Did Trump underperform last Saturday?
Allahpundit says he didn’t:
Trump finished very close to where he was projected to finish in all four elections. The reason he “underperformed,” winning just two of the four states up for grabs, is because Ted Cruz overperformed dramatically. And the reason Cruz overperformed is starkly clear in Cohn’s graph, namely, a broad chunk of Rubio’s support collapsed out from under him and shifted to Cruz.
But there are several incorrect premises in Allahpundit’s analysis.
The first is in the actual figures. For example, polls in Kansas on the eve of the primary showed Trump with 35% of likely caucusgoers and Cruz with 29%. The actual figures on caucus day were 48% for Cruz and 23% for Trump. I don’t see how it can be said that Trump did not underperform there when he received 12% fewer votes than projected. Maine had no recent polls, so it’s hard to say, but Trump was widely projected to win there and he lost by over 13 points, with 32.6% of the total, despite the governor’s endorsement. In Louisiana, Trump underperformed by 2%.
In Kentucky the situation was very interesting and rather complex. Trump did about as expected (about 1% higher than he had polled). Rubio did about 5 1.2% less than he’d polled, and Cruz a whopping 16.6% more. So clearly, Cruz’s support did NOT just come from a shift from Rubio to Cruz, as Allahpundit seems to be suggesting. Where did it come from? Well, you could say some came from Carson, who had polled at 7% there, but even that 7% would only have accounted for about half of Cruz’s newfound support. To make it even more interesting, Kasich got 8.4% more votes than the polls had indicated he would. So he might just as easily gotten some of Rubio’s and some of Carson’s supporters, too.
The answer to the “where did Cruz’s new voters come from?” riddle lies in a phenomenon we must take into account: the late-deciders. Note that in the Kentucky poll 15% were undecided. Clearly, Trump did not get these late-deciders, and Cruz probably got the lion’s share, probably with some going to Kasich.
As the field narrows, Trump can’t just hold his own in order to win, especially if he ends up facing a single opponent. That’s what the math says. Not gaining voters only works to assure victory if no single other candidate starts consolidating voters. It may be true that most of Trump’s supporters have not abandoned him, and it may also be true that Cruz’s growing support mostly represents a shift from Rubio to Cruz—but if you look at the figures in most primaries, if a lot of Rubio’s support shifted to Cruz that would be enough to beat Trump. Also, late-deciders must be taken into account.
I’m not saying Trump still isn’t in a good position. But no one is expecting his supporters to desert him in droves—at least, no one who’s been listening to them. What needs to happen for him to be defeated is, as so many people have said and continue to say, for the Trump opposition to gravitate mostly to a single candidate.
Allahpundit seems to have the goal of dispiriting the Right all the time. It’s his only angle now. It’s not even sober analysis.
Puerto Rico “. . . and the money owing”
I think that the 15% undecided in the Kentucky poll was probably definitive. The MSM screaming about Trump’s ‘wanting to go after terrorist’s families, “torture without limits” and deep love for the KKK’ had a disparate impact upon any on the fence.
The MSM’s behavior however is counter-productive, if the democrats truly want Trump as their opponent. Perhaps the MSM didn’t ‘get the memo’…
Trump under-performed and Cruz out-performed. Rubio’s weekend was a disaster (no give a crap about PR).
It is a two way race for the most part now except for the two states with the favorite sons still active, OH and FL. I will be watching the results tomorrow- Cruz needs to win the three that aren’t Michigan, which Trump is almost sure to win now.
At this point, Rubio and Kasich won’t drop out anytime before the results of the primaries on March 15th. And Trump may do quite well in upcoming primaries, like April 19th for New York, and April 26th for CT, DE, MD, PA, and RI. So this might go on for a while.
Geoffrey Britain:
You write:
What are they supposed to do, not talk about it? I’m not a member of the MSM (in fact, I’m usually a critic), and I certainly wrote about what Trump actually said about those things. They didn’t really have to make if up for it to be controversial. He in fact said he wanted to go after terrorist’s families. He in fact said he wanted to go beyond waterboarding, and to make it open-ended, even if it meant something illegal. He never said he loved the KKK, but I never noticed anyone in the MSM saying that he said that.
