Just How Unprofessional IS the Trump Campaign - When Hillary In Trouble, Trump Hogs Limelight?

So we get to see some remarkable insights into the two campaigns. (obviously this is again a blog article about the US election, not about digital/mobile/tech). Hillary had her worst days this year, from the middle of last week when the Inspector General of the State Department found she had broken rules about emails and was at fault. For a pro campaign and very seasoned veteran politician, Hillary's campaign had a disastrous moment (every campaign has some of those) and it was clearly her worst moment of the year so far (don't fall for any of the Bernie 'moments' her victory was never in doubt so they were never that bad for her). And like a pro in a pro campaign, she went immediately onto the talk shows, put out as much of the fires as possible, then went to lay down low, riding out the rest of the news cycle. Her best hope is for other news stories to overtake this bad news email story, and that it won't grow to be any bigger than it now is.

TRUMP EPIC FAIL CAMPAIGN

The rival to her campaign should play this like a pro. If the opponent is in trouble, get out of the way. Get out of the news cycle. Don't give the news any possible story now, to compete with the big splash that your rival is in trouble. The smart play by Trump was to stay away from everything. Don't even allow interviews of YOU, let your surrogates handle the needling of Hillary about her emails. Stay away from the press, don't give them any chance to talk about anything relating to you. No, that is too much to ask of Trump. He had to jump in, with NEW silly stupid idiotic damaging stunts to a) draw attention away from Hillary's emails; b) bring up problems you've had in the past; c) bring up new problems for you; d) prepare the press to keep your problems in the spotlight into the near future as well.

Trump is massively behind Hillary. Before Trump clinched his nomination (the last time polls were reporting fairly the race) he was behind by close to 10 points. RCP had Trump behind by about 7 points. Then when Trump clinched (or more accurately, his rivals both conceded defeat) then every time that nominee gets a polling bump. It does not signal that the race has become suddely tight. Hillary will get the same bounce after June 7, when she has clinched. The real race is about a 7 point race which is more than what Obama beat Romney in 2012 and nearly what Obama beat McCain in 2008. Thats the reality right now, except some idiots are falling for the one-sided polling anomaly which happens EVERY election when one side clinches before the other. And it always returns to approximately the same it was, when the other side also clinches. So the reality is, that Trump is losing badly right now. It is FAR worse than the national poll, because in the in-state polling, Trump is behind in every state that Obama won in 2012 plus he is behind also in North Carolina (which Obama lost in 2012 but won in 2008) and he is behind in Arizona (which Obama lost both in 2008 and 2012). Trump is not ahead in the in-state polls of ANY state that voted for Obama in 2008. So Hillary is currently AHEAD of where Obama was in 2012 and by a VERY healthy lead indeed. What Trump needs to do, is to work hard - and CAPITALIZE on the rare occasions where Hillary's campaign is in trouble or making mistakes.

What was Trump doing last week? He wasn't done fighting with Republicans!!! He posted a silly video attacking his past rivals John Kasich and Ted Cruz. Why. What possible good does that serve Trump? It angers supporters of Cruz and Kasich - Republicans - who must be convinced to come vote for Trump. He HAS to stop attacking other Republicans. There is absolutely no way Trump can possibly convert 1-to-1 lost Republicans out of his tirades, to new Independent (or Democrat) voters, or somehow that 'silent majority' who isn't voting. He may attract SOME with this silly strategy but he is alienating many more. Its stupid. Plain and simple. Its stupid. But he wasn't done. Then he went and attacked New Mexico's sitting popular Republican Governor, Susana Martinez. Trump felt slighted that she would not come and join him at his rally. So now Trump not only starts a new feud with a sitting Governor of a battleground state, he is also upsetting all those demographics she represents - she is young, she is a woman, she is a Latina. This is sheer madness, why on earth would Trump go do this? He has to work now EVEN harder, to try to convince youth, women and Hispanic voters that no, he doesn't hate them all. By the way, the smart play - even if Trump was not actually considering her for his VP slot, would be to suggest she is the type of person he wants. But instead, Trump is fighting with her. A new fight, started by Trump, that was now on the air about the same time as the Hillary email news broke.

TRUMP STARTS NEW FIRES

So while the newsmedia SHOULD be devoting all their time on Hillary's troubles because they can't find Trump, he has gone into hiding, instead, Trump feeds them one story the more bizarre after the other. He goes to California (why on earth is he doing an event in California? California will never vote for a Republican, its a safely blue state. This is totally wasted effort). In California he holds a big rally - with farmers !! Why farmers? Farmers are about the most reliable 'employment' class for Republicans this side of wall street bankers. Farmers VERY steadily vote Republican and the only time you bother with courting the farming vote is the PRIMARIES when you need to win say a state like Iowa. Trump is behaving still as if it was the primaries. When there still was a race, and Cruz was fighting to try to win California, then it made still sense for Trump to schedule events there. Not now. Now he should be in Ohio, Virginia, Colorado or Florida. A battleground state, not in California. This is time he will never get back.

What did he do in Califronia. Well, he managed to create more problems for himself, both now and into the future. First, at this event, he made that stupid claim that there is no drought in California. Great way to get yourself in the media - for all the wrong reasons - again the press can have a field day quoting all the drought specialists who say yes, actually 75% of California is in a drought. The Drought has been going on for years. It is severe in more than half of the state. So next, Trump of course suggests that he can fix it, there is some little fish which is now the 'fault' of the water shortage (another debunked myth and conspiracy theory). And what of the farmers? If Trump suggests he as President can get the water to the farmers - that means taking water from neighboring states - Nevada, Utah, Oregon and Arizona. So 'pandering' to California farmers at their event will NEVER win Trump the state of California - BUT the Democrats in neighboring states can now use Trump as the danger, that if he is President, he will come and steal YOUR water, to give to his pals the California farmers. Is Arizona in play? Yes. Is Nevada a battleground state, of course it is. And polling from safely-red very consevative Utah - which NEVER votes for Democrats - says Hillary is tied in Utah. (Oregon is safely blue for Democrats anyway). So one stupid comment on a LOCAL issue where the US President has no say anyway - now does not help Trump in any way but it will be run in neighboring states against him and be used to force local Republican politicians to side against Trump (because nobody is going to suggest giving THEIR water to go to California's farmers, these would be local farmers in Nevada, Arizona, Utah etc who would then have to give up THEIR water). And this means, Hillary's nasty email story - a story which is well-worn and tired - is now competing with a Trump story about the weirdness - doesn't Trump KNOW what everybody else has known for YEARS that there is a massive drought in California, so bad Governor Jerry Brown had to take extreme means of water rationing statewide in response... This is an undisciplined campaign.

But while Trump was in California laying more mines into the minefield he has to later walk through - he also decided to pick a fight with a judge who is presiding over his Trump University case. Trump feels he can try to bully a judge by going public about his case. Good luck with that, schmuck. His attorneys had requested that various statements and documents about Trump University would be sealed, where some press had requested to see them. Now the judge (of course) ruled to unseal those documents. Maybe the judge would have decided so anyway. But first, by Trump making a public ruckus about it (and essentially threatening the judge) he of course made it very easy for the judge to rule against Trump. But secondly - far more damagingly - now the MEDIA are FAR MORE HUNGRY to study those documents. Trump not only drew attention to his Trump University lawsuit - while Hillary has her worst moment of this year - Trump ALSO guaranteed the Trump University 'sealed documents' will receive EXTRA scrutiny in the coming days. Trump knows this is all bad news, he has been trying to get the court case dismissed or postponed. Incidentally, Trump says regularly that the judge should recuse himself but Trump's attorneys have not made that motion in Court. So his LAWYERS know its not a valid case - but the more Trump pushes this point in the media, the more he angers the judge. Thats totally the wrong move. But Trump is not guided by a professional campaign manager (in charge) and whatever Manafort manages to do, is peripheral at best (and apparently there is a big internal war going on between Manafort and Lewandowski). So maybe California was an isolated case?

