Governor Bobby Jindal was never a plausible winner of the Republican nomination and, given his state’s relative lack of importance and cultural alienation from most swing states, he’s not a plausible pick for vice-president either. He’s not even popular in his home state, nor can he point to a successful two terms running Louisiana. He appears to be running for president because he actually has nothing better to do.
But his staff must think he has a puncher’s chance, so they’ve concocted a plan to go after Donald Trump. By doing so, they hope to raise his public profile and get some movement in the Iowa polls.
Their strategy is going to be different from how Rick Perry, Jeb Bush, and Lindsey Graham have attacked The Donald. Evidently, they think they can go on the offensive without getting the snot knocked out of their heads.
In a Thursday speech that was previewed by his advisors, the Louisiana governor will begin a concerted campaign to discredit the New York businessman/entertainer who sits atop nearly every poll in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Jindal began the effort on Wednesday, releasing a campaign web video that compared Trump to Charlie Sheen during an infamous interview the actor gave in the aftermath of a drug overdose…
…Where others have focused on Trump’s ideological inconsistency and liberal positions on key issues, Jindal will call him a clown who is unfit to serve as president at such a pivotal moment in the nation’s history.
“He’s not going to pull any punches,” Jindal campaign chief strategist Curt Anderson told reporters.
I’m not saying there are any better ideas for Jindal. Personally, I think trying to get him elected president is a lot like trying to launch the Space Shuttle using nothing but a rubber band. It’s not the strategy that’s the problem.
This will get him some free media attention and I’m sure Trump will respond in his typical fashion by pointing out inconvenient facts like a poll in May showing that President Obama is better liked in the bayou than the governor who, by the way, isn’t the best-looking guy.
What’s significant, or different, is that Jindal isn’t trying to score points here by saying he’s the more genuine or “severe” conservative. He’s just going to call Trump an entertainer, and an unhinged one at that.
I have this idea, though, that in a contest of ad hominem attacks with Donald Trump, Bobby Jindal is going to get the snot knocked out of his head.
This strategy is still probably better than nothing because it will get some people to actually notice that Jindal is running. And a lot of people will agree with him. I know that I will agree with him.
But I don’t vote in the Republican caucuses in Iowa.
[Cross-posted at Progress Pond]
LOL — Personally, I think trying to get him elected president is a lot like trying to launch the Space Shuttle using nothing but a rubber band.
Given a choice between an “entertaining” clown that may be a multi-billionaire and a pissant clown with negative charisma, the MSM will be hard pressed to wait for Trump to respond and not swat Jindal down like a bothersome gnat.
Piyush is about to get his feelings hurt…
LOL
Its curious, but Trump’s vote right now in Iowa is strongest among the less conservative parts of the electorate.
In fact, Trump’s vote looks like a typical establishment Republican in Iowa.
It makes sense to attack Trump on personal issues. It is how he will lose the evangelical vote in IA eventually. Carson opened fire on him this morning as well.
Still a long way to go in Iowa.
While in Iowa Trump doesn’t have the “fundie” vote (and it’s a significant portion of the GOP base in that state), wouldn’t go so far as to say he’s drawing from the “typical establishment” vote which isn’t all that large there. IMHO he’s scooping up the not so religious, anti-establishment vote.
According to the exit poll, 43% of IA Caucus voters are not born again, and 34% do not identify as tea Party voters. 52% said they are moderate of “somewhat conservative”.
If you look at the cross tabs Trump is doing well where Romney did well in 2012. His weakness is very similar to Romney’s weakness.
Trump is anything but an establishment Republican, but his profile in Iowa looks like it.
I wonder if he is smart enough to know it.
Iowa GOP caucus attendees are a strange lot. In 2008, the “establishment” guy McCain came in fourth at 13%. But that probably underestimated that voting sector b/c as of the caucus date, Thompson could also have been viewed as the establishment guy and he got just over 13%. Huckabee won with 34%. Currently Huck is polling at 3%.
Similarly in 2012, Paul got 21% and baby Paul is polling at 3%. Perry got 10% and is now at 0.8%. And Santorum took 25% and stuck at 1%.
Trump is likely capturing the lion’s share of Newt’s 13% and a large chunk of Ron Paul’s.
