Robert Campbell
-
Posts
4,015 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Robert Campbell
-
-
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.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
-
3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Why is it I have a feeling you would ask me for proof that Neil Bush is influenced by his family?
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!
-
19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
They just want the problems fixed. Oceans of Greed and Power Inc. does not fix problems. They know the loudmouth does.
It's no more complicated than that.
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:
Looks to me like Paul Manafort is earning a little of his pay at least.
Robert
-
13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Take a look at how the anti-Trump people get bent out of shape all the time and you will see why they prefer not to discuss it in public. They just don't want the hassle. And some of them get pissed at the constant condescension--I know, they've told me.
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
-
13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Robert,
Not much of anything. It's like when I came out and said I had been a crack addict. Who can blackmail me about that?
Trump put his dirty laundry right out there in the public.
For example, nobody can blackmail him for giving excessive donations to politicians because he said it himself, loud and clear. And he was upfront about the payoff, too. He even said, "You better believe it."
Knowing Trump, he did not cross over into an actual crime like formal bribery, but he went right up to the edge. That's how I see him.
There's an awful lot in court records, too, since he has been sued and has sued a lot.
The fact that Trump can't be blackmailed is what is killing his opponents inside. They don't know what to do to control him and they die a new death each day at his apparent Teflon coating.
Michael
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
-
10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Peter,
Here's a speculation.
Sabato gets A LOT of business from people who don't like Trump. And probably very little from those who do. And, I bet, nothing at all from Trump himself.
That couldn't possibly be a reason, could it? It certainly worked that way for Dick Morris last election--he even said so on national TV...
Michael
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
-
11 hours ago, Selene said:
Again Robert, you personalized it to me.
That is the distinction that I was pointing out to you.
Out of curiosity Robert, if Trump were elected and he appointed a special administrator of the VA, with the three charges of authority, listed below, do you believe he could accomplish it?
One: within six (6) all Veteran's will have a unified VA Medical card which shall be taken by all licensed doctors, clinics and hospitals. Frankly, can't see it taking his person that long;
Two: Dismantling the Veteran's Administration as an agency and proposing a one page bill ending it's authority on a date certain and present it to Congress;
Three: Appoint a special prosecutor to charge any and all administrative and management personnel who changed or hid numbers which allowed them to receive bonuses.
If convicted they can serve their time on weekends and still provide their family with financial support.
A...
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
-
12 hours ago, Selene said:
No Robert, I would not be cheering.
Perhaps you are creating a knee jerk reaction to what you want to believe a pro-Trump advocate would sell his
integrity for.
Wrong pew with me.
A...
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.
-
14 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Robert,
Heh.
If that's the way you think getting muscle works, you don't have a clue about that world. Not a clue. And, oddly enough, that pleases me to no end (in a good way--I love your innocence--I'm serious).
Let's put it this way.
Given my past, I'm probably much worse than you are inclined to think I am.
At least I got out after I got tired of all those damn scars from being sewn back together and the physical therapy--which is a royal pain in the ass...
Michael
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
-
On April 20, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
OL, in my conception, is to remain a pure place for intellectual discourse.
As to your question, there are several people right here on this thread who have stated publicly that they have been convinced by my arguments (not persuasion techniques) to support Trump when they were hostile to him before.
Here's one person who came out and said I could use his name for this precise purpose should I wish: Jon Letendre.
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
-
17 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Robert,
Good God, can't you read anything I write with the correct meaning?
I didn't mean Trump would use force against the Mafia. I meant Trump had the Mafia (and people of that kind of... er... vocation
) available to him to use against his opponents and critics. All he needed was to say the word and bad things would have been done to any opponent or critic. With pleasure by the bad-thing-doers. And lots of CYA with fall guys and everything.
Yet Trump didn't go that route.
Am I really writing that horribly?
Dayaamm!
Michael
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
-
8 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:
Lawyers specialize in writing intimidating letters within the bounds of legality.
Ayn Rand had her lawyers do that.
--Brant
Brant,
She did, and it's one of her least admirable features.
Robert
-
On April 23, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
The ISIS monsters chop people's heads off and that's going to stop. But free speech will not. Not in America. Not the speech of Trump critics and not the free speech of Trump. Free speech means free for all.
Donald Trump is an American in a manner you refuse to acknowledge. Ditto for Trump supporters. It's a matter of holding to and living by high moral principles.
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
-
On April 21, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
You keep talking about Erdogan and Trump as if they had something in common. They have nothing in common.
Trump has no history of using force against anyone for things they said against him.
None.
He just says things back and he does it well.
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
-
56 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:
Ignorant as I am of the historical record on this matter - as well as unsure of what constitutes "normality" in the aftermath of inconclusive first ballots - I'd like to know your basis for saying this, 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
-
On April 22, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
But I can point to Schwartz's omission of Donahue from the book of her interviews. It's not as if they don't have an agenda in omitting things when they publish her stuff. You, yourself, have a long thread here on OL (a brilliant one, I might add) detailing their omissions and alterations in the Q&A book.