Sunday. Trump is in Washington DC (oh, yes, that famous 'battleground state' which votes 90% Democratic. THE single MOST DEMOCRATIC voting region in the nation. For Mr Outsider the dumbest thing to do, is to hold a campaign rally in DC. But hey, who am I to advise the Trumpster. So what was this about? He held a huge event at the State Department with a bunch of email specialists perhaps? No. Its a biker event (Harley Davidson type bikers) for veterans. Now. Bikers. White MEN very very racist, often Nazis, who will vote for Trump no matter what happens. These are in terms of activity/hobby probably the single most dedicated Trump supporters, even more so than the gun lobby. Why on earth is Trump at a biker rally? Oh, its probably that same clown political advisor he took in, who used to work on Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's campaign. Walker had an unhealthy obsession with Harley Davidson motorbikes. Ok, we get the connection. Except this is the GENERAL election now. You have WON the Harley rider vote, MONTHS ago. That is the LAST place you should be wasting you time campaigning, at a Biker rally, in Washington DC. But its biker-veterans. So first, this of COURSE brings up the bad press about Trump and veterans in this election cycle. So now there is PLENTY of reason to revisit what stupid stuff Trump said about John McCain. Then there is MORE reason to dig into the missing million dollars that Trump promised he'd pay out of his own pocket to veterans. And the gossip about how much he overpromised and underdelivered with his publicity stunt veterans event earlier this year. All this eats time away from the bad news coverage of Hillary's email problems. Meanwhile, did Trump now put this issue to rest. No. He said that on TUESDAY he will release the list of what veterans groups received the millions he has raised. On Tuesday? So the story will linger on for three days now, and run into four at the least, before this story is extinguished from the news cycle. Trump has jumped upon the worst news story his rival has had, and piled one Trump negative story after another, all the while setting up even MORE negative coverage - not of Hlilary - but more bad stuff about Trump in the coming days. How mad is this.

Oh, and on veterans? His supporter Bob Dole now has said, Dole agrees with McCain, Trump should apologize to the veterans. And Lewandowski is on record now saying, Trump won't apologize. Will the media love now digging into this, what will Dole say about that, what will McCain say, and how will Trump react himself. This is an incredibly undisciplined and unfocused campaign, abandoning blatantly obvious opportunities as they (rarely) come.

On Tuesday of next week, Hillary will clinch her nomination (she's only 94 delegates shy of the nomination and June 7 awards nearly 700. She only needs to win about 15% of the delegates to clinch. She is ahead in most polling in most of the states that vote that day). This week is literally the last week when Hillary is this vulnerable - when Bernie is still in the race and thus Trump's attacks would have maximum effect. Yet in the 12 days left between the day the e-mail story broke, Trump has wasted - no, not wasted, destroyed - the news cycle for 4 days and has set the newsmedia ready to put plenty more of Trump BAD news into the remaining days. This is totally bizarre in terms of campaigning. Any professional campaign manager would have advised Trump to behave to the best interest of WINNING in November. But Trump doesn't listen to experts, because Trump likes to talk to himself instead, as he said. And once again, we see he not only hurt himself with these steps, he also did not do what he NEEDS to do (fight in battleground states where he is BEHIND) and he also gave Hillary much-needed cover so the email story won't get much attention.

At some point between now and November, Trump will accept a profesional campaign manager's 'full control' of his message and campaign appearance schedule. That is not yet what Manafort has now. Clearly. It is madness to waste one day of Trump in California, and another day in DC, those states will NEVER vote for him. Its madness to speak at events for farmers and bikers - they will always vote for him. Its utter madness to pick a fight with the judge who can decide to make the Trump University scandal court papers public; and its madness to draw attention to his troubles with veterans. Hillary's team must be thanking the stars for Trump. How much Trump has taken the pain off their worst day of the year and demolished that story from the news cycle.

When Trump starts to behave rationally, he can do a lot better than he is doing now, but so much damage is done already, he can never recover to even footing with Hillary, not even close. But now, he is only making the November loss worse for himself. There are only 161 days left to Election Day. Trump has actually wasted 2 of those days not doing what he HAS to do, campaign in the battleground states (did I mention, Trump is BEHIND in all of the states that Obama won in 2016, Trump cannot win unless he flips half a dozen of those states in 2016). 2 days wasted means one percent of his remaining time was thrown away. That will never come back. No professional campaign manager lets a candidate do this level of damage to himself.

Meanwhile on the other side of the fence. If you're in trouble, who can you call? Ghostbusters? Wouldn't it be nice, if you are in trouble, that you could just call your buddy, the current President of the USA, who happens to be on an international trip - and ask HIM to jump into the story and help deflect the bad news away from you, by attacking your opponent. Yeah. I betcha that was coordinated, the Obama attack from Japan that hit Trump saying that international leaders are 'Rattled' by Trump. Did you see the timing? US sitting Presidents almost never talk domestic politics while abroad. Obama however, can't WAIT to get to campaigning with Hillary against Trump. And he has of course waited, patiently, letting the Hillary campaign decide how to utilize the largest bully pulpit on the planet. Now when Hillary asked (or perhaps Obama sensed it and offered) this was perfect timing to bring Obama into the story, to take some of the heat away from Hillary. Smart play by team Democrats, whoever actually initiated that idea.

Obama will be a formidable surrogate for Hillary, likely more powerful than husband Bill. And he will love doing it, spending most of his energy attacking Trump and the sitting Republicans of Congress. Trump's response? Why didn't Obama accuse his Japanese hosts about the attack on Pearl Harbor. Yeah, thats REALLY smart diplomacy again, Mr 'I talk to myself'. Japan killed 2,400 Americans on the attack on Pearl Harbor (mostly military but also plenty civilians). The USA killed 140,000 in the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima (all civilians). I think this is quite the wrong time for the US President to mention Pearl Harbor but obviously Mr 'I know great words' would do a fabulous job in international diplomacy haha. Its exactly moronic statements like that, which has those foreign leaders 'rattled' by Trump.

BAD CANDIDATE

So yeah. Trump is a remarkably flawed human being. Fine. We have however, learned again new stuff about him. Clearly, Trump is not listening to Manafort at least fully. But Politico now reported that the in-fighting in the Trump campaign has revealed that Trump is the kind of boss whose mind goes by whoever talked to him last. Like a child. So that bodes well for his run haha. Any advice he gets, is forgotten the moment he meets the next advisor or campaign staffer or friend or colleague or just random supporter at a farmer event or biker rally. This is why Lewandowski has gotten back into favor. Manafort was trying to run a campaign - that means a TON of management work which does not involve - and should not involve - the candidate. But Lewandowski was relegated to be the 'front man' on events - meaning he is sitting in the limo and at the hotel and on the jet with Trump every day. And Lewandowski thus gets in that vital last word. Which would be good news for Trump if Lewandowski was even marginally proficient as a national campaign manager for the general election except clearly he is not. So we have issues like Trump firing the first person that Manafort hired (a pro). Where Trump's team is MASSIVELY understaffed AND with vacancies galore - the last thing they need is to REHIRE more of people that are now being fired !! Plus it makes it EVEN harder for Manafort to get ANY competent professionals to sign up - Trump may well embarrass those too, and fire them two weeks after Manafort has hired them.. Oh, and press relations. The Trump campaign still doesn't have anyone as Press Secretary. Nobody is managing his press or media. That buffoon Hope Hicks is clowning around on various TV shows as his 'spokesperson' while the vital job of press secretary is still not even filled.

