Being Trump
It's one of those days where you can freely pick your favorite movie metaphor to describe the news from the campaign of Donald Trump. "Nobody puts Baby in a corner," perhaps? Ben Shapiro, a former editor of none other than Breitbart News, was being interviewed on CNN where he came up with "a turd tornado." When asked, Shapiro helpfully defined the term: "Well, it's like a sharknado -- except with poop." I'm personally going to go with a favorite West Wing reference, one Trump himself actually seems comfortable with: Trump's campaign is now going to fully commit to "letting Trump be Trump." Because, obviously, the problem all along has been that Trump wasn't being Trump enough. Obviously.
For the past month or so, Donald Trump has been attempting to run some semblance of a realistic presidential campaign, based on the idea that he needed to "pivot" to the general election. This was a polite way of people telling Trump: "Don't say stupid things on a daily basis," in essence, and represented the Republican Party desperately trying to salvage Trump so they don't face a wipeout "wave" election this November. Trump, at the party's insistence, fired Corey Lewandowski and hired Paul Manafort to shepherd the campaign to a position where they might actually have a chance appealing to demographic groups beyond Trump's core of rabid supporters.
This effort is now apparently officially over. Manafort did have some degree of success in getting Trump to give a handful of scripted speeches (off a TelePrompTer, no less) designed to present him in a sane and reasonable light to the public. This "serious speeches" effort may also now be over, although Manafort has not actually been fired yet (just severely demoted), so maybe Trump will still occasionally deliver a few of these speeches in the coming weeks.
But it likely won't matter much one way or the other. Because one of the new people Trump is now going to rely upon to run his campaign is the executive chairman of Breitbart News, an organization even more conspiratorially-minded than Trump himself. Trump is doubling down on his strategy of giving huge rallies, firing his audience up, and then augmenting these by flooding cable news channels with his presence. Hey, it worked in the primaries, right?
The other new hire for Trump is a woman whose expertise lies in selling antediluvian Republican politicians (such as Todd Akin) to women voters. No, really -- that's her big qualification. Maybe her experience as a pollster will at least force Trump to face the dismal numbers he's been seeing, which could actually be a plus. But then again, maybe she's just going to tell Trump what he wants to hear, who knows?
Buried in all the other news about Trump's campaign shakeup was an interesting factoid. The Trump campaign is finally ready to engage in the battle for the airwaves. To date in the general campaign, Trump has spent zero (that's ZERO) dollars on advertising. Hillary Clinton has spent close to $60 million, for comparison. Team Trump, however, is now only going to concentrate on five states: Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.
Trump's initial strategy for which states to target was based on his own gut feelings, and was laughable in the extreme. Trump said he was going to fight for California, New York, and Washington state, because he considered them all winnable. After the riotous guffaws this announcement provoked died down, this was quickly dialed back to a strategy based (somewhat) on possible reality, where Trump was going to win the White House by winning the entire Rust Belt -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and perhaps even Minnesota. These are all pretty deep blue states when it comes to presidential elections, and if Trump successfully flipped two or three of them he would indeed enormously improve his possible pathway to winning the Electoral College. Democrats even began to get a little nervous about these states, because Trump's core support looked a lot like the voting pool there (blue-collar workers, white men, etc.).
Donald Trump has not entirely given up on winning blue states that seem far out of reach for any Republican. He campaigned recently in Connecticut, spending time there he could have spent in a much more competitive state. But there are only so many days left until the election so every day spent in Connecticut (or any similar blue state) is a day Trump didn't spend in a true battleground state.
Still, it's interesting that Trump won't be playing offense in any state other than Pennsylvania and Virginia. Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina are all legitimate swing states and could go either way, making them obvious choices for television ads. But Pennsylvania and Virginia are now longshots for Trump, at best. Which makes the absence of the other longshots Trump was supposed to be targeting noticeable -- no ad money for Michigan or Wisconsin (or even Iowa) was announced.
