Robert Campbell

David, My prediction: Fuhgeddaboudit. Just like yours, it's testable. Give Trump two weeks and we'll see what he does. Whether he even knows what a position of true strength might be. Robert

Michael, Is the "box out" story from Michigan false? If it was true, has Donald Trump fired his people who cut the deal with Kasich's people, and disavowed their actions? For surely, if the story is true, he must have by now. Robert

Michael, This is why I made my remarks about your Silent Majority rhetoric. You don't get to be part of a majority just because you want to be (or because you want the feeling that that a majority is standing behind you, you are meeting its needs, or whatever.) Anyone remember the Moral Majority? They didn't get to be a majority just because they proclaimed they were. A majority is, you know, more than 50% of the adult population of the United States. Everyone now motivated to vote for Trump may persist, course unmodified, till the first week of November. I grant your premise here. In fact, if they think as you're describing, even if they'd developed serious doubts about him they'd still vote for him—to spite the anti-Trumpians. Got it. The question is not whether anyone's current inclination to vote for Trump can be reversed. It's how the "Silent" Majority actually becomes ... a majority. 39-40% of Republican primary voters through the third week of April is not a majority. So what you are claiming is irreversible is not just the persistence of the already converted. It's the rapid, uninterrupted addition of new converts. If you insist your group is a majority when empirically it does not exceed 50% of the population, or even of those who turn out to vote in November, what might you do in the face of evidence that it is not? And... if your group turns out not to be an actual majority, will it be because everyone else is among the elites? Robert

Peter, I'm posting links to the three items that were cited in the campaign email you got. It's an interesting array, from anti-Trump conservative Republican (Red State) to purported inside skinny, slanted to favor Democrats (Politico), to Left-wing ward-heeling (elect Progressive Democrats to push out the moderates! elect hard Left Democrats to push out the Progressives!) (Talking Points Memo). http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/04/05/vote-trump-else-bestie-roger-stone-threatens-send-angry-trump-fans-delegates-hotel-rooms-video/ http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/delegates-face-death-threats-from-trump-supporters-222302 http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/death-threats-trump-supporters The reference to "Corey culture" was a hoot. There ain't but one culture in and around the Trump campaign: "Trump culture." It also made me wonder what kind of image advice Paul Manafort (the alleged antidote to Lewandowski) gave to his Ukrainian oligarch/Russian puppet client. Robert

Michael, Influenced to do what? Talk Ted Cruz into running for President, as Plan B in case Jeb! failed.. Convey all the marching orders from Dubya and Jeb! now that all their marbles are on Ted... There are a lot of things one might miss, if awakened from one's dogmatic slumbers only in the summer of 2015, and only by Donald Trump's call to arms. Robert Campbell PS. A piece of the McDaniel vs. Cochran story that I left out was: one member of the Barbour clan (big clan) ended up working for McDaniel. Aha! Chris McDaniel was just an Establishment plant!

Michael, Your parable will inspire only those who have already lined up behind the loudmouth, and consider all who are not the loudmouth to be full members of OGAP. As for the rest of us... Donald Trump has the highest negatives of anyone running for President over the past couple of generations (before that, polls didn't track negatives as they do now). Only one candidate for President during this time (fortunately, not one who went anywhere) scored higher on the negatives. His name was David Duke. Now maybe this is because Trump is the herald of radical transformation, and he comes not to bring peace but a sword. Or maybe it is because he's just as phony, impulsive, manipulative, and vindictive as he appears to be. He's extremely unlikely to be both. Robert

KC and the Sunshine Band... It looks to like all kinds of games are getting played on all sides in the delegate scramble. Here's one the Trump partisans didn't post here: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/09/politics/michigan-republican-delegates-ted-cruz-donald-trump-john-kasich/ Looks to me like Paul Manafort is earning a little of his pay at least. Robert

Michael, Reread a few of your own posts. Then tell me that Trump supporters don't get bent out of shape. Or that they don't condescend. Or even that their own candidate doesn't encourage both reactions. Robert

Michael, I know Donald Trump has given a lot of money to politicians (including Hillary Clinton). The question is what his Mob ties amounted to. He actually issued a denial of ever doing business with the Mob. I'm sure everyone has taken this to be pro forma. What, he was building in Manhattan without buying their cement? Without hiring from the union locals that they sponsored? You've hinted at a bunch more, without actually saying. Robert

Adam, Had I read only the headline on the Times piece (not the content), I'd be left wondering what Donald Trump hired Paul Manafort for. Is he wasting his money? Is Manafort's job simply to repeat his boss's talking points, except when assuring the RNC that Trump only plays an egomaniac on TV? Is he under strict orders not to get any Cruz or Kasich delegates to switch to Trump? Robert

