Trump’s advisor shakeup
The shakeup in the Trump campaign seems to be the story du jour at Memeorandum and elsewhere. With the ascent of Breitbart News Chairman Steve Bannon and pollster Kellyanne Conway as the new leaders in his troubled campaign, Trump appears to be signalling that there will be no “pivot” to the more presidential and/or mainstream.
William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection adds:
This is, in a sense, the inevitable outcome of the Trump campaign.
Trump rose not just on the force of his personality, but on a conservative media machine (what I’ve referred to as “Trumpmedia”) fueled by Breitbart News, Drudge, Hannity, Gateway Pundit and others in social media, which acted as an echo chamber promoting Trump. Breitbart News always was at the center of it, providing the content attacking other Republican candidates particularly on immigration, that then was extrapolated in effect.
Whether that echo chamber can reach beyond a core of Republican voters remains to be seen. It’s not showing up in the polls yet, if it ever does. While hiring Bannon is the logical conclusion of the Trump campaign, it may simply insulate them from reality.
If Trump somehow wins, Trumpmedia will claim the victory as theirs. And in that scenario, they would deserve it.
But if Trump loses in a landslide, as polling now shows is the most likely result, then Trumpmedia and Breitbart News need to own that too.
If Trump loses, it is my opinion that there will be no “owning” of that loss by those entities, or by Trump. The narrative to explain an eventual loss is set: a combination of a “rigged” election and a “stab in the back” betrayal by those people who failed to support the ascendance of Trump the Magnificent.
This current reorganization of the Trump staff is another example of Trump’s refusal to change, or his inability to change. That wouldn’t be a problem if what he’s been doing so far were working. He seems to think that what worked for him in the primaries against all predictions will continue to work for him in the general. I don’t think so, but then again, he’s not asking me.
[NOTE: Steve Bannon used to work for Goldman Sachs, but unlike Trump’s crusade against Heidi Cruz, I guess such a resume is okay with Trump if it’s possessed by an ally of his.]
I read his much-praised talk on defeating ISIS. While I agree with his ideas about taking a tough stance and with his descriptions of Obama/Clinton failures, it seemed that his understanding of what had been going on with Saddam was nonexistent. Even his good talks make me very uneasy, and now he proves that he doesn’t understand the difference between hi rabid fans and people he will have to win over in a general.
I also read his speech about blacks, and it was clear that someone else wrote it. Trump is just to damned lazy to learn about anything.
That means that the person at the top of his ladder will be the one who sets his agenda, both for the campaign and his potential presidency. Bannon is not the person I want to be Trump’s Valerie Jarrett.
Harsh words from Ben Shapiro over at The Daily Wire.
expat:
Take a look at the post I just published a few minutes ago.
Non story.
And I am sick of all of this internal strife in the GOP.
People need to get over themselves as the alternative is a CRIMINAL in the White House with near absolute power.
Cornhead:
I know you’re frustrated, but any remarks that include something like “people need to get over themselves” are not going to convince anyone, and are an insult to whoever you wish to convince. Do you really believe it’s about people being full of themselves?
I think it’s always best to respect the heartfelt and sincere opinions of people who are wrestling with a knotty problem.
You didn’t use the following phrase, but another phase with a similar negative and unpersuasive effect is “deal with it.”
“I think it’s always best to respect the heartfelt and sincere opinions of people who are wrestling with a knotty problem.”
Yes. Thank you neo.
Neo
One of the main concepts of the Jesuits is to be a person for others. People need to understand that their vote must be for what’s best for the country despite a personal distaste for Trump or disagreement on some issues. That’s my “get over themselves” point.
I make this argument as Hillary is a known criminal with terrible policy positions. If Kaine or Biden was the nominee then I wouldn’t make the same argument.
Funny thing is most Jesuits will probably vote Hillary or not vote at all. They are mostly caught up in liberalism and the academy; no real understanding of criminals and the damage Hillary could do.
If Trump loses, whether the Trumpsters will have reason for complaint will be determined by how much Trump loses. If it’s a repeat of 2000, they will arguably have some justification.
