The Clinton campaign had a response to the news that Donald Trump is trying to mainstream Alex Jones-ism by worrying publicly that the November election may be stolen from him.
Even for a reflexive conspiracy theorist like Trump, this is pathetic. It's dangerous, too.https://t.co/hcd4kQ4VS9
— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) August 2, 2016
Personally, I prefer Greg Sargent’s take on it:
Is it possible that Donald Trump has begun to contemplate his own political mortality? Is it possible that Trump, who had previously boasted to GOP primary audiences that he would beat Hillary Clinton “easily” — has begun to contemplate the possibility that he might lose the presidential election?
It is perhaps not a coincidence that Trump has suddenly stopped tweeting about polls (which are now showing Clinton taking a meaningful lead) at precisely the moment that he is escalating his efforts to cast doubt, in advance, on the legitimacy of the general election’s outcome.
Earlier today there was some confusion about a poll showing Clinton up by one point in Utah (the poll doesn’t exist), but as far back as mid-July Clinton’s chief strategist, Joel Benenson was listing Utah as a target state:
BENENSON: Ohio is going to be close. I wouldn’t call it a redrawing. Here’s what I think about the map. It’s going to be a close race. But there isn’t any state in the battleground universe where Donald Trump will force us to play defense.
But there are other states where it becomes very problematic for Republicans. A state like North Carolina — in 2004, Republicans probably felt pretty comfortable there. They don’t now. States like Arizona and Utah, if we can make them play defense there, which is very plausible because of the kind of divisive candidate Donald Trump is, it puts more pressure on them.
Those comments were made prior to the two parties’ conventions, but they still look solid. The last three polls out of North Carolina show Clinton in the lead, including the latest by NBC/WSJ/Marist that shows her up by six. Arizona has been lightly polled, but Huffington Post has Clinton up by one tenth of a percent in their aggregator. And, while there’s no new poll out of Utah, there have been two this year showing Clinton tied there and all but one poll has shown Trump polling below forty percent.
I’d like to add to this that the most recent poll out of Missouri (by Mason-Dixon) has Clinton up by a point there, and that a Republican pollster released a survey yesterday showing the race tied in Georgia.
That’s a lot of defense that Trump is already having to play, which is one reason why I questioned his decision to campaign in Colorado. Mike Pence is scheduled to be in Denver and Colorado Springs tomorrow. Hopefully, he won’t get stuck in any elevators and need the assistance of any fire marshals.
Principles before party.
We are watching the moderate Republicans being absorbed by the Democratic Party. What are the principles moderate Republicans are protecting?
Guess who will get left out of this calculation?
Few Republicans have publicly stated their intention to vote for Clinton. I repeat, few. And I don’t think they’re being offered Cabinet posts or other sinecures in exchange.
Bob, I suggest that you move away from your whining and seek ways to organize voters effectively behind your interests, some but not all of which are absolutely valid and have broad support among progressives. Rank-and-file Democrats dislike the Kagans of the world, so let’s pressure the next Administration and Congress to reject their policy preferences.
You have power, but that power is obliterated when you start the conversation with fellow progressives by claiming that Clinton is a fascist. Too many Democrats are repelled by claims like that to make it a worthwhile method.
I am sixty-five. I’ve done my organizing.
I’m just a witness to the end of the Democratic Party. Enjoy the ride down and try to find the silver lining.
What is invading other countries for the benefit of corporations? They used to call it fascism.
Kagan, a Republican, has endorsed Clinton. His wife has followed Clinton’s foreign policy.
You know Clinton won’t reject her own policies. It’s a question of whether she loses enough to hurt her politically. If you read the international press you know that Russia believes she’ll attack them and are preparing for nuclear war.
But war’s not a very important issue these days.
By the way, it’s been a week and no one in the western press is talking about Incirlik. Do you ever ask yourself why your media leaves big holes in the news? Do you ever wonder why Erdogan thinks that the US was behind the coup? Do you ever wonder how those nukes are doing there?
