If The Apprentice was basically a boardroom version of Survivor, then it shouldn’t surprise people that Donald Trump sees the Republican nominating contest as a game, and that he approaches the game the way a smart contestant approaches an elimination reality game show.
I’m no expert on this kind of strategy, but some things seem universal and obvious, like going after your strongest competitor first, and making a lot of temporary alliances. In retrospect, it’s easy to see why Trump spent all his early energy on the well-funded Jeb, why Cruz chose to be nice to Trump, and why Trump initially returned the favor.
Winning the general election is a completely different kind of game, though, so naturally Trump needs a completely different strategy. And, yes, that means that he has to play a different role. He has to actually be someone else.
And that’s precisely what he’s now promising the Republican bigwigs that he will do. I think Steve M. does a fine job of explaining this, so I’ll refer you to him rather than duplicating his efforts.
The key is that the Associated Press obtained a secret recording of a meeting that took place yesterday between Paul Manafort and top players at the Republican National Committee.
Trump’s chief strategist Paul Manafort told members of the Republican National Committee in a closed-door briefing here Thursday afternoon that his candidate has been playing a “part” on the campaign trail, but is starting to pivot toward presenting a more businesslike and presidential “persona.”
“He gets it,” Manafort told RNC members.
And this introduces a question about our modern environment. Now that every single thing you do and say seems to be captured digitally, it’s harder than ever to get away with flip-flopping, or saying one thing to one audience and something completely different to another one. Something you said on the Senate floor a quarter century ago can be brought up and plastered all over social media to make you look like a hypocrite.
Yet, the diffusion of the way people get their news, and the way that digitization kills people’s attention span (listen to a whole album lately?), makes it easier than ever to spin the news or change the subject and move on from controversy.
These two factors will be in tension as Trump tries to remake himself in front of our eyes, as though we hadn’t just witnessed the reality show of the last six months.
The media’s readiness to give him credit for this is not a good sign.
Let’s try not to forget how this campaign began. It began with widespread boycotts of Trump and Trump’s businesses because his campaign announcement had been so racist against Mexicans.
We’ve gone from that to the media applauding him for “presenting a more businesslike and presidential “persona.””
That’s amnesia, right there, and widespread media-assisted amnesia is Trump’s best hope for November.
because, of course, the Latinos are just gonna ‘ forget’ what he’s said.
and, the women.
ok.
sure.
The thing is, Rikyrah, they were already not going to vote for him. The interesting effect will be among people who WERE going to vote for him, or who potentially might.
At best, Trump might become palatable enough to not drag the entire Republican slate down the toilet. I think the chances of him winning are really small. Barring an unforeseeable event or total Clinton meltdown, it won’t happen. This isn’t about Republicans trying to win the White House. It’s about a strategic decision not to blow up the party in Cleveland.
#1-All events are essentially unforeseeable.
#2-Clinton may “melt down” in any number of ways.
Please do not discount trumps chances of winning, especially if the media begin to give him a pass.
AG
The Republican mind is infinitely malleable. Trump’s going to retain his carefully cultivated racist vote by simply telling them “You know I have to have this image for the general.” He’ll keep and gain many more because they have very convenient short-term memory when it comes to something they want to believe.
Sander vs Trump has consistently polled better than Hillary vs Trump; but with the “new” Trump I think Bernie’s effectiveness increases still further, while hers decreases.
I still think the Dem coalition will hold together against Trump, though.
I see.
So we should expect that delegates to the Democratic convention will base their votes on these opinion polls. Is that the implication?
Maybe the supers. Or sit this one out and let the pledged delegates decide.
You said it — I didn’t.
I’d bet good money on a Clinton melt down.
Actually, she is pretty much in continuous melt down mode with constantly decreasing favorablity- higher unfavorables than Cruz now, how long is it before she gets to Trump territory?
Make yourself a small fortune.
https://www.predictit.org/Market/1296/Which-party-will-win-the-2016-US-Presidential-election
I refuse to profit on the misfortune of others. Especially when I am one of the people being misfortuned.