As for megalomania, he’s been a megalomaniac for most of his adult life, maybe even before. It doesn’t take the MSM to see that. He demonstrates it.
It could also be that all of the people who said they were Trump supporters earlier were not absolutely committed (I’m not talking about the Trumpsters in comments section). Maybe they were just saying that they like his lack of PC and agreed with him on things like immigration. He stood out from a very confusing field that didn’t get much opportunity to talk about much besides Trump. The narrowing of the field may have just made it easier for some to consider other options. Or maybe some people are just sick of hearing how great he is and looking at him make faces.
It will be interesting to see how the PAC ads affect things.
The IDF goes after terrorist families.
It kicks them out of their home — and flattens it.
I suspect that Mr. Loose Cannon was thinking something towards that.
Instead, he came off gafftastic.
blert:
Nice try, but no.
First of all, it is not at all difficult to have conveyed the concept of destroying a home if Trump had wanted to say that. That is not what he said, and what he actually said indicates something quite different.
From last December:
From the March 3 debate transcript:
He was asked again about “targeting” their families, and he never—absolutely never—qualifies that “targeting” in any way, particularly to say it’s only homes he’s talking about. The reference in the first question he was asked about it in the debate was to his December remarks, which I’ve already quoted. You have to turn yourself into a pretzel to decide he meant homes.
In addition, his answer about 9/11 and wives is nonsense. Note that his statement during the debate about this is a repeat of something he said back in December. It is garbage, either a lie or simply an error. Trump actually has no idea what he’s talking about, or he does know and assume his supporters don’t know:
Here’s the story on the Saudi nationals. By the way, Bin Laden had a huge family, most of whom had disavowed him.
In the context of the original questions asked, Trump indicated that he wouldn’t let terrorist’s families stand in his way. Yes, when he got push back, he indicated that he’d hit ISIS even if their families were present. I suspect that is what he meant when he said “he’d go after terrorist’s families”.
In the aftermath, the MSM treated it, as a desire to purposely target terrorist’s families, even when no terrorists were present. That’s portraying Trump as a blood thirsty madman. That goes far beyond mere hyperbole into malicious character assassination.
“He in fact said he wanted to go beyond waterboarding, and to make it open-ended, even if it meant something illegal.”
Again, he indicated he’d use whatever measures were necessary to protect America. If you were the President and, faced with the certain deaths of millions of American innocents, would you allow an ‘illegal’ method to stop you? Could you shoulder the responsibility for the deaths of millions of American innocents because your moral calculus made ‘neccessary’ their sacrifice? That is the standard with which you must evaluate Trump’s declaration to ‘go after their families’.
BTW, the Geneva conventions do NOT apply to non-signatory ‘organizations’. The ‘illegality’ of actions against such enemies is, at best a very gray area.
“He never said he loved the KKK, but I never noticed anyone in the MSM saying that he said that.”
Trump was originally asked, “did he reject David Duke’s personal endorsement?” when he responded he’d have to investigate it, later I heard several MSM outlets repeatedly state that he refused to condemn the KKK, despite Trump having done so in the past.
Why does what he said previously, only count when it highlights a negative?
“As for megalomania, he’s been a megalomaniac for most of his adult life, maybe even before.”
Technically that’s true, going by that standard though would require that diagnosis apply to half of Congress. What does that imply about the electorate? Are half of America supportive of megalomania? If not, how do they consistently elect representatives who arguably fit the technical definition of megalomania? Or is that ‘diagnosis’ of Trump too facile by half?
I will however, readily accept a diagnosis of an egotistic, narcissist with the personal ethics of a real b**t**d…
OBL’s family was so huge… I rather suspect he never met them all.
His father’s ‘productivity’ ( wiki ) is estimated very high — with multiple figures tossed about.
&&&&&&
I’m actually amazed to see Trump’s poll numbers over at RCP.
For a guy that has no shot at the nomination, Kasich still has a bastion of support in the rust belt.
