Does Trump own the media or does the media own Trump?
So who’s using whom?
Rush Limbaugh says that Trump has the media frustrated and wrapped around his little finger:
…[T]hey can’t take him out. They can’t stop covering him. They can’t humiliate him. They can’t embarrass him. They can’t diminish his support. They’re powerless, and this has them in a panic. The media that can make-or-break anybody cannot touch Trump, and every time they try, all they do is make him bigger. They can’t explain this. They are frustrated to no end, and so are both political parties who rely on the media to be the great equalizer in all of this.
Nothing’s working. No matter what Trump says, the media is there, and every member of the media is there. Every network, every camera, every microphone is there.
There’s no question Trump is getting more coverage than anyone else, by a huge margin. YUUUGE! So perhaps Limbaugh is right, and Trump is having a good laugh on a media that can’t do a thing about him except his bidding, and is instrumental in getting him more and more attention even though they don’t want to do it.
But here’s an alternate theory, one I happen to ascribe to.
I think the media knows that Trump is the story of the election. He’s exciting, people are entertained by watching him. So they get something out of covering him—readers and viewers. Remember, though, that the vast majority of the MSM is on the left, so much of what they do is with the goal of directing their readers and viewers to what’s so dreadful about Trump, and of energizing Democratic voters so that, if Trump’s the nominee, voters feel they must vote for the sane person—who would be Hillary—even if they don’t much like her.
I have believed from the very start of Trump’s campaign that the MSM (except for the MSM on the right, which is a very small group compared to the liberal MSM) would very much like Trump to be the Republican nominee. They believe very strongly that, if nominated, he will lose, and that his chances of losing are greater than that of certain other candidates such as Rubio (polls bear that out).
I think they are correct, although of course I don’t know for sure. But more importantly, they think they’re correct. So for them, covering Trump is win/win. They get ratings. And although they’re not trying to destroy him—not for now—they dearly want him to be the nominee, and they’re confident they can destroy him later, or that he will self-destruct with the majority of Americans.
They might be right or they might be wrong. But they think they own him in the sense of using him to fit their purposes, not the other way around.
Just today saw a link to a new Rasmussen post that had Clinton at 37% and Trump at 36% with 22% undecided. I am still not sure why you think Clinton would win if it were a match up between Clinton and Trump.
The few people I know who are Bernie Sanders people despise Clinton. Think she is bought and paid for by big banks and big media. They really dislike her. If Bernie does not win the nomination, I just don’t see those voters running to vote for Hillary. I think they’d stay home or go 3rd candidate or write in Bernie.
It is Rubio that can not win, nor Jeb, nor Kasich. Not a single candidate who angers the base can win this election. We’ve seen this twice now. An “electable moderate” who either angers the base or bores them wins the nomination. And the base stays home.
K-E: I hear you, but I’m not convinced. Remember all the PUMA ladies in 2008, who were furious that Obama got the nomination and not Hillary? Remember what PUMA stands for… and then ask yourself how many of them voted for McCain. Hardly any, I’d say.
Similarly, will Bernie voters stay home rather than vote for Hillary in 2016? Possibly, but I very much doubt it. They’ll hold their noses and vote for her, just as we may well have to hold our noses and vote for Trump.
Neo: I think Trump would be a lousy President; he’s practically the definition of a political loose cannon. But he’s a VERY good candidate, by just about every standard that matters. He seems to have internalized all the right lessons about the left-leaning mainstream media, and he parries their every attack effortlessly — or demonstrates to them that he doesn’t care, and doesn’t need to care, because they just keep giving him all the free publicity he wants.
I don’t worry that much about what the press wants. They wanted Obama, and he has turned on them; some of them have begun to realize this.
While Rubio may be more electable, the attack ads of him stating he is against abortion even in cases of rape and incest will do a lot of damage. Otherwise, I agree with everything you posted.
Long term. …Trump damages the conservative movement.
He isn’t persuasive and therefore isn’t helping anyone new understand conservatism.
If anything he is turning people away from conservatism while a few are excited for him.
It has to be Cruz or Carson now that Christie is the only republican governor for the refugees.
BurkeanMama:
You can say what you will, but the polls say otherwise.
Rubio pretty consistently tends to poll the best against Clinton, and Trump the worst, and this has been true for the campaign so far. Polls can change over time, and it’s still early, of course. But that’s the way it’s been so far.