In other words…”I wouldn’t belong to a club that would have me.” Groucho Marx
AG
You, perhaps, are adverse betting on who wins the White House.
The person I directed the comment to said that they would bet good money on a Clinton meltdown.
“all events are essentially unforeseeable.” You raise an interesting philosophical issue there, AG.
Some events are more likely than others. That’s called probability. You don’t necessarily have to measure it. Ordinary foresight and common sense is sometimes better, because you need that even to decide what are all the relevant factors.
Changing circumstances can change the likelihood of a given event.
New factors can come into the picture that nobody was even thinking about.
Possibility is limited only by impossibility. In other words, even if something has very low probability, it can still happen.
A miracle is an event to which no natural cause can be assigned. Doesn’t mean there is no natural cause, but it’s not clear what it would be.
Would like to see Latinos actually voting their strength, but they don’t.
Against Trump they’re starting to, though. They will be very important. They’re not likely to believe in the “new” Trump.
The media granted Trump a ton of free advertising early on and will likely continue to do so. To some extent, this may be why a prolonged Dem primary that features one candidate hollering about how corrupt everything and everyone is might not be helpful. Trump will be happy to grab whatever platform is open to him, even if Sanders provides the stage, and a good portion of the media, which always features a Republican daddy complex, will likely oblige. This despite whatever insider meetings and arrangements he’s made.
Oh so, it’s all Bernie Sander’s hollering about how corrupt everything is. Well it is, in fact. And it is helpful because some people, like you, at least take cognizance of that fact while trying to shoot the messenger. What kind of ‘stage’ does Sanders provide: explain?
OK, let’s say Bernie is hollering about how corrupt everything is. How exactly does that provide a stage for Trump?
Trump doesn’t seem to have much trouble finding a stage any time he wants one.
I’m not catching your drift here.
Catching some of the network coverage describing his “pivoting for the general election” was maddening. Essentially, anything he said or did in pursuit of winning the GOP primary seemed to be treated as a completely separate issue and irrelevant to how the networks would cover him in the general election. It was like they were preparing to just close the book on everything we have witnessed, and start over with a completely clean sheet of paper and begin Chapter 1 of a whole new narrative.
The irony in this is simply beyond my wildest imaginations. Here we have Hillary Clinton, who is forced to substantiate everything she has ever said or done, regardless of its relevance to anything occurring today. And we have Donald Trump, whose utterances of six months ago are getting flushed down the media memory hole because he has decided to project a new image.
They really, really want this to be a horserace.
They want it to be a horse race, and also, they always emphasize “process” over than substance. “Process” sounds objective and doesn’t get anywhere near a POV, whereas substance sounds like a POV even when you objectively report his latest assholery. “The pivot” from that standpoint is just a technical maneuver, it’s just “process”.
Plus, it’s very important for the GOP establishment, since they can now feel better about a Trump candidacy.
However, neither Sanders nor Clinton (unless she is an even more pathetic campaigner than I think) are going to let anybody forget this. That tape will make a nice centerpiece for campaign ads, wouldn’t it?
Is Hillary really a “pathetic” campaigner? Sanders gets a lot of attention for his big rallies, but they haven’t helped him win some of the big states he’s needed so far. Hillary didn’t really contest several caucus states he won, either.
The media and us folks who have active political interests, love big shows like the ones Sanders and Trump put on. But that doesn’t mean Hillary’s a bad campaigner. Her lower key choices seem to have served her well in several states.
The comment stands w/o reference to Sanders. If you don’t like “pathetic”, let’s just say, “not particularly good.” The observation’s been made many times, by many different people, and even by Hillary herself.
She does seem to be an effective (if not very honest) debater.
What do you mean that HCR didn’t really contest several caucus states he won? Which ones? The reason why the media hasn’t covered Clinton’s rallies is that it would show her and Bill’s crowds are greatly diminished, when compared to Bernie Sanders’ rallies. This is reality.
http://usuncut.com/news/how-tonights-bernie-sanders-rally-compared-to-hillary-clintons/
They want it to be a horse race, and also, they always emphasize “process” over than substance.
this this this
I’ve said it since the beginning.
