed polls were wrong once.
Maybe, just maybe, both sides are biased. Those who want to believe in the unskewed polling and those who don't.
Let's do the math. Say Trump is only worth $5 billion, tops, and he somehow manages to liquidate $2 billion of that to fund his campaign, but doing so enables him to beat Hillary. Try to imagine the shame of it: the President-elect of the U. S., only months ago worth $5 billion, now worth only $3 billion. Just think of the ruthless mocking the President would receive from the Kochs and others of similar means.
What has Citizens United got to do with the amount of money people contribute to candidates' committees?
"If you give up a point or two because you have none of that, it seems a pointless risk to run" and: "these rallies in CA only make sense if Trump really has something else in mind besides winning" Connecting the dots, as you do, and Cook and yours truly have also done: giving up points is not pointless and "epic" rallies in CA do make sense if T "has something else in mind besides winning." Which he did from the outset. Except that he may have underestimated the slight conundrum of not trying to win and not wanting to be Prez in a position where there really is a lot of pressure to get serious, a place you can't con your way out of.
Michael K
That was an interesting article not least for the fact that it points out a distinction in the branches of fascism. Benito's had no racial elements until it was conflated with Hitler's brand of national socialism. The current fascistic movement in Italy bears the name of CasaPound, named for the American poet. Very racially diverse.
Trump's relying on the FBI investigation of Hillary and will get the public funds after the convention. He either wins or loses but isn't about raising money and isn't pissing away his own. He's been running a spartan campaign the whole time and can get attention whenever he wants. He's much quicker on his toes than Hillary's staff of 700 sycophants
Once again: Trump is, and has been, a witting or unwitting shill for Hillary set up by the mediaswine to be torn down by the mediaswine once nominated.
And he still might win.
Oh bullshit Michael K. Don't expect that you can write shit like "The Koch brothers have endorsed Hillary Clinton" and get away with it. Unlike the Trumpkins, some of us just aren't that stupid. Consider yourself called out. Act accordingly.
As for Citizens United; I can't think of any Republican, and not even any "Republicans" like Mr. Trump -- apart from John McCain and Susan Collins -- who have been so weak and so noncommittal on the issue of First Amendment protections of election speech, as The Donald. If you want a tough and committed opponent of the liberals' obsession with Citizens United, you need look no farther than the original opponent of McCain-Feingold, Mitch McConnell. McConnell, who was an actual plaintiff in one of the first pro-speech cases on the statute.
Did you know? Of the 11 Republicans who voted for McCain-Feingold (it passed with all of the Democrats, but only by 60-40, to barely avoid cloture), only McCain and Feingold remain in the Senate. All the others are gone. Lugar, Domenici, Warner, Chafee, Fitzgerald, Snowe, Specter.
There are several good litmus tests for Republicans versus Democrats. Tort reform. Abortion. Same sex marriage. But of them all, campaign finance reform is I think the clearest, rivaled only by tort reform. A much better dividing line than, say, the budget or military spending or entitlement reform or immigration or trade.
Here, MSNBC congratulates Trump for his opposition to Citizens United:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-wrong-about-basically-everything-except
Paul Zrimsek: Thank you for one nice little line of clarity and insight.
To the Trumpkins: What happened to your billionaire candidate who was so beyond reproach that he would "self-finance" his campaign, and take no money at all from the evil "donors"?
"If his team is smart, they'll figure out how to spend their money wisely, but these rallies in CA only make sense if Trump really has something else in mind besides winning."
The CA rallies keep him in the news at very low cost. How much was it worth to see his largely peaceful supporters being attacked by goons waving Mexican flags? The image of the month was the poor lady being attacked with eggs by a large and ugly crowd of Soros-funded Dem party goons. CA is ground zero of the illegal immigrant crisis. There are plenty of reasons for Trump to go to CA even if he has no chance to win the state.
Trump really needs to probe what has happened to this country in the last eight years. He needs to visit the scene of the crime. His team ought to figure how to get him to the Englewood neighborhood in Chicago, which is ground zero in the shooting war the gangs have going on here in this Democrat-dominated town. He ought to visit some job centers and some industrial union halls in the Northeast. Meet with the Fraternal Order of Police in St. Louis and Chicago. Go to a bunch of college campuses. Talk to some people from Venezuela.
The best argument Trump has is to show where the Democrat model has dominated and failed.