That is a fact, not opinion.
A very, very astute post by Neo.
I can assure you that the Clinton campaign is scouring every aspect of Trump’s life right now. The four bankruptcies, the real estate deals, how he dealt with the unions and Mob in NYC, the business deals and all of his lawsuits. A gold mine! The stuff on Trump will make Mitt look like a saint. Remember how Mitt killed that guy’s wife with cancer? And teased that boy in high school? Trump will be Satan after the Clintons and the MSM finish with him.
But where is the investigative press right now? The MSM is either sitting on the stories or waiting for the Clinton campaign to spoon feed them the dirt.
This is one of neo’s best and deserves wide circulation.
Jeb Bush and his super PACs would do the GOP a real service if they rolled out the dirt on Donald.
Just saying Trump is a bully and that he can’t insult himself to the Presidency doesn’t move the needle.
Jeb is an idiot.
I think it’s instructive to look back to 2008. McCain was in a similar position with the MSM as Trump is now. McCain had been the MSM’s favorite Republican for years. True, there were a few shots ‘cross his bow (the phoney-baloney story of the lobbyist mistress for one) but in general he got better than average treatment until he became the GOP nominee. I think neo is astute in pointing out that Trump is getting the same kind of treatment for similar reasons. He’s causing all kinds of fits in the GOP camp to the delight of the DNC operatives with bylines. His lack of message discipline means they can feed him leading questions when he isn’t flapping his lips on his own, and then force the other candidates off their own messages by demanding responses. We are certainly not seeing the full-court press against him that would come once he was nominated.
The extent to which Trump does not care about any of this is best described as “YUUUGE!”
Election dynamics work both ways and a lot of history can intervene between now and November…..
Scott Adams: “Prediction: I’ll put the odds at 75% that we learn of an important Clinton health issue before the general election. That estimate is based on my own track record of guessing things about people without the benefit of knowing why. I think Trump is picking up the same vibe. He has already questioned Clinton’s “stamina.””
“My prediction under the Master Persuader filter is that Trump will try to win Iowa with a linguistic kill shot that is being engineered as I write this. But I won’t go so far as to predict he wins Iowa. I’d give that a 50% chance.
But I do predict Trump will A-B test a new line of attack on Clinton. If it works, he wins Iowa. If not, all he loses is Iowa. So this situation is when a person with a business background would test a new approach.
You’ll recognize Trump’s test balloon against Clinton when you see it. It will be the one that speaks to Iowa’s socially conservative base.”
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/136042658956/is-iowa-a-caucus-or-a-mental-health-problem
I suspect both takes on Trump are somewhat true.
Rush is right that so far, the media’s attacks on Trump have not stopped his growth in support. That is an indication that Trump is to some degree, controlling the narrative mainly because reality supports him.
I agree that the media wants him as the Republican nominee but that desire rests upon the belief that Islamic attacks will continue to be ‘manageable’.
Democrats are greatly underestimating the growing realization and concomitant fear by the public of our vulnerability to terrorist attack.
Trump is getting stronger and should more attacks occur, his support will grow with every one.
I for one wouldn’t be surprised that, if Trump gains the nomination, he offers the VP slot to Cruz.
vanderleun:
On the contrary. He cares deeply. Trump understands that he is in large part a creature of the media—that is, not his money, but his celebrity is a creature of the media.
Trump understands the importance of the media, and he believes he knows how to use it and bend it to his will. He is betting that he can keep not just one, but many steps ahead of it.
Trump is really a media guy (Apprentice) today who dabbles in golf course development and no money down condos. His tough guy persona on the Apprentice (You’re Fired!) is what he is selling. But I get the strong sense he is a very insecure guy who wants to be tough (Neo your instincts are better on the causes than mine). The schoolboy insults, the threats to hold his breath until blue kind of stuff. This is TV drama negotiating and he knows the audience will mistake this for real toughness. My suspicion is that Bill Clinton will come out armed for bear one day and the Donald will collapse like a punctured balloon. All bluff. Republicans are still functioning on the rule of don’t beat up fellow republicans. It will be a democrat who does the dirty deed.
I hearken unto the words of David Horowitz:
http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/david_horowitz_donald_trump_and_the_american_future
The principal target of both sides is mainstream conservatives and GOPe(-stablishment/elite).