They were mad at Trump because he doesn’t do dogwhistles.
The dogwhistles were for the MEDIA.
So, they could pretend that the GOP was something other than what it is.
Yeah, well now they can.
But fortunately, I don’t think the media have the kind of influence they used to. Whatever you think of Bernie, they weren’t able to tamp him down much. They sure tried, though.
Basically, I think Trump will be a uniter — of the Democrats.
You write:
Yes. If by “they” you mean the media, they really do. There’s big, big money in it.
However, if you mean the powers that really control the Permanent Government…Big Corp, essentially, which also “controls” the media when power considerations trump short-term profit considerations…not so much of a horserace as to let their chosen horse get beaten.
I personally think that the PermaGov is…as of now…somewhat divided in this case. There are still many people with real power in DC who distrust HRC, on good grounds. She despises them for the number they pulled on her husband. But…on the other hand, she seems to have thoroughly proven her loyalty to the centrists during her time as Senator and Sec. State.
Trump?
I dunno. If he makes adequate promises behind truly closed doors…not in laughably unsecret, hottest-thing-ever so-called “leaked” audio tapes…not to rock their power boat? I dunno. Is he more like the controllers than is HRC?
Hmmm…
Time will tell. Watch. If media coverage continues to cast him as a viable candidate after the two conventions?
I dunno…in that case, Preznit Trump is a strong possibility.
Watch.
AG
“I personally think that the PermaGov is…as of now…somewhat divided in this case.”
I agree. But mainly because they reflexibly prefer REpublicans. In the long run, though, Hillary and Bill are much more “serious” people to them. Better educated, infinitely more experienced in politics and foreign policy, wider range of connections, more class, plus there’s Bill’s populist edge. Trump is all business, and they know a lot of that is bullshit too. Compared to them, he’s small time, and hoi polloi sense that too, which is one reason they like him and why the GOP establishment doesn’t.
“Is he more like the controllers than is HRC?”
For all the above reasons, no he isn’t. And you have to count Bill in this too.
An irony of the situation is, though, that the Clintons and the Trumps are social friends. He’s more like them, on some levels, than he seems.
Bill’ Clinton’s “populist edge” is shot, priscianus jr. He’s lost his edge. Almost all of it. You still see flashes of it, but…age, illness, meds, sheer boredom now that he’s no longer numero uno…who knows? His reflexes on the speaking stand are shot. He looks like an over-the-hill ballplayer who can no longer get around on the fastball. I truly believe that he will prove to be a drag on HRC’s campaign rather than an asset.
AG
Maybe so, but that’s not going to bother the “PermaGov.”
And the fact that Trump’s a rabble rouser isn’t going to make him any more attractive to said PermaGov. They’re interested in what people will do AFTER they’re elected.
I think they keep the pressure on downballot. More state leges, governors, the Senate… Best ROI out there, imo.
I happened to be driving yesterday with my 19 year old in the passenger seat when we came up behind a vehicle plastered with bumper stickers like these:
9-11 Was an Inside Job
Infowars.com
Wake up!
Don’t Tread on Me (snake in background)
More Infowars. Lots More Infowars.
Sort of wondering, AG, if your frequent exhortation to people to “wake up” or WTFU has any relationship to the Infowars meme.
Just because they’re wrong on some levels doesn’t mean that they are not right on other levels, JDW. Believing that there have been no conspiracies in action within this government since JFK was elected is as stupid as believing that everything is a conspiracy.
AG
Deutschland Erwache (“Germany Awaken!”) was one of the earliest, emphatic and incessantly repeated propaganda tropes of the NSDAP in Germany. So there is that.
Very wise observations, Booman.
Our job is to make sure nobody forgets the pre-pivot Trump for a minute. And even if he was only faking it, that may be clever, but it’s the height of dishonesty.