It IS ironic that Citizens United ended up benefiting Clinton. CU didn't function as was expected, which was to benefit the Republican candidate. One must laugh.
Blogger Chuck said...
Paul Zrimsek: Thank you for one nice little line of clarity and insight.
To the Trumpkins: What happened to your billionaire candidate who was so beyond reproach that he would "self-finance" his campaign, and take no money at all from the evil "donors"?
When you say Trumpkins, could you be more specific?
Who were the Trump supporters or boosters who have problems with "evil" donors?
"That's the thing--with universal name recognition (and our two-party system) there really isn't much need for money to "get the word out"."
Romney was badly hurt by his failure to respond to the demonization that went on in the summer of 2012.
I don't think that is as big a factor with Trump. He has been a public figure for many years and has a history of being l=all over the place on issues. This election is not about typical issues.
Oh bullshit Michael K. Don't expect that you can write shit like "The Koch brothers have endorsed Hillary Clinton" and get away with it. Unlike the Trumpkins, some of us just aren't that stupid. Consider yourself called out. Act accordingly.
Oh, please chuck, don't hurt me ! Maybe your zoloft should be refilled.
" Act accordingly."
OK. How about this ?
You couldn’t see yourself supporting Hillary Clinton, could you?
KOCH: Well, I– that– her– we would have to believe her actions would be quite different than her rhetoric. Let me put it that way. But on some of the Republican candidates we would– before we could support them, we’d have to believe their actions will be quite different than the rhetoric we’ve heard so far.
See how easy that was, chuck ? Which Republican candidate do you think he meant?
It's OK, chuck. I know you are under a lot of stress.
Chuck,
Feingold is a Dem and lost re-election in 2010. Try to be more accurate in your rants
Citizens United was about erasing unconstitutional limitations on political speech.
Oh go fuck yourself Michael. That counts as an endorsement only in the fever swamps of political paranoia that you seem to inhabit.
And your nasty habit of telling people to adjust their medications. For an old guy, you ought to watch your mouth because somebody is likely to take offense one of these days, and adjust your dental work.
In short, you came here and lied and said the Koch Brothers had endorsed Clinton. It wasn't true. You came up with a quote that was in no way an endorsement. It was a statement by Charles Koch alone (not "the Koch Bros.") in response to a question, and neither he nor David Koch -- nor Bill, nor Fred, nor anyone else named Koch of whom I am aware -- have "endorsed" any presidential candidate and they haven't financially supported any campaign.
You're a trashtalker. And not a very bright one. Really, I am not sure who it is you are used to fucking around with, talking about medications, and stress, and treatment and whatever casual fuckhead insults you might like. You wouldn't do it to me in person. At least not for more than about a minute.
Yesterday on twitter I commented that we had received our first request from Trump for a donation, and that maybe his money situation was entering a new phase.
Someone replied to me that she would love to give to Trump, but being listed as a Trump donor was too risky. After all we know about the IRS harassment, this person is not as crazy as she sounds.
mccullough said...
Chuck,
Feingold is a Dem and lost re-election in 2010. Try to be more accurate in your rants
I have absolutely no idea how you are trying to correct me. I know all of that. That Feingold is a Democrat, and that he lost to Ron Johnson in 2010. So what? Explain.
"Which he did from the outset. Except that he may have underestimated the slight conundrum of not trying to win and not wanting to be Prez in a position where there really is a lot of pressure to get serious, a place you can't con your way out of."
At this point what he may have to do is go through the motions of a real campaign--expect a ramp up of fundraising (convincing small donors to give him money so that he can first pay back the loans he made to his campaign--sounds absurd to me, but then it won't to his fans) and rapid hiring of staff in swing states. It won't be massive--too little too late for that and too many burned bridges--but enough to convince his people that his "brand" is good.
"Someone replied to me that she would love to give to Trump, but being listed as a Trump donor was too risky. After all we know about the IRS harassment, this person is not as crazy as she sounds."
I'd advise not donating to either candidate, as it does not seem that IRS harassment is beneath either of them.
eric it was Mr. Trump, who attacked the GOP "donors"!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/06/donald-trump-gets-booed-then-attacks-debate-crowd-for-being-filled-with-donors-and-special-interests/
And:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-claims-gop-donors-bought-scalped-tickets-to-debate/article/2582689
Among a host of other lies and non-sequitirs about his campaign funding:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/75-million-donations-helping-trumps-funded-campaign/story?id=37403906
Win or lose, let Trump be Trump. If a Democrat was performing this well with a 70 person staff and less than $2 million dollars, he or she would be hailed as a political genius. With Trump, its portrayed as incompetence. The characterization is designed to promote the idea that Trump is inept but in the end they can't help but make him look like a scrappy underdog against Hillary's bloated influence machine.