“Trump understands that he is in large part a creature of the media–”
Not exactly. He’s a food source for the media. They have to go to him not him to them. That’s the dynamic.
While I think there are many good points in neoneocon’s analysis, I think there are also a few things that need to be pointed out:
1. I am old enough to remember similar comments about Ronald Reagan and how his nomination would “energize” Democrats to vote for Jimmy Carter in 1980. That didn’t exactly work out.
2. In 2012 Democrats tried a similar strategy to promote Jon Huntsman as the GOP presidential nominee. I lost count of the number of online articles I read that claimed Huntsman was the candidate Democrats most feared. The effort by the MSM/DNC axis was transparent, clumsy, and (obviously) a failure.
3. I don’t think the so-called Akin model of promoting the candidate you think is weakest is what happened in Missouri in 2012. The polling I have seen showed Akin leading or tying McCaskill for most of summer 2012 (in some cases by double-digits). McCaskill beating up on Akin during the GOP primary was more likely a preemptive strike at the candidate she was most likely to face, not an effort to trick GOP voters into nominating a particular candidate.
depending upon the poll and methodology we may have the bradley effect. I believe a machine based poll would show a stronger trump number than a human asking the question
Did you read that article the other day about Trump saving a farm for a widow in Georgia? The interesting piece is how media savvy he was even then. Hilary Clinton is not media savvy. (If she were, we would not be treated to her southern accent in Iowa). It’s easier for the media to cover for you if you are a blank slate like Obama.
And you underestimate the loathing towards Rubio amongst conservatives. He would be so easy for the Clintons to pick off.
I think the MSM also like the fact that Trump’s lambast is distracting Reps from really listening to policy proposals of the other candidates. After all the trumpmania, any other candidate is going to seem like an also ran because he or she hasn’t had enough time to show capability and a serious agenda. Enthusiasm for other Rep candidates will drop as a result of Trump. The MSM wants stay-at-home voters.
I did not say Bernie voters would vote for Trump. I said 3 things: they will stay home, vote 3rd candidate or write in Bernie.
Hillary supporters in 2008 were your traditional Democrats. The majority of people supporting Bernie are different. They are not traditional Democrats.
I am very confused by those who claim Trump is a schoolyard bully. I see him as the candidate I wish Romney would’ve been. Attack and attack hard. I am already very happy to see Trump turning on the Clintons. Talking very openly about what everyone knows about Bill & Hillary, but no one wants to say in black and white. Bill is at the very worst a rapist (if you believe Broaddrick) and at the best a user of women (all the other women in his past). Hillary is his enabler. Even Rosie O’Donnell saw that much.
These are things that need to be said. The WORST stuff in the LOWEST language possible. This reaches more people. From the trailer park to the penthouse. Why speak in euphemisms? Why use high-brow language? Trump is speaking in plain language that all understands and many appreciate.
Many voters are tired of being talked down to by the press and by candidates with big degrees.
Anyway, just need to say that.
Teri Wells:
I’m well aware of the loathing for Rubio among conservatives, aka “the base.” I am merely reporting what the polls are saying about Rubio vs. Hillary in the general. They have consistently found that Rubio does better than any of the other Republican candidates against Hillary, and Trump does worse. As I wrote in another comment, this could change, but that’s the way it’s been so far. It does not reflect whether Rubio could get the Republican nomination, however.
vanderleun:
I could not disagree with you more. Trump has always relied on media for his celebrity, for decades. His money is one thing, but his celebrity is built on the MSM, both print and TV and also tabloid, as well as reality TV. If Trump did not exist, the media would still thrive, thank you very much. The media loves to feature him because it’s good for their business, but without him they would find other food sources. Without the media, Trump would still be rich and somewhat famous, but nowhere near as famous.
They have a somewhat symbiotic relationship mutually beneficial for both parties, but the media has almost countless other sensational stories and people they can cover and do cover.
Regarding Trump and the MSM, Mika on Morning Joe mentioned that the media likes (can’t resist?) Trump because he is so accessible. She said unlike a politician, when you call him, you reach him, not some assistant or intermediary. She also said he takes them up on their invitations without fuss, a stark contrast to the heavily scripted and negotiated interviews with Hillary Clinton. So they love to hate him, and yet they can’t help but cover him because he makes it so darn easy.