A 'normal' Presidential campaign will have something in very rough terms of one quarter of a million man-days of campaign work that will be done in the approximately one year that the campaign exists. Its a LOT of work. Trump's team has done perhaps one tenth of what should have been done up to now, and needs to be at full staffing to do MOST of what needs to be done in the remaining time. Trump will most definitely fall short of what is considered a normal major campaign run, by something like 20% at least, maybe even more. Meanwhile Hillary's campaign has already worked more man-days than ANY campaign in history (and not because Bernie gave her any real resistance, most of her campaign effort has been aimed at November). But conservatively estimating, the Hillary 2016 campaign will probably complete half a million man-days of campaign work. Her campaign will outwork Trump's by a factor of about 3. Who wins? If the race were truly tied, and one side puts in 3 times more work - then that side most definitely wins. Except the race is NOT tied, not even close. Hillary is far ahead, and yet, her team is putting in MASSIVE amounts of more work than Trump's side is. And we are seeing the effects. She is ahead in EVERY single state that Obama won in 2012 plus two that Obama lost (and very close to tied in half a dozen more states - including very very VERY reliably Republican states like Utah and Mississippi). 

So then we learn about Trump's delusion. He wants to run in New York. Now, its fully understandable, that for a man with Trump's ego, he wants to win his home state. He put a lot of effort to win the primary for New York (even though he was safely ahead in all polling). But New York is a safe Democratic state. It voted for Obama by 28 points in 2012, by 26 points in 2008 and even in 2004 where John Kerry lost to sitting President W Bush, New York voted for the Democrat by 18 points. There is NO hope for a Republican to win in New York state. It is the fourth most blue state in the union. There is no chance, zero, zip, zilch, none for ANY generic Republican to win New York. Being a New Yorker does not help Trump because so too is Hillary Clinton except she was their Senator winning twice, while Trump is disliked even in his home state. The Republican voter base is in rural New York state, ie 'upstate' where Hillary was their Senator, and they dislike Manattan-dwellers and big city folk (like Trump). New York state is one of the most diverse states in the union, only 71% was white voters last time (this is bad for Trump) with both a high black and high Hispanic minority. He can't win that state. The Real Clear Polling average for New York state head-to-head has Hillary up by 22 points. This is an utterly hopeless mission. But Trump wants to hire staff to fight for New York. Yes, go ahead Mr 'I am so smart, I went to Wharton'. He is behind in EVERY actual battleground state, and his campaign is massively understaffed with open vacancies not filled. But Trump knows better, he wants to waste hiring and staffing and funding and campaigning - to try to win in New York. Lovely. I can't wait to see how long that lasts and how much of his total effort went into that bottomless pit. New York state is one of the most expensive states to run in, haha, go ahead. Will be a delight to see all that effort wasted.

A billionaire tends to hear what he wants to hear (he fires those who say things he doesn't want to hear). So if Trump says - I want to fight for New York, he probably will get that, no matter how much his whole campaign staff will be aghast. So if its a dozen states, and some of them are not that expensive to run in - New Hamspshire, Iowa, Wisconsin - if the Trump campaign puts a real effort into New York state, it would deplete at least 10% of their total resources (on a total waste on a race he cannot literally cannot win). Lets see if someone can talk sense into the man who is so smart or will he talk to himself instead. But again consider the rest of the party - they see a total utter comprehensive train-wreck of a campaign and a candidate who is utterly out of control. The sensible thing is to run away as fast as you can - and like Susana Martinez - refuse to be seen with this doofus. Now what about all those politicians who are in TROUBLE in those battleground states - but who HAVE endorsed Trump? If Trump spends 10% of his time and money and polling etc in New York, thats AGAIN less of what in any case was a weak campaign in terms of support - to the vulnerable down-ticket candidates feeling the pull of the anchor that is Trump, weighing them down and drowning them.

Bur I want to come back to that idea of deciding based on what the last person was who talked to you. That is a HORRIBLY bad manager indeed. I had one boss like that and it will drive you nuts. There will be many who will be resigning because Trump is so utterly disastrous as the Candidate, where he promises you in YOUR meeting to do it your way and then he talks to the limo driver or the usher at the event next, and decides to go opposite of what he just promised you. So it means the top guys HAVE to hang around Trump all the time - it means THEIR work is FAR less effective - this from a team that did none of its homework in the Primary season - and is behind - and has not hired all the staff it needs - and is short-staffed and underfunded for the general campaign - with almost no usable surrogates to take much of that load EITHER. Meanwhile on the opposite side is the most prepared candidate in history, who over-prepared in the primary season, has the largest staff ever assembled, plus a super-powerful Big Data system to optimize and maximize their effort - run by some of the best staff ever in political campaigns - while being the richest campaign ever to run with funds to spare - and with the strongest surrogate team in the history of Presidential politics.

The morale at the Trump campaign is bad. It will keep getting worse. They can't hire the best staff who won't join the losing effort. Some who are there will bicker and complain. Trump will be firing many more, often for trivial reasons - or in cases where all in the Campaign see the fired person was right and Trump was wrong - this further saps morale. That is all before the REAL polling disaster becomes evident, after the Conventions, into August. Hillary will be safely in a 10 point lead by then, and that means the rats start to escape the sinking ship.

Then a few words about campaign budget and financing. So yeah, now the myth of Trump self-funding is long gone. He spent months telling that candidates who take money are then beholden to those who contributed, but now Trump will take in something nearing a Billion dollars in money - with all the strings that come attached to those donations. So far, so bad. But it gets worse. He has not much time left, why is the SuperPAC still a mess? His various surrogates are promoting two rival SuperPACs and Trump hasn't clarified which it is that his supporters should donate to. This was all done very fast and not with much sensible planning. (Once they exist, the campaign is not allowed to 'coordinate' with its SuperPAC but thats a very nebulous rule). But on Trump's main campaign funding. He's decided he won't build a ground operation of his own - he will rely on the Republican party to do that for him. Sounds nice. Why didn't every previous candidate do that? Because it means Trump will not be in control. And that Republican party machine has to support ALL the candidates in that state, from Governor to dog-catcher. They CERTAINLY do not have the budget to do a proper job of it for the Presidential candidate and his/her needs - that is why EVERY past campaign, the Presidential candidate set up his/her own organization (in the battleground states obviously).

But now comes the added mess of Trump. Many local politicians do not WANT to be seen anywhere near Trump. While Hillary will be loved by all Democrats, who will HAPPILY re-organize their calendars to be NEAR her when she is in town, with Trump, the GOP party organization in that state has to be mindful of every individual candidate who doesn't want to be seen with Trump, and try that extra layer of hassle in organizing events and press etc. What about local fliers, advertising, lawn signs, robocalls, etc. The local party is now saddled with MORE work (because Trump won't be bothered) which takes away from their own guys that they KNOW - who often will hate that Trump can't be bothered to pay his own way and hire his own staff - and where will those loyalties go - to try to save the own guy rather than fight for Trump - which will only get worse, the more Trump will be under water in the head-to-head polling against Hillary. This is a very very VERY bad way to go about the campaign, and I am expecting Manafort to eventually convince Trump that they have to set up their own staffing in at least the most important battleground states like Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado. They will NOT get 100% out of a shared resource with the party. Thats just dumb. Usually its the OTHER way, where the locals hope for more help from the 'rich' Presidential campaign, to pick up some of the extra effort for THEIR local guys, not this way.

LIBERTARIAN MESS

So then we get the last unexpected bonus and silver lining on the thundercloud for Hillary's team, the Libertarian surprise. Its not that much a silver lining as gold-pressed latinum. This may turn out a mirage, but this might be the year of the Libertarians hitting major percentages, into high single digits or even double digits in the general election in November. THAT is more than gold. That is more than platinum for Hillary. In her worst week this year, she may have received the best present at its end. This week which otherwise was so bad for her. Gary Johnson, the ex Governor of New Mexico, was just selected as the candidate of the Libertarian party. He is a Republican. His Vice Presidential running mate is another Republican former Governor, William Weld who ran the very Democratic state of Massachussetts. And these two have already been very vocal critics of Trump. In some polling of a three-way race, Johnson polls at around 10% already - while nobody knows him in any way. Now they will be in the news at least for a short while, and many who are very conservative and or very Republican voters, but who really don't like Trump for whatever reasons, and can't stomach the idea of voting for a Clinton, will have two solid but moderate Republicans - both ex Governors - to vote for. The Libertarian party is the only other ticket which has access to all states, so every voter will get a choice of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or Gary Johnson (while each state will have usually a dozen or so also lesser 'third party' candidates, but none that are on the ballot in every state). If Johnson can get his polling to 15% - a distinct possibility - he'd also get to join the TV debates.