Cornhead,
I would not be so sanguine about Kaine or Biden. Birds of a feather…
Cornhead, there is nothing in the Catholic faith that mandates a vote for or against Trump.
“People need to understand that their vote must be for what’s best for the country” – Cornhead
Your assumption.
IMHO, only GB has made much of an attempt to make a “positive” case FOR trump.
But then again, he is arguing that trump IS an authoritarian of the likes of “Pinochet”, the assumptions behind and implications of which are less than convincing.
Voting for one way or another is not a matter of Catholic faith or doctrine. I’m referring to a central precept of the philosophy of St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits.
Restated, everything is not about me. Think about other people and the country and not just me.
Another example from the Jesuits is using the examen. A way of living and thinking.
Big Maq,
Not to quibble but in the interests of clarity… I am NOT saying that Trump will be another Pinichot. I am saying that IF he ‘goes off the rails’ he’ll act as a Pinochet instead of a Castro or Chavez. And stating that history demonstrates which a society is more likely to survive.
Thanks for the admonishment Cornhead’ but I really do think that everyone here understands the stakes and the implication of the vote.
I think that it is not unreasonable for some of us to worry that Trump could indeed turn out to be as bad or worse than Hillary. Since there has been no consistency in his positions over the years, there can be little confidence of what he will do in the future. Sure, he grabbed a few hot button issues. Either he, or someone in his employ, figured out that there were certain winning words during the primaries. If you have faith in those recent words, that is fine. Color me skeptical.
I know it is heresy; but, one thing about establishment candidates is that they have a formal record to evaluate. With Trump all we have is an erratic past, and recent campaign rhetoric.
Having said all of the above; I expect that I will vote for Trump and hope for the best. That is because there is one issue that overrides all; Supreme Court appointments. I know I would hate Hillary’s appointments and hope that Trump’s would be better.
Cornhead,
I know you are not a trump fanbiy, but since the convention you and GB, and others, are sounding desperate. IMO the trump straw you are clutching is soggy and will become ever more dificult to hold onto.
My gut feeling is that whoever wins, Trump or Hillary, will end up being the most unpopular president in history, and they and their party will be voted out in a landslide in the 2020 election.
parker,
I assure you that my comments have not been motivated by a feeling of desperation. Nor am I clutching at a trump straw. I am simply advising conservatives to avoid the left’s club, which can only be done if Hillary is defeated. When that advice is disputed, I’ve thought deeply enough about the issue to offer a supporting rationale for that advice.
Goldman Sachs OWNS TRUMP! He’s a shill for the New World Order!!11!!1!1
Parker
You know I was no Trump fan but I am passionate that Hillary can’t be president. It sounds dramatic, but we may not recover if she wins.
If Biden was the nominee I would not be so adamant.
But the facts are the facts and Hillary is the opponent. Trump must win.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
If Trump loses, whether the Trumpsters will have reason for complaint will be determined by how much Trump loses. If it’s a repeat of 2000, they will arguably have some justification.
If Trump loses by a whisker, it will be because he alienated a whisker too many Republicans. What was it he said? He didn’t need conservative voters?
That’s not the statement of a man doing everything he possibly can to win.
Yeah, including the one in Rome.
Let’s keep our sense of humor here …
Oh, I’m sure we all sound a little desperate. This is that rare election where people with shared beliefs can disagree with each other passionately. In most elections, you have to build to a level of agreement where you can persuade the other guy. “We all want the same things. We want better schools. I agree that teachers are important. It’s teachers’ unions I don’t trust. No, I’m not being a conspiracy nut. I just remember that schools used to have higher expectations and get better results. No, I didn’t use the word ‘black’, because I’m not implying anything about race….” In this case, we all do see similar problems and want similar solutions. It’s just, that last step of the formula, the one that leads you to the name of the candidate you’re going to support this time, is a tough one.
” It’s just, that last step of the formula, the one that leads you to the name of the candidate you’re going to support this time, is a tough one.”
I read my gagging endorsement of voting strategically, if we must, for Trump, and almost cannot recognize my own words. I despise the guy.