I am confused. A year out from the general election, and the Clinton vs GOP polls matter why? The NH primary matters primarily to the media, not to the rest of us. The Iowa Hawkeye Cauci are exercises in weather, mobility and motivation.
I find it very hard to attach meaning to a poll that puts Rubio (a self-server) against Hillary (the pre-eminent self-server). If said poll has validity, is is to assure us the electorate is both stupid and immoral.
But then again, I’m not going to vote for the “most likely to win”.
There is real support for Trump, as indicated by the polls, and by the massive crowds that show up for him. The media has no control over that. Trump has become more popular after his statements on immigration and Muslims since a majority agrees with him, despite all the criticism from the media.
The only thing Rubio is known for is his support for immigration reform in 2013. And nobody wants that, in either the primary or the general.
Maybe this election is not about conservatism. Maybe it’s really about globalist multicultural elites versus middle-class American nationalists. Maybe Trump could be a modern-day Cincinnatus, since he is already rich, famous, and will be 70 next year.
Several scattered thoughts….. trump’s dance with the msm is a double edged sword, for now he brings viewers and readers, and the msm knows they can destroy his ‘campaign’ if he is the nominee….. trump will not win the Iowa caucus and he will have to scramble to come in second, he has no ground game in Iowa…. the NH primary currently looks like a horse race and no one will win with a large margin… SC comes next and Cruz will play well in the south…. it ain’t over until its over.
BurkeanMama:
“The base will stay home again.” Myth. Nonsense. Do you realize how childish this “take my ball and go home” attitude is? You’re saying that if you couldn’t have Santorum, you’d prefer Obama over Romney. You’re nuts.
@DirtyJobsGuy: Trump dabbles in the media. His wealth comes from real estate, all $8.7 billion.
Rasmussen has Trump and Clinton in a statistical dead heat at 37% (D) to 36% (R). Clinton does better with own party than Trump does, but he beats her with independents.
Granted that the media will do its vicious best to destroy Trump should he be nominated, they will do that to ANYONE we nominate, as they have done time and again.
If they don’t have any real ammo, they just make up outrageous lies and slander. No prob. It’s what they do, it’s what they live for. Look what they did to Romney, Palin, McCain, hell — everyone who dares to oppose their will to power.
So if Trump is nominated, at least we’ll have a man who knows how to fight back. That is something.
Cruz is my fave, but if Trump is nominated, I’ll cheer him on.
The polls Dem vs. GOP are meaningless at this stage of the game. The reason we can be reasonably sure Rubio can’t win is very simple: the same reason Giuliani, McCain, Dole, Bush Sr. etc., could not. The base won’t turn out for them and the other side _won’t_ cross over for them, no matter what the polls say right now. A few months ago, the polls said Scott Walker was The Man for the nomination, too. It was too early for that then and it’s too early for Dem vs. GOP polls now.
Baklava: Trump can’t damage the ‘conservative movement’, because there is no conservative movement. There are separate and in many ways mutually hostile conservative movements, plural, and that’s been true for years. The SoCons, national sovereignty conservatives, business wing ‘conservatives’, libertarian-ish conservatives, all want different and in many cases utterly incompatible things, and have reached the point where they are no longer prepared to compromise on their core issues.
Want to know why Trump is leading? It’s really simple, for all his faults: immigration. That has become the issue for many on the Right over the last 15 years, and Trump is simply the only person talking about it. Jeb Bush has been haunted by his ‘act of love’ comment on the subject. Perry never recovered from his endorsement of the DREAM Act and attack on its opponents. Kasich is seen as soft on the subject.
Carly Fiorina just isn’t trusted on it because she’s seen as too close to big business.
The business wing wants more immigration, the rest of the GOP wants less, or none. Trump is the symptom of that.
Rubio can be crushed, almost at will, either by Trump or a Dem rival, simply because of Gang of 8. It’s sort of like what would have happened to Rudy in 2008 if he’d gotten the nomination, the moment he had it the Dems, by proxy, would have started reminding GOP voters day and night from summer to November that he is pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda, etc. The front groups would have had conservative-sounding names, but they’d have been shells for the Dems and the MSM, constantly reminding Republicans that Rudy was basically a Dem himself on most non-economic issues. He could not have defended himself because the Dem allegations (for once!) would have been true.