Most years a third-party candidate has no chance, and this year too, Johnson won't be winning the election. But recently Ross Perot in 1992 did get 19% of the vote, and at one point in the race he was ahead of both rivals. Bill Clinton eventually won in 1992, with 43%, over incumbent sitting President Daddy Bush who got 37% of the vote. Many Republicans feel that Perot 'spoiled' their race and Daddy Bush would have won if Perot was not in it. The exit polls however very clearly show that Perot took votes from both sides and Bill Clinton would have won in any case. Then in year 2000, Ralph Nader ran on the Green Party ticket, and while he only got 3% of the vote, it did damage Al Gore enough, that (after a recount and Supreme Court intervention) W Bush was declared the winner. Even a few points of the total election might swing it one way or the other.

Libertarians can find some appeal with both Republican and Democratic voters but they generally are far more aligned with Republicans. There is a rather well defined Libertarian wing to the Republican party (which used to vote for Texas Congressman Ron Paul and now supported, but perhaps only in a lukewarm way, his son Rand Paul). I would think, in very rough terms, about 75% of Gary Johnson's votes would be drained from Trump and 25% from Hillary. Give those +/- 5% either way and its always a net damage to Trump now that Johnson definitely will be on the ballot in November. But now the game becomes, how much of the 'stop Trump' movement and 'never Trump' movement which may be left, inside the Republicans, will shift to supporting Johnson and Weld. I'd guess Mitt Romney will be there rather quickly and so probably will be the Bushes.

Because they are both Republicans, Johnson and Weld provide the 'cover' for conservatives to fairly vote 'against' Trump but not actually vote for Hillary to win. In reality, any vote by a Republican to the Libertarian ticket will be effectively a vote helping Hillary defeat Trump (and similarly any Bernie supporters who will end up voting for the Libertarian - or any other ticket like Green party - will be voting to support Trump against Hillary). The Libertarian ticket has zero chance of winning this year, Johnson is about as exciting as a candidate as George Pataki, but he can well get into the double digits in his support. And because they know their core voters will be disgruntled Republicans, the pair, Johnson and Weld, are very well motivated to attack Trump at every chance they get. Meanwhile, for all those Trump-haters who really want Trump to fail comprehensively (the Wall Street Journal just ran an editorial where they argued Trump NEEDS to fail in epic manner so the party learns not to nominate candidates that are this bad - the point I've made for months) they are likely to announce their support of the Johnson-Weld ticket in 'timely' manner, not necessarily coordinated, but to give a general impression of a growing wave, so some will deliberately wait for an opportune moment WHEN to announce, to keep up that feeling of momentum.

Trump is behind. What he absolutely cannot sustain, is for erosion more from his side than Hillary's side. A perfect third party candidate in this year, for Trump, would have been Bernie. The worst possible candidate to run, this year, for Trump, is another Republican. We have to see how this plays out, but this Libertarian ticket may well be the worst news to hit the Trump campaign this whole season up to now. But we don't yet know. Lets see a few weeks of does this story pick up steam, does this story have 'legs' or will it fizzle out in the next few weeks and be dead by the Conventions. I do think, that with all the feuding and trouble that Trump has gotten himself into, for all those who actually do not WANT to be on Trump's VP list, all those politicians will likely want to now go with the 'sane' Republican alternative - ie the Libertarian ticket (as long as that ticket fits their political views - Libertarians are totally against the bedroom police and bathroom police aspects of the Religious Right, so I don't expect Ted Cruz to really like this option but John Kasich should find this ticket far more palatable than supporting Trump).

Then there is the money. The Bush clan has tons of financial clout. If they come in support of the Libertarian ticket, that could give them some significant money. Then there is the Koch brothers network. One of the Koch brothers once ran for VP on the Libertarian ticket, and they have been very warm to Libertarian views in the past. They hate Trump, here they have two moderate Republicans, why not go support them. Its plausible that this ticket really takes off, and gets Johnson to something around 20% or even 25% of the final election in November, and as they'll be a professionally run campaign without the sillyness of Trump, if they run roughly neck-to-neck in total national vote percent, say both get 22% (with Hillary winning in epic landslide at 56%) then its VERY likely that Johnson wins more STATES than Trump while they'd have as many votes. Trump's base is very loyal but widely spread. The Johnson-Weld ticket could focus and pick up a bunch of red states where they could slightly outperform the 'generic' Trump effort - while Trump would have to fight (and badly lose) in the battleground states (where Johnson would not attempt to win).

If the Libertarian ticket is strong enough to qualify for TV debates ie Johnson polls at above 15% by September, then Trump will be fighting a two-front war where he is the underdog, utterly outgunned on both fronts. And where normally the in-party fighting ends at the Convention - this would be that weird year, where the Republican and Conservative 'Stop Trump' movement could actually run until November, uttely totally completely destroying any chances he might have otherwise had. Even if in November Johnson only takes 10% of the national vote (halfway between Ralph Nader of year 2000 and Ross Perot of 1992) then Trump is down another 5 points against Hillary. If Johnson could get to Ross Perot levels - and assuming they continue to mainly attack Trump from the right, appealing to conservatives and in mostly the red states - then at Johnson on a national 20% vote level (with Trump say 25%) its possible Trump wins NO STATES and Johnson wins a handful (Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho) and Hillary wins over 40 states flipping such 'red' states as Texas, Mississippi, Utah..

We don't know yet. But this is a development that could be utterly devastating to Trump 2016. If they play this right, the Johnson-Weld ticket could be the 'real conservative, real Republican' ticket and the 'adult' and 'rational' choice against Hillary. They could even plausibly win more votes than Trump. But if they get as much as 10% of the vote, then Trump is LUCKY if he escapes with a 20 point loss to Hillary. If these guys climb above 10% in November, it pushes Hillary's victory into truly 'catastrophic' drubbing of more than 20 point loss to Trump. 
 
This is yet another aspect I did not see coming in this truly amazing year, and once again, the stars are aligning even more perfectly for Hillary. A strong third-party run also means higher turnout - that is always to the Democrats' advantage and the disadvantage of Republicans. This means even more trouble for down-ticket candidates. And those will then be making their various choices of who is going to campaign with Trump or who will go join the rebel alliance of Johnson-Weld. Meanwhile the Democrats will be united like never before, safely ignoring the Libertarians and focusing like a laser on Trump. Its fear of Trump which will drive up Democratic voter turnout. And remember, its not enough for Hillary to win, she has to flip both the Senate and the House to have any chance to enact her political agenda. She needs to have huge coat-tails, to bring in that huge change in Congress.

Comments

[Winter]

Tomi
"[The libertarian ticket] could even plausibly win more votes than Trump."

If the Libertarians really get more votes than Trump, this might light up a "civil" war in the Republican party between the religious&racist factions and the "reasonable" Libertarian faction. Interesting times indeed.

Tomi
"Trump has jumped upon the worst news story his rival has had, and piled one Trump negative story after another, all the while setting up even MORE negative coverage - not of Hlilary - but more bad stuff about Trump in the coming days. How mad is this."

This will only inflate the conspiracy theories about Drumpf being a Clinton double agent. It is true that Drumpf's strategic choice have you chose between labeling them a "Conspiracy to help Hillary" and "Pure Insanity". But with Drumpf, the "Insanity" options seems to be even more likely.

This is what a clinical Narcissist on the lose looks like.

[Dave Barnes]

The only conclusion that I can come to is: Drumpf™ believes that all the polls are wrong.
He must believe that many (10s of millions) of voters are reluctant to acknowledge their support of him to pollsters.
He must believe that these angry voters are so angry at "the system" that they will vote for Drumpf-induced chaos.
He is betting on silent, angry anarchists.