This is some proper crazy.
What international press is that? Sputnik News?
Because Erdogan is and has always been a paranoid autocrat?
Russia has “believed” that “the West” was going to attack them for 99 years. This is nothing new or controversial. It is a degree of delusion that is impossible to coexist with, but we’ve been mucking along somehow.
“We are watching the moderate Republicans being absorbed by the Democratic Party.”
Seems to me we are watching the Clintons turn the Dems into the Republican party, continuing what Bill and Obama have already done. Every day I see more and more Republicans endorsing her, and it’s usually the more right-wing Repubs. That’s why I think she’s going to lose and lose badly. She’s trying to be all things to all people. She wants to appeal to George W’s fans as well as Bernie’s. Hard trick to pull off. She’s emerging as someone who doesn’t stand for anything except more money and power for the Clintons.
This year’s Democratic Party platform is the most progressive platform in the history of the Party.
Hillary’s nomination acceptance speech was full of pledges to fight for progressive policies. I can’t recall a single commitment she made in that speech which favored Republican policy preferences over liberal/progressive ones.
The content of that speech cost Clinton potential support she might have gained from Republicans. It was absolutely the right thing to do, and it should be recognized.
TTP. Pass or fail?
Increase in minimum wage. Pass or fail?
Jobs program. Pass or fail?
More war?
I don’t know.
What are we going to do about them?
What are you going to do about them?
If you’re done organizing, in even a small way, then you’re done with bringing about the outcomes you want on these issues.
Effective public pressuring of politicians works. It’s why the TPP has not been passed into law. It’s why Social Security was not privatized when President Bush and the Republicans tried to do it in 2005.
It’s also why we don’t have better gun control laws. Despite general public opinion polls, the NRA and other organizations in the gun lobby have out-organized us. Time to stop whining and start organizing more effectively.
In our fight to continue to reduce Defense Department spending and end counterproductive diplomatic and military policies, we have to come to terms with the fact that the majority of Americans are feeling anxiety about terrorism, want our government to do things which make them feel safer, and are pretty split about what things they want our government to do.
What these Americans would not accept is our government entirely pulling back its military, intelligence and surveillance actions while terrorist attacks continue here and elsewhere. Campaigning on implementing an overt switch to the policies you and I might prefer is a big electoral loser for the time being, and we can’t implement better policies if we can’t win elections.
Oh, hush. Policies don’t matter and you know it. They are just so many clown faces printed on cards on sticks and being waved in front of babies.
One faction staked everything on total victory and came up with a stalemate instead. Instead of backing down, with or without grace, they escalated a strategy of ruling out coexistence.
At this point, the only significant aspect of the situation is that the two factions cannot coexist — and are of so nearly equal strength that no measurement, by any method, has yet been able to show which is the stronger.
It doesn’t matter any more what they call themselves or what kind of pseudophilosophy they used to wrap themselves in. It doesn’t even matter (except for historical perspective) which one started it. The point is that there is no way out.
..That’s why I think she’s going to lose and lose badly. …
“That’s why she’s going to win by either a little or a lot.” There, fixed it for you.
Seriously, do you just take what Clinton and the Dems say and just pretend that they mean the opposite? I missed the part where she talks about taxing the rich less, giving away federal lands to the states, suppressing the black vote, sending gays to therapy, running scared from disease ridden immigrant children, privatizing social security, repleaing and not replacing Obmacare? Appointing abortion-obsessed gay hating judges to gut voting rights? Will she make sure that only anti-union officials are appointed to the NLRB? Has she started giving speeches about the value of clean coal as the fuel of the future? Displayed a penchant for young earth Christian doctrine replacing biology in schools?
Forget it, Peale, they’re rollin’.
Looks to me like the same people that got left out when the GOP absorbed the conservative (racists, bigots, Luddites) Democrats.