Michael, I haven't seen Larry Sabato's client list. If you have a copy, please post. I'll bet most of his clients are media outlets. Maybe some state and local campaigns. He's never identified as running a Republican outfit (like Rasmussen) or a Democratic outfit (like PPP). And Presidential campaigns do internal polling. Maybe even Trump does it. If he's too cheap to, then he might be farming something out. IMHO, Sabato's main fault is excessive aversion to risk, when he's in the business of making uncertain predictions. Didn't always serve him well in 2014, if I recall. Comparing a guy like Sabato to Dick Morris is absurd. Morris is a sleazeball who was tolerated as long as he could leaven his inside dirt on Bill and Hillary with election predictions that were mildly accurate. When he failed, big time, in 2012, Roger Ailes let him go without a second thought. You ought to consider why a lot of Republican delegates might be motivated to dump Trump as soon as they're allowed to, instead of blaming Sabato for suggesting they would. Like I said, Sabato never likes to go out on a limb. Robert

Adam, You probably know more about the dust-up in Maine, 4 years ago, than I do. 'Nuff said. I don't know what timeline (weeks, months, years) you had in mind for 1, but that's an administrative matter (or so I would assume), so it can be made to happen fast if there is sufficient will. 2 would have to happen before any other important things could be done, or the present agency, its employees, all their civil service protections, and any currently applicable Federal government union privileges, would keep standing in the way of actual change. The bill abolishing the VA might have to run to 2 or 3 pages, because it would have to be long enough to make clear that when the VA ceases to exist, Federal employment would immediately cease for anyone on its payroll at that date. 3 is fine with me. But it presupposes 2, plus ample resources to the Solicitor General to fight all the court cases that the ci-devant VA administrators and staffers would be bringing. By the way, we don't uniquely need a President Trump to do (or push for) these things. Just a President who wants to get them done. Robert

Adam, I've seen lots of cheering on this thread about what I call the DDDDT stuff (such as the National Enquirer piece insinuating that others were whispering that rumors were flying that "Randy Ted" Cruz had had affairs with five women). Also seen a ton to the effect that "caucuses are for cheaters" (thank you for that uplifting sentiment, Ann Coulter) and about Donald Trump's being destined, or at least entitled, to win every contest that he enters. For example, since Trump has won more primaries than Cruz, the caucuses and state conventions are obviously a vile conspiracy against voters—and all of those state delegations should be awarded to Trump in a walkover. All of that rhetoric is so hypocritical, it's painful. There might be a legitimate complaint in the present case—in fact, I vaguely recall some pushing and shoving between Romney's people and Paul's over delegates in Maine 4 years ago, the kind of matter that the proprietor of this site believes would concern only those in the grip of the Establishment—but it's kind of hard to pick it out of the daily chorus of special pleading by and for Trump. Do you think that any integrity sales have been taking place on the Trump side? Or is it only Trump's opponents for whom integrity is ever sold or sacrificed? Robert PS. Paul Manafort is a former employee of Viktor Yanukovych. (You know he didn't take any of his compensation in Ukrainian currency.) It's hard to believe that Manafort isn't expected to pull off, in other states, precisely what Governor LePage is complaining about in Maine.

Michael, I've heard some of your stories. This is not at all about what you know, or what you've done. It's about what Donald Trump knows, and what he has done. What do you actually think Trump knows, and has done, that he is presently covering with blanket denials? By the way, I gather that SEIU would be of some use to a politician who wants off-the-books muscle. AFSCME? The NEA? Robert

Michael, I've seen some of Jon's posts since I returned to activity here. I'll take your word for it regarding the others. Fair enough. I have not been posting on this thread (or on Cruz Nuz, or occasionally some other where the present election comes up) with the aim of persuading anyone to drop his or her support for Donald Trump. It's not my forte, to begin with. And those who participate here and support Trump, whenever they made their decision to do so, are by and large quickly and sharply dismissive of any criticisms of their guy. (The one Trump supporter I would not put in that category is Korben, because he has been willing to discuss issues at some length, and to indicate where he has his own doubts about Trump's stated positions). I am interested in the arguments you and others make on Trump's behalf. There I see a lot of skating over what Trump actually says, a lot of facile assumptions about where anyone not aboard the Trump Train must be coming from, and multiple styles and chains of argument that I doubt the same folks would be employing on behalf of anything besides the Trump for President campaign. Robert

Michael, I didn't read what you wrote that way because for public consumption Donald Trump rather piously denies having had any dealings with the Italian Mob. While I've never believed that for a minute, I've also thought that having to buy Mob cement for your jobs, or having to hire workers from Mob-sponsored unions, is one thing, and acquiring the kinds of connections that would get a Mob boss to do certain favors for you is another. If you're saying that Donald Trump actually had those connections, you're making him out to be much worse than I'm inclined to think he is. Robert

Brant, She did, and it's one of her least admirable features. Robert

Michael, First, what does Donald Trump believe? I honestly don't know. He's not exactly been out there championing free speech, for anyone other than himself. Next, the rhetoric you have used is very similar to what we presently hear from the campus hard Left, which is always complaining about having been "silenced." One appearance by a public speaker they dislike, even a single chalking of "Trump 2016' on a sidewalk, massively amplifies the "silencing" already complained of. In reality, on virtually any university campus, representatives of the hard Left are handed the microphone and administrators treat their least verbal eruption with the utmost solicitude. In no meaningful way are any of those who complain about it actually being silenced. What the campus hard Left seems to be after, more than anything else, is the power to silence its opponents, though speech codes or other means. How are you different, when you claim to represent a silent majority, yet have no time for questions about whether the part of the population you say you represent has either been pushed into silence, or is, in fact, a majority? How is Donald Trump different? Robert

