I mean, when you're at the point when you are essentially not running a campaign, I will concede that organization might be important.Originally Posted by Tobias
I mean, when you're at the point when you are essentially not running a campaign, I will concede that organization might be important.
its actually a bit debatable how effective it really was you know.
See the weird thing about the primary is that trump's numbers were really rigid. during the parts of the campaign that were competitive, trump's numbers were a steady 30% (ish). they never really did go up or down much, despite all the free media and what not. Just 30% was enough to garner voting majorities in the primary states against 17 opponents. (yes that number dwindled, but it never got to a 1-1 match up until it was already too late) In other words, trump's media presence couldn't really have done more then lock up the votes he already had.
Now he is losing. For him or against him, its undeniable that Hillary is winning the race as of right now, which means he has to do something he has yet to prove he can do in this election, which is sway undecideds to his cause.
EDIT: also as an interesting analogue, ill note that makes the race between hillary and trump looks similar to that of hillary vs bernie. Clinton's supporters are more numerous, but generally don't love her as a personality figure. its more of a pragmatic approval of her ability. Trump and Bernie both had nigh fanatical supporters. Bernie lost because he was never able to expand beyond his core group. As of yet, Trump hasn't been able to do that either.
Trump seems to think of it like a business, where you don't want to spend if you don't have to and having a lighter footprint is better.
It worked for him in the primaries so he thinks it can work now. Maybe as the days drag on though, especially with the staff shakeup, he might change his mind... he's basically doing a political science experiment in real time. It's hard to tell if he's even wrong, since his drop in the polls has less to do with organization and more with what he's said in the news lately.
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
see if you think about politics as a business you actually do have to pay for organization
Also, consider the huge difference in voter participation between younger and older voters (older people vote more), as well as the demographic difference between parties (more older people vote Republican).
I'm broadly generalizing, but Democrats have the advantage when it comes to younger voter turnout. Yet, if Trump is relying on social media for voter outreach, he's fighting limited gains and not really appealing to the strongest parts of his potential voter base, on which traditional campaign tactics are effective. Combined with his more limited resources and organization, no wonder the GOP is concerned.
Still, I'm not an expert. This could all change pretty soon.
- - - Updated - - -
If anything, this is the first clear sign that he's changing his mind about the way they run things.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't disagree with anything you're saying.
not if you are trump. then the usual strategy is just take out a loan to pay your employees, shift the more profitable assets to a shell company, declare bankruptcy, and then write off the employee pension funds at a loss.
There was an article a while back detailing Trump's thought process back in 2014 about how he might run a Presidential campaign when he was mulling a run. He thought there was a huge opening to use earned media to bombard the airwaves without having to waste money on all the consultants that the other campaigns did. He viewed them as superfluous. Same with campaign pollsters, and the rest of them. Yes, traditionally this goes against every grain of conventional wisdom, but he was right.
Since it's so unprecedented though this is like watching someone jump off a cliff and expecting themselves to catch a helicopter or something on the way down. Even I don't think it's going to work for the general election, so I hope I'm wrong or that he does something to fix things.
Oh, and going back to your point a few days ago about the House and Senate flipping if the GOP didn't cut out Trump, that would still likely happen if they did do it too. The difference is it would be guaranteed to alienate a significant bloc of the party for years to come on top of that. If Trump runs and loses, he may have been the head of the party, but it leaves the other factions' hands clean to claim vindication and rebuild.
Also I don't think anyone seriously thinks of him as "head of the party" either considering he and the establishment are still fighting even after he basically won the nomination. It's in name only.
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
actually I have been wondering about the downballots. If H romps, theoretically she will coattail the senate and over a dozen seats in the house.
...buuuuut I mean, you have a republican donor base with several hundred million dollars burning holes in their pockets. I wouldn't be surprised if RNC dark money and superpacs were suddenly flush with unprecedented funds diverted from the presidential race to save the house and protect the senate.
And then you're back to wondering how much turnout you can drive if nobody is coming out for the presidential nominee, which I suspect isn't going to be entirely fixed by money.
I know. but it might be enough to move the goalposts a bit.
like, its just an example, but I read a report that said due to '10s gerrymandering, H would nead to lead the national average by about 8 points to have a realistic shot at coatailing the house.
A massive influx of funds directed at the congressional races might increase split ticketing to the point where she would need 11 points, or something like that, get what I mean?
Ye ye gocha.
Spend a billion for one or two percent, what a business.