Then I remember Hillary and that reptilian brain of hers, and the IRS targeting scandal, and the individual shared responsibility mandate, and “we came we saw and he died, teeheheh”, and the gamble of a decent court pick versus the certainty of another atrocity, and then it becomes clear.
It is about salvaging what we can of the rule of law and the republic.
Well GB and Cornhead, I understand your relectant rationale for votimg djt. I will allow you are not idiots like many trumpians. 😉 But there is a time to recognize you are pissing up a rope. So don’t piss on my back and assure me its just pure trump glacial water. 😉 Not to be harsh,; what will you tell your grandchildren?
Its late, tomorrow I need t0 clear garden space and plant fall kale, chard, beets, and spinach. in the afternoon I will compete in a 30 cal 400 yard contest. there are things more important than the campaign.
Cornhead:
Saying “Trump must win!” does nothing to make it happen. Unfortunately, it’s Trump who has sabotaged himself.
Cornhead,
If I am angry at the rabid Trumpsters (not the reluctant Trump voters), it is because they let him get away with too much from day one. Had they shown some dissatisfaction at his uninformed outrageous comments and tweets early on, he may have toned things down a bit and learned about issues. It is his early annointment to saviour that really angers me. It is all the people that spend days telling us what he really meant. I had no idea there were so many mind readers in the country.
I can’t support Hillary because she is a crook and because she has no idea of how her crappy policies have hurt real people. But I can’t jump on a bandwagon full of people who don’t think. Trump needs to know that we will hold him to account and that our support is contingent on his learning about the issues that face us.
Steve Bannon is/was high up at Breitbart. This rather incestuous coinkidink is indicative of how things work with Trump.
That Time Trump’s New Campaign Executive Told Me to Go F*** Myself
IGotBupkis, “Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses”:
“Steve Bannon is/was high up at Breitbart. This rather incestuous coinkidink is indicative of how things work with Trump.”
Yes. On one of my first posts here, late last summer IIRC, I commented at my astonishment and disgust at the almost overnight takeover of the comments section at Trumpbart.com (nee: Breitbart.com) by viscious, dishonest Trumpers who had insanely high numbers of comments (50,000-125,000+) but I, as a long-time daily reader and commenter, had never seen there before. All of them hid their past comments behind a private disqus profile, so where they came from to accumulate such numbers could not be traced.
While Breitbart himself might have agreed with Trump’s lack of PC, his attacks on the media, and (now heavily walked-back) positions on many issues, I think he would have been appalled at his smear campaigns and character assassinations of other Republicans, especially Cruz, who had most mostly the same positions long before The Donald, and traits Donald would have to have an apprentice look up the definitions of: honor, integrity, honesty, brilliance, consistency, principles.
I believe Andrew would have been able to see through the con artist, and would never have allowed his site to be misappropriated by a liberal Democrat blowhard like that. Boy, do we ever miss him.
trump’s speeches of the past few days are appearing “more presidential”.
That is great for trying to get to a win.
However, after >12 months of trump being trump, he set the bar MUCH higher for himself to be convincingly / credibly “presidential”.
The concrete of trump’s image is 90% cured.
Trumbart news is sort of like the Alt Right’s JournoList. They think if they adopt all the Left’s tricks which they know about, they can steal power from the Leftist alliance and use it for their own goals.
While that might be do able in a normal election or war, this one is going to be slightly different in scope and scale.
Breitbart originally intended for his network to expose the truth about the Leftist alliance. Many of the people he employed, however, were only loyal to Breitbart, not to any particular religion or American freedom. Breitbart’s connection from Hollywood gave him the assets to create the media empire, but he did not acquire a chosen successor before he died. Like Alexander’s empire after his death, it easily fragments and wars against itself.
Right now, Trumbart is split between the Shapiro faction and the Trum faction. The Trum faction considers Shapiro to be a cuckservative, a weakling that cannot fight against the Left, even though many on the Alt Right didn’t even admit that the Left was evil (as Shapiro has) except for the past few months. The reason why the Alt Right is slow to admit the Left’s evil, since many on the ALt Right are Democrats. To admit the Leftist alliance is evil, is to look a little too close to their own conscience and family, to expose their own sins and transgressions. For the Demoncrat party is indeed the Founding faction of the Leftist alliance, in the USA.
