So, here’s my Trump question du jour
If he’s such a good manager, why is his campaign in the general faltering and seemingly disorganized?
And no, it’s not just media hype. I’ve noticed it, and polls reflect it. In this case I’m not just talking about some of the more controversial things he’s said recently that have turned off voters in the middle who might have been considering voting for him but are now joining the vast ranks of the Trump-scared. I’m talking about things like his recent pursuit of the blue states of Connecticut and Maine, and his refusal to buy ads even though he’s got the money:
Less than 100 days before the general election, Donald Trump has still not spent a dime on television advertising, even as Hillary Clinton floods the airwaves with tens of millions of dollars in ad spending.
According to an analysis by NBC News, the Democratic presidential nominee’s campaign has spent $52 million on television ads, many of which have been concentrated in the battleground states that will be critical in determining the outcome of the election.
The Trump campaign, by comparison, has spent zero dollars.
Even the third-party candidates have spent more than Trump has.
It’s not for lack of money ”” the Trump campaign raised $80 million in July and finished the month with $37 million on hand.
A report in National Journal released Monday found that the campaign has requested ad rates in 17 states, taking the first step in what could be an expanded presence on the airwaves.
What’s he waiting for? November?
I’ve never subscribed to the conspiracy theory that Trump is merely a stalking horse for Hillary. But I have to say that—although I still don’t believe it—those who do think so are not nuts, because if Trump were just a placeholder for Hillary, this is exactly the sort of thing he’d do, while simultaneously attacking Republicans, making controversial statements that turn off many voters in the middle, and offering only sporadic criticisms of Hillary to cover his tracks.
No, I don’t think that’s his motive. But I do think (as I’ve said before) that he doesn’t care all that much if he loses, because his fame has only grown and the number of his minions swelled as a result of his run. What care he if Hillary wins? He’s praised her and donated to her many times in the past. And what care he if Republicans down-ticket falter? It’s not really his party, and if it’s yours—well, you can cry if you want to.
Then there’s his suggestion that there’s no way he can lose Pennsylvania unless the opposition cheats. Actually, it’s not a suggestion; he says he “means it 100%”:
“The only way we can lose, in my opinion ”” I really mean this, Pennsylvania is if cheating goes on and we have to call up law enforcement and we have to have the sheriffs and the police chiefs and everyone watching because if we get cheated out of this election, if we get cheated out of a win in Pennsylvania, which is such a vital state especially when I know what is happening here,” he said. “She can’t beat what’s happening here. The only way they can beat it in my opinion, and I mean this 100 percent, if in certain sections of the state they cheat.”
Trump is down 9% in Pennsylvania polls right now. So no, it’s just a fact that there are many ways he can lose in Pennsylvania without anyone cheating. That has nothing to do with whether or not cheating does in fact go on there, and will in fact go on there. It’s certainly possible. But he is setting up his followers for non-acceptance of his loss, and accusations of questioning the validity of the 2016 election if it doesn’t anoint Trump.
This is pernicious stuff, dangerous stuff, and he’s been playing with this sort of fire right along.
I can hear his supporters now: Trump is the Master Persuader, these tactics are all brilliant, you’ll see! My answer is that the general is not the primary, and I saw an indication he could win the primaries but see none for the general (barring some strange and unanticipated meltdown of Clinton’s campaign).
Trump supporters will also say: but there is cheating!! If say hey, if there is, then prevent it or prove it. But if a candidate is down 9% in the polls, cheating isn’t necessary to defeat him, and acknowledge both that fact and the fact that this is nasty, sore-loser-in-advance rabble-rousing. Either Trump is so far gone in his narcissism that he really believes that he cannot lose (“she can’t beat what’s happening here”) or he is cynically manipulating his followers to the detriment of the country. Or both.
Some PA precincts had 110% turnout, all for Obama.
Trump doesn’t need to spend money since he has a secret plan to win the election and make Hillary Clinton pay for it.
Neo says: “Either Trump is … far gone in his narcissism … or he is cynically manipulating his followers to the detriment of the country.”
I don’t beat my wife.
One could characterize his belief as confidence or over-confidence, but, hey, this man has bad optics. The “detriment” of the country is… I guess his election?
To some pundits Trump can do no right unless he straightens up and runs a campaign like Dole, (I can’t remember his name, but his VP nominee was Palin) or Romney. That will allow the election of numerous down-ballot “Republicans” who will then properly represent those who vote for them as they have in the past. What’s wrong with that?
notherbob2:
I guess you just don’t understand the point I’m making.
Questioning the validity of any election he does not win is not mere overconfidence. He is inciting his followers if he loses.
Richard Aubrey:
As I wrote in the post, the question is not whether there is cheating in Pennsylvania. If there is (and there may indeed be), then prove it, prevent it, do something about it. But for Trump to state that if he loses Pennsylvania that is proof of cheating is a very different kettle of fish.
IMO, Trump believes what he sees with his own eyes. His rallies turn out thousands of enthusiastic voters. Hillary’s crowds number in the hundreds. It is a conundrum. The polls do not line up with the results on the ground. But then, nothing is normal about this campaign. His enthusiastic supporters may be giving Trump a case of unmerited overconfidence. He may also be erroneously counting on the constant drumbeat of negative Clinton ads to eventually be turned off or discounted by undecided voters. What he is thinking is all quite a mystery. Is he a fool or knave? Much like our reaction to Obama.
I think media buys in Trump’s case are worthless, and that is even assuming that he is being offered ad rates that are the same as those for Clinton- something someone will have to prove to me with the state of the media as it is.
I have seen the ads Clinton is running, I think they are likely worthless to her, too.
1) Trump is misdefining conservatism.
2) I don’t know why
3) He will ensure defeat of good principles from now until somebody can come along and teach free markets, equal opportunity, define national security etc
Clumsy assertions, unable to articulate a reasoned defense of his assertions, second guessing by political ‘advisers’ who have him walking back what he’s said.
One of the major networks mentioned he just purchased 3 million in advertising. If he has a strategic rationale, I suspect he’s waiting till the labor day holiday, when the average person starts to pay attention.
J.J.:
If Trump believes what he sees in that regard, then he is stupid.
I’ve never called him stupid before—I think he’s rather canny—but that would be very stupid.
I’ve discussed the issue before, although not in terms of Trump. Crowd size is basically meaningless except to say that a candidate’s own supporters are enthusiastic. See this.
Note also that that post from 2012 is a hint at what I expected from the election: a Romney loss.
J.J.:
We know that Trump is a knave (so is Hillary). The question is whether he also is a fool.
Everybody’s a fool about something.
http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/08/Trump-v.-Liar-copy.jpg
Geoffrey Britain Says:
August 13th, 2016 at 2:42 pm
Clumsy assertions, unable to articulate a reasoned defense of his assertions, second guessing by political ‘advisers’ who have him walking back what he’s said.
One of the major networks mentioned he just purchased 3 million in advertising. If he has a strategic rationale, I suspect he’s waiting till the labor day holiday, when the average person starts to pay attention.
The election narrative is usually set long before then, but this is not politics as usual. I think there will be some more dramatic events that will affect the electioneering in the fall, but who knows which way the dominoes will drop by then?
J.J Says:
“IMO, Trump believes what he sees with his own eyes. His rallies turn out thousands of enthusiastic voters. Hillary’s crowds number in the hundreds. It is a conundrum.”
It isn’t.
Democrats know Hillary is a liar. They knew that about Obama as well. They have no desire to attend rallies where they’ll be fed a stream of lies. That is a waste of their time.
But while they have no desire to waste their time at rallies full of lies, that doesn’t mean they won’t turn out to vote. Their goal is winning, and nothing else.
At the end, Romney/Ryan fielded much larger crowds than Obama too. It didn’t help them.
Trump’s current situation can be explained by two maxims:
1) Reagan’s 11th commandment.
2) The customer is always right.
Trump crossed all sorts of lines in the campaign; lines of decency and fair play that many voters take seriously. This is the violation of Reagan’s 11th commandment: don’t make attacks against Republican rivals personal.
By violating this principle, he engendered an emotional, visceral response against him so that now, many voters will vote against him out of spite.
Because the customer is always right, rational arguments and emotional bullying have proven mostly ineffective at reversing these feelings. This is further bolstered and justified by Trump’s continued “loose cannon” behavior. His further attacks on Cruz have continued to divide the base, whose votes he needs.