If Georgia’s that close, she’s going to carry NC and VA. At that point, the math becomes almost impossible for Trump. You could give him the FL/OH/PA combo everybody’s been eyeing, and he’d still lose.
I think VA is light blue. GA and VA don’t have the same constituency. The $$ is older in VA, the racism is somewhat muted and the progressive history is non-existant (see: Zell Miller).
The constituency of NC aligns better with GA but NC is whiter and less Hispanics. Unfortunately, Hispanics (outside FL) are notorious for not voting (the largest non-voting non-white block is Hispanic Texas).
While I think VA is probably presidentially blue, I’m convinced more by the governorship and the Senatorial representation. The house representation is skewed by gerrymandering and hard to guage, but with a D gov and 2 D senators you don’t expect 8 of 11 representatives to be R.
NC is essentially light red with large blue pockets. This year, one of the light red-pockets (Fayetteville) might flip to blue because of the Gold Star family dustup. If so, NC goes blue.
GA? I’ll believe it when I see it.
I will also believe Georgia when I see it, and Utah.
Except….
He has little money, and he has nobody to correctly allocate the money he has. That means he can’t play defense in a place like Georgia if it does become close.
.
Apropos Utah, I’ve talked about this at length with a colleague who is both Mormon and a lifelong Democrat. His opinion is that the generally conservative bent of Mormons notwithstanding, Trump grossly offends many of them on account of his fear-mongering and general crudeness. The communal memory of persecution–which is what brought Mormons to Utah in the first place–is alive and well.
Feel free to disagree, but please, no Mormon bashing.
Of course these polls are coming in Clinton’s convention bounce, so unless something significant happens to favor her, she’s unlikely to win these states. Trump is certainly working hard on getting clobbered, but the maps and margins look a lot like one of Obama’s campaigns, and for that matter Kerry or Gore with a swing to the Democrats. I think this reflects the power of the forces that have created the post-1992 political structure: racism and media for the Republican, and not being crazy for the Democrats.
A little surprising to mejust how little it seems to matter who the candidates are. The results seem to be baked in, plus or minus a few percent. People are tribal animals, it’s a problem.
If Democratic strategists were geniuses, Trump as performance art would be the best magic trick ever. Works best, of course, when the designated con-artist believes in his/her own omnipotence which explains why the easiest mark is another con-artist.
So are we supposed to think that the polls are rigged too?
Not rigged; but no longer meaningful. It is simply too hard to (1) figure out who the sample ought to be; (2) contact enough of them; (3) figure out whether they are lying. Polling is a thing of the past.
(see, e.g., Nate Silver and Sam Wang, as I recall, using models with nothing but polling data as input).
But, yeah, especially in the age of cell phones, non-response, and even some reason to think some people may deliberately lie to pollsters to throw off results, the things you mention are definite problems with reliability, demanding multiple grains of salt in interpreting results.
CORRECTLY while] using models with nothing but polling data as input).”
This election is going to be decided by voter suppression on the day. It won’t matter what the polls say the day before, or even whether they are an accurate measurement, on their own terms, of what they are trying to measure.
RE:
If it were close (e.g., 2000-close) that would be conceivable.
I doubt it’ll be near close enough to get stolen via vote suppression.
Also, since the vote-suppression campaign is strictly GOP, your statement implies a Trump win (i.e., for it to be “decided” that way).
I remain firm in my conclusion that that’s unlikely in the extreme (even with whatever help he gets from vote-suppression), though not of course impossible.
It doesn’t have to be close, because it doesn’t have to be sneaky.
A lot of models right now are giving Clinton Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin. These states have Republican executive and legislative branches; there are others in the same case, but these four are enough. Clinton is not going to get those electoral votes, no matter what expedients have to be resorted to. The cities simply won’t get voting machines, or ones that work; etc. ad infinitum.
It will all be done openly and there will be no consequences.
far for me.
We should revisit your (vastly over-confident imo) prediction here on Nov. 9, though.