Let’s not forget that he knows the Clintons very well; Chelsea and Ivanka are good friends.
I suppose it will be easier for the voters to conceive some kind of alliance between Hillary and Bernie when they are both fighting Trump.
Come to think of it,that alone is a very good reason for Bernie to stay in the race. He can fight Trump from his own ground rather than Hillary’s.
In fact, it’s no secret that he can fight Trump more convincingly than she can. Is that why the Times editorial the other day urged him to stay in the race?
The media is certainly desperate to say that “Trump’s ok”, “both sides!”, “flip a coin this November – it doesn’t matter!”, “isn’t his fun!?”, but I have my doubts that he can pull off his etch-a-sketch. It’s not all an act; maybe some of the emphasis choices are, but this is Trump being Trump. He will have trouble controlling his own impulses, and especially the impulses of his base. He’s not the disciplined man he thinks of himself as and he’s no master strategist.
But our crappy media, as always, is certainly a threat…
Serious question: how many Republicans or independents who wouldn’t vote for the “old” Trump, WOULD vote for the “new” Trump?
How many would quickly and gladly “forget about” the old Trump, now that they know it was only a strategy.
How many are likely to think, “Hey that guy’s really smart! Anybody that can play games like that would make a great president!
I’m going to try to answer my own question. Now that he’s got the serious racist vote, all he’s got to tell them is, “Don’t worry, you know I have to do this in order to win the election.”
The key to it, of course, is that he can juggle the two Trumps into an advantage rather than a deficit.
Trump is a very clever reptile.
A further serious question:
How many…what percentages…of Republicans or independents really wouldn’t have voted for the “old” Trump anyway?
Hmmm…
A larger percentage than the media has chosen to represent, it seems to me.
“Polls?”
First of all, polls are bought and sold entities. That’s a good part of the reason that their results are sometimes so contradictory. Polling isn’t the rocket science the media tries to present, it’s media mixed with politics. Money changes hands; results get skewed. So it goes.
Secondly, polls do not adequately cover the percentages of the population who are not…I guess “mainstream” might be the best word. People who harbor a deep distrust of government in general, people who are in various states of “outness”…hovering around the poverty line, the rebellious young, the forgotten old…people who normally just don’t want to be bothered with polls…
Hmmmm…sounds like a lot of Trump voters, to me…
AG
“Let’s try not to forget how this campaign began”
Too late! Most voters will regard Drumpf as a benign, slandered man of business genius. Some will disagree that he’ll be better than the she-devil (yes, that’s coming), some won’t, and it’ll be a nail biter come November, with record low turnout.
That’s the American Way!
There is some evidence for what you say. A Gallup poll taken in 2011, when I suppose Trump was toying with the idea of running, as he had a number of times before, show his favorables at 43%, unfavorables 47%.
The report also mentions that these figures are similar to a poll in September 1999.
Those figures are a bit too close for comfort, if you ask me.
Here’s the link:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146987/americans-views-trump-favorable-unfavorable.aspx
i actually think that there will be a “Yuuuuge” turnout, Jim. Trump inspires strong emotions both ways. Watch.
AG
Good luck with that:
Poll: Latino Voters `Enthusiastic’ to Vote Against Trump
Manafort is of course going to claim that Trump can put states like New Jersey in play. I’m finding this hard to imagine. Trump has made too many outrageous comments that the Clinton campaign will ram down his throat. They would commit political malpractice if they let women and minorities forget those comments. Even in a place like Jersey, where there’s an audience for a blowhard like Trump, one needs female votes.
Don’t forget that with Citizens United, HRC’s campaign doesn’t even need to put out the ads to remind people of how vile Strongman Trump has been.
Ratfucking is now free speech.
Citizens United was seriously a Pyrrhic victory for the conservative movement. It essentially unleashed oligarchs so that instead of having to support the party and the party apparatus, now they can just support their very own marionette puppet.
The fun part is watching the puppets and puppeteers all sharpening their knives and going after each other’s strings.