Trump supporters can argue until they’re blue in the face about how “Hillary is worse,” but much of the base is also as angry about the establishment state of affairs as Trump supporters are. Trump picked a really bad year to use the same arguments the GOPe does to justify their election.
The only interesting feature of this debacle left for me is whether Trump attends the debates against Hillary, and if so, how he conducts himself.
His supporters have been salivating at the prospect of him laying into Hillary. If he refuses to do so by either participation or conduct, then I guess he wasn’t the “fighter” they all expected him to be.
Matt_SE
With Trump “the system is rigged” and the “media is unfair” may be used to skip the debates. As he skipped debates in the primary. And he will complain how badly he has been treated by the Republicans, crying crocodile tears all the way home to Trump Tower or Mar A Lago.
@ OM:
And that will be a betrayal of his base.
Trump’s one and only hope now is if he can damage Hillary in the debates. This is a golden opportunity because the debates are the one time she is FORCED to come out from behind the praetorian guard (even that is “iffy.” I expect if she has a disastrous performance or two, she’ll just cancel the remaining debates and hope the media can compensate for her).
Trump will get no other opportunity to so directly attack her in front of an audience.
Any other strategy almost assuredly elects Hillary.
So I guess I’m laying down a marker of my own right now:
If Trump doesn’t debate and debate to the best of his ability, it’s because he doesn’t really want to win.
The consequences are so obvious, I will accept no excuses to the contrary.
Neo says: “He is inciting his followers if he loses.”
One is tempted to shout: “For Chr**** sake, woman!” The fate of America as we have known it is at stake here. Your Rules of Engagement are like President Obama’s in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Neither the Taliban nor the Democrats are following those kinds of rules – and neither should Trump. Do you really fear that those Hillbilly’s will pick up their Bibles, take their guns and …do I don’t know what?
The Democrats are using your “niceness” to get what they want. Just listen to Hillary appealing for Republicans to vote for her. Their Narrative is fully loaded to get you to do what they need for them to win. It is not accidental. And it is not paranoia on my part to see it. It is evident to anyone who cares to look. I seem to recall something in Alinsky about this, but I am not fanatic enough to look that up. We don’t need Alinsky, just observe what is about you.
Yes, there is a risk with Trump. There is a certainty with Hillary. Are Guiliani, Gingrich, etc. no re-asssurance? Priebus? I know; the Narrative says they (and anyone else who stands up or comes along) are all unprincipled dupes who hope to cash in if he wins. Come on.
One way or another, the political world that existed when the primaries began is never to be seen again. Hoping all this will go away is futile. The Democrats will not go quietly.
Currently at Breitbart.com, there is a Breitbart/Gravis poll showing Clinton at 48% versus Trump at 34% in NY. SO you might as well give up, right? Then you go to the data. Dem’s polled, 49% versus 27% Republican and 24 % independent. I know it’s NY but sounds high to me. Women polled several points higher than actual representation. age group 18-44@44%,and the boards say that the pollsters are asking for the youngest household member. I didn’t know that our electorate was so well-educated, but 34% had post-grad degrees and another 26% have bachelor’s degrees. WOnder who they like?
So treat the polls with a grain of salt. The important thing is figuring out how to convince others to vote for Trump,or at least against Hillary. I know it offends our self-image to have support such an “embarrassment” and to have to accept responsibility for his many future faux pas, but I don’t want either Hillary or Soros to control my life
Something I keep wondering about is how long Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, are going to wait until they tell Trump it’s over. Ivanka is apparently his closest advisor, and Kushner’s taken on more responsibility in the campaign. Both of them are part of NYC’s “elites”; Ivanka’s even one of Chelsea Clinton’s close friends.
Don’t know if it gives us a glimpse into what they may be thinking, but the New York Observer, the paper owned by Kushner, published a blistering opinion piece a couple of days ago against Trump — Donald Trump’s Destruction Isn’t Funny Anymore: If you can live with this bloodthirsty hate, you have no right to call yourself a patriot.
Trump has always blamed his business failures on others and his true talent has been to drain as much out of each failure as the expense of his partners (ask Burt Reynolds and the other USFL team owners). He has no real ability to manage large organizations or work with others, never has. In this way he has not acquired the political expertise that other business execs necessarily gain as they go up the ladder. To work with the RNC or other GOP candidates for mutual benefit is a skill he has always lacked.
He has acquired a nose for when his deals go south. He is now in the mode of shifting the blame and costs to others.
Sorry Trumpkins, fraud is only important in close contests and Donald is beyond that in many states. He’s already reserved his lifeboat
Ann,
Hillary Clinton ghost wrote the New York Observer piece. Just kidding, of course she didn’t but she might as well have…
“Are Guiliani, Gingrich, etc. no re-asssurance? Priebus?” – notherbob
Nope.
If we’ve ever had concerns about how incentives play a role in how the “establishment” performs, we should have no problem recognizing how that may have affected their judgement in this case.
Geoffrey Britain,
I agree that it sounds just like Hillary. What I find interesting, though, is where it was published.
Neo: “We know that Trump is a knave (so is Hillary). The question is whether he also is a fool.”
Your previous comment may have answered that. The question is why isn’t he buying TV ads? Is he overconfident? You have stated that, if he is over confident, he’s a fool. If he isn’t buying TV ads because he has an October blitz planned he is may be a fool for doing that. So, he may very well be a fool.
You say he is a knave. And that would be based on what, exactly? Does being a bombastic, narcissist make him a knave? Does being an aggressive and maybe foolish business man make him a knave? Does being weak on knowledge of foreign policy make him a knave? Do his multiple marriages make him a knave? Has he been charged with any felonies? Has he put the security of the U.S. in jeopardy? Has he enriched himself off the public purse? Is he known for treating employees and servants like dirt? Does his habit of using ad hominem attacks on his opponents make him a knave? Yes, he can be a nasty piece of work, but so can Hillary.
Actually, I think a lot of people who consider Trump a knave have not sat down and looked at the activities of Trump beside those of Hillary and Bill Clinton. I think Trump an off-putting personality (A nice way to say he’s a jerk.), but when has being a jerk been against the law? I don’t think he can hold a candle to Hillary in the knave department when you consider their actual illegal activities side by side.
Do not take the above as my trying to sing Trump’s praises. I am appalled that the election has come down to these two candidates. I just do not consider Trump a knave. At least not in the same league as Hillary.
Trump rally in Fairfield, CT starts at 7:30p,m, Watch on youtube or probably C-Span. The Dems are fierce and maybe we are setting ourselves up for a fall, but let’s enjoy a few moments of pride in our country.
The way this is headed, Trump is gonna lose big. Like Goldwater big. The only chance he has is the debates. Which I expect him to prepare for as diligently as he did the primary debates. Which is not at all. He may not be a stalking horse for Hillary, maybe his motive was to destroy any chance a more conservative candidate had. While interesting, it’s moot now. The important thing to realize, IMO, is that the Republican party was okay with his takeover of the party.
“But he is setting up his followers for non-acceptance of his loss, and accusations of questioning the validity of the 2016 election if it doesn’t anoint Trump.” – Neo
trump’s campaign is his opportunity to showcase his intelligence, ability, hiring skill, and experience, etc. – all the things he’s been branding himself on.
So far his performance has been much poorer than promised.
The fact that he “jokes” about going on a “very, very long vacation” if he loses, and is laying the foundation for delegitimizing the election, foreshadows where he sees the campaign headed.
Trump said he was going to pivot. Trump said, “I’m very capable of changing to anything I want to change to.” Trump said, “At the right time, I will be so presidential that you’ll call me and you’ll say, ‘Donald, you have to stop that'”
Now he’s saying, “I think that my temperament has gotten me here I’ve always had a good temperament and it’s gotten me here. We beat a lot of people in the primaries and now we have one person left, and we’re actually doing pretty well there, but we’ll see how it all comes out.”
I think Trump has been running on his tempermeant all along and little else. It worked like kryptonite in the Republican primaries, but in the general election it’s not working and he can’t change gears because he doesn’t have any other gears.
Claiming he can change into anything he wants to is just more of his grandiose temperament that he is smartest, bestest, winningest guy around. It’s a good con for the rubes — they like his fighting spirit! — but saying something doesn’t make it true, and wanting to believe it likewise.
“I suspect he’s waiting till the labor day holiday, when the average person starts to pay attention.”