The other problem is a shift from swing-voter driven to base-turnout driven elections. Swing voters can tell you which candidate they prefer. But people can’t tell you if they’re more or less likely to turn out this election, because they don’t actually know. Self-awareness on motivation is pretty low.
Denying the legitimacy of elections is a direct attack on the Constitution and our system of government. I think we’ll be seeing open sedition from right-wing media before long.
The GOP is in complete moral collapse.
What if they’d nominated Bush–or even Cruz? Or anyone who didn’t get in extended battles with the parents of a dead soldier, and talk about his dick size during a debate, and ask foreign intelligence services to help him win?
well they didn’t so what’s the point?
He’s wearing a “Kick Me” sign.
Trump is appealing to the extreme nutso (irrationally angry, simple-minded, racist, bigoted, etc.) faction of the American public. The only open question is how large that population is. Nationally in 2008, the upper limit on that appeared to be 45.7%. Not a majority but a lot of people. That should be troubling.
However, “those people” weren’t nurtured in a cauldron different from those not like “them.” They’re abstracting from the same bits and bobs as most Democrats. Slightly more inclined to an authoritarian, law-n-order, have to get them over there before they get us here, policing bedrooms and not boardroom posture than the run-of-the-mill Democrat.
One thing I’ve seen in comments on every blog and social media site ever since Trump really picked up stream is the (very true!) observation that “Republicans made this bed, so now they’ve gotta lie in it.”
But what about the ones who don’t want to? If someone has a problem, and they admit the problem and ask for help–even if that problem has caused massive stress, pain and grief–at what point do we stop the “you assholes brought this on yourselves” shaming and instead, you know, accept their cries for help?
I mean, I like GOP schadenfreude as much as the next squishy suburban liberal, but what the crap is wrong with accepting people who aren’t objectively insane? Us v Them has to stop somewhere.
Are they going to vote for Democrats down ballot? Would they have voted for Sanders, if he had won, over Trump? You do understand why most GOPers are repudiating Trump, right? The only reason(s) they hate him is that he’s not as overtly a war monger and that he uses an air horn when they use a dog whistle re: racism. So, you’re okay with support from racists? Because they still are, they’re just more circumspect about it.
I think probably the dumbest thing in the world is concern that too many people will vote for the Democratic presidential candidate.
Landslide!…….BAAAAAD!
Everyone celebrates/desires the DNC moving left. Everyone gives Sanders credit for helping do that. So the Democratic platform is the most progressive in our lifetimes.
But republicans voting for that platform? And eventually, maybe, perhaps, moving the republicans left, even if only a little, and out of fear of it becoming a trend?
Very, very bad.
.
I do wonder how many will vote for Clinton compared to how many actually leave that part blank. We shall see. I doubt any of them are going to vote for Democrats down ballot though. The Democrats aren’t even trying to defeat Meehan. Something you should know about since it’s in your neck of the woods.
I thought you didn’t want people to vote for the Democrats, so what’s the problem with not trying to convince them to vote against Meehan?
Of course I understand all that. Come on now. I’m just not interested in being an asshole if someone I know is walking that line for the first time. That helps nothing and no one.
While simultaneously having our eyes wide open to what we’re getting:
As I wrote here recently, I think the smart political strategy is, roughly, take any and all gains you can achieve (in both party affiliation and elected offices) in red/red-leaning areas/states. Welcome (virtually) everyone willing to ally with us politically! But push for (insist on!) solid liberal/lefty/progressives (especially when it comes to candidates) in reliably blue areas. Doesn’t seem like rocket surgery (h/t atrios) to me.
While also pushing in any way we can think of to foment the Anti-Totalitarian-Agricultural-Revolution Counter-Revolution. Which I continue to see as the only thing likely to save us from ourselves. But which I have a hard time envisioning coming from within our current political system and infrastructure. Think will have to come from grass-roots movements, many of which already exist here and there, focused on varying areas of the (Counter-)Revolution (organic farming/farm-to-table, StrikeDebt, etc.). Cuz, with Bernie as exception proving rule (while also proving there’s an unfocused hunger for it), it ain’t comin’ from the top.