Kabuki marionette theatre.
America.
What happens if Trump picks Christie? Does that help with Ny, NJ and other NE states?
Not IN NJ, cause they have had to deal with him not wanting to be Gov since “bridgegate” broke.
Christie cannot etch-a-sketch himself back into their good graces, and is done in the state.
His only hope is a appointment in DC, other than that it is wingnut welfare for Christie.
Christie is very unpopular in New Jersey, as a matter of fact.
He’s also very unpopular in New York, because of that George Washington Bridge thing (“Fort Lee lane closure scandal”) he pulled.
In fact, he’s very unpopular just about everywhere.
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/30/its-hard-to-overstate-chris-christies-unpo
pularity-problem
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/chris-christie-favorable-rating
Just google “Christie’s unpopularity problem” .
There’s so much hype and spin going on around Trump that it works the magic of really obscuring things… just the way Trump and the media, apparently, want it.
I read/heard stuff about how now that this Manafort is involved, Trump had “pivoted” from his prior “showman” ways – or “Survivor”/reality tv ways – and was NOW going to demonstrate his real, true acumen or whatever and Trump 2.0 is going to be a sensational Statesman, blah de blah.
And his speech after winning the NY primary has been much chattered about and pointed to as showing how REALLY he’s “changed” and pivoted and is NOW showing his true statesman-like behaviors.
Digby had a column on this, where she provided the transcript of his rally this past Weds – the AFTER his NY Primary acceptance speech – in Indianapolis (I think), and it was the same old same old garbled rubbish, shouting about the Wall, rambling racist bigoted nonsense that he’s done 10,000 times before.
I don’t buy it, and I ain’t holding my breath to witness what Manafort is touting as the “real” D.Trump, Statesman extrodinnaire. It’s bogus… just like everything else about Trump.
Booman writes:
How can you manage to say the word “secret” in this instance with a straight face, Booman?
Really!!!
This is a PR gimmick, nothing less. I am sure that there are indeed “secret meetings”…like the one that was conducted to decide how best to start to clean up Trump’s reputation now that he is almost certainly going to be the nominee, a meeting that produced this transparently jive, “HOTTEST THING EVER!!!” piece of news cycle management.
Please…
AG
Harder than ever? Really? Seems to me to be easier than ever if one makes it into the ranks of the “chosen” and ultimately to the status of the “chosen one.”
So far, Trump isn’t quite “chosen” on the GOP side, but he’s preparing for that day when it will soon become so for one of them. Then it becomes a task for that person, his/her campaign, the party, and the MSM to delete all the nasty bits about the person and his/her campaign for the general election. The success of those efforts will depend on if the “chosen” moves up to being the “chosen one.”
If ’08 HRC “Annie Oakley” (in praise of the 2nd Amendment) can be morphed into ’16 HRC gun control advocate (complete with photo-ops of the parents of Sandy Hook victims suing gun manufacturers), no flip-flop is too great that it can’t be erased.
You may be right, but your comment does beg this question:
What are your criteria for deciding when someone has actually changed their mind about an issue as opposed to pretending to having changed their mind?
Another question that piggybacks on that one, would be:
In which direction does HRC change her mind? If she consistently changes it towards a more progressive position, is that a redeeming quality, at all?
I mean, it’s one thing to hold a conservative viewpoint on something, get more information, and then become more liberal on it. It’s quite another to either never change your mind, or become more conservative on an issue. At least, if you’re discussing the merits of voting for a politician who isn’t really a progressive.
You must consider the money would complicate that answer for probably 99% of Americans.
When people don’t trust a politician, little that politician says matters. It’s the equivalent of “Little Boy Cried Wolf”.
So it’s the responsibility of voters to figure out in real time when the stand of a politician is a lie or mere pandering (to voters or other interests) or authentic? And later when the same politician does an about face on that issue to figure out if the prior position was a lie or the politician has “evolve” and the latest position is authentic and not another lie or pandering?