This was the tradition but Romney lost because the GOP convention was late and he did not spend money to counter the Dems’ defining him as a “vulture capitalist” courtesy of Gingrich.
Trump seems immune, both because of who Hillary is and because he is so well known. I don’t know how this election is going to go and I don’t think anyone does.
Most Trump voters are reluctant to tell anyone who they are voting for. I move in fairly well educated circles and have found almost everyone I meet are voting for him if the subject comes up. I have a leftist daughter who has told me she will not vote for Hillary but won’t vote for Trump. If she eventually does, she won’t tell me I’m sure.
This election is a black box until November 9.
“Most Trump voters are reluctant to tell anyone who they are voting for.” – Mike K
That makes some sense for those who observed trump in recent weeks. To voice support means they have to explain the unexplainable.
Yet, I haven’t encountered those who were early trump supporters that I know, being shy about it now.
I attended the opening of the local (Reno, NV) GOP Victory office. I will attempt to be the non-biased reporter I claim to desire reading in reporting on this opening.
The only person there in a suit ended up speaking. He is a pastor who is performing weddings today and did not have time to change – he had one more to perform after the meeting. He was running for (*). Correction: another speaker was a female who was running unopposed for Assemblyperson (*) and she also had on a suit. There were around 250 people there eating hot dogs and potato salad and drinking water or soda pop. In response to a question the meeting leader (*) said the turnout was larger than in 2008 or 2012. The special guest speaker came over from a national Veterans (*) meeting at a local hotel. He and most of the other speakers said words to the effect that “we may wish that our candidate did not say some things, but he is our candidate isn’t he?” (cheers). The speeches were the usual “We’re going to win!” stuff. The fact that Nevada is a swing state was featured. Several speakers clearly stated that the polls they were relying on showed Nevada within the margin of error either way. Defeating Senator Harry Reid’s hand-picked successor (*) was a “hot” topic that drew more cheers than Trump. There was not a lot of rah-rah stuff, it seemed that everyone knew why they were there and the only rahing was the main speaker asking everyone, on cue to raise their hands and chant “Trump” “Trump” Trump” gradually getting louder and then “Yaaaaaay”. This was for a video they were making. They did not focus on any particular people, just the crowd. They rehearsed three or four times to get just the effect they desired – enthusiasm. It seemed routine to me for such meetings. I don’t know how to properly describe at least half of the crowd, but they were not the people I had seen at prior Republican meetings I have attended. Not the usual political folks. Newbies? Typical Nevada ethnicities were there – Hispanic, Asian – a few, but mostly white working class. There were no black people, although there could have been some who came and left earlier or later.
Two confident black ladies came in during the meeting to get cokes from the tubs (which were kept inside for obvious reasons). They looked at the crowd with interest, but just got their cokes and went out to eat with the others eating outside and I did not see them again.There was no music. The audio was excellent and the staff looked professional. The location was in the low-rent part of Reno with many vacant stores in the same location. I had never been to that part of Reno before (seven year resident who frequently is out and about). A neighboring property was a rundown old drive in theater lot (The Silver … ?) that had not changed since 1961 apparently. There were new fast food stores nearby, however, so the neighborhood was improving. Most of the speeches were about making calls and walking neighborhoods. Apparently most of those attending were volunteers to assist the campaign. At one point Hillary was mentioned and one attendee began to chant “jail her”, but no one joined in and everyone acted as if that was declasse. Take away the comments about the statements of the candidate and I would say that the meeting was typical of all such meetings held to recruit volunteers for a campaign. The professionals there seemed competent, somewhat low-key, professional. Only their statement (assuming agreement ahead of time) that everyone there knew that this time saying “this is the most important election in your lifetime” was true was other than the usual stuff. After reflection, the difference from other similar meetings I have attended was the assumption by the presenters of the determination and dedication of the audience in getting their candidate elected. I suppose if they had totally given up on his chances, their attitude and demeanor might have been exactly the same.Ann would have reported it that way, I am sure.(*) a good reporter would either have gotten this info at the meeting or have a way to look up and verify it. Please forgive me.
Belle:
Arguing about poll samples is the mark of a campaign in deep, deep, deep trouble.
The average of polls over time almost always is correct about the trend, particularly regarding national elections. Trump has been remarkably consistent in losing to Hillary in many many polls taken over a long period of time.
It’s possible they’re wrong. But extremely unlikely. This “bad sampling” argument was used often in 2012 to argue for a Romney victory. Didn’t happen.
At no point have I thought anything other than that Trump will lose, and probably badly.
Pollsters’ reputations rest on the accuracy of their predictions. They try their best to get their samples correct.
notherbob2:
You write:
You misunderstand the point I’m trying to make.
This isn’t about my rules of engagement, or being polite. Let me try to make what I’m saying even more clear:
(1) I believe very very strongly that Trump WILL lose. I think that, in some corner of his brain that isn’t in as much denial as the rest of it, even he realizes there is an excellent chance that he will lose.
(2) He cannot admit it is his fault. He will not admit he has done anything wrong. So, rather than put a dent in his own narcissistic belief in his winning ways, he must blame others.
(3) He’s not just blaming others, he’s setting it up to blame others in advance of a loss. And he is encouraging his followers—already fired up with rage at everyone who doesn’t support Donald Trump—to blame everyone but Trump. They will blame both the Republicans (the “stab in the back” charge) and the Democrats, not for beating Trump fair and square, but for cheating. Because if they didn’t cheat, their hero would have won.
(4) Trump is doing that with an enormous amount of self-serving cynicism. He could not care less the sort of trouble that can cause for the country as a whole. He is only concerned with protecting his own sense of self and his own reputation in his own eyes and the eyes of his doting followers.
(5) There are a lot of VERY angry people in this country supporting Trump. You use the term “hillbillies,” but I certainly never have, nor do I conceptualize his followers in that way. The Trump supporters I know are nothing like that, and polls and surveys of his supporters show that a great many of his supporters are well-educated and make good incomes.
A lot of his supporters are also alt-right extremists. Some of them are white supremicists and other fringe elements. Stirring them up further, and stirring them up in advance, is a dangerous thing to do. Even without Trump’s stirring them up that way they are very very angry. Whether the result is violence, or just a further polarization of politics in this country and in particular the Republican Party (I think the latter most likely), Trump is interested in rubbing salt into wounds to keep them festering, rather than healing them.
I couldn’t care less about politeness. This is not about politeness.
Plus, I might add that if the idea is to win, statements like his “if I lose, it means they cheated” would not appeal to anyone except the people who already like him and plan to vote for him. These are not the statements of a candidate trying to win people over. These are the statements of a candidate trying to protect his own butt when he loses.
J.J.:
I wrote that both Trump and Hillary are knaves. I didn’t say that they were exactly equal knaves in all respects. They are not; they are quite different in many ways, but they are both knaves.
The world seems to have room for more than one—and even more than two—knaves.
That list of characteristics for Trump that you listed certainly makes the case quite nicely for his knavitude. They’re not even all necessary. If I had to choose one thing and one thing alone (not that there’s just one thing) that makes him a knave I’d say it’s the way he lied about and viciously attacked the other GOP candidates, and in particular one who wasn’t a candidate—his assertions about George W. Bush.
Let me refresh your memory on that last thing, in case you’ve forgotten:
There’s so much more, I hardly know where to start. He is a nasty piece of work, a con artist, a narcissist, and on and on and on.
By the way, Trump hasn’t compromised national security because he’s never been entrusted with matters of national security.
Neo, your definition of knavery is different than mine. Knowing your attention to detail, your definition is probably more correct than mine.
The official definition is:
1. a deceitful or dishonest act
2. dishonest conduct; trickery
Similar Words: dishonesty, fraud, corruption, deception, deceit, trickery, duplicity, villainy.
My definition of knavery as it applies to a government official would probably be more like this: A person who uses his/her office to enrich themselves, and/or does official acts that damage the general welfare of citizens, and/or breaks specific laws that apply to his/her office. This definition applies to both Obama and Hillary. For a non-government person I would define it as a person who knowingly commits criminal acts. Being a jerk does not make you a knave.
I agree that breaking the 11th Commandment of not speaking ill of fellow Republicans was a foolish act, from which Trump is now reaping the blowback. You would probably consider Trump’s treatment of the farmers in Scotland as knavery. It was exceedingly bad manners but didn’t break any laws that I’m aware of. So, we disagree.