With infection of the political infrastructure occurring, if it does, first locally, through things like school board and city/county elections, or county and state party committees.
I vividly recall following the reports in state/local media as the rightwingnuts enacted such a program of seizing control of GOP county committees in bastions such as Flathead and Ravalli Counties here in MT (where all elected offices top-to-bottom — County Comish-to-dogcatcher — are often/usually occupied by GOPers). There was squawking resistance/pushback from what then passed for “moderate”/”establishment” GOPers, to little avail, and since mostly silenced.
Something like that, minus the lies and Reality-Denying insanity.
That’s what I’m saying, but on a personal/individual scale, which is what most of us can do easiest and most immediately. The deprogramming from 30 years of rightwing media hyped fear is easier when reality is backing it up so well and vividly, of course.
If he plays his cards right, there’s a lot of money to be made by the major party loser in a presidential general election. Pence will probably also do well.
heh… wasn’t that always Trump’s Numero Uno goal? Oh Trump revels in all the attention bc he’s a narcissist. But at the end of the day, he’s really all about: Show me the Money.
I’m sure Trump has the deal all set that win or lose, he walks away with a bundle. Count on it.
Honest question, no snark.
How easy is it to play the cards right? He’s using Trump properties as much as possible for campaign events (which is certainly legal if a little sleazy), but what else is there?
Honestly? I haven’t a clue. As to the specifics — after all, I scoffed at a friend recommendation of Trump’s book in the late ’80s — can only observe that he’s done all right for himself with no discernible skill other than selling classless, tatty crap, himself included. I can’t even wrap my mind around why anyone would watch his TV show much less buy a tie or suit with a Trump label.
He might have to do it by proxy. Looks as if Ivanka will come out of this debacle with an intact, decent high-profile reputation. Twenty years from now, perhaps she and Jared will be authentic billionaire property owners/developers.
Except only in the sense of being a “fortunate son”, born lucky.
I’ve seen/heard credible analyses that Trump would be richer if he’d simply taken his inheritance and parked it in some index fund.
Buffett made a similar point yesterday: something about Trump doing worse (in his Atlantic City “investments”, [aka scams,] IIRC) than a blind person throwing darts at stock picks.
Paraphrasing, I think, Molly Ivins (RIP), Trump’s like Shrub, born on 3rd base and thinks(/pretends) he hit a homerun. And gullible rubes buy it.
Barry Switzer first said it. Jim Hightower borrowed it and changed “some people” to George HW Bush for his speech at the ’88 Democratic convention. Ann Richards ’88 Dem convention:
I’d been leery of accepting Buffett’s statement that Trump would have done better to merely hold onto his father’s wealth. First, because that has been Buffett’s preferred strategy and it’s worked well for him, but he too has had a few clunkers along the way and didn’t dump them quickly. Second, Fred Trump’s net worth when he died in 1999 (years after Donald’s multi-million dollar divorce and living luxuriously before and after that) is an estimate, as is his son’s. And unlike the old days, his estate was split among his children and Donald only received a fair of it.
btw – Buffett was a go-getter when he was young, but he too followed his father. Into the investment world in his case.
right! who knows? it could happen!): Buffett, starting with significantly less, turned it into far more (#2 U.S. fortune per NPR report where I heard his comment) than what Trump even claims, much less what he actually has in Reality.
I think I heard/read what I paraphrased first from Ivins (used to have her bookmarked), though certainly she might have been quoting (or stealing from?) Switzer/Hightower.
Yah, the Richards line is a classic, too.
My comment wasn’t intended to denigrate Buffett (his values/principles seem decent enough to me) or praise Trump. Nothing admirable about Trump’s business practices or the size (or lack of size) of the wealth he generated from it. Michael Milken, a convicted felon, is worth $2.4 billion and I don’t respect or admire him either.