Ad spending telegraphs a campaign's feelings about how well the candidate is doing. The basic rules state that money is best spent on swing states that are unpredictable but persuadable. Ad money is spent defensively in those states where your opponent is spending money, but which really should be in your column. Ad money is spent offensively in states you think you can poach away from your opponent. By this metric, Trump will be targeting (as expected) swing states Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina. Trump is on the offense in Pennsylvania and Virginia. Trump is not on the defense anywhere, really. But the absences are astonishing. Trump won't be spending any initial money in New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado, or Nevada. All are normally seen as battleground states. Colorado and New Hampshire may be beyond Trump's reach at this point, but Iowa and Nevada are still close enough to be considered tossups. The only good news from the traditional battleground map for Trump is that to date Missouri seems pretty firmly in his column, meaning spending money there would only be defensive (in response to a Clinton ad blitz there, perhaps).
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has been advertising in swing states, but is now pulling ad money out of Virginia, Colorado, and even Pennsylvania -- because she thinks she's got them locked up for now (ad money may be spent there later, though). While not actually up on the airwaves there with ads yet, Team Clinton has also been putting some resources into states once considered Republican strongholds -- Georgia, Arizona, and even (are you sitting down?) Utah. South Carolina is even looking pretty weak, so Hillary may consider expanding there, too. All the while, Clinton's campaign has not had to spend any money on defense, because Trump has not run any ads yet anywhere.
The Trump campaign is now signaling that he really only has one path to victory, and it involves winning either Pennsylvania or Virginia. The Electoral College votes just don't add up to 270 for Trump without at least one of those two states in his column. Even if Trump won Nevada, Arizona, Iowa, Ohio, and Florida, it wouldn't put him over the top without either Pennsylvania or Virginia.
Trump's new strategy will be to unleash his inner Trump on the five states he's now targeting. He'll hold monster rallies, whip up the crowds, and then phone in interviews on all the cable shows afterwards. His closest campaign confidant will be a man prone to promoting rightwing conspiracy theories. All that talk of "pivots" will cease. Trump is who Trump is (as he himself recently put it), and so his campaign will now center around "letting Trump be Trump."
After all, what could possibly go wrong with that strategy?
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
In a weapons producing nation under Jesus
In the fabled crucible of the free world
Camera crews search for clues amid the detritus
And entertainment shapes the land the way the hammer shapes the hand
Gleaming faces in the checkout counter at the Church of Fame
The lucky winners cheer Casino Nation
All those not on TV only have themselves to blame
And don't quite seem to understand the way the hammer shapes the hand
Jackson Browne
I read this last night and got a huge laugh out of it, but can't remember who wrote the article to give them the proper credit:
Trump is the first person to take the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality test and the results were "OMFG"!
If Trump is going to be Trump, then we should all clearly name what that is. I'll start.
Trump is . . . almost single-handedly responsible for President Hillary.
With McMullin in the race the good people of Utah have the choice of two Republicans. McMullin could take votes from Trump and if he can pull about 9% Clinton could win the state with 25-30% of the vote...
So, don't tell me, let me guess.
TRUMP IS TOAST, right?? :D
Michale
Interesting to note..
All of the sudden, Mexico's President says that he will meet with Trump..
Apparently he knows that Trump is going to be our next President...
:D
Michale
Buried in all the other news about Trump's campaign shakeup was an interesting factoid. The Trump campaign is finally ready to engage in the battle for the airwaves. To date in the general campaign, Trump has spent zero (that's ZERO) dollars on advertising. Hillary Clinton has spent close to $60 million, for comparison.
Jeb spent more than twice that amount..
Did it do him any good??
Michale
Whatever Trump is doing, he must be doing it right..
Hillary is STILL going down in the RCP POPs and Trump's numbers are heading back up...
I note a touch of panic amongst Weigantians.. :D
Michale
According to reports, Hillary is suffering from exhaustion and has no events planned til Sunday...