Don't forget, too, that the Donahue interviews are where Rand had that silly alteration with the silly young lady and, also, said that no woman could ever want to be president of the USA without being mentally ill. I imagine that would be another reason to omit them.
Now, if Rand had trounced the liberal Donahue with some classic putdown lines, Schwartz would have led with those interviews. But not when she showed respect to him.
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
-
26 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:
I hope you realize that this does not prove that Donald Trump is not Gail Wynand.
(Actually, I think Drumpf is more of an amalgam of Gail Wynand, Peter Keating, and Lois Cook. Electing him would be, to borrow the words of Tamara Balderas, "essentially putting a monkey on the throne.")
REB
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
-
5 hours ago, Selene said:
Lying Ted's techniques apparently permeate his campaign...
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
-
20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Do you have any similar expertise advice for Cruz to get his vote count up? And number of delegates from votes? Those numbers are kinda low...
For instance, if Cruz had concentrated on a wider target than evangelicals and had not presumed he would have had the former Romney votes in the tank, more people would have voted for him and, as you say, "he could be turning his victory lap as we speak."
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
-
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
If, during the primaries, they slam him too hard and produce hard evidence during the campaign, or if they keep slamming the mistress story too hard if there is no evidence, Cruz will be such damaged goods by then, he will be useless.
And politically, if the damage is kept to a level where it can be reversed later, Cruz will be a powerful ally.
In your mind right now, I doubt you even think this is possible. But once Cruz loses the nomination and Trump is elected, Trump will visit him and they will talk. And if that is fruitless, all Cruz will need is a visit from Sarah Palin to ask him specifically to bury the hatchet and that sucker will get buried in a place no one will be able to find anymore.
Michael,
Ahh, DDDDT is purposely reeling back on the mistress stories.
Don't want to damage Lyin' Ted too much...
I doubt DDDDT is that finely calibrated an operation. Do you think it is?
Donald Trump keeps talking as though he is not a politician, all of his opponents are, therefore he would never beg to be the humble servant of any of them, but all will come crawling to him, and some of those who crawl might, after further drubbing, be accepted.
He makes no secret of any of this.
And when Paul Manafort says, "Hey, RNC! My guy isn't really unbelievably vain and tremendously vindictive. He just plays an egomaniac on TV," his boss promptly contradicts him in front of crowds in Pennsylvania.
I know that plenty of Republicans will vote for Trump, no matter how they dislike him, if he is the nominee. Those are partisan alignments nowadays (not much different from Democrats getting out their clothespins and voting for Hillary). That's why i don't see a Goldwater or Mondale-level loss as a possibility.
What you are not seeing is how relentless and outré Trump is in his attacks on other Republicans, how he gives every impression, every time he does it, of meaning it personally, and how unusual tactics will have unusual effects. In Republican delegates dropping him as soon as they are no longer bound, Republican officials not working with or for him, and in Republican voters staying home, voting down-ticket and leaving the President-VP lines blank, or voting third-party.
I won't say all Trump supporters are doing it, because I doubt you speak for most of them. But with all your talk about how anyone who disagrees with you on these subjects can't see you, you do seem to be putting a lot of effort into not seeing them.
Robert
-
18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Your post has some interesting info for political junkies, but you really, really don't understand what the inside looks like to a Trump supporter. I don't care much about political details if the establishment is the organizing context.
{...]
Don't bother trying to split hairs over what the establishment means (Democrat and Republican) or what the Silent Majority means and so on. That's the kind of rhetoric I just don't listen to anymore. Nor do Trump supporters.
We're fixing a problem, not debating whether the problem exists, whether the history we lived actually happened, and so on. Trump supporters are not stupid.
Michael,
Where, in all of these exchanges, have I said, or implied, that you were stupid?
That's not what any of this has been about.
Here's what it does seem to be about:
You didn't have to pay attention in 2008. Because what happened then is what Donald Trump is now telling you happened.
You didn't have to pay attention in 2010. Because what happened then is what Trump is now telling you happened.
You didn't have to pay attention in 2012. Because what happened then is what Trump is now telling you happened.
You didn't have to pay attention in 2014. Because what happened then is what Trump is now telling you happened.
(The most thorough coverage I ever saw of McDaniel vs. Cochran appeared in Breitbart. No need to read it, I guess. Breitbart wasn't pushing Trump for President yet.)
Now if it doesn't matter what the establishment is, or what a Silent Majority is, or who today's Trump supporters voted for in the past, or what they thought they were getting when they voted, or how McCain or Romney got nominated, why should it matter what the present problem is?
Surely identifying the problem, with as much clarity as you can muster, is part of solving it.
Do you realize that your appeal to "the history we lived" is the exact same one that Social Justice Warriors and hard Left campus activists make, whenever they demand "safe spaces," speech codes, clampdowns on "cultural appropriation," and the banishment of any public speaker who fails to toe their political line?
The exact same one they make when they demand punishment for anyone who chalks "Trump 2016" on a campus sidewalk.
Robert
Donald Trump
in Stumping in the Backyard
Posted
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