One of the topics that comes up when I talk politics with similarly realpolitik-minded friends, is that if you're a Republican who knew you'd be up against Hillary Clinton and the powerful organization that supports her, and see that the GOP has a relatively weak and divided primary field, you'd be cautious about investing resources in the 2016 election when confidence in a GOP victory is low.
This seems more salient now that Trump, a divisive candidate, is the presumptive nominee. It invites comparison to the effects of a third party candidate on the closest big party candidate, except sort of in the reverse? But instead of the 3rd candidate mathematically weakening the most similar of the two main candidates, Trump, who doesn't have a party-line platform, is struggling to gain the support of some Republican elements that you'd historically expect to support a GOP nominee.
But getting back to pragmatic politics, this year it might pay more for a Republican congressperson to play the long game -- bypass this election (read: avoid antagonizing Clinton) and bide time/resources for the next general election, spending more effort on securing or gaining more seats in the legislature or set up the groundwork for a future presidential run. In fact, I'm very sure some of the Republicans who are ambivalent/reluctant about endorsing Trump are thinking along these lines.
I think the RNC might be in a position very similar to the DNC of 2004. The DNC was so convinced that the electorate at large hated bush. They pretty much lost a very winnable election because they were way to slow to dispose of the notion that they could run an empty suit who could win as long as he didnt get caught with a dead girl or live boy in the back seat of his limo.
I dont think the RNC feels like that now, but I have a theory one of the reasons they were so slow to respond to trump was that there was a pervasive feeling that they could win with anyone for much the same reason.
whether or not Clinton really is that despised is debatable, but its a fact that vast portions of the republican party believe, or believed, that she was.
Clinton's unfavorabilities would be pretty much unheard of in the last few decades if Trump wasn't already running, it doesn't seem that unreasonable.
This wasn't my perception at all. Clinton is one of the most powerful candidates that could have possibly entered the field. I find it hard to believe that the RNC at large dismissed her out of hand. But I am not the RNC, so...
I also have to admit, my perspective may be skewed since I've been pro-Clinton from the moment she announced, not for likability but out of a pragmatic approval of her qualifications, as you mentioned before. I don't believe myself to be an emotional voter, though -- I think I liked Bernie Sanders as a Good Man if not a qualified candidate, and find hypotheses that Trump tapped into voter dissatisfaction reasonable, yet neither of these has ever swayed my vote towards either of them.
Last edited by mewarmo990; June 21st, 2016 at 02:36 PM.
hmm, I wonder.
Clinton has been under the gun for literal decades. Its true that hers are low, but on the other hand you expect a presidential contenders favorables to drop as they get attacked. Clinton's however have pretty much already bottomed out. Its why Bernie, for example, would have been a more attractive opponent from a republican perspective.
See its true that Clinton's unfavorables are right now at a historic low, but as I understand it they arent actually that bad if you actually run them out to election time.
The problem with throwing the kitchen sink is after that one is in the air you suddenly realize you are out of ammo.
to add to the above: I'd argue that the reason no particularly strong GOP establishment candidates emerged during the early primary is because there weren't enough backers that thought it would be worth opposing Clinton.
- - - Updated - - -
You'd expect opponents to leverage that, and they have.
I suppose we'll see in November how much people still care.
no, thats definitely wrong. remember bush had put together over hundred million alone well before the primary. Walker also had a huge war chest. money was flowing in, but because none of the establishment candidates wanted to risk alienating trump supporters they kid gloved him until it was way to late.
hell, Bush towards the end went scorched earth on everyone but trump. He attacked every other candidate using his mammoth warchest on the idea that if he could drive out everyone but trump the establishment would be forced to coalesce around him.
...not so much, as it happens. amusingly enough his last gasp of expenditures probably did a lot to solidify trump's advantage, particularly against rubio.
I was under the impression that Trump wasn't being taken seriously that early in the cycle. Why is my belief wrong that the party wasn't sure about fighting Hillary?
I mean, give me some good sources that support what you're saying, because if I'm wrong I really want to know why.
What Republican support Trump has didn't appear until it was clear that he was winning, much later. If the establishment was worried about alienating him, why wait?
because he started with that loyal group of 30% I mentioned. you have a devoted block like that, you want them energized for the general. but its also considerably less then 50%.
during the beginning parts of the primary, and even to super Tuesday or thereabouts, every single other person fighting in the primary dreamed of eliminating every other person besides trump and getting to one on one with him. the thinking went that after the rest of the 70% joined there side, they could beat trump without having to attack him very hard and thus wouldnt alienate his faction.
Posting Permissions