[Winter]

Trump Rallies Veterans at Annual Rolling Thunder Gathering
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/30/trump_rallies_veterans_at_annual_rolling_thunder_gathering_130714.html

[tz]

Somehow Trump managed to create a successful business empire by doing what he was doing. And had a highly rated TV show.
What you miss is 50% of the American people don't vote because it never matters. Nothing changes
WJClinton=WBush=Obama=Jeb=Hillary.
He is talking to those who have not voted since Reagan. His message is to those who see no difference between the parties.
Do read Clinton Cash - Hillary is utterly and completely corrupt. She may win, but that won't change her cash for access.
You thought he would disappear before the first primary.
You thought he wouldn't dominate the primaries.
He will win at least 300 EVs, 40 or more states.
The American people are angry. Betrayed by both parties for a generation. A useless war in Iraq and letting Osama go to nation-build Afghanistan. No jobs. Half on the Government Dole. Crushing regulations. Illegals and "refugees" treated better than citizens or taxpayers. No, not 40, 48 states.
Britain will likely exit the EU.

[steve epstein]

I am still convinced that Trump does not want to be president.
He just wants to be the best that runs for president and holds rallies.

He would go insane with the actual realities of being president.
The deep state, intelligence services, and Treasury run the government day to day.
He can't change any of it. He may know it, he may not.

He is still shocked he won, imho.

I believe running the rest of the race like the primaries is his way of assuring he loses, but that he gets a 'martyrdom' TV and book deal.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Winter and Dave

Winter - good points. On the Libertarians, they have been polling nationally in Presidential elections in the 1%-2% range because in all past years, its been 'obvious' that the ticket will lose and it had no chance. If Johnson & Weld can convince REGISTERED Liberatrians themselves, that this ticket has a chance (it doesn't) and will not be a wasted vote, he could get double that support, say 3%-4% (but some Libertarians have already fallen in love with Trump so they will never get it all). THEN there is the big disgruntled Republican part. Theoretically as much as half of registered Republicans may be unhappy with Trump, totally not wanting to vote for Hillary, but perfectly willing to vote for this ticket instead. Lets say thats 16% of the total vote in November. Then we have the Independents and the undecideds in the middle. They will mostly hate Trump, they will weigh Hillary (not trusted) vs Johnson (not tested). A slice will go to Trump, but Johnson could take more of the middle than Hillary (in a perfect case). Most Democrats will vote for Hillary but not all. However, of those who won't, some will now not go to Trump, they would go to Johnson. If we take the best case for Johnson, lets say he gets 3% as actual Libertarians, 16% of Republicans, 15% of the middle, and 2% out of Democrats. He could be as high as 36% of the total vote if the race went kind of 'perfectly' for the Libertarians. Then Hillary would have most of the Democrats (30% of total), a good slice of hte middle (12%), a little slice of Republicans (2%) and win with 44%. Trump would end third with 10%.

I definitely don't see Johnson and Weld getting to 30% in this election (but its WAY too early to make that judgement) but he could do roughly something like Ross Perot - EXCEPT that Perot ran a STUPID STUPID STUPID campaign in 1992 when he DROPPED out and suddenly returned to the race. He could have taken 25% or more if he didn't play that dumb race. Now we have the Ross Perot of this cycle (Trump) playing truly dumb in politics. If the conservatives are given a genuine choice, who actually seems plausible and has some chance of actually winning or at least doing better than Trump - then Johnson could do what Ross Perot should have done in 1992. A 25% range is to me plausible for this ticket, not because they are that energizing or strong or competitive, but because Trump is so bad, yet unavoidable on the Republican ticket. If a major erosion of the 'thought leaders' of the conservatives and Republicans now jump ship to support Johnson and Weld, and they became a kind of rebel team, the Robin Hood campaign, they could get all the love and attention of the media and pundits and see a populism rise which could power them - past Trump. Note, Libertarians are for legal marijuana (aka 'pot') for example - and could easily get grass-roots support by some youth voters now lost when Bernie will be out of it. The Libertarian ticket has no chance of winning in the battleground states or in heavily blue states but if Trumps spends all his effort fighting for the battleground states, the Libertarian ticket could definitely pick up a bunch of red states where the two other candidates aren't showing up or advertising. There, the Libertarian victories would come kind of 'dirt cheap'.

NOW think, while the top of the ticket would lose - in massive scale - it could be similar in scale to the total vote received by Trump. They could be for example, 20% for one, 25% for the other, while Hillary wins with 55%. Doesn't matter which got 25% and which got 20%, suddenly the Libertarians are a 'genuine' third party for the USA for 2018 and 2020 elections and beyond. Everybody starts to take them more seriously. AND most of all, the Libertarian ticket would DEFINITELY win some seats in the House, in a perfect world, they might win a seat or two in the Senate (and/or have a few sitting Republicans flip their seats, and defect from Republicans to join the Libertarian party). The Libertarians would support many of the Democratic ticket agenda items on SOCIAL issues, where they would erode the Republican social issues around the Bedroom police and Bathroom police. Libertarians would not want to increase a minimum wage for example, they would not be 'natural' allies on all Democratic party issues but on some - the various anti-gays, anti-minorities, anti-women legislation (Planned Parenthood, abortion, gay rights in the military etc) they would JOIN the Democratic ticket. It would be a HEALTHY development for US politics if the Libertarian party could get to say 5% of House Seats or more this cycle, and start to grow as a national party. That is only possible if they have a big splash top-ticket race contesting with Trump, regardless of whether the Libertarian ticket finishes second or third.

You know I've been suggesting for years that it would be healthy for the US for a third party to emerge. I thought it would come out of a split of the Republican party. This way, growth of the Libertarians, could be an alternative, which could be a more healthy way actually, where Republicans could maybe notice that their obsessions with obstruction (Tea Party) and the Religious Right, is killing them, and giving rise to the Libertarian party, and it could help the Republicans revive and have a rebirth closer to the roots of their party.

On the Democratic conspiracy with Trump, gosh, it keeps coming back to me. All of his behavior would be consistent with a pact to torpedo the Republican race. Imagine if Trump is nominated, and he accepts the nomination, officially. Then in his big speech on the end of the last day of the Republican convention he runs a speech which sounds like he's still bitter about the Republican rivals, where suddenly at the end of the speech Trump declares, he thinks Hillary would be a better President than he could be (Trump himself) so Trump drops out of the race and concedes victory to Hillary, haha. It will be the most watched Convention speech ever, he would be an instant legend and of course the Republicans would be in instant chaos and call him a traitor etc. Then sometime into years into Hillary's term(s) some minor back-page story has the follow-up where the Clintons reward their friend with something truly astonishing, like one of Trump's sons is named to the NASA team of first men to go to Mars, or something...

Equally, if need not be at the convention (the Republicans could still rush-re-convene and re-nominate Cruz as their desperation candidate) but what about the first (or last) debate, if Trump just uses his last speech, turns to Hillary and says, look, you are simply the better person to run this country, I admit. I will be voting for you in November and urge all my supporters also to join me, lets elect Hillary the first woman President of the USA with a unanimous vote. It would be epic TV theater haha.

But yeah, its FAR more likely that this is just his huge ego and a vanity project gone amok. He is succeeding literally beyond his wildest dreams, and doesn't know how to end it. He desperately doesn't want to release his taxes (he won't). Because he is not anything as rich as he claims. The mess he is getting into is getting ever worse, and all his exits are blocked. The thing he most loves about this run is the mass adoration at his rallies, hence he keeps doing those. They will end instantly when he loses by 20 points in November (could be 30 points if the Libertarians succeed well). After that nobody will take his calls, he will never be on TV shows, nobody will want him on TV shows, nobody will listen to him, nobody will call his name at his events. He will be the loneliest saddest man on the planet (go ask how Walter Mondale feels, he was kicked off the public stage in 1984 and he is still alive).