People need to get over themselves as the alternative is a CRIMINAL in the White House with near absolute power.
The War Faction in the US will overcome the “Elections will save us” faction, sooner or later. If it hasn’t already.
Chris Says:
“My gut feeling is that whoever wins, Trump or Hillary, will end up being the most unpopular president in history, and they and their party will be voted out in a landslide in the 2020 election.”
Your optimism re: 2020 if Clinton wins is unfounded, because, win or lose, Trump has no coattails.
The Republicans are defending 24 Senate seats this year, a number in blue/purple states, the Marxists only 10. A swing of just 5 seats gives us Majority Leader Schumer, who will immediately suspend the filibuster rules again, this time to include SCOTUS appointees. Ginsburg and Breyer will quickly retire, allowing Clinton to name three 40-something reliable leftists, giving her a decades-long permanent Marxist majority.
They will give Clinton all the judicial cover she needs to grant amnesty, immediate benefits and the right to vote to 30+ million illegals via Executive Orders/Memos, new regulations and “re-interpretations” of existing rules.
With that many grateful new minorities now dependent on handouts, if the majority of voters are unsatisfied with her in 2020, it will be because she didn’t give them enough freebies, so they’ll primary her with someone who promises to be more generous, not less, and the new Marxist will be a shoo-in anyway, because demographics.
If Trump wins but loses the Senate, he can kiss his appointee list good-bye, because Schumer. He’ll have to nominate his sister.
This is that rare election where people with shared beliefs can disagree with each other passionately.-Nick
Most of this is what prepares people for Civil War 2 in the US.
Why? Because Civil Wars are the result of factions. It’s not me against my political enemies, it’s me against you, you against your family, your family against the state, the state against the federal empire, the federal empire against you, the feds against me, the feds against your family.
It’s not merely Faction 1 vs Faction 2 in a CW2. It’s everyone against everyone.
And the breaking up of the old GOP established coalition, is indeed purely much of the same. Same for the Left’s angst against their own captured minorities, BLM, and thel ike.
Once people get used to every person for themselves, they will realize that this country is not under the same god. Which means Christians will fight self proclaimed Christians. Muslims will fight Christians. The state will fight Christians. The nation will shatter. Because the Republic and the Rule of Law is already dead. People just haven’t recognized it yet.
Recall the Declaration of Independence, when another tyrant with a lot of power, began oppressing and destroying American freedoms.
Did the Founding Fathers and the 3% make America great via an election to replace King George with some AMerican knock off or did they…
Humans repeat history, not because they don’t know the history, but because human nature is like unto a curse. They can’t help themselves even if they had wanted to change.
Cornhead, how many people do you think are voting out of spite against what they perceive as the interests of their country?
Here is a challenge for commenters here. This:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-aide-on-awkward-exchange-with-cnn-anchor-i-think-i-unraveled-her-233522443.html
contains a video clip of the exchange with the anchor. Here’s what I find so interesting about it. After the encounter, she no doubt had some of her friends view the exchange and got their opinion. At any rate, she requested that the clip be included in the story so that (all right-thinking) people could see that she clearly won.
The thing is, I watched the clip and found her claim that the coverage of the change was accurate and that she would cover the addition of people to the Clinton campaign in the same manner unbelievable. She is unaware of her own bias. Also, the Trump spokesperson IMHO would be very effective with working class folks – effetes, not so much. This bias would color a viewer’s opinion of the exchange. I would be willing to bet that commenters here would split and no one here would be surprised about who was on which side.
My belief is that this campaign is Brexit II (see Trump’s tweet today about Brexit) and that the working class will turn out to elect Trump.
Trump makes the best speech of the campaign, and is the one of the first, if not the first, Republican to reach out to the black community in 50 years, a brilliant move both substantively and strategically, and this is what you write about? Sheesh!
Richard Saunders:
Your characterization is incorrect. See this.
It will work about as well as Romney’s similar move did, IMHO. And by the way, Romney actually had the stones to give HIS speech to a black group, the NAACP.
