Greg Sargent has a piece up on how the Clintons plan on going after Donald Trump in the general. Given how close the polls are in Iowa and the fact that Nate Silver is currently giving Bernie Sanders a 91% chance of winning New Hampshire, this conjecture about a Clinton/Trump general election may strike you are premature.
That doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it, however.
Now, the one thing that I really like about the proposed plan is that it uses the old Rovian playbook of going right after your opponent’s greatest strength. If Al Gore is Clinton without the perjury, then paint him as a serial liar. If your guy went AWOL in the Alabama Air National Guard and your opponent is a decorated war hero, then trash your opponent’s medals and question the legitimacy of his hero status.
Of course, the Clinton scenario doesn’t suffer from the same galling distortion and unfairness. Donald Trump really has gone into bankruptcy four separate times. His casino empire really did completely implode in massive, epic failure. Even his massive net wealth isn’t all that impressive:
[Trump] often says he is worth $10 billion, though most analysts say that is exaggerated. Bloomberg News closely studied his 92-page financial disclosure report and concluded that he is really worth $2.9 billion.
That may sound like a lot of money. But don’t forget that Trump inherited a lot of money, too — about $40 million in 1974. In 1978, his net worth was estimated by BusinessWeek at $100 million. The Post’s Wonkblog calculated that if Trump had gotten out of real estate, put his money in an index fund based on the Standard & Poor’s 500 index and reinvested the dividends, he’d be worth twice as much — $6 billion — today.
National Journal noted that Warren Buffett was also worth $40 million in 1974 — and he managed to turn that into $67 billion today.
And let’s not forget that Trump University was a complete fraud and a failure, that Trump Airlines was an idiotic idea that went bust, that no one (except a couple of Israelis) wanted to drink Trump Vodka, or eat Trump Steaks.
If you haven’t read about the complete failure of Trump’s Taj Mahal and his reliance on junk bonds (after promising the New Jersey legislature that he would never use them), you really should get on that. And then send a link to all your crazy Trump-supporting friends and family in your Facebook and Twitter feeds.
If Donald Trump were a contestant on The Apprentice, he’d have to fire himself at the end of every episode.
Which leads me to a second point. Trump doesn’t like to get slighted, and there’s nothing more important to him than his reputation as a brilliant and successful businessman. If you begin to take that away from him, he will lose his mind. He will go berserk. He will either lash out like a cornered animal or retreat like a whipped dog.
This doesn’t mean that I disagree with Greg Sargent that the Clintons need to be mindful that Trump has tapped into a deep discontent with the status quo and to have some answers for meeting the electorate where they are, not where they might wish that they are. On Friday, I made much the same point. Donald Trump should not be underestimated. He should be treated as seriously as a heart attack.
But, just because he’s very famous and has a couple of billion dollars doesn’t mean that he’s a great businessman. He’s got a record of ludicrous ventures, outright scam operations (like Trump University), and a ratio of success to failure that is simply too risky for the nation to accept in a president.
The Clintons should go after this so hard that the whole country has to reevaluate what they think they know about Donald Trump. If they do that, they’ll not only take away Donald Trump’s greatest strength; they’ll take away whatever it is that substitutes for his soul.
I’ve been thinking (always a dangerous procedure for me) and have come to the conclusion that it is possible (not probable, but possible) that with HRC as the D candidate and Trump as the R candidate …. Alaska is in play (for president).
Yesterday, I made the comment to Marie3 that the Cheney legacy might not be as damaged as the legacy of whatever loon they run against her in the primary’s. It depends on the family and history of the other loon. Much the same thing is potentially happening in Alaska.
Trump has no soul. It shows. He is also supported by the single least supported Alaska politician in Alaska.
Should be interesting.
Uh, Begich lost.
A couple of points:
My point stands. All politics is local. Alaskans split their tickets probably more than anyplace else in recent history. If Sister Sarah screws around in Alaska with Trump … Trump could lose Alaska.
