Trump's Ponzi Bubble

vanity ^ | August 1, 2015 | Nathan Bedford

[Chgogal]

There are three candidates who actually “built that”. Carson, Fiarino and Trump. The rest are talkers who voters elected and then reelected. Very few of them were in the business world dealing with what the politicians “built”. Yet, we pooh pooh those who actually “built that” because of their style. Oh well, we get what we vote for over and over again.

[nathanbedford]

Two points about the Maxim, he who lives by the sword dies by the sword:

1. The Maxim does not care if you're the aggressor or if you are the victim, the Maxim assumes that he who wields a sword carries the instrument of his own destruction.

2. The Maxim does not care if you are an expert swordsman, the idea is that there is always a better one, a faster gun if you will to change metaphors, who will be your undoing.

It does not matter ultimately if a media creation is the conscious creation of the media or the facile creation of the individual, the media is the instrument of ultimate destruction. It does not matter how adept the individual is in controlling the media if the individual is only a media creature.

Live by the media, die by the media.

[nathanbedford]

I agree with you entirely about the opportunity offered by the ghastly revelations about Planned Parenthood.

But there is a nagging voice within me that says, be careful. Republicans in general and Trump in particular suffer from a gender gap which the Democrats have been able to exploit in several election cycles under circumstances that absolutely bewildered me. How is it that Republicans are sexist because they choose not to subsidize some female student's sex while in graduate school and pay for her birth control? As a male I simply do not understand how this absurd argument gained traction with females but it indisputably did. And it was indisputably contrived from beginning to end from George Stephanopoulos to "legitimate rape."

We male Republicans do not understand how women get their news, how they form their opinions, why they vote the way they do. Have you ever taken a look at women's magazines? They are vile propaganda sheets inserted between cosmetic ads. I would rather gag than be subjected to an hour of Oprah but she influences millions of votes.

At the risk of being a chauvinist swine may I ask, how many women will watch Donald Trump in the debates and not hear what he is saying but simply react negatively to his aggressiveness? I love his aggressiveness, just as I loved Newt Gingrich's aggressiveness. But I am an aging white Republican. From what I understand of the very unrefined polling results available to date concerning Donald Trump, his appeal to women shows a profound gender gap. Moreover many of these women polled are Republican rather than Democrat, women whom we would expect to be less vulnerable to creeping Oprah Winfrey-ism.

But if we cannot fight the fight on this issue, where can we?

[Mr Radical]

Trump as a candidate is almost entirely a creation of the media

In a sense, is there any candidate who can exist without the oxygen of the [mainstream] media?

The difference with Trump is he has shown that he's not owned by them.

[BigEdLB]

Numbers under are their rank, currently. debate A is two hours.

[nathanbedford]

Quite right, all candidates need exposure.

The question is do they have the ground game, the political infrastructure as well? Ted Cruz's problem is that the Washington elite will move heaven and earth to deny him that infrastructure. To be successful, Ronald Reagan style, Ted Cruz has to get around the media and the establishment. So does Donald Trump. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio seem to have cut deals with the establishment but the tenor of the times apparently has prevented them from capitalizing on the fruits of those deals.

Other candidates, like Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 did not face that problem because of his five-star status. Despite the record of Mr. Republican, Sen. Taft, the infrastructure of the Republican Party was simply his for the taking. Richard Nixon in 1960 had the Republican Party in his pocket. Likewise George HW Bush despite the Herculean efforts of Pat Buchanan whom I supported. Hillary Clinton might be one of the few candidates in history who has the party in her pocket and who loses it twice.

But these are individuals quite apart from media candidates. Donald Trump has no institutional support. In fact, he is aggressively opposed by most institutions and will be opposed no doubt vehemently by the Chamber of Commerce, for example. The Republican Party in various states will oppose him as will most elected officials in those states.

Ronald Reagan had roots going back to the Goldwater campaign and he paid his dues in speech after speech for General Electric all over the country. He won the biggest state in the union and became its governor. He had infrastructure. George HW Bush even before he was vice president was said to have the longest resume and the biggest Rolodex in Washington. He had infrastructure, he had support. Richard Nixon in 1960 of course had support as the incumbent vice president. By 1968 he had accumulated a host of IOUs which he cashed in as support. These men infiltrated the Republican Party or sections of it and gained infrastructure so that they could mount ground games and campaign from the bottom up to match their media appeal.