He’d have lost in a landslide when huge swaths of his base stayed home. It would have been worse than McCain did. Yet the polls at this stage in 2007 said Rudy had a good shot, even though anybody that understood the dynamics of GOP politics knew he was almost inherently unelectable, no matter what the polls were saying in 2007.
Will Trump win the nomination? I don’t know. Will he beat Hillary if he does? I don’t know. CAN he beat Hillary? You betcha. She’s very, very vulnerable, just as Obama was in 2012, but only to a GOP candidate who is willing to take advantage of her weakness.
Would Jeb or Rubio do that? I doubt it.
The Demos thought Reagan would be a pushover, too.
And remember, polling is very suspect these days.
“Trump dabbles in media?!”
Trump’s most significant talent is his ability to create an image around his persona, brand it, and successfully promote that brand. Trump has more in common with Madonna than he does with Warren Buffet.
That’s not to say Trump is ignorant of business. He’s not. Not by a longshot. But there are many who could have taken the business and contacts he inherited from his father and done as well, or better, in real estate.
Trump is very similar to Steve Jobs and very dissimilar to Steve Wozniak.
I seem to be alone in thinking this, but I think Trump’s support would be even larger if he were running in the Democrat primary. I can envision a lot of Democrats voting for him in the general. He would do very well with male Union members; especially folks with Union jobs that have moved overseas. And, he would do well among ethnic groups. He would certainly get more support from African-Americans and Latinos than any Republican nominee since Reagan.
I don’t like Trump as a candidate (not too impressed with him as a man), and hope he does not win the Presidency, but I don’t understand why people think he will not have appeal among Democrats. Especially running against Hillary.
“Trump is very similar to Steve Jobs”. No. Jobs was a man of great imagination who remade the personal computer, the movies(Pixar), and the cell phone. He didn’t invent the ideas but simplified and put them together in a way that were usable for a mass market.
Trump gives me the sweats. I see him as a second coming of Lyndon Johnson, a man who was a far worse president than Jimmy Carter. Johnson vastly expanded the scope of the Federal Government and magnified the metastasizing war in Viet Nam until it ruined the country. Trump will also want big programs to “do things” for people without reference to the Constitution and who knows how he’ll handle the threat from Islam. Closing the borders isn’t the half of it. I certainly don’t see him as someone who is going to start to reduce the size of Washington in any significant way.
Rufus T. Firefly:
I’m not saying that I think it impossible that Trump could appeal to Democrats. I’m saying that so far he doesn’t appeal to Democrats. The polls have reflected that.
For example, in the last poll I looked at that broke it down that way, Trump’s appeal to Democrats was even less than Hillary’s appeal to Republicans. Also, Trump had very little appeal to Independents (less than the other Republican candidates) in that same poll. That was a couple of weeks ago; I don’t about the very latest polls.
All the Democrats I know detest and despise Trump with great vigor. They may or may not be typical, but I can tell you that they cannot stand him. Also, the one Independent I know, who usually votes Democrat but dislikes Hillary and is willing and even wanting to vote Republican in 2016, cannot stand Trump and almost certainly would not vote for him. Again, this is anecdotal evidence, but the polls so far have reflected it.
Paul in Boston:
Syllogism:
Donald Trump is a rich man
Steve Jobs was a rich man
Therefore Donald Trump is very similar to Steve Jobs
NOT.
HC:
You write:
They’re not reliable, but they’re not utterly meaningless. They’re the best indication we have, although very flawed. For example, if Rubio has been consistently beating Clinton in the polls at this point, and Trump consistently losing, there is more support for the idea that Rubio would be a stronger candidate when pitted against her than Trump would be, simply because the only evidence we have so far indicates it. That does not mean it will continue to be so in November of 2016, of course. But all predictions about that at this point are very uncertain. It’s just the “Trump does better against Hillary” has no support in fact, and “Rubio does better against Hillary,” has at least some support.
You write:
Your analogies don’t hold up, however. For example, are you talking about the primaries or the general? It’s a very different thing, with a different dynamic. There is no indication that Rubio is the leader in the primaries, despite the fact that he does well against Hillary. Primary voters have different considerations than voters in the general. Giuliani never ran in the general, so we have no idea how he would have done. All we know is that he didn’t win the nomination, and dropped out fairly early in the race because he was doing poorly.