I can’t believe I’m defending Trump. I guess part of it is that I have served and worked with similar people. Most of them have been hard to like but never incompetent or crooked. The world of Naval aviation and airline piloting is populated with an above average number of narcissists. Because it is a demanding job, those without competence are selected out pretty quickly. Trump has been part of a different competitive world and has been successful, but it appears that it doesn’t translate well to politics. It looks like he will be selected out. At least that’s what I see at this time.
J.J.:
The word “knave” in this context isn’t about a dictionary definition of the word. It’s about the “fool versus knave” distinction. In other words, is the person a fool or is he or she a knave? Both sets of person do bad things, but the fool does them without consciousness or by error, the knave is doing some bad thing purposely.
I started asking the question on the blog about Obama, when he (for example) would do some awful thing to an ally, or some kind thing to an enemy. Was he just stupid and making an error? Or did he have some other knavish plan—a plan where he was up to no good? So “knave” in that “fool vs. knave” context just means someone who does something bad in some way but is aware and not making an error.
That is the way in which I ordinarily use the word on this blog. And I can’t think of when I ever use it off the blog.
But even by the classic definition of “knave” that you offered, Trump is indeed a knave. He is indeed “deceitful” and “dishonest,” about many things and many times. He lies constantly, and if you want a good example of deceit just look at Trump University. He’s also well-known for stiffing his contractors and then trying to outlast them in court when they sue him, because he’s the one with the deep pockets.
“Knave” does NOT require criminal acts. It merely requires dishonesty or untrustworthiness.
Of course, you can’t prove cheating until after the election. Intimidation prosecutions and other irregularities in prior elections have been abandoned by those in positions to prosecute/prevent.
So, if you are a candidate, you boldly make the statement that fraud is likely, especially if he loses. This causes thought and public discussion of the possibility of fraud. It can be inhibiting to fraudsters as they may assume the election irregularities will be looked at more closely, such as the oft reported sudden bag o’ ballots found in a trunk late in the counting. It also may inhibit such things as the Black Panther intimidation behavior such as that the Obama administration abandoned.
Many are saying Trump’s comment was unseemly, perhaps dangerous to faith in elections, but all he is doing is stating in public that which many suspect and expect. Making it a taboo subject for polite conversation doesn’t make it go away or less likely to happen.
Of course, I would like to see Trump make a call for a big turnout to make sudden ballot locating syndrome near impossible to pull off.
As for Trump not buying ads? Why should he? To keep up the useless professional political operatives?
How more effective will some ad people skip through be rather than Trump say causing people to think, talk, rant about Obama and Hillary’s “role” in the rise of ISIS? Which as the added benefit of causing people to actually think of the state of American foreign policy in the Middle East and Europe.
I get it.
If we went by the rules of most commenters on here, Bush should’ve dropped out in 1988, because he was a sure loser. Losing in the polls by about the same you saw last week with Hillary.
Rush has been saying this week, polls this early are to shape opinions, not to tell the truth. The pollsters will move toward more accurate polling in October b/c no serious pollster wants to look wrong in November..
Also, read a US News article that quoted James Carville. He said most pollsters last week realized their polls were off…they were too democrat-heavy. Most pollsters suspended polls for this past week as a result. This is Carville. Democrat.
The polls are not accurate right now. I’ve seen separate polls with Hillary up by 10, and another with them 2 points apart. Numbers are all over the place.
Trump would not have gone to CT today, if he didn’t see an opportunity. Wherever Clinton goes, assume that is a sogn of weakness. Her internal polls must be telling her something.
FYI, word behind the scenes in Ohio is that Bernie types are very much behind Trump.
If we went by the rules of most commenters on here, Bush should’ve dropped out in 1988, because he was a sure loser.
I’m not sure you understand “most commenters” here. The polls are only a piece of it. If Trump were a normal candidate like George H.W. Bush — and candidates don’t come much more normal than Bush 41 — there would be no hue and cry.
But we are looking at the most bizarre and most disliked presidential candidate in modern times, who pulled out a hair ahead of Hillary in the polls for fifteen minutes and since then has dropped like a rock after one ridiculous unforced error after another.
Trump is also a former Democrat, not a conservative, who has bitterly attacked the GOP and its supporters, and done very little to heal those divisions.
Furthermore his campaign is so poorly organized and funded compared to his opponent, that he has only one office in the key battleground state Florida.
Comparing Trump to Bush 41 is a non-starter.
I notice no Trump supporters — early or late — have attempted to answer neo’s topic question:
If [Trump is] such a good manager, why is his campaign in the general faltering and seemingly disorganized?
I would add, “And what does this indicate for a Trump administration?”
I really think this explains it:
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder-symptoms/
Symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
Requires excessive admiration
Has a very strong sense of entitlement, e.g., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
Is exploitative of others, e.g., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
Lacks empathy, e.g., is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
Regularly shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
In a previous thread a Trump supporter (notherbob2?) said, “Trump builds things.”
No, Trump makes deals, as he told the world in his book, “The Art of the Deal.” Other people build things, just as someone else actually wrote the book, “The Art of the Deal.”
Here’s the ghostwriter’s account of that experience.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
The writer is a liberal and the New Yorker has become hyper-partisan since the Iraq War, so some of it may be discounted, but it rings true enough with the thin-skinned, Twitter-obsessed egomaniac we’ve come to know in this campaign.
“Trump has been written about a thousand ways from Sunday, but this fundamental aspect of who he is doesn’t seem to be fully understood,” Schwartz [the ghostwriter] told me. “It’s implicit in a lot of what people write, but it’s never explicit–or, at least, I haven’t seen it. And that is that it’s impossible to keep him focussed on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes…”
Bob and Huxley:
Pathological narcissist with ADHD(?) and a closet liberal to boot! What could conceivably be wrong with that mash up?
But he may not be all those or any of those things. He isn’t Hillary so lets see what tomorrow brings, something new and much better! /s
Of course Bob’s handy narcissist checklist applies as well to Obama.
Some of my horror about Trump is that after seven, going on eight years of Obama, Republicans have chosen a candidate as narcissistic as Obama. I would argue more.
As Trump would tweet, “Sad.”
huxley:
Agree, BHO is the standard for pathological narcissism as President. BHO has been able to stick to his transformational agenda.
With Trump it is a “another fine mess you have gotten me into …” because we haven’t fallen in line behind the Donald. Very sad for the nation.
K_E:
I really have no idea why anyone would care what Rush Limbaugh says at this point. I admit I’ve never been a fan, but that’s partly because I just don’t like talk radio. However, this year Limbaugh has earned my lack of fandom. He had an opportunity to be truthful about Trump, about who he is and in particular the effect he will have on conservatism and the fact that he was the weakest of all the candidates and the most likely to lose to Hillary Clinton. Limbaugh choose, instead, to be a cheerleader for Trump while pretending not to be. I followed reports of what he was doing (I get a newsletter about it) and transcripts of his show periodically.
I’ve listened over the years to people talking about polls, and watched the results of elections, and I have learned to discount those who jabber on about skewed polls and the like. In general, pollsters try to get it right, both far from the election and close to it. There are exceptions, of course. But over time the average of polls has had excellent predictive value. That’s why Nate Silver has been quite good.
As I said, there are exceptions. But nothing—nothing—about Trump, the polls, and his team makes me think that he will win and that the polls have been wrong.
And of course, strange new events can take place. Some revelation about Hillary from Wikileaks, I suppose, would be one possibility. But otherwise, I have strongly concluded that the average of polls are good measurements of public opinion. And believe me, I know more about statistics than Rush Limbaugh, although I’m not up there with Nate Silver.
Those who keep reassuring themselves about skewed polls and the like only do so when a campaign is in trouble. Trump’s campaign is in trouble.
As for Carville, you didn’t provide the link, but here it is. Basically, it’s garbage:
That was Carville on August 5, quite some time ago, not long after the DNC. He was trying to make sure that people didn’t get too cocky. He was also speaking of Democratic pollsters, not the sort of pollsters we’re talking about, and in addition it was something Carville had “heard.”
This is not something on which anyone should rely.
Here is a general discussion of the idea of “skewed polls” in favor of Democrats. And I well remember all the emphasis on this in 2012. You know how that turned out.
JK Brown:
You write a description of what you think Trump did, and its results:
That is a misrepresentation of what Trump actually said, however. Had Trump “made a statement that fraud is likely, especially if he loses,” I wouldn’t have written this post, and it wouldn’t have been something that I felt all that critical towards.