Be careful with these self-identifications in polls of Republicans. “Born again” has a certain specific meaning. They are a big part of the right wing Xtian population segment, but there are a lot of right wing Xtians who don’t call themselves “born again” (Mormons, as a big example, but there are many others). There really isn’t a universal term for right wing Xtians – “fundamentalist” never described all of them and they’ve pretty much rejected that term themselves. “Evangelical” omits some right wing Xtians and unintentionally includes non-right wing Xtians who don’t realize the full connotations (mainstream Lutherans officially call themselves evangelicals, for example).
Similarly, there are a lot more people whose beliefs fit with the “tea party” than there are people who identify themselves as tea partiers.
and only because Quinnipiac was one of the better pollsters in the 2014 Iowa Senate race, September 10, 2015 – Sanders 41 To Clinton 40 In Iowa Democratic Caucus, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Dems Say Sanders Is More Honest And Caring .
But team Clinton is doing a reset on her campaign; so, they’ll tell us that this poll is an outlier and her awesome commanding lead will quickly return.
Two stories floating around here in NH.
1. The story of the county chair in Iowa who was told to show up to a Clinton event, got there hours early, was told they were not on the VIP list, and then didn’t get into the event.
Bad staff work has sunk many a campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire. There are other stories making the rounds here.
2. Nobody, I mean nobody, gets what the Clinton people are thinking about their advertising. Clinton is on her second set of ads in both IA and NH, and they have helped her not one bit.
Her campaign is a mess. Not the first front runner with this problem. Reagan lost IA and fired his campaign manager, and I could site other examples as well.
But it is like there is no strategy around messaging. They seem completely clueless about how to persuade people who are not already going to vote for her.
Interesting how replacing some of her ’08 campaign team with alleged heavy hitters from Obama’s ’08 team is producing a campaign that looks like her last one. The problem, IMHO, is that she’s a poor manager (mistakes loyalty to her for skill) and after decades of training, still has weak campaign chops. The latter is possibly a function of trying to mask her authentic self because that person isn’t electable within the Democratic base. IOW, if given a choice, a majority of Democratic primary voters don’t want a neoliberalcon.
Q’s poll was taken before Clinton’s latest hawkish statement on Iran and reinforcement of her strong commitment to Israel. Since the days of the Vietnam War, there has been a strong anti-war sentiment among Iowa Democratic voters and I don’t know that fealty to Israel moves Iowa DEM voters.
Using that Iraq war vote to compare Clinton and Obama, a majority of DEM voters did get the correct read on the two candidates even if they were relatively similar on most other measures. I suspect that a portion of Clinton’s support is coming from people that are DEM partisans that rank winning above principles and specific positions on current issues. They would be the ones that are now wobbling and hoping that Biden runs.
I have to agree. I know there are a lot of HRC supporters who will tell you that she’s a great campaigner – she won the Senate seat twice, lost in a nail-biter to Obama, who ran one of the best campaigns of all time, and of course assisted a lot in Bill’s terrific electoral career.
But, sorry, I don’t see it. The two Senate elections were almost givens. And yes, Obama was a terrific campaigner – he had to be to come from out of nowhere, with minimal experience (aside: does anyone else think that Obama’s 2008 victory opened the doors for anyone in the GOP who is in his first term in office to run for President? Seems like it was rare to have someone with so little national experience run before.), who is black with a middle-eastern-sounding name, and be competitive. Hillary had every advantage. When it became apparent in 2007 that Obama was able to raise a lot of funds from small donors she and her staff should have recognized the threat and addressed it – instead she seemed to be trying to emulate the Rovian strategy of “inevitability” that worked for W in 2000. As the viability of Obama increased she at first didn’t address it, then totally misread the electorate in a series of ads trying to tout his inexperience – not getting a) that the Democratic electorate didn’t see that as a big issue and b) that even if (a) weren’t true experience wasn’t seen as a big asset for HRC. Meanwhile, after the first blow-out loss in a caucus she utterly failed to address her team’s poor caucus approach. Finally, as it became apparent that Obama had a path to getting the majority of voting delegates after super Tuesday, she focused on trying to sway the super delegates and arguing that she should get delegates or Florida and Michigan, both strategies that were very low percentage bets.
In other words, at every phase of the campaign her – and her team’s – performance was subpar. She was set up with the biggest advantage for a non-incumbent in Democratic party history and she lost.