Rubio, whom many conservatives hate because of his membership in the Gang of 8, is otherwise a conservative with a high rating from conservative groups that rate such things as conservatism. McCain was just about the opposite—known for hardly being conservative at all.
Dole lost because (a) he was running against a very popular incumbent, and (b) Dole was a terrible choice as candidate, uncharismatic and unappealing, as well as old (73) facing a much younger and more attractive man. Neither (a) nor (b) apply to Rubio at all.
Bush Sr? When last I checked, he actually won a general election in 1988. So obviously he could win—because he did win. In 1992 he lost, but that was against a charismatic younger man (Clinton), and—more importantly—in a three-way race where many people believe that, had Ross Perot not entered, Bush would have won (see for example this for a good discussion of the arguments pro and con).
What’s more, you leave out Bush II, a non-conservative Republican who won, twice, although the race was extremely close in 2000 and quite close in 2004 as well.
You write:
True, but irrelevant. He damages them all.
You write:
That’s something I see repeated over and over by Trump supporters and others, and it’s not true. I have addressed the issue quite a few times, including this and this, as well as this one that should answer some of the doubts you express about Fiorina (see the second video in particular).
The left has plenty of ammunition to use against Trump if he were to be nominated. That’s true of every single Republican candidate, and Trump is hardly an exception. Hey, with Trump they could even run tapes of him praising Hillary, Obama, and Pelosi. See this.
Neo…
Agreed.
What the media can’t imagine is a Hillary meltdown when barbed by Trump.
In fact, she’s a good prospect to have a stroke right at the lectern… whether she’s facing Trump or Cruz.
She’s had prior — very minor — strokes before.
These are the consequences of life-long heavy drinking… with plenty of video to prove it.
Her brain function is impaired enough that she needs Huma as a ‘wet database’ to remind her of this and that.
The strokes also show up in her staggeringly dull off-the-cuff remarks.
I fully expect her to have serious health issues as the campaign continues.
She’s already fatigued — while performing at a much reduced tempo compared to Trump, Cruz, Carson, Rubio, et. al.
This aspect of her living power is suppressed by the HCM – the Hillary Campaign Media.
‘Trump classic’ has so much baggage that it gives comfort to the Hillary campaign.
But, the flip side is that SHE has baggage by the train load.
&
What I’d love to see is Cruz, Trump, Carson, et. al. swing their guns to Hillary.
Uniquely, she’s running an uncontested primary campaign.
Bernie is not even keeping up the pretense of seeking the actual nomination.
He kisses her tush, instead.
The Democrat machine is so perverted that Webb realizes that the party big wigs have killed the primary process — entirely.
Now, it’s just a show.
The fella that Trump MOST resembles is
Andrew Jackson.
Looking past their red hair…
Off-the-cuff speakers…
Populists — Jackson being the first populist president, and founder of the Democrat party.
Considered politically uncouth…almost universally.
Caused massive re-vamp — re-alignment of politics.
Intensely disdained by the elites…
Able to speak to the common man…
Gambler — risk taker…
Notorious for bedroom ‘events’…
Many reverses in life.
Minorities // natives ‘issues’…
Big fight over the Central Banker and Big Finance (Jackson) almost certain to erupt in 2017.
Very widely known on the national stage long, long, before making a run for office. ( Jackson had to create a new party as he had been blocked — excluded — by the party brass in his first attempts.)
Jackson’s inauguration celebrations at the White House were scandalous — to the elites. That crazy man let any supporter walk in the front door.
Right now he’s being slammed by the HCM — Hillary Campaign Media — in the same way that Ronald the Great was.
&&&
I have no idea where the extreme negatives about Donald are coming from — but I take it as Gospel that such spin is coming via the HRC team // MSM. (Redundant, I know.)
Donald is pre-programmed to see every problem as a construction project.
Wall, freeways, infrastructure — he’s ALREADY blabbing about it.
Of course, Trump is NOT a conservative.
I’d rate him as more liberal — big government — than George Bush. (43)
Just on the funding — alone — I’d expect him to eject trespassers — with urgency.
They are destroying Social Security.
A trickle of abusers is one thing.
Barry is letting in a FLOOD.
