If it hadn’t been the last straw three months ago, this would have been the last straw. I don’t vote for conspiracy theorists. I don’t vote for Birthers, I don’t vote for 9/11 Troofers, I don’t vote for MIHOP/LIHOP enthusiasts, and I absolutely will not vote for a JFK conspiracy nut. OR the political party that nominates one.
Seriously, I helped fight all of those people to a standstill between 2002-2008. I will be damned if I end up going to work for one. I have far too much self-respect for that.
Guess we’ll find out on Tuesday, but: typically you don’t want to brag about getting the endorsement of a convicted rapist whose conviction was in the state that you’re campaigning in. Particularly if you thought that the sentence for the rape was too severe in the first place:
Look, if your comments go and piss off your own mother, at least think about your stance, OK? It’s your mom. She gets that much consideration, at least.
And, really: what the heck is Donald Trump gonna be able to say in response?
Note the precise language, though. If Donald Trump gets the nomination, he would then proceed to lose the general election – and the people who run stuff for the rest of the Republican party would never, ever forget that. And since they’d themselves be on the hook for the loss*, well, best to have a sacrificial victim at hand, yes? And look: there are a bunch, right there.
Seriously, and contra Politico: it doesn’t matter if Donald Trump has a long memory of slights or not. He’s old, and won’t be the next President. But the people who work for him had best understand that their best hope is that Trump doesn’t get the nomination. Because they’re the ones who will be blamed for the loss. But people can be forgiven for youthful indiscretions…
*Not by me, because if Donald Trump got the nomination I’d be out of this business anyway, out of sheer revulsion for the prospect. Retribution would thus be somebody else’s problem, because it certainly wouldn’t be mine.
What we have here is a good news / bad news situation, and the funny thing is: they’re both the same news. CNN is hearing a whisper of a rumor of a suggestion of a possibility that the Trump campaign may be about to consider doing a major shakeup of their campaign. It’s obvious why that would be bad news: I’m perfectly happy with Trump’s strategy as it is. It’s also obvious why that would be good news: they should have done it last Tuesday. Not talked about it, or laying the groundwork for talking about it; they should have gone and done it. Rip off the band-aid quick, that’s my motto.
But will it work? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing that’s not in that article that should be: either way, it’s gonna be expensive. Quality costs…
[UPDATE]: Looks like state officials have cleared Trump. Which is apparently a bit of a relief for him; breaking this law seems to have been a bigger deal than I originally thought. Interesting…
This is the dark side of ‘Always Have A Camera.’ You have to count on the candidates on your side knowing what the law actually is.
A supporter of Donald Trump posted a video of the candidate greeting voters outside Waukesha Fire Station #5. Wisconsin law prohibits election activities within 100 feet of a polling place.
Don’t expect this to result in anything except a quick yell at Donald Trump for being a doofus, but: you really should know what the local laws are. Whether you’re a candidate, or the candidate’s supporter. If for no other reason than it opens you up for sarcastic snark from people opposed to you…
It’s always fun when a campaign decides to have a fight with itself via the newspapers. Well, it’s always fun when it’s the other guys doing it. When it’s your own, it’s kind of bad because that’s a symptom of deeper troubles.
So… this is fun.
Continue reading Tweet of the Day, Trump Campaign Now Using Media In Its Internal Fights edition.
Oh, I understand the reasoning – Donald Trump was watching his semi-literate tweets get turned into killer laugh lines at Marco Rubio’s epic rally this morning – but I somehow suspect that bringing in the guy who didn’t survive a primary pummeling to go after the guy who did is not going to work out as well as Donald Trump hopes that it will. It may not even win him the news cycle. All Marco Rubio has to do now is just simply make fun of Chris Christie*.
Mind you: I heard this rumor a while back, and in a world where Donald Trump had had a good debate last night it might have cemented his lead today. As it is… it looks weak on Trump’s aprt. Yes, I know that Christie is a good communicator and attack dog and money dude and whatnot, but note that he’s not in the race anymore and Marco Rubio (and Ted Cruz!) are.
See more from Leon Wolf, who I basically agree with here but I didn’t want to pass up the chance to roll my eyes.
*I’m not going to, because I’m from NJ and a lot of the stuff that other people find mock-worthy doesn’t really look weird to me. But this is just reactive, weak stuff from Trump, here. And it won’t be the story of the day.
Yes, I’m talking about the point where Donald Trump gleefully repeats the woman who called Ted Cruz a p*ssy. And yes, I know that we all – and that includes Presidential candidates – know the word. But here’s the thing: there’s nothing brave or transgressive about that little routine. If Donald Trump wants to call Ted Cruz a p*ssy, he should come out and openly say so. But playing it out that way was just passive-aggressive, *I*-didn’t-say-that deniable dreck that I normally associate with progressive suckweasels.
Seriously, be PC or not PC as you please, but don’t coarsen the debate unless you’re prepared to own it. That was not owning it. That was faking it.
This should send up warning signs for the Trump campaign.
As would the underlying AP article. Speaking clinically, the problem is that while Donald Trump may understand his tactical problem, he may not quite understand his strategic one. Trump’s tactical problem is that the man’s previous assumptions led him to conclude that it was smart to ignore the ground game. He understands that this was incorrect, and is putting in more. Great: good for him. Trump’s strategic problem is that he’s still carrying around his previous assumptions, which seem to be that a) Donald Trump will inevitably win and b) he doesn’t have to spend any money to do it, either.
The reality is that every day that Donald Trump delays in writing his campaign a check for forty million dollars for a start, and then promptly spending it on getting an emergency infrastructure up and running, is a day where he’s losing the election. I don’t know whether or not Trump’s ground game in New Hampshire has improved to the point where it can take advantage of his current polling numbers; like Iowa, we’re seeing a very exciting experiment going on in New Hampshire about what is a good political rule of thumb, and what is not. But if you’re trying to win this thing, well: better safe than sorry, right? I mean, look what happened in Iowa.