Now we see her taking too long to figure out how to deal with Sanders – still no viable counter-strategy. Honestly, in 2008 I didn’t worry about this if Hillary had won the primary because it was clearly a wave election year for the Dems. But in 2016 – can she win the election against the best the GOP has to offer in a tight race? Paint me extremely skeptical.
Obama didn’t exactly come out of nowhere. Recall his highly touted keynote speech at the 2004 Dem convo — “There’s no Red America and Blue America, just one United States of America that believes in an awesome God!” as I recall it. Embarrassingly idealistic rhetoric then and especially now, as we see the country after 6+ years of Obama’s best efforts at bipartisan governing more torn in two than before.
And no, Hillary didn’t have “every advantage” — not with the MSM. Starting about the time of that awful pile-on debate in Oct 2007, presided over by Tim Russet and Brian Williams and involving some major issue to do with drivers licenses for undocumenteds. O got the kid gloves treatment except for two weeks of Rev Wright, after he’d sealed the nom.
True though, she ran a lousy campaign when it mattered, had lousy advisers in key positions, did a lousy job of managing the whole thing, and showed she wasn’t quite the natural politician husband Bill was.
This time it seems she counted on some new advisers and some in-trend leftward movement on DP issues to carry her forward and easily past any competition. But she was months late putting the stupid email nontroversy to bed while allowing a white-haired septuagenarian socialist to gain momentum and move past her in the early contests. That plus a few more unforced errors on her part has made her coverage negative negative negative.
Nothing or little about her stance on the issues, although the MSM might mischievously want to tout her unfortunate continued hawkishness on the ME and slavishness towards Israel — the more to bring down her support among typically more liberal primary voters.
Starting to look like Hillary 2007-8 and Muskie 1972 redux.
I’d feel a little bad about it except for that unfortunate continued hawkishness she espouses.
Can you name another DEM Presidential candidate that had as many advantages going into their races as Clinton had in 2008? WRT to sheer brutality based on absolutely nothing, Gore suffered far worse than Clinton ever has. Many of her wounds originated with her or her husband.(Benghazi is the notable exception and on that one, I have consistently defended her.) It’s getting very tiresome to hear for over twenty years that any and all Clinton issues are nothing but rightwing and MSM attacks.
The one candidate that seems to me to have had entering advantages on a par with Clinton was GWB. A key difference is that the MSM didn’t have a love/hate relationship with him as they do with Clinton but one more of love. But, even that wasn’t enough because he lost among the general electorate.
No disagreement here that Gore had it worse from the MSM, have already written such. But Hillary got brutal press — when it mattered in the primary race — while O only had a few days of Rev Wright, neatly dispatched by his speech which the MSM agreed put the matter to rest. I very much doubt even if Hillary had delivered a Gettysburg Address-worthy speech in 2008 that the media would have given her much credit.
No question too she committed some unforced errors, which I’ve also acknowledged.
The comparison with Junior is way off. First, Knucklehead had the consistent backing of the MSM. Second he wasn’t facing a fresh, exciting, charismatic primary opponent. Third, Moron had the strong backing of his party base, while Hillary, never strong with the left in part because of some of her husband’s policies, saw the liberal wing abandon her for the New Guy whom they perceived as far more liberal.
Junior lost the popular, yes, but without that MSM support and cover, he might have lost the nom to McC. Certainly if the media had been equally as tough on Nitwit as they were with Gore, he would have been swamped in the EC too.
Hillary has never deftly handled legitimate criticisms or manufactured attacks. Obama was a member of a perfectly ordinary, mainstream Protestant congregation and was attacked for a couple snippets taken from one (out of probably thousands) of the Reverend’s sermons. Rev Wright is a decent and honorable man, but was turned into some raging racist.
Who at ABC News initiated the “review” of Wright’s sermons? That’s an odd TV media research project. Or has someone slipped the videos of selected sermons to someone at a ABC with a notation to take a look? Who was really behind this fake scandal?
When asked, Clinton could have done the honorable thing, but instead said,
In this instance, McCain was honorable:
I’m going with team Clinton as being the original source because she was under some criticism (don’t think that MSM picked this up or did much of anything with it) for her involvement with “The Family” — a very creepy, secret, and powerful operation. And Sharlet’s investigation and book on this operation wasn’t an effort to single out and attack Clinton, but to expose the existence of it and it’s tentacles into the DC power. A second reason is that the Clintons never hesitate to play a race card if that could possibly help them politically.