In other words (just to be clear), had Trump said something like this I wouldn’t have written the post: “You know, there’s been quite a bit of election fraud in the past, particularly in some parts of Pennsylvania, and I bet they’re planning some now. If I lose Pennsylvania, it might be because of fraud.”
It’s still sore-loser-in-advance talk, and that’s how I think a lot of people on the fence about Trump would interpret it, and so I think it’s a losing approach. I would rather he stuck to just saying there’s been fraud and there may be more fraud this year, without tying it into blaming his future loss on fraud (that’s by far the more inflammatory part of such a statement).
However, it’s moot, because that’s not what Trump said. This is what he said (and he said the equivalent of this several times):
In other words: if I lose, it’s because they cheated.
Those are very very inflammatory words, quite different from your suggestion and my paraphrasing of your suggestion. And I repeat, what Trump actually said is highly unlikely to win over a single voter who hadn’t yet made up his/her mind about who to vote for prior to that statement. Trump’s statement is merely in order to cover his butt in the case of a loss, and rouse his supporters to further anger.
And all of this comes when he is losing polls in Pennsylvania by 9%, so there’s no reason to imagine it would be true that cheating would be necessary for a Trump loss in Pennsylvania. No, he’s doing quite nicely at that all on his own.
Lastly, do you really think this statement of his will give pause to people who might be wanting to commit election fraud? Dream on. And what power would Trump have anyway, to give things further scrutiny, if he loses? If he loses, the Democrats are in charge of the executive branch of the federal government (and maybe even Congress, if his negative coattails affect Congress enough), and later the judiciary (Hillary’s appointments). What’s more, the Democrats are already in charge locally in those areas of Pennsylvania to which Trump is referring—Philadelphia, for example—and that’s not changing.
By not buying radio and TV advertising, Trump is denying his media enemies hundreds of millions of dollars in funding.
This is strategically sound. Wars are largely won by logistics — by denying your enemy the resources he needs to fight.
In order to succeed with this strategy, Trump needs an alternate way to communicate with his supporters. But we already know how he’s doing that. Twitter, Facebook and his stadium rallies, all three of which are extremely effective.
Now on to his loud angry talk about vote fraud. The way I read the politics of vote fraud, Republicans are largely convinced that elections are regularly stolen by Democrats. Democrats insist that even when inner city precincts come up 100.00% Democrat and 0,00% Republican, vote fraud does not exist at all and that if you even bring up the subject, you are a racist living in a paranoid fantasy land. Thus, Republicans are cowed into silence over vote fraud and come away from losing elections feeling helpless — like it is their lot in life to suck it up. Trump is trying to break this Stockholm syndrome with regards to vote fraud. He wants Republicans to be talking about it, looking for it, angry about it, not to provide an excuse for a loss, but to intimidate the usual perpetrators into not doing it this time around. He wants them to feel like it’s too risky and dangerous to tamper with the election. He wants to force them to back off and let the election happen for real.
I have no problem with his putting that fear into criminals.
jms:
Please read my comment here. It is relevant to part of your comment.
Also, you write:
Your reasoning is flawed. The MSM is Trump’s enemy to a certain extent. To another extent in the primaries it was his friend, by giving him tons of coverage, but you are correct that now, in the general, it is his enemy. But his denying them his ad revenue is not going to “deny them the resources they need to fight.” The MSM does not depend on Trump to fund it. Yes, his lack of ads will deny them some money, but that money is hardly necessary for them to fight him extremely effectively.
In addition, although the MSM is his (and other Republicans’) enemy, Hillary Clinton is his opponent. He isn’t denying her any resources, and he is ceding the field of TV advertising to her and allowing her to dominate it.
As for his ability to communicate with his followers on Twitter, Facebook, and stadium rallies, that’s lovely for him and his followers. If his followers consisted of a majority of the American people, I suppose that would even be enough to win the election. If he is to win (which, when last I checked, was the point of the whole thing, not a mutual admiration society between Trump and his adoring followers), he must broaden his appeal beyond his present number of followers.
He has not done that. He is not doing that. Barring very unforeseen circumstances (some catastrophic problem for Hillary or some other catastrophe), he does not seem on track to do that. Au contraire.
Trump is preaching to the Trump choir.
Apologies for Trump not buying any ads are another form of the n-dimensional chess argument.
Whenever someone says “this time is different,” they’re almost always wrong.
Matt_SE:
It’s interesting, though, to see the creativity of the Trump apologists. This is not limited to Trump apologists, though. I’ve noticed it with the supporters of other candidates, and in other areas of life.
People find it hard to admit when things are going wrong. That’s understandable. And they find excuses for it.
@ neo-neocon:
“People find it hard to admit when things are going wrong. That’s understandable. And they find excuses for it.”
In light of that, and because I’ve been thinking about it recently, here is my list of what Cruz did wrong:
1) When he refused to dogpile on Trump in the early cycle, he should’ve stated why: that Trump’s supporters had legitimate grievances that the establishment chose to overlook. He was never clear about that, if that was indeed his reasoning.
2) He should’ve been more forthcoming about his previous immigration stance, especially H1-B visas. He could’ve explained that most Congressmens’ experience with the program comes in the form of testimony from industry, and that it now appears that industry was lying to Congress.
I note that even now, Google searches produce his OLD position, and the updated position from last November appears further down the list. An example of Google putting their thumb on the scale, IMO.
In terms of both legal and illegal immigration, he could’ve made a strong case based on rule of law and conservative principles. If he made that case, he didn’t do it forcefully enough.
3) He should’ve staked out a more forceful anti-PC position. Trump does this by default with his comments, which I attribute to him being an asshole but his supporters mistake for some kind of policy position.
Again, Cruz could’ve demonstrated the great cultural damage and upheaval caused by PC, and made a principled case to oppose it. In conjunction with these statements, he should’ve also stressed the need for civility since the president is supposed to represent ALL Americans, even on the left.
He could’ve said that the division in the country was from Obama trying to ram an agenda down everyone’s throats and that attempting to do the same in reverse would only lead to more division.
4) Less overt Bible-thumping. On the one hand, I don’t think Cruz did this to nearly the extent he’s criticized for and the MSM would try and exaggerate it none-the-less. OTOH, his association with Glen Beck was ill-advised. Beck is kooky, and his handing out of toys to illegal immigrant children, while demonstrating Christian compassion, also served to undermine Cruz’ immigration stance.
I think Cruz gambled on the Evangelical vote, and found out that it was much less a motivating factor than he thought. This is only in hindsight though, so I’m not sure if this point #4 is entirely valid.
5) He should’ve repeated Reagan’s 11th commandment often, and pointed out that Trump’s personal attacks on other candidates would divide the party and solidify opposition to Trump.
************************************************
There are some concrete statements he could’ve made, but many of his faults were in not being forceful enough: mistakes of presentation style. Since hardcore Trumpkins were determined to misunderstand, I’m not sure this would’ve made any difference.
Anyway, if you can think of other faults I’d like to hear them.
Belle – If you ae interested in checking the plausibility of polls, there are independent sources of data.
For example, New York has registration by party. Looking at my 2012 “Almanac of American Politics” I see that Democrats were about half the electorate, Republicans and independents about one quarter each.
I wouldn’t expect those proportions to be very different, now.
A simple search should give you more up to date figures, or you can just look for the 2016 edition, which you should be able to find in any decent library.
You can also look at what happened in the New York primaries earlier this year. It’s true that there was less of a contest on the Republican side; it’s also true that this is Trump’s home state, where he should be able to demonstrate his popularity among those who know him best.
Trump came in third, in fact a distant third; Bernie Sanders beat him by 3-2, Hillary Clinton by 2-1.
Neo:
I agree with you that Trump’s talk about vote fraud is unlikely to convert a single voter. I don’t think that’s what it’s for. I don’t think he’s seeking voters by doing this. I think he has a different purpose.
I also doubt Trump is planting sour grapes for later harvest. That doesn’t appear to me to be his style. I think he plans to win.
So I take him at his word. He thinks he can win a fair election. But not a rigged one. So from his standpoint, if he believes the election is being rigged, then fighting to convert the election from rigged to fair is really all that matters at this point.