My standard is fairly simple — a politician owns every position that he/she takes. It’s part of their job to be fully informed as of the time that she/he stands by that position. If she/he wasn’t fully informed or was lying or pandering, she/he isn’t suitable for public office. If she/he later changes her/her position, they better have a damn good explanation for the change. A damn good explanation doesn’t include 1) a SCOTUS ruling 2) fewer people now agree with me 3) something, something happened that she/he had no role in bringing about and that changes his/her political calculation.
In the example I used, numerous mass shootings, including many at schools, happened in the years and decades before 2008. Thus, Sandy Hook mass killing is an invalid explanation for a 180 degree change and she seem not to have offered any explanation for her “change” other than using the symbol of relatives of the victims of mass shootings. So, was HRC lying/pandering in 2008 or is she lying/pandering in 2016? Does she even have an authentic (although hidden) position on guns? That can’t be known by anyone other than HRC. All voters can know is that on one important, public policy issue, it’s documented that at some point she lied and the average person appreciates that those that lie can be guaranteed to lie again in the future.
In a society where the media is incapable by design the responsibility falls on the voters? Nice try 1%.
We’ve had enough of this brand of bullsh*t. The Wolf Blitzers of the world aren’t just nincompoops they are enablers and facilitators of the chimaera by design.
“How confusing! How shall we ever know?” Conventional wisdom reduced to mumbled psycho-babble.
By what they do. Actions speak louder than words.
The media will grant Trump a mulligan, but not because it’s Trump. But because republicans ALWAYS get mulligans.
But then they will scrutinize everything he says and does, every thing his wife and children say and do, everything his ex wife says and does, etc.
They gave Romney mulligans all the time, but the went after him on his 47% comment, and other incidents. And Romney was a guy they could have lived with as president. NOBODY with a brain in his head thinks Trump should be president.
There are not enough brainless people for him to be elected. Not enough republicans, or skin heads.
He will get destroyed.
.
.
This is, like, the 60th time Trump has “pivoted” to a “more presidential” persona.
Trump’s great weakness is his combination of no filter and no impulse control. Until he actually displays and hangs on to a “more presidential” persona for an extended period, I’m not buying it.
I’m still not completely convinced his whole campaign isn’t some sort of awesome ratfucking operation.
As soon as he feels attacked. Clinton will figure out a way to do it indirectly, and Trump will flip out.
She should also negotiate longer debates.
.
My money is on Obama setting him off by trolling him constantly.
Oh yes!
Black guy explains how things work to Trump.
.
Oh, yeah. LOL
Taking this to the next obvious step…
Trump IS a misogynist. He won’t be able to take ‘womansplain’n’ from Clinton.
Women and minority’s are key to this choice.
.
Correct, but Hillary’s favorables suck. Best to let Obama and Biden, who people actually like, handle the bulk of this.
Her ads and the debates will take care of setting off his misogyny.
Obama trolling him the weekend Bin Laden was killed is the reason he got in.
Thanks Obama.
Considering the Republicans have to nominate somebody for the D to run against, would you prefer Cruz? or Kasich?
Which, if that story is true, is hilarious, because it suggests Obama basically baited Trump into quite possibly giftwrapping the Dems a third term.
The album example is terrible. We dont listen to whole albums because most albums as a whole, are dreck. This has always been true but now we have a real option not to ever half to.
As for the never Trumpers, well I’ll give them a little credit until they start voting and shilling for Trump.
So t-rump is planning an etch-a-sketch, too bad he keeps coming back into focus the same tried old self centered narcissist, with his mouth two sentences ahead of what ever his controllers want him to say.
As Ann Richards might say;
“Poor Donald, he can’t help himself, he was born on third base, with a lead foot in his mouth.”
No matter how much his handlers might try to control teh donald, when he is out of their control like in debates, how does he stop his natural urge to control the spot light with his bombastic self. He’s done it so long, it just happens before he knows it.
The media might try to limit what they chose to put in the sound bites of the day, but the rating pull will be too much for them to hold back, when his foot slips between his lips once again.