Did the MSM slice, dice, and filet HRC over her fabrication of events during her Bosnia trip? Did it get as much media attention as the non-existent Dean scream or what Rev Wright said a few times (when Obama wasn’t even in attendance)? A lie — with no question that the speaker knew it was a lie — is far more relevant than being attacked for something one didn’t do or a statement made my someone one knows but not made in one’s presence.
The comparison with GWB is apt. Both began with high name recognition and at a time of their presidential runs, when the family based on the prior family president was well regarded. I already stipulated that GWB got all love from the MSM (after the SC primary) and Clinton got love and hate (and overall, less of the latter than the former). Both had the backing of the party elites and “money men.” One difference is that DNC Chair Dean wasn’t going to fix the nomination of any candidate; it would be a fair contest. (Not like what had been done to him in 2003-2004).
McC lost badly in Iowa and wasn’t going to do well in SC (even if Rove hadn’t done the dirty tricks robo-calling). You seem to have forgotten that McC wouldn’t have gotten that far if not for the heaps of MSM love. Also lost is that in 2007, the MSM labeled Clinton “Snow White” and the other candidates “The Seven Dwarfs.”
Also forgotten is how the MSM gave Clinton a virtually free ride to the Senate in 2000 while they were bashing the hell out of Gore.
BTW — the NYTimes endorsed Clinton over Obama in 2008.
C’mon. No one gives a flying fig* about newspaper endorsements, which were marginally relevant maybe 40-50 years ago.
And the NYT especially is famous for saying one thing in its editorials (often liberal leaning) while delivering biased coverage, often pro-conservative/pro-GOP in its political reporting. Ditto for its foreign reporting, especially the CIA/Pentagon-approved propaganda about Putin and Russia and Ukraine.
* I want to endorse here Fig Syrup — healthy alkalinizing sweetener good for coffee, tea, and baking purposes. Helps the body’s internal processes as well. Usually buy online.
(aside: does anyone else think that Obama’s 2008 victory opened the doors for anyone in the GOP who is in his first term in office to run for President? Seems like it was rare to have someone with so little national experience run before.)
Do state Governors count as having had national experience. In 1980 GHW Bush had only run for office three times — lost a Senate bid and won two House races, the last being over a decade before 1980. And Romney has only ever been elected once and in office for a mere four years.
Objectively, as of 2008 Obama had more elections under his belt and more years in public office than Clinton had. He did have an easy Senate election, but unlike Clinton in 2000, didn’t begin the race with near 100% name ID.
Why I’m not quite as dismissive of Kasich, Rubio, and Walker as some of the others is that they aren’t in their first or second term of office and didn’t start near the top as Christie, Cruz, and Paul. Not that the multiple term officeholders like Huckabee, Jindal, and Perry are making GOP voter hearts flutter. Bush, Huck, and Santorum have probably been out of office for too long; plus Bush only won two elections and nobody is quite sure how Ricky ever became a sitting Senator.
Then there’s that seemingly growing subpopulation of voters that prefer zero political experience. Although in the past their numbers have dwindled the closer we get to election day. (recall that by last spring 1992 (after most of the primaries) and as a third party candidate Perot was polling at 37% of the total electorate with Bush and Clinton tied for second at 24% each). Others (Robertson, Buchanan, Forbes, Keyes, Jackson, Clark, Sharpton) have attempted win the GOP or DEM nomination and some did well in the early primaries before falling by the wayside. Will 2016 be different?
HRC has now apologized for her cluelessness in using the personal server. The apology sucked, but she is still in the woods.
I think she’s sinking. I don’t care what her polls are. Polls mean nothing since votes take place in 6 months.
Poll trend lines are extremely telling. So, your repetitive comments that “polls mean nothing months before election day” are incorrect.
So, “Poll trend lines are extremely telling. “
What are they telling us? Shit.
Date Trump Carson Walker Huckabee
5 5 10 10 10
6 2 11 10 10
7 17 4 8 6
8 25 12 6 6
9 32 19 5 5
Specifically what are the “trend lines”? There are NO predictive trend lines. There are retrospectively obvious trend lines in polls at this point.
Who will be up in 2 months? Please, you know everything about polls. Let us know. What will Trump’s number be on 11/1? Within 2 pct points, please.