The Cuban situation — alone — is getting absurd. Every Cuban that flies in gets a winning Lotto ticket — at America’s expense.
blert:
Many conservatives, and even others, consider Andrew Jackson the beginning of the end of the Republic. See this, for example:
And where are Donald Trump’s extreme negatives coming from—I’m sure there are many sources, but it is extremely easy to have an extremely negative opinion of Trump without such sources, but through mere observation, as well as study of his own prior statements.
That’s how I arrived at my negative opinion of Trump.
blert:
Hillary seemed dull and slow in some of her interviews earlier this year, but in recent months—and in the debates—she has been very sharp and energetic. I still detest what she says, but she’s been saying it very well.
I think reports of her health problems have been greatly exaggerated. She has had some, but counting on any health problems between now and November is a very low-percentage deal, in my opinion.
There was a LOT of ‘Sulla’ in Andrew Jackson.
While credited with founding the Democrat party — he must also be credited with destroying the the Democrat-Republican party.
One encounters no end of Southerners who decry Lincoln as a despot…
But find only praise for their own Southern ‘Sulla.’
Jackson’s war against the central bank of his era caused MORE hardship than the Great Depression.
For it was so bad that merchants had to coin wooden nickels. The circulation of specie had collapsed.
Many on the frontier didn’t see cash at all. The primary currency was moonshine. (!)
Other popular tradables:
Bacon — cured bacon traveled well — and was often chewed on the road.
‘Bringing home the bacon’ and ‘chewing the fat’ are still in our language.
Those conditions made the cash earning export powers of that time kings of the county. (Slave owners not only had rock bottom labor costs at the plantation — their hired hands also made peanuts.)
Many White overseers were just about as broke as the slaves they abused. They had no portable wealth to speak of. Whipping slaves was and is totally unskilled ‘talent.’
( Based on the staggering amount of booze consumed, I must conclude that many were life long drunks. Paying the help ‘in corn’ was VERY common back then.
( The Erie Canal was dug by drunks. They had to be. Their daily ration was supplied straight through the work day. IIRC an able bodied digger received about a fifth of 100 proof each work day… and they didn’t know what a week end was.
It was during such times that a plantation owner could get away with building ‘Tara.’
&&&
And now we hear that the current Democrat administration is planning on replacing Jackson on the twenty-dollar bill.
I suspect that our current king figures his portrait should do.
No offense, Paul in Boston, but you don’t have a clue regarding what Steve Jobs did and did not do, based on your response, and it would take a lot more words than I care to type and you care to read to inform you of what you don’t know. I can understand giving him so credit for the Personal Computer (even though all you think he did was actually Wozniak and the guys at Xerox Park) (why do you think Apple fired him?), but to give him credit for the movies and Pixar is beyond uninformed. He inherited Pixar in a business deal, didn’t have a clue what it was good for, and all the folks who built Pixar into what you love today where already on board and building it. It literally fell into his lap and he almost didn’t reap the financial benefits from a lack of understanding of what he had.
According to the latest RCP head to head averages, Clinton leads Trump by 5, while being within a point of the other major repub candidates. So the belief that the dems can beat Trump much easier than they can beat the other candidates is well founded at the moment.
neo-neocon, based on what you’ve written about yourself we had very different upbringings. You are very intelligent and have a strong grasp of human nature and what makes folks tick, but I don’t think you have as many blue-collar, High School educated (or even High School drop-outs) in your social circle as I do.
In a Hillary vs. Trump election there are a lot of people who would walk into a polling booth and think:
“Trump is the guy who can get our town’s jobs back from the Chinese.”
“Trump isn’t afraid to fire people, even celebrities. He’ll stand up to Congress/Putin/Foreign leaders/Insert bogeyman here…”
“Trump made billions for himself. He’ll help America make money again.”
Etc., etc.
And, there are simply a lot of people attracted to the “strong horse” as Osama bin Laden put it in his declaration of war against the U.S.
Most all highly educated people I know, Democrat or Republican (note, I did not say; “intelligent,” or “smart,” just degreed and pedigreed) can’t stand Trump, but many ordinary folk do; including women and minorities. They may not admit it to a pollster, and I have no idea if it’s enough to win an election, but he would get a lot of votes in my old neighborhood (blue collar immigrants and minorities).