This thing about his current 'campaigning'. It IS like he was still running in the primary race. California, farmers, bikers, feuding with fellow Republicans - that all would make sense if the primary race was still on. That was Lewandowski's only competence (and even at that he was bad). Manafort has tried to shift Trump to a general election candidate, and 'pivot' to the Center. Trump is resisting that to a remarkable degree. I would not be surprised if Manafort quits or is fired soon. Trump is utterly behaving like a baby and refusing simple basic obvious things that ANY sane candidate at this stage would do.

All that makes the Libertarian play all the more interesting. I want to see, if the pundit class come to the conclusion that Trump is self-destructing but the Libertarians are the only hope for conservatives, and if so, we could see mass migration of Trump's lukewarm support to these two total unknowns haha. PS easy bypass of the Republican nomination contest, ignore the 15 debates and go run in the Libertarian party race instead haha. Won't cost you half a million dollars even where the Republican race cost something close to 50-100 million per finalist.

Clinical narcissist yes, that is Trump. The good news is that after this year the US electorate will be warned of never falling for this gambit again (at least for say the next 40-50 years).

Dave - yeah, maybe, but more than that, Drumpf our genius thinks HE KNOWS better. Its time and again, he will willfully ignore reality, thinking he knows better. Even when facts prove he was wrong, he will then rationalize it to himself that somehow he still 'won' when he lost (like take Iowa and the debate cancelling mess). I don't think he even looks at the polls thinking they're 'wrong' he thinks that Trump himself KNOWS something 'smart' that somehow nobody else knows. That he supposedly is smarter than everybody else. Now, if there is a silent majority who might somehow be 'awakened' to vote, they will not come to vote for a candidate they HATE. They can only appear to vote for a miraculous candidate of unbelievable hope and optimism and love - think Reagan in 1980 or more accurately, Obama of 2008. THAT was a change election. Those voters are now BURNED. They are severely disappointed that Obama did not fix the broken Washington DC and that he could not break partisanship and gridlock. Another con man now to push promises of fixing Washington, will be mistrusted. A HATED person will not drive up the voter turnout. A KNOWN con-man of a long series of failed businesses and ongoing litigation about his fraud at Trump University etc, this is not the man to bring out the silent majority. No, that will not happen. But Trump probably believes that he is the next Ronald Reagan who can Make America Great Again haha. Reagan would reject almost everything that Trump has said. Not everything, but almost everything. Reagan, however, would be strongly aligned with Hillary Clinton both on foreign policy AND domestic policy matters. Reagan campaigned as a conservative but he was in reality a moderate and pragmatist especially on domestic affairs (and a hawk on foreign policy obviously). Hillary is a centrist Democrat on domestic matters and a hawk on foreign policy. There is more overlap of Reagan and Hillary than Reagan and Trump...

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi tz and steve

tz - ok, there is that myth that Trump has built a 'successful' business empire. If he released his taxes, we'd know a lot more about exactly how successful (or not) he has been, but his net worth is nothing like what he claims, Trump himself admitted in court that his brand valuation (the largest part of what he is worth, is the Trump name and its value) depends on HIS OWN MOOD. Some day he feels like he is worth 7 Billion, another day he feels like he is worth 11 Billion. THAT is what he said IN COURT. As to taxes, the last time he reported on his taxes (for a casino licence application) he paid zero taxes. He uses his real estate to avoid paying taxes and he apparently earns FAR less than he claims.

Separately, several analysts have pointed out that of what he inherited and received from his megamillionaire dad, if Trump had just invested that money in standard investments, he'd be worth MORE today. He has run four of his companies into bankruptcies and he is no longer considered qualified to run a casino either in Atlantic City or in Las Vegas, that is how bad he is at his core business. Thats before we look at the various failures elsewhere in his 'empire' from his airline to his vodka to his university (all total failures).

Trump CLAIMS to be a success. In reality he is a total massive failure as a businessman. He is rich because he inherited his wealth and he has wrecked most of what he received. We do not know if he is on the brink of bankruptcy, but considering - he said in public, bragged, about how he personally would donate one million dollars to veterans in February. He hasn't given that. If he is worth ten Billion dollars as Trump claims, the one million dollar donation would be only one ten THOUNSANDTH of what he owns. One ten thousandth. For someone who earns 50,000 dollars, the equivalent cost is giving 5 dollars. Trump has not given that. He cannot afford to give one million because he is NOT worth 10 Billion. He may be nearly broke - the only way we would know is if he released his tax returns - which if Trump was as rich as he claims, he'd be proud to do so. Instead, he is terrified of releasing his taxes because obviously the truth is more visible from there, about just how little he actually IS worth. Most of the buildings he once owned, he has long since had to sell or else borrow against. Incidentally, the loans would be tax-deductable expenses - visible in the tax returns - which would also show just how little of anything with 'Trump' on it, is actually anymore 'owned' by the Trump 'empire'.

I understand tz you honestly believe Trump is a success. Trump has used his propaganda machine to convince many people of that. The FINANCIAL industry does NOT believe Trump. But it is in Trump's own best interest to try to maintain the illusion that he is rich and powerful. If that appeals to you, tz, go ahead and believe in your idol. I am afraid, that as the various investigative journalists dig into the past of Trump, sooner or later we will find out exactly how little he is worth. He might be less affluent than Mitt Romney (which would explain why Trump is so fiercely competitive specifically against Romney).

On 50% never voting, true. In almost all western democracies the voting percentage keeps coming down, as the most severe governmental abuses are eliminated (Kings, despots, dictatorships) and the society builds it safety nets (social security, national healthcare, paid vacations, minimum wages). The USA is deplorably low in its voter participation, but part of that is systematic bias against voting such as the silly idea to separately register to vote (most modern Democracies have all citizens automatically enrolled to be eligible to vote, the state of Washington has started the first automatic voter registration in the USA just now).

Some of the apathy about not voting is yes, related to the 'futility' of it, where Bush=Clinton=Obama etc. Yes, agree with that. Someone genuinely an 'outsider' can help brake that mold and bring in those who usually don't vote. That is not Trump in 2016. That person will not be someone who is hated and despised and a horrible monster of a person and disgusting example as a potential President. That person has to be likable, admirable, encouraging, motivating, hopeful. Like Kennedy in 1960, Reagan in 1980 or most of all, Obama in 2008. Because Obama JUST did this gambit 8 years ago, and ESPECIALLY as there is such a severe disappoitment in how he did not achieve his promised change of ending gridlock and partisanship in Washington, whatever promises ANY candidate now makes to bring huge change from the outside, sounds like 'thats another naive Obama'. It won't bring the wave of sleeping voters. It COULD have worked for Trump in 2004, before Obama tried it, and with enough time since the last time it was tried (this seems to come along every 20 years). But now, it won't work. And where a generic 'hope' candidate might do it in a good year, a 'hate' candidate will NEVER bring a big wave of voters. Trump's method of total negative campaigning of hate will SUPPRESS voter turnout, not increase it. Only those really into voting will care to come out, while the sleeping non-interested voters will stay away, if the campaign is going to be ugly. And this year will see the ugliest campaign ever, because Trump will make it so - and Hillary will not repeat the mistakes of Jeb Bush and others, she will strike back with everything she's got (and her campaign is richer than all Trump rivals put together).

Of voters who have not voted since Reagan? He mostly appealed to older voters. His last election was 1984. That was 32 years ago. Most who voted for Reagan have died by now. Sorry, there is no 'Reagan' wave left to matter - this has been calculated by various voter block specialists early in this cycle when Trump first pushed this idea. Its again a battle against math. The Republicans are the party that clearly failed math at school.

Hillary corrupt, perhaps. I'd say almost all politicians in most countries are corrupt to some degree (some are exceptionally corrupt like say Vladimir Putin) and Dick Cheney is the most corrupt politician in recent US history, far far more so than Hillary. But yeah, the Clintons both, Bill and Hillary are among the more corrupt yes, I agree with that. Its part of the system and the US is exceptionally prone to that problem because its Supreme Court said money equals free speech, you cannot limit money in politics. In most free democracies the election process is short and very limited in its costs so the corruption does not become as systematic as it does in the USA. But any long-term politician HAS to be corrupt or they cannot remain in office, be it Senator, House member, Governor. Thats why term limits are generally a good idea to limit how far that corruption can corrode. And a way around that is to get your family to extend the family business (Daddy Bush - W Bush - Jeb Bush; the Kennedy clan; Ron Paul - Rand Paul; Bill Clinton - Hillary Clinton - eventually Chelsea Clinton; and mark my words Barack Obama - Michelle)

But corruption at the 'normal' level is nothing compared to the deliberate con artist job that Trump is running. He is running a FRAUD against the Republican party right now, and were he to be elected, he'd then bankrupt the USA, like he has done for four of his past businesses. He would be impeached.

Yes, I said I did not expect Trump to contest the first primary and that he would drop out. tz - we have heard that WAS Trump's plan in June when he joined the contest. At that time it WAS what Trump wanted to do, what I wrote I thought he was doing. But if you remember, tz, I was LITERALLY one of the first on the planet to say, wait, Trump could win it - in AUGUST of last summer. Almost nobody else said it back then. I calculated it for you and said, wait, Trump could actually win it. And from that point on - where EVERYBODY had to change their minds about Trump's chances - I was literally among the first. You will not find ten pundits or experts writing in August who said Trump could win it, but I did on this blog. So don't come here saying I was clueless and lost about Trump. I saw EXACTLY what was his actual PLAN, and before Trump himself had thought he could win it - I said so on this blog.

I never said Trump would not dominate the primaries. I said Trump would WIN the primary race and CLINCH the nomination. Go re-read the blog. See my full-primary season preview and note that I got not just Trump correctly, I got the Top 3 finishers correctly AND almost to the exact percent, each of the top 3 for their delegate percentage.

I have been probably the most accurate forecaster of this season on the Republican race. And I said Trump will take the nomination. And I was correct. With that in mind, I also said he will lose by 20 points in November against Hillary (I also obviously correctly forecaster Hillary will win her race). You say Trump will win 40 states, tz. I hope you have the guts to return to this blog to defend that forecast in the Autumn when the polls say Hillary will win in a landslide, and again, to come and admit when you were found to be wrong. Trump may win 20 states if the Libertarian challenge fizzles out. But Trump might win 5 or less if the Libertarian challenge grows strong and they end up with a run similar to Ross Perot. Will you be here tz? I will be. As you know, even when I am wrong, I will be here to stand by what I said, and take the hits whenever I was wrong. Will you be?

Brexit, yeah, looks ominous. Hoping as a European it doesn't happen, would not be surprised if it does.

Steve - haha yeah, me too. There was one obscure story I saw, forgot where, that said Trump actually said he doesn't want to run the country, he wants a strong VP to do that, so he can do the big picture stuff. He is a narcissist, so he wants to be voted the best (ie voted President) but he has no idea what the job is, and if he knew, he most def wouldn't want all that work and responsibility - and BLAME that comes with the job. All the more reason he should never have it.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Follow-up

Just noticed on Twitter, a screen grab of a map shown on Fox News (obviously I never watch the Fake News network) which had headline of 15 states Trump is targeting but of course in Foxian logic, only highlighted ten states. (Republicans are horrible at math). Here is the juicy bit. Trump targets: CALIFORNIA, New York, MINNESOTA, MICHIGAN plus Maine, all states that went massively for Obama in past elections and are safe Democratic states. He also targets Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Virginia (all conventional battleground states). If I were to guess, the missing 5 out of the Trump 15 are New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico (not shown on the map but must be the remaining 5, all are conventional battleground states)

So I discussed already the absurd futility of Trump attempting to win New York. Haha. Yeah. Please do go ahead, Mr Trump. California is the most absurd idea, because Trump is not a local. California is 20 points 'blue' ie Democratic - but its BY FAR the most expensive state. Trump has no ground game there, and the Republican party has no ground game there. And if it becomes a TV ad war, Hillary can easily afford to demolish Trump there. Its a highly diverse state, only 63% white, and 18% is HISPANIC.. Its 100% certain Trump will lose California.

If you remember my early bitching about Elop's idiotic strategy going against Apple - you don't fight your rival where they are STRONGEST and you are WEAKEST. That is California. Hillary is up by 17 POINTS in California. This is total madness for Trump to waste any days and any dollars in attempting to win California - please Mr Trump do try, do try, do try. Go tell them there is no drought in California, yes, please do call a US born judge a Mexican, please yes, go campaign in California and try to win it. PLEASE DO.

Minnesota is one of the reliably Democratic states but Senator Al Franken and Senator Amy Klobuchar (both obviously Democrats) will LOVE to have you to punch around in their state - to drive up Democratic turnout in a safely Democratic state.

Now. Part of this is typical pre-season hope of a campaign that hasn't done its homework. As I've written before, every year at this time the Republicans try to convince their voters that Pennsylvania is 'in play' when its not. Its safely Democratic too (its about 8-9 points Democratic this year, so its technically just inside the 'battleground states' at this stage, it will be back to safely Blue by September). The early 'map' is drawn deliberately to be 'wide' because partly you want to test the waters, partly you want to energize your voters and partly you do want to keep your rivals off-balance.

But Trump has been CAMPAIGNING in California and clearly is deeply hoping to fight for New York. PLEASE DO. It will only make his loss worse. He cannot win those states. Ohio, where Trump is behind by 2-3 points, if he fights for Ohio, he can win there. Florida, 2-3 points, that is doable. New York 20 points, California 18 points, there is no chance for Trump to win there. Not in any kind of miracle. It will not happen. BUT California is THE most expensive state to run - please yes please yes Mr Trump do spend your precious little campaign budget by wasting it on California's many expensive TV markets. Please do. Please go waste your campaign time by having events in California. Please do. It will only serve to energize the local California Democrats to fight even harder to hold their seats and get their voter turnout - especially the Hispanic turnout - up, to unseat what remain of Republican members of the House. California's female Congressional power trio, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein will make minced meat of you - even without Hillary occasionally stopping by to blast your moronic positions on anything from nuke weapons to Muslims to the border wall to deporting illegals.

California is such an EXPENSIVE idea, it will be ended among the earliest when Trump starts to narrow his map. But New York may be on Trump's wish list far too long to really harm the rest of his chances.

The smart map is a limited clearly focused 7 or 8 states where Trump has a clear chance, all within ideally 5 points or less, and all relatively close in political emotions (rust belt) or physically (NorthEast) to make his severely handicapped campaign not seem totally outnumbered. So I'd say the smart play is Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire and Colorado. Keep Pennsylvania in play early on until it becomes hopeless. But to waste Trump's own time and advertising and any surrogate time to go fight for Maine (???) or Michigan or Minnesota, come on, these are all hopeless causes. And California and New York - please yes please yes, please yes, Mr I-speak-to-myself please do talk to yourself and decide that is a smart play. PLEASE DO. Nobody wins in a 20-points behind national race in 6 months, as long as the rival does not totally implode. Please Mr Trump do waste your resources on California (and Minnesota and Michigan) and New York, please please please do.

Every day Trump wastes in those states makes it FAR harder to win in Ohio, Virginia and Florida, where the race will be decided. Trump essentially has to win all three or else pick up states where he is FURTHER behind, like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Colorado. Meanwhile Hillary is ahead also in North Carolina, Arizona, and only a few points behind in Georgia, Utah, Mississippi and one of the Dakotas, I think it was South Dakota but might be North. If Trump is not going to defend those states, Hillary can with just moderate campaigning effort flip a number of those states... massive massive election loss where then even if Trump wins Ohio, Virginia AND Florida, he still can't win, if Hillary takes Georgia, Arizona and North Carolina (plus Wisconsin, Colorado, Pennsylvania where she is ahead by more than 5 now). And remember, Hillary is AHEAD in Ohio, Virginia and Florida, she is likely going to win those too, and she has a FAR stronger ground game, the Big Data operation, and a far bigger TV ad budget - plus surrogates galore who are beloved in those states starting with Obama.

Anyway, wanted to mention, there is now a genuine news story (if we can take something 'reported' by Fox Fake News as 'genuine' even where they talk of 15 and only show 10, haha mathematically challenged news, for Republicans). Trump is at least signalling he intends to try to win California (PLEASE PLEASE DO TRY) and New York and Minnesota and Michigan and that state of the most lunatic Governor, Maine with LePage... Here's the deal, I'll let you Trump win Maine if Hillary can win Georgia. Lets trade Maine gives 4 Electoral College votes while Georgia gives 15. Maine went for Obama by 16 points. You go ahead, Mr Trump, you go to Maine and fight to flip a 16 point deficit. You do that. Meanwhile how much easier is it for Hillary to turn the 3 point deficit she has in Georgia into a win - with all the Hispanic and black votes she can turn out now because you are running, with just a modest amount of campaigning. I'll take this trade every single day.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Winter]

Tomi

This election cycle has been an adventure land ride. But maybe we have not seen the best of it. What if....

What if the Drumpf campaign really does implodes, or explodes? Then there are a lot of orphaned voters who hate Hillary too much to ever vote for her.

For these voters there is suddenly, an alternative, the Libertarians! So, what if Drumpf implodes, or drops the election, or advices to vote for Hillary? All these Republican voters can suddenly migrate to the Libertarian ticket which now looks very electable. And if Hillary makes errors, she might have a run for the presidency.

A Clinton versus Johnson end match for the Presidency would be a perfect end for an insane election cycle.

[Winter]

Here is a nice opinion along these lines:

Nicholas Rogers: The Americans should vote for Governor Gary Johnson – the Libertarian Party candidate for President
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/05/nicholas-rogers-the-americans-should-vote-for-governor-gary-johnson-the-libertarian-party-candidate-for-president.html

The presumptive Libertarian Party nominee may be the most credible candidate for the presidency this year. A successful entrepreneur, he built his one-man business into New Mexico’s largest company before turning to politics, where he defeated the incumbent governor as a Republican in a state that was two-to-one Democrat. He was elected on a platform of small-government and individual liberty and he stuck to his principles. He reduced taxes and the size of state government, he fought for school vouchers and vetoed more bills than all other governors combined. He took a state with a significant deficit and left it a billion-dollar surplus. He remained pro-immigration while running a border state and was the highest ranking elected official to call for the legalisation of cannabis.

In other words, he has a strong record of achievement and knows what it means to govern. By contrast, Hillary could not name her chief accomplishment in office when asked and Trump’s key achievement is managing to bankrupt a casino – no mean feat.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Winter

Good argument yes. In reality its literally a Billion-dollar project to run a national campaign for President. Johnson doesn't have a million yet. Even if he managed somehow to get most of the Republican money to shift to him now, he'd still have to 'fight' the Republican establishment - as a rival PARTY - probably never get - their support in their voter contact lists, ground game etc - meaning its totally game over. He could maybe get to 25% or 30% or even 40%. Hillary walks in with 45% in the bank and would fight for whats left. Trump would still have his loyalists who will vote for Trump even if he goes out and shoots someone.

Its a fantasy scenario. Its not possible for a third party to actually win, because so many of the states are set for that party. A third party can be a SPOILER and in a perfect world, a third party can come in second. Johnson can never win clearly blue states like New York, California, Hawaii or Minnesota. He could steal Republican states if he's lucky - because Trump is weak - so perhaps states like Oklahoma, Kansas, Alabama or Alaska. But battleground states - those are the EXPENSIVE races, he has zero chance. Trump will fight for them (and lose) and Hillary will fight for them - real hard - and win. So a third party can't win the contest. But a third party could come in second, in a 'perfect' dream scenario, and then perhaps GROW to become a serious party in the future, and actually contest for the win. Not now. Impossible... :-)

It is DIFFERENT if Johnson could somehow become the Republican party's official nominee - some weird Convention situation or say Trump is suddenly caught in some nasty financial crime or say Trump has a last-minute heart-attack or something. If anyone incl Johnson (he's a Republican after all) was the OFFICIAL Republican candidate, then they would have the GOP's voter list and database etc to work from, and a 'generic' donor base worth many hundred million immediately and if (whoever) was the actual nominee, at least half a Billion dollars into this season almost automatically. If the candidate was reasonably competitive - and the official GOP nominee - could even hit a Billion dollars still this season.

But while there is an official GOP nominee, in Trump, then the Libertarian rival will be the poor underfunded rebel candidacy - and bearing in mind, Trump will be far less flush with cash than Hillary - no, without a ground game and without the money, you cannot win. And remember, Johnson is not an electrifying super-inspiring inspirational hope candidate. He is as boring as Kasich or Pataki or Gilmore.

But I AM hoping Johnson becomes a viable campaign and will get into double digits. Would love to see him on the debate too (would need 15% in national polling)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi everybody

So why is Marco Rubio suddenly groveling so much and begging for a speaking slot at the convention? He wants back in, he's been on the outside long enough. He wants to run for President again in 2020, and now he wants to be Trump's VP. You don't get onto Trump's short-list unless you grovel very loudly and beg for it, and that is what Rubio is now doing. Whoever is the VP for Trump's epic loss, will be one of the front-runners for 2020. Rubio has had enough time to think it through and now he really wants it. I would not be surprised to see both Kasich and Cruz still make that same calculation.

On Cruz, he has started his repenting on being the ultimate bad-boy, recognising now that part of why he lost to Trump was all those burned bridges to his Senate colleagues, so he has started to rebuild those bridges. He is now campaigning with some of them. A good start. Too late for 2016 but still, Cruz is obviously angling for 2020.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[new_guy]

What a choice this year. Between a c**t and an a****le

[Winter]

Comic relieve:

North Korean state media offers support for 'wise politician' Donald Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/31/north-korean-state-media-offers-support-for-wise-politician-donald-trump/

[Winter]

Trump details fundraising for veterans' charities
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-detail-fundraising-for-veterans-charities/2016/05/31/f0338518-2734-11e6-8329-6104954928d2_story.html

[Winter]

Some Republicans start to notice:

Trump's Disinterest In Data Has Some Republicans Worried
http://www.npr.org/2016/05/31/479929419/trumps-disinterest-in-data-has-some-republicans-worried

[cornelius]

Here is an article about the sorry state of Trump's fund raising operations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-super-pacs-new-political-guru-must-wait-to-do-work/2016/05/31/a1a668fa-2754-11e6-8329-6104954928d2_story.html

[cornelius]

Also, from what I've seen so far, Trump strikes me as a very lazy candidate. He doesn't seem to have any desire to study the issues before a debate or an interview. He seems to me totally unprepared in terms of background knowledge on the issues at hand. I haven't seen any pundit talking about this, and I wonder whether my perception is distorted by my bias. What will happen at the debates between Clinton and Trump if the knowledge gap will be as huge as I perceive it? Of course, Trump will answer the questions rambling about completely unrelated stuff, and that should appeal to his core base, but I can't imagine any scenario in which his ratings would not drop after each and every debate.

[grogxd]

Tomi, I don't think that if Rubio is given the VP slot he'll be in any better ground for 2020. He already was smacked two times in this race(losing the nomination and his home state). I don't see how spending the next several months condoning Trump's racism, misogyny, etc., just to lost by a landslide in the end, will do him any good. If he were to do that, he would almost certainly be done in the national stage. He should try to maintain a low profile for sometime if he wants another chance, IMHO.

[Millard Filmore]

There is some speculation that besides Donald being too cheap, or broke, to spend the big bucks ... the RNC has a cash problem of its own.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/31/1532837/-RNC-is-broke-too-basically