At this point only that they are as unsettled as they were in 1988 and 2008 and that the establishment guy isn’t getting much traction. However, national (who is up and who is down) polls is only one trend line. There’s also the IA, NH, and SC trend lines and fundraising and organization. Can one make accurate projections at his point through the primaries? Sometimes and sometimes not.
By October 2007 — Guiliani had been leading in the national polls throughout the year. But his campaign organization was practically non-existent. He passed on IA b/c he wasn’t doing well there and NH because it was still McCain territory. Thompson jumped in, gained considerable attention, then peaked b/c he wasn’t much of a campaigner, had low energy, and like Rudy, didn’t have much of a campaign operation. As it’s really difficult to maintain momentum though the primaries to win the nomination based on personality alone, the odds by 10/07 were against Rudy and Fred which in turn factored into where campaign pros moved.
Could I have projected then that McCain would win the nomination? No. His fundraising wasn’t robust. But there was no way the GOP was going to nominate Huck and Mitt’s millions weren’t creating any enthusiasm for him. So, his chances were better than what the national polls indicated.
2012 was easy. Romney had no serious competition and his trend lines were steady if flat. And unlike 2008, NH was mostly in his corner.
Right now we can see that Sanders has momentum in IA, NH, and nationally and Clinton is shedding some of her extremely high level of support. The only thing that can be deduced from that is that she’s not quite as inevitable as her supporters have claimed. She’s still in a good position in a two person race which the polls tell us it is.
On the GOP side, Trump is leading nationally and in IA, NH, and SC. Bush has a lot more money than ’08 McCain had and isn’t totally out of the money in NH and SC. But it’s difficult to see a future surge from his flat (at approximately 10%) or declining poll numbers. Is Trump this year’s Guiliani or the fantasy Guiliani? The third quarter FEC filings will partially answer that question. However, this isn’t 2008 and the “tea baggers” could well get their way.
Thanks for your response. My comments about polls are very skeptical. They tell us very little at this time, because the ACTUAL ISSUE of the race is not known. Why did Trump surge? Because of immigration, which he introduced at the time of his great jump. Will this continue to be a motivator? That is much less clear.
Until:
the polls will continue to be worthless about the eventual D and R candidates, and about the final winner.
Your points above (Giuliani, Romney, McCain) are correct, but still do not give guidance on the races of today. Thus, I continue to be highly derisive about poll-driven analysis, and far more interested in organization. HRC has organization. Does Sanders? Does Trump? Does Carson? Does Kasich? I do not know. We all know that IA rewards the candidate who can get his/her supporters in a small hot smelly room in January in IA – and as a SD resident, I admire anyone willing to go out in January in this part of the country to scream at others. NH requires other things. NONE of this is poll-related.
So, any discussion of polls will see a skeptical response from me. They tell us WHAT just happened last week. They do not give guidance to the future. As a statistician, I get more skeptical about them by the day, due to the FACT that telephone access is more and more weird, and that pollsters are not, by law, allowed to call cell phones. Guess who has no land lines? D voters, in many places.
Pollsters are connecting with cell phone users, and none of the polls from the last two election cycles are showing any skew towards assumed to be more conservative landline phone customers. If anything, the polls have overstated Democratic support.
Trump waltzed into a crowded GOP field that had no charisma, excitement or a candidate with solid double digit (10% or more) support at a time when anti-incumbent fever is running high. In May, I could never have projected Trump’s rise because he makes my skin crawl. That however doesn’t blind me to the polls and what it those people are responding to. Most of it being raw bigotry and a preference for “tough guys.” However, there is some truth in much of what he’s saying and that could gain him traction with other GOP voting sectors and the general electorate.
Also fear that his 30% numbers are more solid and stable than the usual GOP flash in the pan, and in a four or more field of weak competitors that’s good enough to win the nomination.
Yes but considering no one outside of the MSM and some ABC Dems gives a flying fig* about email servers, it was pretty good and about appropriately measured for the nature of the horrendous crime.
On apologies, wake me up when she offers a sincere and forthright apology for advocating the overthrow of Kaddafi or for encouraging the military support of the curious anti-Al Assad forces in Syria. Both were/are disasters.
On the polls, the trendline is now in Sander’s favor. Makes it more likely Biden will get in, further diluting her support and making Satch the possible new front runner.