Rufus T. Firefly:
I was raised in a solidly blue-collar part of NYC. I went to public schools all the way through grade school and high school. And I have lived most of my life in blue-collar areas of New England, although the cities themselves have sometimes been liberal. I am surrounded by liberals in terms of my close friends and definitely my relatives, but for much (not all, but much) of my life I’ve been embedded in a larger community that is blue-collar, and I continue to have a few acquaintances and/or friends (just a few) who still would answer to that description, and are not college-educated, either.
Sorry to assume something that was not true, but, based on descriptions of your childhood it sounds quite different from mine. Maybe the ballet stuff threw me!
Maybe it’s a northeast vs. midwest difference, but I can imagine the folks I grew up and around liking Trump a lot. They weren’t nearly as concerned with how things got done, but whether that things got done. Trump is exactly the type of brash, tough talking bully they would understand and want in their corner. Most of those people almost only vote Democrat, but many did vote for Reagan and I think many would choose Trump over Hillary.
Again, I have no idea if he would win. I think the Joe Lunchpail types and maybe folks who want closed borders and tariffs would be the only folks to vote for Trump, but I think more of those types of folks vote Democrat than Republican.
I’ve never even watched, “The Apprentice,” but some segment of the population does. And they watch the Kardashians and anyone else who is “famous for being famous.” There is a certain percentage of the population who are drawn to celebrity and a certain percentage drawn to strength, regardless of morals. Many people will vote for Trump purely because he if famous, ostentatious and brash. I think that crosses party lines.
neo-neocon, aren’t there at least some blue collar folks in your part of the northeast who favor Trump?
Rufus T. Firefly:
I am certain there are such people. Probably lots of them.
But I don’t know them. As I said, most of my friends and all my relatives don’t fit the “blue-collar” description, although I grew up in such a community and live in a community where a lot of people are blue-collar. I do have a few friends/acquaintances who are what you might call blue-collar, but I discuss politics these days very seldom and with very few people, and I haven’t discussed politics with any of them in several years.
What I do know is that all my Democrat friends who have discussed Trump (and there are quite a few) detest him, and one Independent I know, who is looking to vote for a Republican this year, detests Trump as well—but that person is a teacher, which is not blue collar.
Pingback:Live from Council Bluffs, it’s Donald Trump | Western Free Press
Pingback:PowerLine Digest – Live from Council Bluffs, it’s Donald Trump – Hoax And Change
neo-neocon, Don Surber has a piece up today where he credits Scott Adams of Dilbert fame with being the only “mainstream” pundit to have figured Trump out. He cites some good examples, including, coincidentally, Trump’s appeal to non-College educated people and why this is especially so difficult for educated people to understand:
http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2015/12/pundit-of-year-dilbert-creator-scott.html?spref=tw
Neo: you have Democrat friends who might vote for a Republican? Any Republican? Really?
These friends detest Trump.
Do they detest Hillary? She is eminently more detestable.
Or the ignorant Sanders? A fool for President?
An excerpt from Surber’s piece:
“Trump thinks in three dimensions, according to Adams. As does Adams. Trump’s critics are stuck in two dimensions. Every situation is either/or. The pundits on TV talk among themselves and when something happens outside the little box they’ve placed themselves in, they freak. Attacking Rosie O’Donnell didn’t foul Trump out? The only logical explanation for this is that Trump’s supporters are stupid.
And sexist. And racist. After all, most of them are white and don’t have college degrees. Never mind that most Americans are white (75%) and most Americans do not have a college degree (75%). It never occurs to the wizards of cable TV that not everyone has a college degree. When I call Mullens to fix the furnace (or hot water heater or AC or plumbing) I do not want someone with a college degree; I want someone who can fix the problem with competence. They make good wages. But the pundits on TV have talked themselves into thinking that if you do not have a college degree, you must be stupid.
Adams rejects all that, instead looking at Trump as a salesman. Successful politicians are good salesmen. Pundits call them communicators, but they are all Willy Lomans, judged by the shine on their shoe and the smile on their face.”
Frog:
As I have indicated several times now, I have one friend who has always voted Democratic (at about 60), who is so turned off by Hillary (and to a certain extent by Obama) that this friend is looking very seriously at the Republican field and intends to vote for a Republican as long as that person isn’t Trump.
Detests Hillary AND Trump.