Begich is a second generation AK politician. He won, narrowly, in 2008 because Ted Stevens was on trial for corruption during the campaign. (Ted was also 85 years old which didn’t seem to bother AK voters.) Begich lost in 2014 to a man that only became an AK resident in 1997.
The 2008 and 2012 AK vote totals for Obama were about the same (123,594 and 122,640 respectively). The margins differed because of the GOP tallies – 193,841 for McCain/Palin and 164,676 for Romney/Ryan.
Not sure how any those facts suggest that Palin will cause Trump to lose AK.
Ah! But Trump will retaliate with the Clinton’s business dealings, most of which can’t stand the light of day.
Yeah, when have the Clintons ever been pursued by the press or by the Republicans in Congress? They’re almost completely unvetted!
P.S. BENGHAZI!!!!!!
I could be wrong, but a majority of the voting public doesn’t seem to be quite as stupid as your comment (a standard DEM trope wrt a Clinton) suggests. They didn’t buy into the Benghazi brouhaha anymore than they bought into Obama being a Muslim.
I don’t know if the GOP and/or Trump can formulate a simple enough narrative about the CGI that would be effective. However, to say that there’s no or not enough there to do so is naive. The difficulty for the GOP wrt to the Clintons is that where they are weak is also where the GOP is weak. How many House members went down for extra-marital affairs in the aftermath of impeaching Clinton over his dalliance?
“I don’t know if the GOP and/or Trump can formulate a simple enough narrative about the CGI that would be effective.”
If they could do it they would have by now.
Let’s take something simple. The Fall of 2007. If any GOP campaign operative, candidate, or person in power was read into the practically guaranteed fact that Edwards had a “love child” on the way would you publicly disclose that while he still had a chance to win the presidential or vice-presidential nomination? (Recall that Edwards publicly continued to deny that the child was his in August 2008.)
He would definitely respond with attacks that her role of SoS lacked negotiating skills, bring up the Clinton Foundation and on and on. BUT, that would be his first volley. If that volley is responded to not with defense of anything Clinton but instead a 2nd attack on his own failures and then 3rd and 4th attack that doesn’t allow him to deflect, he will certainly revert to vindictiveness and dark responses. He will go virally sexist against Clinton. No doubt go after Bill’s affairs. But again, if that receives no response from them but instead they inflict another blow to his ego with more failures, he will crack. Of that I am certain.
There’s no doubt that Trump is an atrocious businessman and is mainly a huckster and a con-man. That said, none of that matters to those who are firmly now Trump’s base. Facts don’t matter to that crowd. Trump bellows out bullshit, and the rubes fall in line. It’s the current end game for the Dittoheads.
Of course, whomever goes up against Trump, should he win the nomination, should attack him on his overall credibility, including his lack of business acumen. But let’s face it: Fiorina is still being touted as this person with great business skills.
Facts don’t matter to conservatives. They drink deeply of the Fox/Rush Kool Aid every day. They actually believe Trump’s garbled bs and think he’ll “save” them from Xtian persecution or something.
I think whomever goes against Trump, should he win the nomination (which I still doubt!) should forget about factual attacks on his wealth and business deals, and just try to undermine his dominance. His real strength is that he’s the Alpha.
Well, attacking his wealth and deals are perfectly good ways to undermine his dominance … if they’re done right. Releasing fact sheets and unleashing spokespeople won’t work. That’s weak tea. When Trump does his own attacking, it’s not the content that matters, it’s the fact that he doesn’t give a shit, he’s not afraid to put himself out there personally and say whatever he wants. That’s domination. Sending a proxy to whisper to reporters is not.
Beating him will take a Democratic candidate who is willing to embrace schoolyard bullying, and personally say things like, ‘the reason Trump keeps losing wives is because his fingers aren’t the only things that are stubby.’
Yes, this.
You don’t beat a bully by telling him that he’s mean.
You beat him by punching him in his god damn mouth, and make him bleed.