The issue is not the email server. The issue is HRC’s judgement, ability to think straight, and her ability to determine what will happen in the future.
She was SOS 8 years ago. Every single person in the US knew, as did HRC, from the very moment she lost the nomination to BHO, that she would run for POTUS in 2016. Everyone.
So, looking ahead, what does she do? Make a prudent decision, or make a dreadfully stupid one that ANYONE would know would be heavily criticized? Hosting top-secret emails on a NON-TOP-SECRET server is called a “target rich environment”. This is totally obvious as a point of criticism. Yet she did it anyone. Both clueless, stupid, and unable to see 3 in from the front of her face.
The issue is the POLITICAL meaning, not the actual meaning, of the email server. It does not pass the smell test of Smart. It was stupid, makes her look stupid, and makes her look clueless.
It’s a dumb decision, period.
“Hosting top-secret emails on a NON-TOP-SECRET server is called a “target rich environment”.
This would be good analysis if the accusation were true. Since the accusation has not been substantiated, and in fact the Justice Department’s actions and statements suggest that this accusation is NOT true, it is poor analysis.
Unless this untruth becomes accepted by the general public as conventional wisdom, which you have chosen to do. But where’s the justice in that?
I suspect he’s not so much trying to get the nomination as trying to get a spot on the wingnut welfare circuit. If he can bring down Trump’s numbers the Republican establishment will probably reward him richly.
Yeah, I think Jindal is probably coming to grips with the fact that he has as much chance of winning 2016 as I do of being named Queen of England, and this is a last-gasp bid for attention as well as a play to the GOP establishment to say “OK, I’ll be the guy who goes after Trump, come what may. Now please kindly line up a lucrative wingnut welfare job for me or consider me for a Cabinet post when this is over.”
It may even work, if his kamikaze run has some effect. But I don’t see any reason to think Bobby “Kenneth the Page” Jindal will succeed where less laughable Republicans have thus far failed in humiliating fashion.
Your majesty, his name is Piyush.
I love this. Once Trump is done with him, we won’t have to see Jindal in the media any more. He’ll be as in demand as Dan Quayle.
Possibly sooner than we could have expected.
Trump response to Jindal’s “sustained attack”
What did Homer Simpson say? To wit:
http://twitter.com/saladinahmed/status/642128757579493376
Not bad — but Trump has already demonstrated that that one doesn’t work.
This one from Jindal was pretty good:
But probably too sophisticated for the audience he’s trying to reach.
Let’s not forget that Anchor Bobby’s life began at conception in India. He might as well hang a Punch Me sign on his nose.
Here’s the video of the speech
More popcorn
http://therightscoop.com/whoa-bobby-jindal-just-launched-a-full-all-out-assault-on-donald-trump/
New poll showing Sanders tied (technically 1point up) in Iowa.
I wonder if the establishment has told BJ: “Look – You cannot win, but if you become the sacrificial lamb and do some clobberin’ then when we win the election there’ll be somethin’ in it for you.”
I still think Kasich has the best chance to win the election for the Republicans, so I expect him – somehow – to be nominated. I also expect him to select Susana Martinez as Veep, since she is a bright, dynamic Latina – much smarter than Rubio. I think that combination would be the toughest combination for any Democratic candidate to beat.
If nothing else, it’s entertaining.
washdclove comment:
I don’t think the “fundies” ever got on board with Mittens until the general election. Apparently they have yet to figure out that Carson’s religion is no more old timey than Romney’s. (Although, personally I think Seventh Day Adventists are decent and honorable.)
Speaking of honorable Seventh Day Adventists:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=891012454267492&set=a.100840766618002.1846.1000007623745
40&type=1
link for those that prefer to click.
Back in the 19th century, Seventh Day Adventists were viewed as a cult by evangelicals. Perhaps not seen as being as cultish as Mormons with their own sacred text and polygamy. The division between evangelicals and Adventists was closed in the 20th century because other than a Saturday Sabbath and preference for vegetarianism (not required), there’s not much difference between the core beliefs of two Protestant Christian branches. My own experience is that Adventists don’t engage in obnoxious religious proselytizing. They let their mission of health (through diet and standard health/medical care) speak for their religion.
Thanks for making the link — I suck at coding stuff like that, no matter how simple it is.
The question is: will Trump even deign to notice?