Michael, Here's an important difference: Recep Tayyip Erdogan has held political office for many years, high political office for over 10 of them. Donald Trump couldn't use force against the Italian Mafia when it still had some power. Had he done so, his remains would have been fished out of the East River and we wouldn't be arguing about his candidacy today. And after the Italian Mob was reduced to a pitiful remnant... it didn't matter. What Trump has done, repeatedly, during his campaign is threaten to sue media outlets that have run "hit pieces" on him. His lawyer actually sent a threatening letter to Ted Cruz about a campaign commercial that merely strung together real video clips of Trump making contradictory statements on a few issues. This happened during the campaign in South Carolina so I am quite familiar with the both the letter and Cruz's response to it. Trump may not know this, but any competent lawyer in his employ knows that Donald Trump is a public figure and he has no chance whatsoever of winning a libel suit under these conditions. I'm sure at least some of the lawyers Trump has paid have actually broken this news to him. He nonetheless keeps making the threats. He has also conducted intimidation campaigns against selected media outlets that don't give him what he wants. We've talked before about his fights with Fox News, most often over the supposedly incredibly unfair Megyn Kelly. You've repeatedly defended his tactics. Trump acts as though he is entitled to constant favorable coverage from the media, just as he acts as though he is entitled to win every political contest. If he actually has political power to wield, how will he use it? Robert

Roger, The last time a Republican didn't win on the first ballot was 1952 (Jerry Ford won narrowly on the first ballot in 1976, after some disputers over delegations). There have been 10 such Republican conventions since 1856 (you might not be surprised to learn that 4 of them were in a row, 1876-1888). http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/10/brokered-gop-conventions-often-produce-a-winning-president/ I take a collapse to mean that the leader on the first ballot loses a large number of delegates before the second ballot. Doesn't look like a frequent occurrence, but it could happen to Donald Trump for reasons already discussed. Robert

Michael, I expect you're right about Peter Schwartz deciding not to include transcripts from the Donahue appearances in Objectively Speaking. It's not a book I've made a study of—Mayhew's Q&A compilation was enough work, and it was easier to get hold of recordings for a lot of the material there. Not including material that either makes Rand look bad, or that Rand wouldn't have thought made her look bad (but Leonard Peikoff thinks would make him look bad), is part of the modus operandi at ARI. It's pretty dumb, leaving them out of such a book, because so many people have seen them. But this would not deter anyone who's been given the rewriting assignment. Even so, her appearances would have been left out because of what she said during them. It would not have been because they were on Phil Donahue's show. Robert

Roger, Nope, it doesn't. More widely, I see no point in trying to identify Donald Trump with one character in an Ayn Rand novel: heroic, villainous, or neither. Robert

Adam, If Paul Manafort had done for Donald Trump exactly what Governor LePage is alleging was done for Ted Cruz, wouldn't you be cheering? Robert

Peter, Unusual tactics have unusual effects. A candidate who doesn't win on the first ballot may end up losing on a later ballot. But a candidate with the most delegates who doesn't win on the first ballot wouldn't normally see his support collapse. Robert

Michael, You may have noticed that I do not think Ted Cruz is destined to win. Or even entitled to win. Never did think so. I figured that if he was going to be the nominee, it would be a hard slog, probably not over by late April. So, yup, he might actually lose. Whereas Trump, we know, will never actually lose, just get robbed. Cruz never did target just Babtists and Evangelicals. That's what Mike Huckabee did (there's a guy who really hates Cruz now). Nor did he target former Romney voters (I assume you mean people who voted for Romney in primaries; a lot of his support in the general was anti-Obama, not pro-Mittens). Check the demographics on Romney's wins (especially in the early contests, before he sewed it up and some were just bowing to the inevitable) and tell me how that was going to work. (I know, this is history for the Establishment, you didn't live it that way, so it's invalid; still, you can be pretty sure Cruz thinks it's valid, and has paid attention to it.) There's a little more to the strategy, whether Cruz chose well or poorly, than: Romney was a looooooser, so looooooser Ted went for his looooooser voters. One of Romney's constituencies was the RINOs, and those who are left are nearly all voting for John Kasich now. I'm pretty sure Ted Cruz would tell you (in private) that whatever he's gotten wrong by way of strategy, his biggest mistake was not allowing for anywhere near the full impact of Trump's entry into the race. He has to be thinking that if Trump hadn't run, many (by no means all) who are now supporting Trump would have voted for him instead. Trump's candidacy was a Black Swan, and this Black Swan blew a hole in Cruz's game plan. (It's fairly remarkable that Ted is still in the race in late April. Remember, Jeb! and Marco and several others were all supposed to have pushed him out, long before now; then, when all of those predictions got blown up because Trump pushed them out instead, Trump was supposed to push Ted out next.) What we haven't heard out of Ted (and I very much doubt we will) is any BS about how Donald stole "his" voters. Robert