Been thinking about this all afternoon.
Candidates cannot outright use campaign donations for personal expenses or use (at least, not supposed to). However, the candidate can carry forward contributions to his/her campaign into the next campaign or donate it to other campaigns, if all such $$$ is not spent in the campaign.
If you announced a carry forward scheme, would you be able to abscond with interest? Figure $100M @2.5% would be about 2.5 mil per year. Not exactly chump change and easily laundered so not taxed.
Alternatively, if you were careful in how you gave the $$ away you could generate a LOT of good will which could potentially be redeemed by favourable contracts.
Seems a little Byzantine, but that appears to be how Trump’s mind works.
You want to think like a Trump? That is unpossible and I don’t think he’s half devious and clever enough to make a buck out of a presidential campaign. But I can consider your musings.
First have to assume that Trump is raising campaign funds. Here’s the Open Secrets summary of Trump’s campaign as of 6/30/16, So far, close to 50% or $50 million has been received from Trump ($2.4 million in contributions and $47.5 million in loans). He is legally entitled to get paid on those loans if his campaign can raise additional primary campaign funds (designated as for the primary and no more than $2,700 from any one donor). Those donations can come in long after the end of the campaign, as HRC’s did in ’08 but she still ended up eating $13 million).
One could scroll through the disbursement pages of his FEC filings, but if there were any there there, someone would have seen that before now. Is the campaign absorbing charges for his plane? Sure. But that’s a legitimate expense item. As are charges for renting facilities that he owns. Those will be scrutinized for above “usual and customary” fees and self-dealing. Wouldn’t be worth the risk to put himself into that sort of jeopardy as it would be chump change. All candidates employ consultants and contractors that are also friends, but that’s perfectly legal as long as there is no quid pro quo (and only a big sack of cash seems to count as that these days).
He may be running a comparatively lean campaign operation, but he has spent over $70 million. That’s probably in line with what Kerry spent in ’04, less than Mitt’s $107 in ’08, and a fraction of the $240 that HRC spent in ’08. And far less than several of the 2016 “Also Rans” (Rubio $163 million, Jeb? $152, Cruz $151, and Carson $78 million). In total (primary and general) Kerry and McCain spent over $300 million. Even as a non-competitive nominee, it’s difficult to see how he raises enough money to do that and also raise the primary funds to repay his personal loans.
In addition to that, McCain and Kerry minimized their general election spending through joint campaign RNC/DNC TV adverts. That’s where some big money donors are helpful, but how many of those does he have? And as he’s pissed off so many of the regular RNC donors, will the RNC want to throw good money down the Trump sinkhole?
With his notoriety for stiffing creditors, how many vendors will extend credit to his campaign?
Word is — which is probably correct given his business — that he doesn’t have much cash. What was he thinking? That the teabag set would suddenly start filling his campaign coffers?
He probably could have gotten away with a pivot to public financing for the general election. Made the authentic case that he knows how to run a frugal campaign. That his $70 million defeated over $500 million that his opponents spent and bluster that $200 million on Trump will defeat the billion dollar Hillary.
So, it continues to elude me how Trump could make money vie his campaign funds.
to my prior comment
Politco Trump campaign reports $80 million raised in July
Note: the “joint fundraising operation” (Victory Fund) would be similar to Hillary’s VF in that all the small donations flow into his campaign.
So, does look like a lot of little people did step up and donate in July. But not too little and too many because the average direct donation was $69 which translates into just over half a million donations. (A figure that Sanders campaign broke through last September.) But it’s not enough to merely stay on pace for the next three months. The MSM is hammering him in part because he didn’t make lots of ad buys during the primary. Didn’t have to because the MSM was happy to supply the free time to Trump for ratins while the others also rans spent lots on ad buys. So, Trump needs a lot more money and fast.
I take this to be the call to lock & load:
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/08/roger-stone-foments-violence-says