Trump makes the best speech of the campaign, and is the one of the first, if not the first, Republican to reach out to the black community in 50 years
White nationalists don’t care about that. If blacks want to leave the Left’s plantation and join the white (Democrat) plantation again, it’s not like it would be anything new.
“Richard Saunders: Your characterization is incorrect. See this.” – Neo
When we hear “trump is the first / only … (fill in the blank)”, that sends an immediate red flag about the veracity of the claim.
These are talking points easily gleaned from “conservative” media.
And that is a key problem for having any serious debate… clearing our own heads of spin / falsehoods like this, from the media we perceive to be on “our” side.
They are not, and have their own incentives to talk like they do, that we should never lose awareness of.
2012 was a big eye opener in this regard. Even still, 2016 has proven shocking how clear those lines have been delineated, given the short time frame it occurred within.
My God! If I had not seen it I don’t know if I would believe it.
After my comment above, I had the thought to come back and click on the link to make sure it was accurate and took the reader to the clip. I then re-watched the clip. It had been edited! The first part showing the Trump spokesperson pointing down to the word “shakeup” in the banner below the interview and objecting to it as biased reporting is now missing. Also his comments about the bias of CNN. I don’t know the site, but whoever it is – it is demonstrating its bias for this editing.
Or maybe CNN complained to them? Or, was it edited to make the spokesperson look better? One doesn’t always know nowadays.
You cannot make this up.
Now this:
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/says-donald-trump-lawyer-cnn-interview-goes-viral-013649619.html
On this one (still yahoo) you cannot watch the clip at all. Perhaps viewers were drawing the wrong conclusion? This entry tells you what to think of the exchange (very negative on the Trump spokesperson) . But doesn’t let you watch it.
Fascinating.
PS I have figured out which side yahoo is on.
Neo —
1. Don’t be surprised if he does take that speech to the black community. I haven’t seen any signs that the guy is afraid of anybody, have you?
2. Low black turnout is the same as a vote for the Donald.
“People need to understand that their vote must be for what’s best for the country” — Cornhead
So how does voting for a person of low moral character and vague, poorly informed, contradictory policies who is clearly unfit to be president and who will almost certainly lose the election work out to doing what’s best for the country?
I understand you don’t see it that way, but I do and apparently so do many others.
This debate reminds me of same-sex marriage in which liberals insisted that marriage was only about two people, irrespective of gender, and therefore SSM was a matter of fundamental rights and the due process clause and therefore must be granted. Which was basically true if you accepted their framing of the debate.
However, the conservative position, or at least my position, was based on the assumption that marriage was between a man and a woman and was ultimately about family.
Reading his wiki entry, I find Steve Bannon sounds like an interesting guy. He comes from a working class background and rode a Harvard Business School degree to Goldman Sachs then Hollywood, and then Breitbard before taking a position with the Trump campaign.
Huxley – You should stop by The Daily Wire and see what Ben Shapiro has to say about him.
}}} Your optimism re: 2020 if Clinton wins is unfounded, because, win or lose, Trump has no coattails.
I would not presume on elections in 2020 at all, if Clinton wins.
I predict an assassination attempt, followed by martial law as racial tensions go through the roof after a half-dozen more “incidents” involving blatant thugs-but-really-innocents.
After stacking the SCotUS as Roosevelt only dreamt of, count on a complete reversal of all pro-2nd Am decisions of the court, and XOs that defacto neuter same.
The civil war that results will not be pretty. It’ll be interesting to see how the various Sheriff’s and police chiefs respond, as well as the US Military and National Guard.
Be nice if my original expectation held out — that it was Trump’s plan all along to bow out at the last minute due to some “insult” by the media… leaving a clear path for Hillary-the-only-option… except… Not, with Johnson as a clear alternative.
“We live in interesting times”.
Get Prepared.
Fringe predictions should be like coaches’ challenges in the NFL: you get a few for free, but too many wrong ones and they start to count against you. When this election arrives, I’ll be waiting for the kooks on the right to admit that President Obama didn’t cancel the election. A few months later, when Obama completes his two full terms, I expect the kooks on the left to admit that no white-skinned gun nut did anything to try to shorten his White House stay. But a lot of people have already moved on to fringe predictions about 2020.