I am a little less worried about Trump after reading the fine print of the recent Selzer poll. He is not especially popular even among Iowa republicans, who presumably should be in a position to appreciate his charms. His net favorability among them is +3% (compared to +51% for Rubio and +37% for Cruz).
Although I think his chances of winning the nomination are still reasonably high, I think he would get crushed in a general election against Clinton. (I’m less confident about how he would fare against Sanders.)
That said, I’m really hoping for a Ted Cruz victory tonight. If there is one person who I’m confident will lose big in the general, it’s Ted Cruz!
One thing I don’t believe will happen is Trump “retreating like a whipped dog.”
Why not? He did in the Iowa debate.
You mean the one he won by not participating in it?
Sure he will. He’s just like any other insecure bully.
Here we have the DNC showing its true colors (as arm of the Clinton Machine) once again by paying the Brock-run American Bridge $144,000 for “research services.” You might say the DNC really knows where to turn the rock over to find where the nastiest snake lives, this time David Brock. This “research” was to create an opposition book against Donald Trump. Not only is David Brock the new Carl Rove, he’s Hillary’s personal Carl Rove also doing another kind of opposition research:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/clinton-surrogate-to-demand-sanders-release-medical-records-21
7880
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/21/david-brock-ally-of-hillary-clinton-skewers-n
ew-bernie-sanders-ad/
And what does Bernie think of David Brock?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/01/29/sanders_shows_rare_flash_of_anger_over_rumors_star
ted_by_clinton_backer_david_brock.html
The Greg Sargent article is a very good example of why establishment politics is going to fail because it misses the basic reason of the Trump phenomenon. Brock missed the Trump hidden message as Sargent points out as being, “…they are basically cheating you — they are not trying to make America work for you; instead they are making it work for the illegals [not a word] and the major corporations and China.”
The key here is defining the `they.’ Trump is arguing they are the stupid fools running the government, the bought-and-paid-for politicians and corrupt bureaucrats. This is a core populist message that really goes to the dark side with Trump’s added overlay of White Supremacy but populist none the less.
Without the overlay of White Supremacy Bernie has the same populist message but instead he blames the oligarchic elite that has massively redistributed wealth upwards for decades and has paralyzed government from doing anything about it. Hillary is already having a real problem running against this kind of populist message because she is the darling of those oligarchic elite. It won’t be any easier for her to run against Trump with him using same message even with his dark overtones.
Sargent advises Hillary to position herself with regard to this deep voter disillusionment. Hillary counters by saying she can do all the things Bernie wants to do but can do them better and they won’t cost anyone anything. For her to make this pivot does sound like how a Charles Barkley golf swing looks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvpwG50fLnU
Ask her why they didn’t do them in 1992-2000?
Ask her why she didn’t campaign on them in 2008?
All comments pre-Iowa vote are simply Onan as pundit. Wait until the votes are in and counted..even by Microsoft or whoever is handling the counting.
Then start the snark, if snark is your thing and you’ve been right.
Until then?
STFU!!!
PLEASE!!!
Almost no one has been able to accurately predict the rise of Trumpism in this country over the past 6 months or so.
“Ahhhh…he’s just a self-seeking clown” was the predominant view of the leftnesses, especially those who support HRC. Same with Bernie. “Just another far-left loser,” they said.
Who is really willing to stand up and predict the outcome of this primary on pain of…of what? Granny No-No telling you to be good boys and girls?
Please.
We’ll know more after New Hampshire.
Until then, Onan rules.
Knees aren’t the only thing that are being jerked here in Leftiness Land.
Bet on it.
Later…
AG
Clinton will get the Dem nomination. Trump will get the GOP nomination. Trump will get slaughtered in the general.
The End.
Clinton will be slaughtered in the general. Trump won’t play Mr. nice guy like Bernie. Trump will go for the throat like any pit bull.
” . . . or retreat like a whipped dog. “
Yeah, right.