Like I said. It's beginning to look like Hillary won't be physically able to cross the finish line.. :D
Yea, I know.. My Hillary predictions are almost as reliable as my SCOTUS predictions. :D But the facts are out there.. :D
Michale
A new NBC News/SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking poll showed the Democratic presidential nominee led Trump by nine points at 50 percent to 41 percent. But in spite of her 9-point lead, Clinton remains defined by negative perceptions about her character. A scant 12 percent of Democrats found Clinton honest and trustworthy in the survey.
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/even-democrats-think-clinton-dishonest/
OUCH....
That's gotta hurt....
Of course ya'all ignore these facts....
Michale
White House Watch
White House Watch: Clinton 41%, Trump 39%, Johnson 9%, Stein 3%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch
Tell me again how Trump is toast??
I seem to have forgotten what with all the polls to the contrary... :D
Michale
my view is that august is far too early to be talking about toast, but hillary is definitely ahead at the moment, and the trump camp is projecting a profound sense of denial.
You say it’s not a shake-up, but you guys are down—
Says who? Says who?
Polls. Most of them. All of them?
- Says who?
Polls. I just told you. I answered your question.
- Okay. Which polls?
All of them.
- Okay. And your question is?
not just a river in egypt.
JL
CW - I updated my 4 data sets yesterday and ran my models. The rank ordered probability model gives Trump his most favorable odds by assuming a full bore wave election. All of the following apply to that model.
The 4 data sets give nearly identical odds of Trump winning the Electoral Race - 20 to 21%.
All four data sets support your contention that Virginia and Pennsylvania are keystones in a Clinton Victory. However, Trump has rather poor odds of turning these states...5 to 13 percent across the 4 data sets.
The models suggest better weak points (weaker keystones) for Trump to focus on...states offering something close to 20% chance of working.
The 538 data set suggests a strong push in New Hampshire.
The NY Times data set suggests New Mexico (prime target) and maybe Wisconsin as secondary.
The Princeton Electoral Consortium data set argues Wisconsin and North Carolina as primary targets, Michigan as secondary
The Predict Wise data says concentrate on Nevada.
The four data sets don't agree on the best strategy, but all say focusing on the right weak link more or less doubles Trump's odds of being elected.
but hillary is definitely ahead at the moment
but hillary is barely ahead at the moment
There.. Fixed it for you... :D
We have been here before.. And Trump always managed to come out on top...
EACH and EVERY time...
Michale
my view is that august is far too early to be talking about toast,
Agreed....
But that doesn't stop the WPG from doing it just the same.. :D
Michale
Whatever Trump is doing, he must be doing it right..
Hillary is STILL going down in the RCP POPs and Trump's numbers are heading back up...
{{{ccchhiiiirrrrrppppppp}}} {{cchhhiiirrrrrppppp}}
:D
Michale
if and when donald gets a lead in the RCP average, it will be cause for more serious concern. clinton's lead shrinking from eight points to five or six as the convention bump fades, not as big a deal.
JL
if and when donald gets a lead in the RCP average, it will be cause for more serious concern.
I'll remind you of that when it happens.. :D
clinton's lead shrinking from eight points to five or six as the convention bump fades, not as big a deal.
It's not the points, it's the momentum..
Regardless, you miss the point..
MY point wasn't that Trump is winning and Hillary is losing.. My point is that it totally decimates the argument that Trump's numbers are "falling like a stone".... :D
Michale
MY point wasn't that Trump is winning and Hillary is losing.. My point is that it totally decimates the argument that Trump's numbers are "falling like a stone".... :D
in that case i agree, they're quite stable.
did anyone watch the green party own hall yesterday on CNN? i didn't necessarily agree with most positions they took, but i thought it was interesting political theater. perhaps our country could evolve from a two party system to four. given the amount of gerrymandering present in most states, it would be helpful to have a choice in each district between two parties that were more aligned with that district's voters, not just one party "conservative" and the other "liberal."
in that case i agree, they're quite stable.
Then, once again, WE have nothing further to discuss...
Maybe those who are er... SPAM'ing the community with outrageous claims of Trumps toast'edness will see your words... :D
Michale
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/18/1561500/-Trump-loving-white-supremacist-stabs-black-man-to-defend-police-from-Black-Lives-Matter
Trump Supporters.