Why would he believe the election to be rigged? Candidates have their own internal polls, which are meticulously conducted, so I assume that Trump is fully aware of whether his internal polls match the media polls. The latest polls for both Ohio and Pennsylvania both show 0% black support. 0%! Across two entire states. Actually, not just 0%, but 0 supporters. Since the Ohio and Pennsylvania polls claim to have counted under 100 black voters in each state, the number of voters must have been zero in both cases; if a single black Trump supporter had been counted, the respective poll would have to report at least 1%.
I find it very unlikely that Trump’s internal polls show 0% black support. If they don’t, then Trump’s correct response is to stop fighting Hillary Clinton and start fighting election fraud.
The public has an expectation that a given election’s results will mirror the polls. If they do, the public considers the election result to be validated. The corollary to this is that if you want to rig an election without attracting suspicion, you must also rig the polls ahead of time. So when the polls appear to be rigged, as they do in this case, it is rational to suspect that the rigged polls are being presented in preparation for a rigged election. In practical terms, If Donald Trump is expected to get 0% of the black vote, then it becomes quite plausible for Hillary Clinton to win with a massive, unprecedented, virtually 100% Democratic voting turnout in the big Democratic machine controlled cities where Republicans just happen to be barred from challenging vote fraud by the 1981 DNC-RNC consent decree.
It’s not me who is bringing up the consent decree, by the way. The instant Trump started talking about election fraud, the left brought out their big gun and actually threatened him with it. The consent decree is something that the Democrats like to keep very quiet about. The fact that they are making it into an issue tells me that they feel the need to play the big card that they usually keep in reserve. It tells me that Trump’s instincts are correct. He is over the target.
To answer your question, Trump’s path to give things further scrutiny is for him to first get Republican poll watchers into all precincts, especially in the Democratic strongholds. Doing this might require him to attack the consent decree head-on, and if the Democrats don’t back off their threats then Trump has a green light to go ballistic on the Democrats over the consent decree and vote fraud. And that’s exactly what I think he’s trying to do, and it’s a battle he needs to fight before he turns his attention to Hillary Clinton or he will lose the election.
We have been in the northwoods – lakes region of MN with extended family for 11 days, far away from the chatter and BS of the the donald versus shrew queen debate. Back in the bruhaha it is the same old same old. Cutting to the chase, hrc is a money grubbing grifter under the sway of Soros and the globalists; the donald is an unhinged, aging playboy who seems sociopathic and never expected to be riding the proverbial tiger. The hoi polloi will vote for the shrew queen come November. Game over by design.
It was never a question, it was a plan… yes, I am one of those conspiracy idiots when it comes to the djt intentional train wreck. Color me tin foil hat weirdo.
“However, this year Limbaugh has earned my lack of fandom. He had an opportunity to be truthful about Trump, about who he is and in particular the effect he will have on conservatism and the fact that he was the weakest of all the candidates and the most likely to lose to Hillary Clinton. Limbaugh choose, instead, to be a cheerleader for Trump while pretending not to be.” – Neo
First, Neo, hats off to you for challenging these pro trump arguments. We all need to be clear eyed and clear headed in the decision we face in November. It seems the most consequential election in generations.
Wrt “conservative” radio hosts, and, to a similar extent, their counterpart tv opinion hosts, we’ve clearly discovered what was perhaps always there, but much less obvious… they really didn’t stand for what they were espousing, but were merely filling an audience niche.
It was always clear that the MSM leans left, but we forgot to mind our own side.
For as much as we argue that the MSM has helped shaped opinion for the public at large, we ought to have expected that “conservative” media has helped shape conservative opinion.
In 2008 it was definitely showing itself. In 2012, it became quite clear, if one cared to look, that conservative media was very much behind much of the anger and calls of “RINO!!!” that tarnished Romney. The ensuing lack of enthusiasm was surely a factor in his failure to win. They helped make elections, up and down the chain, become destructive contests in “purity”. They were also instrumental in the hyped expectation on what could be accomplished by the GOP in Congress.
If many of us hadn’t, almost verbatim, been accepting of the “conservative” media arguments and were to calibrate our understanding by a variety of observations of the world around us, we might have a) more realistic expectations, and b) make decisions that more effectively deliver on the reality we want to see.
We just cannot afford to be herded into automatically accepting “our team’s” candidate, based on our worst fears (as whipped up by someone else) about another candidate, and then ignoring or excusing all the downside of “our team’s” candidate.
There has to be a limit as to what is “acceptable” in the name of our principles.
Many seemed to have forgotten that in pursuit of a “Win!”.
But “Win!” what?
trump may yet win, but, if so, all should be prepared to be extremely disappointed, if not shocked at where that takes us.
At best, we have a temperamentally unpredictable candidate, not grounded in any discernible principle, motivated by self aggrandizement, who will make then next four years tumultuous. He is so mutable on all he says that there is hardly any reason to see that he will deliver on any of his promises, the limited few that might even be “desirable”.
I keep looking for something more than “not clinton” to work with on supporting trump.
“Reluctant” trump supporters making excuses and trumpsplaining things away is hardly reassuring at all.
Worse, some just assume that the infrastructure we have in place today would automatically kick in and stop such extremes, with no solid explanation as to why that is not working today.
Or, absolutely worst, some gladly admit that trump will, indeed, be an authoritarian, but somehow that is a “better” alternative to preserve who knows what, since we can “survive” that better.
If trump wins, fairy tale wishes and excuses of today will then prove the faulty foundation they inhabited, and many will no doubt claim, “but I didn’t know!”.
“After my experiences with Oskar Schindler, I felt I could tell the difference between those Germans who had been true Nazis and those who had retained some humanity, even if they had joined the Nazi Party. I found that the true believers would look down at their shoes or wind their watches when someone mentioned the war. When someone spoke of what the Jews had gone through, their stock response was “We didn’t know.”” – Leon Leyson – “The Boy on the Wooden Box”
G0d help us if it gets to this. I expect not. I hope not. But who really knows at this point, with trump all over the map on everything.
@jms – it is one thing to prove voter fraud, and then quite another to claim that throws an election.
I don’t doubt it exists, but there’s been remarkably few cases on such important a claim.
Conservative media makes such claims and throw around stats like the left do on their claims of unequal pay and racial discrimination.
It is enough to drum up emotions and little else.
trump’s comments are designed to do just that, excuse a loss, and delegitimize an election (as in, “if I cannot have it, nobody will”, style).
IOW, par for the course with trump.
Given that Trump is behind in the polls, the worst possible candidate and a narcissistic psychopath, we still have to do our best to drag him over the finish line. The Dems are willing to ignore Hillary’s seizures, lies and immorality in order to make her their Presidential puppet. If Twitter pulls the plug on the Donald, his access to the public will be limited to his rallies, and the MSM will ridicule him with even more impunity.
Any Republican candidate would be treated in a fashion similar to Trump, and the wonder is that he is still standing at this point. Maybe it’s a good thing that he has a strong ego. The MSM and the Dems were thrown off by the 90M (I think) that he was able to raise in July. I propose that we all make a donation of any amount in order to increase his funding for August. Not only would this be encouraging to us all, it would force the MSM and others to recognize that he can still win this election.
Maybe some of you have influential friends who will be willing to publicly endorse Trump. We want to change the momentum of the game. You don’t have to love him; you just have to help him win. Thanks for the space, Neo.
@Jim M – today, on Face the Nation, Hayden and several others who have served in a WH cabinet (for either side, and some both sides) spoke about the qualities that make a good president.
Saw your post on Aug 12 on your website and was reminded of this. Listening IS rather important, and is one of many qualities that make a competent leader.
Don’t know where to find it online, but I suggest folks, if they find it, listen to them if they want to seriously contemplate a good spectrum of leadership qualities given the choices we face.
If you won’t even believe comparisons to previous elections, then you also cannot believe polling based on previous election turnout.
Which is what we are supposedly getting now. But I’m sorry. Any poll that is see with a +9 Dem skew, I have to call BS. I looked at polling from November 2012, the more accurate ones had +5 at most for Dems.
Also, I was told on this site during the primaries that rally attendance meant nothing when it comes to voter turn out. That statement was wrong.
Notice that we have not seen Trump’s very popular children on the campaign trail? And the lack of ads? This is a different candidate with a different strategy. Pay attention. Watch the rallies yourself. The press is ignoring what’s going on and giving you minor bits.
Watch his speech on Monday from beginning to end. No sound bites from the press.
Parker:
Welcome back, mosquitoes will have to find someone else now?