Ted Cruz is trying to win over the tea party and gain that infrastructure. So far, it has not helped much in the polls. As far as I can tell, he has only media momentum and evidently not much of that. But Cruz is attempting to gain support with a coherent conservative political philosophy. He presents a consistent, coherent conservative biography. Donald Trump presents us with a checkered past, divided loyalties, inconsistent political positions, and a host of ready made enemies. Trump has no infrastructure and apparently no plans for creating any. He is riding the media wave.

We shall see.

[Crim]

“Trump as a candidate is almost entirely a creation of the media.”

Nope...lets not forget how many statements have been suppossed to sink him already according to that same press...and some here on FR as well...

“How dare trump say those things about mexicans (illegals)’

“How dare trump say tha bout John McCain(RINO)”

“Trump raped his wife (no not really)”

This many canidates means many people already have a dog in the fight...and they dont want to see trump upset their apple cart.

[nathanbedford]

The monster was entirely a creation of Dr. Frankenstein. The fact that he did not intend to create an out of control monster does not alter the fact that it was his creation.

Please read the entire vanity and note the portions that talk about how Trump prospers by criticizing the media and the degree to which he also prospers from media criticism. Please read the second sentence. Please also note the portions which talk about the kind of media campaign Trump is running.

Please understand the point of the vanity which has nothing to do with whether Trump is manipulating the media or the media is creating Trump.

Enjoy the rest of the vanity.

[Mr Radical]

Thanks for your reply, I’m from the UK and don't know so much about the history.

I respect Ted Cruz but I don’t think he could win the presidency for the Republicans when the media will be backing their follow-up act to Obama. It is going to take someone who really understands the media and how to deal with them – and I think Donald Trump has shown just that. (The genie was out of the bottle before the media realised what was happening.)

It doesn't make sense to me why they would introduce a false-flag candidate when I'm sure the Dems and Media could have sown-up the election without him?

I agree there are a lot of unknowns / reservations about Trump at this moment, but people develop and he may have changed from past-held views. He doesn’t seem to need infrastructure for funding his campaign so far, but you’re right he is going to need to build relationships and a team if he is to hold office – at some stage he is going to have to identify the people he will surround himself with, if in office, and that might be the crucial moment?

I don’t know enough of the characters, is it conceivable that Trump and Cruz could pair as President and VP or vice versa?

I definitely wouldn’t dismiss The Donald yet awhile. Maybe, “Cometh the hour, cometh the man!”
But, as you say, we shall see!

[ronnie raygun]

Its nice to see that there are still people with hope out there much like obamas hope

[LS]

You're wrong Nathan. You still don't get it. I was in PHX when, with NO advertising word spread that Trump was speaking. The venue went from 1500 to 20,000 in 24 hours. Now THAT's grassroots support. Cruz or Walker can't come close to that.

Watch the CNN focus group. I have never seen unanimous support across sex, class, and income lines. The pollster said "But he's a billionaire" and a woman with tattoos, lower class looking, said "but he's like us."

Now, do you remember 2012 and Rush saying he knew it was over when 80% of the people in exit polls said Obama "cared for people like them?" That is exactly how Trump is connecting.

[Hojczyk]

His book goes into detail....I think he will give more detailed answers in debate if asked...but low information voters like sound bites...if nothing else Trump may get a lot of people watching..I still like Walker..but Trump might beat them all...

[Balding_Eagle]

I know.

Isn’t that great!

[bert]

or not

together Trump and Carson poll 38%, a very, even extreme figure.

the number represents a strong desire to avoid politicians and elect a real man, an ordinary non lawyer, non politico that can speak for the people. To deny grass roots is to totally misunderstand the phenomena.

[papertyger]

It doesn't make sense to me why they would introduce a false-flag candidate when I'm sure the Dems and Media could have sown-up the election without him

DINGDINGDING!!!

[nathanbedford]

My fourteen-year-old daughter and her friends together with one long-suffering father drove from Germany to Vienna to attend a rock 'n roll concert conducted by a band whose name I never heard of and who, mercifully, I will never hear of again. The Stadium was chockablock with tens of thousands of enthusiastic fans. That is real grassroots support.