Could it be that Trump has made his pivot? With the addition of Bannon, Ailes, and Conway I believe we will see more of Trump being Trump, only nastier.
Are we witnessing the birth of the Trump Network? Staring The Donald, Presidential contender and winner of 12 Trump awards for excellence in broadcasting.
I made the last part up, but Bannon of Brietbart fame, Ailes from Fox news, and Conway, it just makes sense.
We'll just have to wait and see...
We'll just have to wait and see...
Trump Is Toast Prediction #73
Apparently, Apophis is ignoring the polls in favor of his fantasies.. :D
Michale
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/18/1561500/-Trump-loving-white-supremacist-stabs-black-man-to-defend-police-from-Black-Lives-Matter
Trump Supporters.
Sorry, Paula.. You have absolutely NO CREDIBILITY to condemn Trump supporters, when you are COMPLETELY silent about all the violence and destruction and assaults and shootings committed by Hillary's (O)BLM scumbags...
No moral foundation whatsoever..
But thank you for proving beyond any doubt what I have said last week...
Ya'all only speak up when Right Wing scumbags commit violent acts..
When Left Wing scumbags commit violent acts, ya are perfectly OK with it...
Michale
Remember how ya'all said that the $400 Million paid to Iran *WASN'T* a ransom for hostages???
STATE DEPT. SAYS $400 MILLION CASH PAYMENT TO IRAN WAS CONTINGENT ON AMERICAN PRISONERS' RELEASE
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_APNEWSALERT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-08-18-15-38-54
Looks like Odumbo just threw ya'all under the bus... :D
Michale
Joshua,
Your thoughts?? :D
Michale
"Oh Johnnie, Johnnie, did you back the wrong horse..."
-Dr Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS II
:D
It's tough being so dead on ballz accurate so many times... :D
Michale
[25]
Michale
So we used Iran's money to leverage their good behavior. Well played...
leverage their good behavior.
Yea.. It;s called paying ransom..
I don't have a problem with that per se..
I *DO* have a problem with ya'all saying that we DIDN'T pay ransom, when in fact, we did...
In other words, ya'all were completely and unequivocally WRONG again and I was right..
That's the point...
Michale
All in all, a very good day for me.. :D
Michale
I would expect a concession from ya'all admitting that ya'all were wrong and I was right....
But, I know such a concession would be impossible, so..... :D
Michale
It's only ransom if they demand money, which they didn't. There's still about a billion dollars in interest to be payed at a later date, if they behave. If they don't play nice, then no money. Again, well played...
It's only ransom if they demand money, which they didn't.
How do you know they didn't???
Considering it's IRAN, I would say it's a damn safe bet that they DID demand the money..
Look, you can debate what the definition of *IS* is until the cows come home..
The fact is... I said it was ransom..
YA'ALL said it wasn't...
The Odumbo Administration admitted today that it WAS ransom..
Ya'all were wrong... I was right..
DEAL with it...
Michale
Ya'all *DO* realize that the world won't end if ya'all admit yer wrong...
You DO realize that??
Right???
Jeeeeeesh
Michale
IRANSOM: OBAMA ADMIN ADMITS CASH FOR PRISONERS
The State Department admitted Thursday that the US would not hand over $400 million in cash to Iran until it released four American hostages — two weeks after President Obama insisted the payment was not a “ransom.”
State Department spokesman John Kirby was asked at Thursday’s press briefing: “In basic English, you’re saying you wouldn’t give them $400 million in cash until the prisoners were released, correct?”
“That’s correct,” Kirby replied.
In an Aug. 4 press conference, President Obama said the opposite
http://nypost.com/2016/08/18/state-department-400m-cash-to-iran-was-contingent-on-us-prisoners-release/
There it is, people..
Ya'all were wrong....
It's that simple...
Michale
“In basic English, you’re saying you wouldn’t give them $400 million in cash until the prisoners were released"
Iran could have kept the 4 prisoners. Instead they chose the $400 million. Done deal..