@K_E – you can keep calling the polls “B.S.” all you want, but if 2012 taught us anything (given the “all the polls are B.S.” hype in conservative media) it is that the polls are not far from the reality.
It is not just that trump’s strategy is different it is that he hasn’t delivered. Not on policy, not on temperament, not on ability/focus/discipline.
The MSM will be the MSM. If trump’s strategy is not managing that, it’s on him. Unfair, but it is reality.
No soundbites??? You are kidding right? trump is all about the soundbite.
“One key misstep by the Republican establishment was agreeing, once again, to so-called “debates” in which a stage full of candidates had time for only short and superficial sound bites. Trump was, and is, the king of superficial sound bites.” – Thomas Sowell
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/08/10/new-critics-of-trump-n2203475
On clinton vs trump…
“With Hillary Clinton in the White House, there is no question whatever that she will nominate candidates for the Supreme Court who will destroy both the First Amendment right to free speech and the Second Amendment right to armed self-protection. And that will undoubtedly be just the beginning of the dismantling of the Constitution. …
There are few things worse than being deprived of our basic Constitutional rights, on which our freedom ultimately depends. But one of those few things is being deprived of life itself by the reckless decisions of a volatile, ill-informed, immature and self-absorbed President in a nuclear age. “ – Sowell – same article
@ neo-neocon:
Have you noticed that your site is taking a really long time to load? Half the time it’s refusing the connection and giving me a time out error.
I’ve seen this on two different computers at different addresses now.
” I propose that we all make a donation of any amount in order to increase his funding for August.” – Belle
Huh? Wasn’t trump supposed to be self funding?
He doesn’t need our donations to do what he needs to do.
What the heck are you thinking?
Turns out, he’s been relying on RNC support. Would be interesting to see how much he is personally contributing.
http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/08/14/is-the-gop-about-to-cut-funding-to-trumps-campaign-and-admit-he-is-a-mistake/
“@ neo-neocon:
Have you noticed that your site is taking a really long time to load? Half the time it’s refusing the connection and giving me a time out error.
I’ve seen this on two different computers at different addresses now.” – Matt SE
Right… noticed it too, off and on for the past week or three.
An alt-r denial of service attempt?
Or, just an exponential increase in popularity?
Big-Maq and Mat_SE:
I noticed the slow load last week when using Google Chrome but have found that the Brave laptop and desktop browser doesn’t have this problem. The Google Chrome issue was on a fast ISP, my home DSL loading with Brave is faster, than the Google Chrome. I certainly hope it isn’t an alt-right DNS and is from more non-malicious readers.
“I’ve been a long time reader but have my panties in a twist so I’m not reading you anymore Ms SmartyPants!!!” (need ALL CAPS) /s
I know Hillary supporters who went to a Trump rally. They didn’t go to protest or consider voting for him. The just went to see what it was like, like a phenomenon.
Big Mac,
The point of the donation is to show defiance to MSM efforts to demoralize Trump supporters. Shake up the opposition and let them know we support. Trump. Force them to spend even more money trying to play down a number they cannot spin. Make it easier for Dems to vote for Trump because they see growing support for him.
Maybe we have to start making plans foGoogle or whoever moves from slowing down conservative websites to cutting us off altogether.
Given that Trump is behind in the polls, the worst possible candidate and a narcissistic psychopath, we still have to do our best to drag him over the finish line…
I propose that we all make a donation of any amount in order to increase his funding for August.
Belle: I appreciate that you’re not sugarcoating anything here but I still don’t see how I’m obliged to vote for Trump, much less donate money to his campaign.
If that’s a moral imperative for you, go forth with my blessing. As the loser, whose father may have conspired to kill JFK, said, “Vote your conscience.”
That’s what I intend to do.
If that’s a problem for Trump supporters, I’m sorry but informed citizens of good faith may yet disagree, and I disagree with you.
NEO: If he’s such a good manager, why is his campaign in the general faltering and seemingly disorganized?
And no, it’s not just media hype. I’ve noticed it, and polls reflect it.
because you still want to believe the press tells the truth at least sometimes, but it doesnt… so when you ask that, you first have to ask “Why the Fck do i believe the press that hates him and keep acting as if its a good source while at the same time spending years pointing out how bad it is?????”
you may bet a nobel prize in psychology for that answer, given how i watch how people biatch as to its falsehoods, willingness to lie, and then ignore that and act is if that isnt it.
Why Donald Trump Has the Temperament to Be President
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/donald-trump-2016-temperament-214161
you are watching a machine take care of someone who isnt how you think you know them as its the machine that defines them for you and unless you work hard to see what that machine does, you get suckered.
the machines game is to always make personalities bad for the opposition, make them disliked by personality which is how they are presented, bombast, lie, twist the words, ignore facts, and more..
and rather than you tick that off and notice the game, you pretend there is no game and then ask really stupid questions that have no answer other than this game
Five Reasons 8 Out Of 10 Businesses Fail
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwagner/2013/09/12/five-reasons-8-out-of-10-businesses-fail/
so why is he a bad business man if he has 560 businesess, and only four were restructured… by the averages he should have 448 failures, and that would mean his performance is AVERAGE… but we like to say he is a bad business man who has a bankruptcy (four restructurings), and we all ignore his companies.. and his employees…
remember, this is the SAME PRESS that you discussed for weeks the rape at a frat party that nevr happened, a rape at duke university which also never happened, and then ignore the rape of two black boys by a duke professor who was gay and telling other gays that if they adopt blacks, they can abuse them as he loaned them out for sex.
the same press that makes zero issue of Cruz father giving out pamphlets for a trotsky organization tha was well known for its communism, while conflating being WITH a person as being part of that persons plans… the mother of david chapman, who killed lenin, had no part of that, but she did know him all her life… same with the cruz conflation…
you refuse to accept your being played…
even when i tell you i was part of that machine, and that i watched how they presented people all the time…
meanwhile, its not saying much about hillary… and its saying how great hillary is… and ignoring hillaries crimes.. its even ignoring how she took down her victim of rape should be blieved and heard statement on her website now that a ex victim of rape is calling her out on it.
Here they all are:
Sentient Jets LLC (Now/Known/As Trump Jets LLC)
T International Realty LLC (dba Trump International Realty)
The Donald J. Trump Foundation, Inc.
The Trump Corporation
The Trump Follies Member Inc.
The Trump Equitable Fifth Avenue Company
Trump 106 CPS LLC
Trump 55 Wall Corp
Trump 767 Management LLC
Trump 845 LP LLC
Trump 845 UN GP LLC
Trump 846 UN MGR Corp
Trump 846 UN MGR LLC fka 845 UN LLC
Trump AC Casino Marks LLC
Trump AC Casino Marks Member Corp
Trump Acquisition Corp……
[edited for length by n-n]
Big Maq Says:
“Huh? Wasn’t trump supposed to be self funding?…Turns out, he’s been relying on RNC support.”
A point I throw in the Trumpettes’ faces as often as possible, without a fact-based, vitriol-free response to date, no matter how nicely I ask. I have to assume they’re now OK with their guy being bought, and also with who’s buying him.
Would be interesting to see how much he is personally contributing.”
Probably no real, like, you know, actual dollars, or anything. But I hear he’s willing to contribute a point or two out of the umpty ‘lebenty trillion he claims his surname is worth.
Trump loaned his campaign $47 mil and forgave the loan in June. Some of the money went to family members for their participation in his campaign.
Of course he’s not going to self-fund. He’s a con artist. Cons are for the con man not the marks.
Meg Whitman spent $140 million — over 10% of her net worth — in a losing bid to be Governor of California.
PS. Yes, this site is slow. I use Windows/Opera and a Chromebook.
I agree with you that Trump’s talk about vote fraud is unlikely to convert a single voter. I don’t think that’s what it’s for. I don’t think he’s seeking voters by doing this. I think he has a different purpose.
I also doubt Trump is planting sour grapes for later harvest. That doesn’t appear to me to be his style. I think he plans to win.
So I take him at his word. He thinks he can win a fair election.
jms: It’s always interesting to read something sincere and well-reasoned, but based on a reality bearing little correspondence to what I perceive.
Trump lies, smears and says outrageous things frequently for selfish ends. That seems to be his style.
Do you believe he was sincerely concerned about the possiblity Cruz’s father was involved in the JFK assassination?
If he is interested in winning this election why has he only opened one office in Florida, a key battleground state? Why does he keep saying stupid things which torpedo his polls?