"Oh go fuck yourself Michael. "
Chuck, I'm worried about you. It's early in the day. Maybe you should take another Zoloft.
"somebody is likely to take offense one of these days, and adjust your dental work."
Chuck, would you like my address ?
I may be old but you sound an awful lot like a cubical phony.
Commenters take things far too seriously when they sound crazy.
I do worry about you, chuck. Don't have a stroke.
@ Chuckles To the Trumpkins: What happened to your billionaire candidate who was so beyond reproach that he would "self-finance" his campaign, and take no money at all from the evil "donors"?
Trump would gladly finance his own campaign. It's the GOP who wants the funds.
Chuck,
In your comment at 10:10 am, third paragraph, second sentence, you wrote that of the 11 Republican senators who voted for McCain-Feingold ... only McCain and Feingold remain in the Senate.
Do you know see your mistake?
I'm certain the MSM is scheming right now (a la journ-O-list) to deprive Trump's free media strategy of oxygen. If they can starve the fire it will go out, they think. I think they are wrong. Because the various media are run by people who DESPERATELY want (1) eyeballs, (2) clicks, (3) high sweeps ratings and/or (4) mentions (retweets, likes, etc.) my expectation is that market dynamics will overcome their plan.
Trump will own the free media campaign. He has not yet begun to "hit" Hilary with advertising or other means. After all, she will not be able to direct all coverage because there are a lot of people in the media who can't stand her and will be passive aggressive in their coverage. Then there are the external and existential factors that loom huge in the near future:
1. This is still the "third term" of a failed presidency in which the world continues to burn and roil, the economy limps along at barely measurable positive numbers and while he marks time doing NOTHING to help the USA or his nemesis-heir. Historically a weak economy and incumbent fatigue matter enough to shave a few points off the poll numbers.
2. The year of the outsiders. Democrats have been bitching that Washington is broken, Republicans are pissed because the party hates its base, and the Berners are despondent about the faux-progressive posturing of their presumptive nominee.
3. Hillary is the worst candidate to have been nominated, illustrated by her tendency to depress her own numbers when she campaigns and improve her numbers when she hides out in her cave. There is no energy or excitement about her personally or her candidacy in general.
4. Trust in government and media battle each other for the lowest rung on public opinion surveys. And those are HER constituencies.
If Trump does pull off a victory this fall, it will be in spite of a lot of inexplicably dumb moves.
He's had a month to just tee off on Hillary and really didn't do much. He took Lynch off the front page for the "We'll release edited transcripts" and then getting shot down due to firing Corey (who is a douchebag). Not only is he working with detriments, the advantages are being wasted.
Why no big rally about terrorism? Why not a big fund raiser to pay for self-defense after the shootings? Why no internet ads tying Hillary to this nonsense or asking why Obama cannot say "Muslim"? Make him a target. He's "popular" because, as with every other time he's popular, he's basically out of sight and out of mind.
McCullough:
My mistake. I meant "McCain and Collins." My apologies. I didn't even see that after your post.
mockturtle said...
@ Chuckles To the Trumpkins: What happened to your billionaire candidate who was so beyond reproach that he would "self-finance" his campaign, and take no money at all from the evil "donors"?
Trump would gladly finance his own campaign. It's the GOP who wants the funds.
So then why is Trump doing the fundraising circuit? Why is Trump merely loaning smallish amounts -- $1m, $2m -- to his campaign? If Trump will "gladly fund his own campaign," then great! Do it! As I say, I love all of Trump's rhetoric because it eliminates all the avenues of bitching after he loses in November. He can't complain that the GOP didn't support him properly because he ridiculed the GOP establishment. So did the Trump primary supporters. Trump can't complain about lack of money, because he wanted to self-fund, and didn't want any donor money. Now we see him saying that he doesn't even think it is necessary. Great! Do it your own way, Donald. Have at it. Just don't bitch about it later on.
"Why no big rally about terrorism? Why not a big fund raiser to pay for self-defense after the shootings? Why no internet ads tying Hillary to this nonsense or asking why Obama cannot say "Muslim"? Make him a target. He's "popular" because, as with every other time he's popular, he's basically out of sight and out of mind."