IGotBupkis:
The theme “this is the last election, Obama” is going to become dictator ….. Has been spouted for years now, so it is now applied to Hillary in 2020? She is much that is evil, awful, and sinister, but she isn’t the politician that BHO is. I doubt the gender card will have the same pull as the race card. But, others will say I need to have my eyes checked and have my head examined also. Whatever.
OK I get it. My comments defend Trump by showing how the media is mis-reporting his spokesperson on CNN. My point is not actually “I’m for Trump”, but the sin of misinforming voters during an election – but hey, I get it. This commenting crowd is much like “The Daily Gouge”, an anti-Trump, but not pro Hillary blog. Here is how they chose to present the encounter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7SePcBIsEw
Actually I think that the Trump spokesperson had a prepared comment that he was trying to set her up for, but her response did not set it up – awkward. So he had to let it go. My judgement says he is not “flustered” and if one views the full interview he carries off his task representing Trump very well. But then, with Trump – does one need the facts?
If you disagree with me, watch the full video while limiting your confirmation bias.
But then, with Trump — does one need the facts?
notherbob2: Apparently not. Your comment provides none other than a valid URL.
It’s just your opinion that commenters here are like some other group and that we are somehow obliged to watch a Youtube while limiting our “confirmation bias” so we can see you are right.
How about putting together an argument with facts and reasoning so we can tell what your point is and possibly be convinced or respond in kind?
Well, Trump gave a very different speech last night and said the regretted using the wrong words and hurting people.
I suspect Trump would have much better polls today if he had led this way from the convention forward.
Perhaps this is the result of Steve Bannon?
Bannon’s a superior propagandist. That’s why Breitbart originally brought him in from Hollywood.
But remember this, Hollywood is full of evil Leftists. If Bannon was loyal, it was only loyalty given to Breitbart. Now Bannon has control of Breitbart’s media empire, now the Trumpart, and has found a different star to hitch his cart to.
Bannon appeared on my radar with the Trump staff shakeup. I don’t know much about him. Clearly he is a high-powered guy, to have cut such a swathe, on the make.
I like several of the comments here. I don’t think it’s rehashing too much of the same old arguments either.
That’s because it’s important that humans with a conscience speak their mind, before it all ends. It’s pointless to carry the regret of remaining silent under the gaze of power and authority in this world. That isn’t why the Christian God aided in establishing the US Constitution as a compact and contract.
Let people hear about why their actions are good or evil. And let people make their differences known. That way, nobody can say later that “we didn’t know what we were doing”. As with O Care, their excuse of “nobody told us it would be a failure” isn’t really valid.
As with HRC, “nobody told us she was evil and corrupt” is also a non valid excuse now and later.
Nobody said it? Nobody at all? Then allow me to state it for the record. That way, the souls of humanity will be judged, and ignorance will be no excuse.
So let the arguments until. For once people are dead, it becomes a moot point in war.
@Nick and OM – I remember well apocalyptic predictions regarding obama in 2008 and especially 2012. Today’s predictions sound remarkably similar.
If we keep electing Dems, and if they remain on a steadfast leftward march, we will see some variation of what they predict, short of some black swan event that changes everything up.
But, focusing on the next four years, no matter trump or clinton, we are sure to see moves by them that will broaden big government, and consolidate and expand power in the POTUS.
@Nick and OM — I remember well apocalyptic predictions regarding obama in 2008 and especially 2012. Today’s predictions sound remarkably similar.
Most predictions from humans are flawed, and instead of being prophetic, they are more self fulfilling.
It’s not something valid that can be used to judge the accuracy of any prediction or prophecy.
@Ymarsaker – I’d tweak that to say that the ones we see around the blogosphere (and some other political media) are more a reflection of one’s wishes (or fears).
They become self fulfilling if they act as if their “prognostications” were inevitably true, as opposed to one of many possible outcomes, each with a different probability, of varying “distribution curves” – driven by our complex human world.
IOW, we can only guess, but we each have a hand in shaping our world. Much of what we see is a reflection of our own choices and actions, particularly in the “western” world.