I can’t take Trump seriously as a candidate making a good faith, well-considered effort to win this election.
Trump supporters used to talk about the wall, his great negotiating skills, etc. Now all they talk about is that he’s not Her.
Conspiracy theories, complaining about polls, complaining about the press. This is how losers talk.
Also, someone above suggested the shadowy powers that be will revoke Trump’s twitter. If you’re for Hillary, Trump’s nuthouse twitter feed is one of gifts that keeps on giving.
Trump Slams ‘Disgusting And Corrupt’ NY Times: “Their Reporting Is Fiction. The Media Protects Hillary!”
Trump supporters used to talk about the wall, his great negotiating skills, etc. Now all they talk about is that he’s not Her.
thats because those things have no play with never trumpers who are going to hand the election over to hillary in spite
against never trumpers, the only argument you have is, he aint as bad as hillary, to which they dont really care either, but want to blame anyone but themselves for the fact trump is running
they are the ones what set the tone..
take notes bill… because their spite may just make the election go to hillary, and the idiocy of it is that because of their twiddling, they will carry the blame even if they have none…
but its gotten quite nuts in that these conservatives sound exactly like the dems, including their argumetns, their methods, and so on.
they are dems who dont know they are dems
and they are purists, who havent realized their contemporary base has been exterminated by feminism and abortion and has been replaced since with imports to hide the decline
they abdicated everywhere, and now claim trump took over in a hostile way, but in truth, he would hever have made it past first round if they werent going to do the same thing they did for the past 40 years and lose or end up wiht an impotent other they claimed was X but turned out to be Y (while asking us to ignore the past hints – which worked out so well with obama in which those hints were clarion bells compared to the current hints as to the other candidates)
ask the never trumpers.
they can tell you nothing matters other than their idea of doing the impossible wiht people that dont agree with them, and whose age base is way way off from reality
Artfldgr:
I am almost certain you will not change your mind on this, but I will repeat what I’ve said several times before, which is that I don’t base my opinion of Trump on the media.
My opinion is based on a combination of the following, observed over the last year:
—many interviews I’ve read with him, both recent and going back all the way to the 80s—that is, his own words in interviews
—his Tweets
—his debates
—biographies of him and articles about him, in particular ones going back from before he was a candidate this year
In other words, I base my opinion of his character on my own observations of him.
As far as his management of his campaign right now, I couldn’t care less about the rumors of dissension in the ranks, etc.. I go on what I see of what’s happening. And yes, polls enter into that. I have observed over many years (this has nothing to do with Trump) that the averages of polls over time tend to be relatively accurate predictors.
Art,
I was against Trump from the beginning, because he’s not a conservative, he’s cruel, petty, ignorant, narcissistic, and has a cr@p character.
It’s not my fault that he’s the nominee. I voted for Cruz in the primaries and Cruz carried my state.
Also, anyone who thinks they’ve been betrayed by Republicans for 40 years until Trump came along must be disappointed by Ronald Reagan, who i happily voted for. I also believe bothat GB and GWB were and are fine men and good presidents. I don’t get that argument.
The stupid party nominated Trump. This is on them. We could have beaten HRC with almost anyone else.
He may still win, of course. But my hope is if he doesn’t that the so called conservative pundits and pols who hooked their stars to him and are ever more desperately shilling for him feel it in far reduced influence going forward.
Odd, denying the legitimacy of election results was not pernicious when liberals did it.
Just sayin’
P.S. I don’t think I’ll second guess Trump on when he wishes to make his closing pitch. I’m no salesman, but I think that though he (may) have no other qualifications, he has that.
I’m still curious about neo’s question:
If he’s such a good manager, why is his campaign in the general faltering and seemingly disorganized?
No Trump supporters have taken a crack at it. Is there any doubt that Trump’s campaign is faltering and seemingly disorganized?
Trump blames the media, rigged elections, skewed polls, NeverTrumpers and to some extent the GOP.
Whatever merit there may be to those claims, it doesn’t explain Trump’s poor execution when it comes to what he controls: slipshod fundraising and organizing efforts — one office in Florida! — and his constant verbal gaffes sinking his polls.
One quality I look for in a leader is a focus on responsibility, not blamecasting and trash talk.
“going back from before he was a candidate this year” – Neo
That was the starting point for measuring trump as a candidate early on. He seemed much closer to Dem, but surprised us with reversals on some of his past positions.
We now know enough to see that he changes with the wind.
“…his own words”'”
Complaints that the MSM ignores the problems with obama and clinton is preposterously self serving. Of course the MSM do that.
It is not fair, but that is the same MSM that trump so “brilliantly” and “strategically” manipulated to deprive the other GOP candidates of oxygen. He dominated the airtime, and obama and clinton were largely ignored then, too.
His same strategy has precisely the same result, only this time they are playing back trumps own words.
We all know the MSM leans left. But, the degree that his supporters make it all out as merely “lies” and “spin” by the left that we are being conned by, they are revealing themselves by missing the point.
It is not spin, nor lies at all when they play back his very words. The MSM don’t have to do much more than that. Even his ambiguous and so-called “jokes” and “sarcasm”.
“He may still win, of course. But my hope is if he doesn’t that the so called conservative pundits and pols who hooked their stars to him and are ever more desperately shilling for him feel it in far reduced influence going forward.” – Bill
This raises an interesting point.
For certain, a massive landslide by clinton would marginalize the idea that trump’s path is constructive, reinforcing it as one that leads nowhere.
However, it will then seem like clinton has a huge mandate. That could be mitigated with a GOP returning majority in both chambers of Congress, but that aura will get played up nonetheless.
If there were enough third party votes from both Dems and GOP, if not to win, then maybe enough to deny 270 ec votes for anyone. We may then avoid any appearance of a “mandate” for either trump or clinton, if either happens to come out of that scenario with a “victory”.
“He may still win, of course. But my hope is if he doesn’t that the so called conservative pundits and pols who hooked their stars to him and are ever more desperately shilling for him feel it in far reduced influence going forward.” – huxley
Perhaps there are lessons to be learned from how trump has been able to get his message out. And, that supplants much of the traditional campaign approach (or rather, should augment it, but trump’s campaign’s theory seems to believe it supplants it).
Not sure it would work for anyone else (who is serious), though.
It is tough to thread that needle where each week a new message needs to be delivered that is out there enough to catch media attention, but still be within an acceptable message range that has cross over appeal.
Doubt all those folks who jumped the trump train will disappear. However, expect their influence to wane significantly on a trump loss, as their audience will be boxed into that core trump support group.
By the same token, if the conservative side continues the same old, it will continue to wane as well. The principles and the message need to be targeted at a wider audience, than at the “echo chamber / bubble” we’ve seen develop. It has to be a positive vision vs the amplified and hyperbolic grievances trumpeted in the past several years.
Also, some kind of reconciliation needs to be reached with the truly “reluctant” trump supporter vs those “all in”, even with its inherent difficulties in determining who is which.
“Trump is beginning to resemble the Glenn Close character in “Fatal Attraction,” whose weekend fling with a married man (played by Michael Douglas) turns into his nightmare as it dawns on him that, however enticing she was at first glance, she’s really irrational, obsessive, and dangerous.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/08/15/election_shift_from_mad_as_hell_to_is_trump_qualified_131507.html
Big Maq:
Beginning to?
Anyone who didn’t notice those things about Trump pretty early on wasn’t a very good observer of him, IMHO.
@Neo – agree.
But that may be who the author is speaking to… those who have largely not paid attention, but as election day nears, more start to pay attention.
IDK, just a guess, but it seems, now, well past the convention, that there is a realization that is becoming undeniable, even to those who actively denied it.
What is more interesting is how the “conservative” thought leaders came to support trump…
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/trumps-intellectuals/492752/
Perhaps it is they who are coming to the realization too late.
huxley Says:
“I’m still curious about neo’s question:
If he’s such a good manager, why is his campaign in the general faltering and seemingly disorganized?
No Trump supporters have taken a crack at it. Is there any doubt that Trump’s campaign is faltering and seemingly disorganized?
Trump blames the media, rigged elections, skewed polls, NeverTrumpers and to some extent the GOP.”
If you remember, he did the same thing in Colorado. He called the election rigged WHEN HE DIDN’T EVEN SHOW UP TO CAMPAIGN THERE.
These are the recurring signs of a narcissistic sociopath.