It is a testament to the power of media, especially in this case social media, and it tells me that there is much that goes on in my fourteen-year-old daughter's world that is foreign to me. I certainly do not dispute that there can be much that goes on in grassroots America politically that can fool me. Ever since I attended my first political rally in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater I have come to understand that my perception of the world, at least of the political world and now the musical world, is not universally shared. The entire arena was sold out with rompin' stompin' enthusiasts for Goldwater. People thronged outside who could not be admitted. On that occasion I returned home and straightaway turned on the eleven o'clock news to see one of the three networks then available to determine how they covered the event. I was absolutely shocked to learn that the pro-Goldwater supporters outside the arena whom I had seen with my own eyes were portrayed by the New York media as Goldwater protesters. What happened to plain talking Goldwater in that election is now history.

So I do not dispute the power of the media to generate action around Donald Trump but I insist that the media also has power to generate opposition to Donald Trump. We are still early in the process in which the electorate tends to fall in love as even conservative Republicans are regrettably prone to do. How much love was wasted on Herman Cain and Rick Perry last cycle? I do not dispute the power of Donald Trump to manipulate the media to generate excitement in a border state which has been overrun to attend a rally against immigration. I concede that Cruz and Walker probably could not duplicate that feat. But does that tell us that candidate Donald Trump is doing this or is the Star of Apprentice drawing the crowd?

We have yet to see whether this excitement translates into votes. We have yet to see whether Trump has longevity. We have yet to see the debates. We have yet to see what the media leaves on the cutting room floor. We have yet to give equal media prominence to other candidates as will happen in an endless number of debates. We have yet to see the institutional forces at work, we have yet to see the power of friction at work. We have yet to see the influence of the ground game. We've yet to see if Trump can or is even inclined to put together a ground game .

In my humble essay I have not disputed the power of Donald Trump to garner support by exploiting the media, in fact, I emphasized it. My question is, can Trump carry this high wire act all the way?

[CatherineofAragon]

I’m curious to see if, during the debate, Trump will repeat the response he gave when asked about Obamacare.

He said he would replace it with “something terrific.”

[Jim Noble]

you’ll see Cruz pull those disgruntled Conservatives, and Reagan Democrats to him

If Cruz has a Reagan Democrat appeal plan, he'd better roll it out right quick.

[nathanbedford]

And then The Donald must choose.

[LS]

Absolutely. I agree it's all about staying power. If you recall, in previous years I poo-poohed the notion of a Palin run because she had NOT established grass roots offices or a political organization. Well, that was about six months later in the process than where we are now, but even with her PACs, Palin's $$ paled beside that which Trump can raise---and he hasn't even asked for PAC money, although it's starting to come in.

So far, he appears to have a very small but tight-knit organization, sort of a Baker-Deever-Meese set up with his attorney, his campaign director, and a couple of others. But you are right that he has this incredible advantage of free publicity. So his money is actually doubled or tripled in real impact.

Just spitballing, but if I'm Trump, I keep this kind of campaign up for about six more months. Take out the opponents, one at a time. He already finished Rubio and Perry, and many others aren't players. He really only has to worry about Bush and Walker at this point. So if I'm him I just keep pounding these guys in the polls with the "inevitability" notion that he has poll numbers they can't beat, which in turn siphons off some (not all) of their contributors, making it even harder for them to compete.

Sometime around the first primaries (after winning 3-4) I start fully training the guns on Hillary and the Dems in general. Ignore the Republicans, as though they aren't part of the solution but aren't part of the problem. Kind of give the impression that the GOP will follow his lead once he's in office.

About that time I'd expect to see the head-to-head polls steadily shift in his direction, to at least a tie level. If he has not said anything terribly stupid, and if he's managed to expand his base just a little by, say, weighing in on the abortion videos without coming across as a Huckabee, or on national security without looking like a warmonger, then he has a very, very real shot at the presidency.

Today he said some things about Crimea that are going to resonate with a lot of people on both sides of the aisle, namely, it's Europe's problem. Now, I'm more hawkish, but we are in the 1930s, where people don't want foreign involvement and where Zero has so totally destroyed our military capabilities it will take someone a while to build them back up so that even IF we needed to help Ukraine, we could. Meanwhile, a lot of anti-Bush GOP types, libertarians, and some Dems will find his comments very appealing.