Iran could have kept the 4 prisoners. Instead they chose the $400 million. Done deal..
Yea... In plain english, it's called "RANSOM"...
jeezus, are you so petty and ideologically enslaved that you can't admit basic reality if it goes against Odumbo???
Michale
How is it ransom?
If Iran would have kept the 4 prisoners they would have never gotten their money back. It's called leveraging a deal, not ransom..
Today's laugh: http://crooksandliars.com/2016/08/midday-open-thread-nude-donald-trump
Nude Donald Trump statue miraculously appears in NY City.
Paula: not included in the C&L story, but found in the Huffpo article on the same subject was the hilarious response by the NYC parks dept:
NYC parks department on naked Trump statue: "NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small.”
Nobody seems to notice that the Right is trying to have it both ways on the 'ransom' issue:
Theory 1: the airplane holding hostages was held on the Tehran tarmac until proof of payment was made. Obviously ransom.
Theory 2: payment was withheld by US authorities until after hostages were released. Obviously ransom.
Am I the only one that sees this?
I never heard of ransom being paid with the kidnapper's money. It's a sweet deal if you can get it.
[1] [39] [40]
"OMFG"! Thanks for the laughs.
Where I come from, since the day he announced, I've been seeing these Trump pinatas. They even are now selling different versions of the "Trumpyata" on the website that rhymes with "spamazon." LOL
"With his signature hairline and menacing eyes, this Donald Trump pinata is ready to burst! Pinata measures 32 inches high by 15 inches wide by 10 inches deep."
No balls, no guts, hollow and just full of air... Color: Orange. You supply candy and take turns whacking away at the little prick. Good times.
Basically the hostages were the ransom
that Iran had to pay to get its money released.
apophis: that sounds about right.
[40] Balthasar: yep, I'd seen the Parks Dept statement. Priceless!
[22] apophis wrote:
Are we witnessing the birth of the Trump Network? Staring The Donald, Presidential contender and winner of 12 Trump awards for excellence in broadcasting.
I made the last part up, but Bannon of Brietbart fame, Ailes from Fox news, and Conway, it just makes sense.
I made the last part up, but Bannon of Brietbart fame, Ailes from Fox news, and Conway, it just makes sense.
We'll just have to wait and see...
[47] What the... ? How did that...? Ignore that!
[22] apophis wrote:
Are we witnessing the birth of the Trump Network? Staring The Donald, Presidential contender and winner of 12 Trump awards for excellence in broadcasting.
I made the last part up, but Bannon of Brietbart fame, Ailes from Fox news, and Conway, it just makes sense.
Calling "Lumpy" a/k/a Sean Hannity... mark the "FREE" space... and I think we have a BINGO here.
The money was due for arbitration at the Hague. Iran was asking for ten billion. Real inflation adjustment comes out to about 6 billion. The official settlement was 1.2 billion. The return of the original 400m from 1979 was largely symbolic. I guess the symbolism was important to the Iranian government, for them to be willing to release the prisoners as well as the ten seamen who had been captured days earlier.
Ya'all simply are incapable of admitting you are wrong..
If someone holds someone hostage and gets money for their release, that money is ransom.. REGARDLESS of where that money came from..
Jeeesh, I am honestly taken aback... Such a blatant denial of reality, totally based on ideological slavery...
Michale
Nobody seems to notice that the Right is trying to have it both ways on the 'ransom' issue:
Theory 1: the airplane holding hostages was held on the Tehran tarmac until proof of payment was made. Obviously ransom.
Theory 2: payment was withheld by US authorities until after hostages were released. Obviously ransom.
Am I the only one that sees this?
So, whichever story is factual, EITHER wat, it was, as YOU say, RANSOM....
Well, at least SOMEONE here, however briefly, is in touch with reality...
Michale
apophis,
If Iran would have kept the 4 prisoners they would have never gotten their money back. It's called leveraging a deal, not ransom..
So....
In 1973, John Paul Getty III was kidnapped, the kidnappers could have just kept the kid and not get the money....