I don't have an answer for it--either he's hopelessly reckless (assuming he's going to pull it off in the end) or he really isn't trying to win. The past couple months could have been used pounding Hillary into the ropes, and running against the Obama administration to make it less popular (and Hillary have to defend it) and focus on key points. Leave the GOP establishment alone, build his own GOTV and fundraising network, and Republicans and Indies start flocking to him as they see this as a binary fight. Hell, if you have to comment on Curiel just say "this guy has ruled unfairly but we're fighting it out in court" and leave it at that; if Lewandowski has to go, convince the guy to make it seem like his own selfless idea.
One thing to keep in mind is how BEATABLE Hillary is. This isn't like losing to Obama, or even Gore or Kerry. This is a horse limping out of the gate, and the GOP should have this year sewn up, arguing now only whether it'll be a convincing win or a landslide, and how many seats they gain in both houses for insurance. Instead, this is a mess.
One thing to keep in mind is how BEATABLE Hillary is. This isn't like losing to Obama, or even Gore or Kerry. This is a horse limping out of the gate, and the GOP should have this year sewn up, arguing now only whether it'll be a convincing win or a landslide, and how many seats they gain in both houses for insurance. Instead, this is a mess.
So, so true. Keeping the White House in your party for a third term ought to be one of the hardest things in politics. Trump has made the Dems look good in this. Or at least he hasn't made any headway in making them look bad.
Chuck with all of your Trump bashing apparently it has not occurred to you that His Orangeness with all of his buffoonery still managed to beat everyone one of his primary challengers starting with the best funded and ending with the best organized.
Now I don't claim to read minds-don't know what Trumpy really thinks and what his original intentions were when he started but Hillary's negatives do not improve. All of her campaign money isn't going to eliminate the stench of corruption and criminality and treason from her.
Presumably Trump is waiting for the convention and starting in late August presumably he will be attacking her non-stop about her corruption, criminality and treason and will also go after Obama and his corruption, criminality and treason by allowing Hillary and by keeping the DoJ from prosecuting her. And if he has half a brain he will tie those two to every Democrat running for office national. Vote Democrat, support corruption.
Then of course there is the illegal immigration issue and Muslims. Do you really think these are winning issues for Hillary? Let Trump run a few ads here and there and of course viral on the net with Mexican flag wavers shouting anti-Trump crap with Hillary statements that are pro-illegal aliens with the rejoinder of I'm Donald J Trump and I'm running for President of The United States of America. As for Muslims a simple retort for him would be let these refugees settle in other Arab countries.
Would Trump all else being the same be better of with a really good ground team, sure. With a megaton of cash? Sure. But let's not forget for all of his amateurism and buffoonery his running against the worst possible candidate the Democrats have ever fielded. The guy really has a chance.
One thing to keep in mind is how BEATABLE Hillary is. This isn't like losing to Obama, or even Gore or Kerry. This is a horse limping out of the gate, and the GOP should have this year sewn up, arguing now only whether it'll be a convincing win or a landslide, and how many seats they gain in both houses for insurance. Instead, this is a mess.
I'd be OK if they replaced Trump. Honestly. Stick Scott Walker in there and make sure he knows that border enforcement trumps immigration a million ways from Sunday. Jeb was a worse choice than Trump, but guys who dropped out early --- like Walker --- could've done well if there wasn't such a logjam at the time.
I'd also kill for Rice --- largely because she doesn't want it. I want a reluctant President.
Presumably Trump is waiting for the convention and starting in late August presumably he will be attacking her non-stop about her corruption, criminality and treason and will also go after Obama and his corruption, criminality and treason by allowing Hillary and by keeping the DoJ from prosecuting her. And if he has half a brain he will tie those two to every Democrat running for office national. Vote Democrat, support corruption.
I hope he does. But like the establishment, he seems more comfortable attacking other Republicans than Democrats.
Giving away months when you're already not doing great seems like a terrible strategy.
"Stick Scott Walker in there and make sure he knows that border enforcement trumps immigration a million ways from Sunday."
I thought so at first but I suspect the Kochs would nix that ploy.
I thought so at first but I suspect the Kochs would nix that ploy.
If the Kochs want any influence, they'll have to be willing to compromise. If they won't compromise, so be it. "Conservative" billionaires aren't as gung ho as Progressive ones.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा