On the Trump Campaign's lack of ground game

Can you go beyond the speed limit? Not really. Sure, you CAN but if you do and you're caught, you have to pay a ticket fine. At worst, a cop can peer into your car, see an illegal substance and it's another crime you're charged with. Is that authoritarian? Yes it is. It's derived of the word "AUTHORITY".

So unless you openly defy authority, you're an authoritarian. Seeing as all governments promote their authority, they are by definition authoritarian. It's the degrees to which they project their authority that differ. This should be a relatively basic conclusion to come to, but I understand that it's confusing for many people.

People do want to defy authority, they want to believe that this "freedom" thing gives them the right to do whatever they want, when they want and how they want. I'm sad to inform you, that's not the case. An Authoritarian is someone who sees the natural order of things, and actually guides government accordingly. The best governments are the most structured ones.

 

If they had all been Primaries she wouldn't have lost 8 of them. This isn't merely a quibble, its important given the nature of the remaining contests. She will win the majority of the next 9 & extend her delegate lead in the process.

 

'Guided Freedom' does have a certain Orwellian feel to it.

 

The Tagger Supreme (Trump® University, Trump® Vodka, Trump® Steaks, Trump® Wine, Trump® Magazine, Trump® Airlines, Trump® Mortgage, Trump® Catering, Trump® Ice, Trump® etc., etc., etc.) has a promising future in show business.

Trump® Nation? Forget it.

 

I think Trump's lack of a ground game and investment in a campaign organization probably has cost him a hundred delegates plus thus far. With the proper investment there probably would be little doubt today who was going to be the GOP nominee. We would be talking about Trump wrapping it up instead of a possibility of a open convention.

Also even with quite a lot of his awarded delegates, those who must vote for Trump on the first ballot. With the proper investment having people on the ground, Trump could have made sure he had a say in the delegate selection and made sure those delegates would be loyal to him if the convention goes beyond the first ballot. As it is, they were vote for him on the first ballot as required, then support some other candidate if it takes more than one ballot. His delegate in other words are not loyal to him.

 

I don't need to try again.

There is virtually no cross over from the Democratic side to vote for Trump.

The independent who support him are the same "independents" who routinely vote for the most extreme right wing candidates, if they vote at all.

All the research and the voting patterns in the primaries so far reflect that.

It's exactly the same pattern as the tea party. They claimed that they were the "silent majority"too. In reality they never polled above 20 to 25% of the population, which is the same as Trump's numbers today.

On the other hand, his unfavorability rating is currently 70%, and that result is distributed across all demographic and parties.

 

With all due respect, your response was so oversimplified and devoid of any real thinking that I was embarrased to read it. You sound like a high school sophomore.


Perhaps you should consider a 101 course in Political Science or Government over at the community college.

I might also reccomend Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", or two works of fiction, Arthur Koestler's "Darkness at Noon", and Kafka's "Metamprophasis"

 

Almost certainly far more than that. It's the main reason he has never gotten more than 50% of the vote in many states.

Trump's arrogance is on plain display. He thinks hes smarter than everyone else, and he isn't afraid to say so.

So he didn't listen to people last summer when they begged him to start setting up a real campaign organization. He waited almost till January to even sign a contract with a decent data mining company, and, even then, has hardly used the resource at all.

No one knocked on doors or phone banked for Trump. His rallies are thrown together reality TV spectaculare designed for cable television news. And those are now off the air because of the constant threat of violence that Trump himself promoted.

He has no chance of being President, but a real chance of delivering a hammer blow to the GOP, one that will last for a decade.

He earned his 70% disapproval rating, and every one of the considerable number of enemies he has accumulated along the way.

 

It does seem the two major parties are about to nominate two of the most disliked presidential candidates in history. The difference is Clinton knows how to play the game and plays for keeps. She has had 4 years to prepare compared to about a year for Trump. Clinton's time and investments into the process is why she really is not challenged for the nomination. She has the organization.

Trump has basically relied on free TV and the media has gone along with him. He has ran his campaign on the cheap. Here is an interesting article from 538.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-the-weakest-gop-front-runner-in-the-modern-era/

 

Organization is essential, but Americans prefer Clinton to Trump on the issues.

Clinton's practical advantage is a direct consequence of her extensive experience in government that is evidenced in her infinitely superior political resumé - After having been "First Lady" of Arkansas for 10 years, "First Lady of the United States" for 8 years, she was elected to serve as a US Senator for 8 years, and was Secretary of State for 4 years.

It is hardly surprising that a television entertainer who has never run for the lowliest office in the land and is seeking the to lead the nation would be at a disadvantage in managing basic elective realities.



.

 

Bumpo.....you still here? Tooting your anti-Trump horn?

Her "superior political resume" unfortunately is marred by dishonesty and a lack of any integrity. But that doesn't seem to matter to you, does it?

 

All of that is true, but it doesn't make Clinton any more likeable than Trump outside of her or his party. But she does have the advantage of not have a third of her party very anti her as Trump does with the Republicans. That is a huge advantage. That and the fact she knows how to play the game.

 

Its not just lack of a ground game, but outright corruption by state and national party officials via installing anti-Trump delegates as legally committed Trump delegates.

It is not only Republicans in Congress who do exactly opposite what they promised voters. Now Republican bosses are openly conspiring to erase Democracy and do 100% exactly opposite what Republicans voted for. Democrats are proving to be saints compared to the Republican elite who now literally brag of erasing democracy and voters entirely.

 

Corruption?

Whine all you want, but primaries are party functions in which the party picks who will represent them in the general election. And the party in question does not want, and never has wanted Donald Trump to be their representative.

And he has never wanted them either.

They don't want Cruz either, so stay tuned.

 

It's rather comical that, eight years ago, many of the jamokes now enamoured of the 'reality tv' entertainer were in such a snit over the woeful scantiness of a presidential candidate with only twelve years in elective experience but, yes, I did post a link to the enumeration of the issues on which Americans regard Clinton as superior to Trump.

Hyper-partisans are given to such hyperbole, of course, but as unimpressive as one may deem her political record, at least one exists.

 

Personable likability is often underrated as a factor in elections, but Americans clearly regard her as being "likable enough" to support when they consider Trump as her opponent:

McClatchy/Marist 3/29 - 3/31 - Clinton +9
IBD/TIPP 3/28 - 4/2 - Clinton +12
PPP (D) 3/24 - 3/26 - Clinton +7
FOX News 3/20 - 3/22 - Clinton +11
Bloomberg 3/19 - 3/22 Clinton +18
Quinnipiac 3/16 - 3/21 - Clinton +6
CBS News/NY Times 3/17 - 3/20 - Clinton +10
CNN/ORC 3/17 - 3/20 - Clinton +12

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#!

 

You know, I kind of feel really bad for you. You said I'm devoid of thinking, but your response to my explanation of government is to take a 101 course in political science or read a couple of books.

If I was as devoid of thinking as you say I am, you'd prove that. Instead of saying "go read a bunch of books", Leaving us all to speculate that either A: Either I know more of government then you give me credit for. Or B: Whatever I do know, it's more than you.

Yes, it's a challenge. Is Government not "authority"? If not, how would you define government? Can you actually answer, instead of telling me to read a bunch of books?

PS. I did read Rise and fall of the Third Reich. It's how I first got interested in the third position, as I read into Hitler's personal life and realizing the similarities between the two of us. Two extremely gifted adolescents(I was 18 at the time, a high school senior) who didn't have the time or day for the mediocrity that surrounded us.

 

No one likes Hillary, and the Sanders kids are sitting home on election day.

 

And even under that delusional thinking (which you've regurgitated for the umpteenth time) the GOP still loses in November.

Both of your assumptions are wrong.

But, even if your delusions (one chance in a billion) were correct--the GOP still LOSES in November.

Frustrating times to be a GOP voter.

 

I am a bit surprised that he has the resources. His March fundraising was a bit less than spectacular for a Tea Party candidate running a close second in the GOP race.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...622-cruz-campaign-raises-125-million-in-march

 

That I agree with. To be honest I tend to look at the unfavorable or the dislike factor more than I have the like factor. Folks usually do not vote for someone they dislike. A lot of folks dislike both. some will not vote and other will choose the candidate they dislike the least which at this point in time is Clinton. Here is something else that was in the Quinnipiac Poll.

9. Are there any of these candidates you would definitely not vote for in the
presidential election: Clinton, Cruz, Kasich, Sanders, or Trump? (Totals may add up to
more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed)

…………Tot…Rep..Dem..Ind
Clinton 43% 80% 06% 46%
Cruz……33% 11% 54% 32%
Kasich…14% 08% 21% 09%
Sanders.27% 58% 02% 19%
Trump….54% 17% 87% 54%

Notice 17% of Republicans state they will not vote for Trump vs. only 6% of Democrats who say the same about Hillary. Then look at the independents, a group Trump would have to win 55% give or take to overcome the larger Democratic base vote. No way can Trump get that.

 

Of course, as you are well aware, Trump voters tend to discredit any polling data that doesn't follow their agenda or confirm their delusions.

 

Yeah. As a Goldwater supporter back in 1964 I did the same thing. I knew when I woke up on the day after the election Goldwater would have won. Of course back then there wasn't all this sophisticated polling. The polls showed LBJ winning 63 to 39, I knew that had to be wrong.

 

Clinton's favorability/unfavorability numbers have had a wide range of ups and downs over the years - as high as 66%/29% in May, 2012 according to Gallup. She had registered 65%/33% at the time of Obama's first inauguration in January 2009, having been as low as 44%/51% back in March, 2001.

She was at 59%/37% in February, 2014, since which time she has not held office, so it could be concluded that years of GOP vendettas, the rightist media fatwa against her, and her email server incompetence have contributed to the drop in favorability, but I wouldn't be surprised if her numbers rise again as they have in the past.

Even if they didn't, her current 40% favorable/54% unfavorable compares well with Trump's 24% favorable/70% unfavorable, and he has no history of ever having been popular since he tried moving from show business into elective politics.

His novelty value may even account for some of the meagre favorability that he is accorded.

 

Even Republicans only are giving Trump a favorable rating in the 60's. A lot of them dislike him too which is usually in the 30's or you wouldn't be seeing this stop Trump drive. The GOP elected officials, congress, senate governors etc. also can read all these polls and see how he continues to lose to Clinton and his unpopularity with the general election voters. They realize a Trump nomination probably would only lose them the white house, but the senate also.