The money wasn't ransom, it was "leverage"... :D
"You really are a simple simple creature.."
-Bartleby, DOGMA
Ya'all can talk about what the definition of 'is' is until the cows come home..
But the simple fact is this..
I said the payment was ransom..
Ya'all said it wasn't..
The Odumbo administration just admitted that it was ransom..
Ya'all were wrong.. AGAIN...
I was right... AGAIN...
"These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
Michale
The humiliation of a president
“We do not pay ransom. We didn’t here, and we won’t in the future.”
Barack Obama might like to have that one back this morning, to stick a pin in the moving finger that writes. But the finger done writ, and it won’t come back to cancel a single line of the president’s fatuous fib that the United States didn’t pay $400 million to ransom four hostages taken by the president’s friends in Tehran.
Perhaps the president can take some solace, thin as it is, in the fact that nobody believed him, anyway.
The lie fell apart Thursday when The Wall Street Journal reported that the money was withheld until the hostages were actually free, and provided details of how the swap took place. Rarely has a president been caught in such a big and brazen lie.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/18/iran-ransom-humiliates-obama/
Yep.....
Michale
the administration said the events weren't connected and they were. so yes, they lied about that.
as to whether or not the relationship between the events was a "ransom" - that is a matter of opinion and linguistics, because it doesn't fit neatly into that category. ransom usually means paying your own money to get back something of value that was taken. the relationship between these events is more complicated, since there were at least four or five events which we now know were interconnected, including the implementation of the nuclear treaty, ten captured sailors, four political hostages, a financial dispute and various other diplomatic issues. i'm curious how the rest of the issues played out.
JL
the administration said the events weren't connected and they were. so yes, they lied about that.
OK, THAT's all I wanted to hear.. :D
as to whether or not the relationship between the events was a "ransom" - that is a matter of opinion and linguistics, because it doesn't fit neatly into that category.
Agreed... Whether you want to call it ransom or leverage or any other label, the simple fact is one beget the other.
And the Administration said one did NOT beget the other..
They lied..
We are in complete agreement...
If we can't find common ground on the obvious shit, what hope is there to find common ground on the complex stuff??
Michale
So let's go back to post [41](I'm not as thrilled about using post numbers ever since the release of filtered posts changed all of the numbers the other day, so I'll add:) which begin, "the right wants to have it both ways", which Michale promptly interpreted [51] as "both are ransom". In fact apophis [44] got it exactly right: "Basically the hostages were the ransom that Iran had to pay to get its money released."
Now, Michale's posts have already signaled how this is being played: that the Obama administration "lied" when it said that the payment and release of the hostages weren't linked (the way the Reagan administration flat-out lied about trading missiles for hostages). But as apophis aptly points out, the situation is, if anything, reversed: the Iranians are clearly the party pressed to do the paying in this case, since it was their own money at issue. No American money was used, hence, no American "payment" was made - so the issue is 'process', not 'veracity'.
I understand why this is so difficult for many in the (willfully dense) press corps: it requires more than 140 characters to explain. Everyone who's commented on it here, save for the never-to-be-convinced-anyway contingent, seems to understand the nuanced difference just fine.
My guess is that the press is feeling guilty (as usual) about all of the negative press being generated about Trump (a negative-press generating machine), and are playing up this and other minor Clinton 'controversies' in futile hope of 'balancing' the ledger. On the other hand, the press have always been suckers for the Right's manufactured Clinton controversies - good for sales, I guess.
So, to recap: this is no real controversy, just another day in the political Mosh Pit...
So, to recap: this is no real controversy,
Other than the fact the administration lied and you admitted that it WAS ransom...
Other than that, you are correct. No real controversy.. :D
My guess is that the press is feeling guilty (as usual) about all of the negative press being generated about Trump (a negative-press generating machine), and are playing up this and other minor Clinton 'controversies' in futile hope of 'balancing' the ledger.
Yea, cuz the press has ALWAYS been fair-minded like that.. :^/
Do you actually READ what you type???
Michale