Why he does so is a complete mystery to me.
He, like Trump, seems to be running a ‘pure personality’ campaign… more or less Bush III.
His references to Reagan may have voters dreaming that he’s a conservative.
He’s a go-along guy.
Gerald Ford II is not what this nation now needs.
I expect a Cruz presidency to be one of
1) decent Supreme Court nominations
2) e-verify
3) end to sanctuary cities — as the cities get cut from the dole
4) a halt to Muslim immigration — however phrased — too risky
5) a resurgence for our DoD
6) an attempt to get VAT and the end of Income Tax.
Hence, a Constitutional Amendment campaign.
&&&&&&
Eliminating Income Tax is essential to stop the Washington Cartel.
It’s the nexus of political corruption.
It’s what industry is always lobbying about.
&&&&&
As for the EPA, title IX, and all the rest of the Progressive’s march — defund, defund, defund.
Geoffrey Britain:
Again, for some reason, you are understating what Trump said. In the debate he specifically cites not ISIS, but the 9/11 terrorists. He never qualifies his remarks to ISIS, and he definitely is NOT talking about homes, as you originally said you thought he was.
In addition, his whole riff on 9/11 terrorist’s wives is garbage, and he’s said it at least twice, once after people corrected him on it. Knave or fool.
What’s more, Trump’s megalomania goes way way beyond that of the average politician. I cannot think of a single one who is in his ballpark on this, and that even includes Obama, my previous champion of the trait.
Do not pretend he is anything like “half of Congress.”
Allahpundit sold out a while ago (just like Ace of Spades) in order to get more “hits” on his blog. He became crypto-Fascist and tolerated an incerdibly amount of bigotry on Hot Air.
“…polls in Kansas on the eve of the primary…”
With respect, this is why we use the averages from RCP. They won’t put their imprimatur upon a stat as an “RCP Average” unless there are at least two polls more recent than 2 months old.
Trump performed up to the level of his longer-term average.
“…Rubio did about 5 1.2% less than he’d polled, and Cruz a whopping 16.6% more. So clearly, Cruz’s support did NOT just come from a shift from Rubio to Cruz…”
Even the most recent RCP-listed poll for Idaho only adds up to 70%. OTOH, some states like NY have mostly divvied up the voters, and there are only about 8% undecideds left.
By now, the Trump supporters have self-identified. He doesn’t seem to be the kind of candidate that one stumbles into.
sdferr, love the reference to Stephen Sondheim and Leonard Bernstein!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Beddy Clevar
As for megalomania, he’s been a megalomaniac for most of his adult life, maybe even before.
actually thats only true of his mouth and game, not so true about his actions and business… old america used to talk about making a name for yourself and having it “up in lights”… he is a big mouth and when it comes to action, he comes back to earth and decides. its always been that way… but if you read his prior employees and others talk, they certainly dont sound like they work for a megalomaniacal person, but they do work for a very demanding one (not the same)… and in terms of nice boss, would you rather have carl icahn?
real estate is not a power industry, nor is just having money, but the little people think so, as they seldom think as to those things in realistic ways and often attribute it to stuff based on their beliefs not how things really are
often with the idea that being the big man running a huge company is easy fat cat and like gordon gekko… thats fantasy, i have met many top dogs and NONE of them could do what they did if they were at all that way, as no one else would work with them. I have met bloomberg, ken chenault, Mortimer Zuckerman, Nicholas Graham, the Hiltons, Trump, and tons of other famous powerful people from when i was shooting pictures, and while very self confident, aggressive, alert, committed, dedicated to the extreme, particular, and other such things, they are not megalomaniacal… its not good for business, but the little people like to think otherwise, and media loves to play with them, and most want to believe they know what they see is what they see, not what the media wants you to see and how they play with that.
its funnier, almost to the point of a stand up joke to look up the symptoms and think about someone like trump anonymous on a couch… where the doc doesnt know what he actually has accomplished, and so on.
Some of the common symptoms in people with megalomaniacal disorders or megalomania are: Delusional ideas. Delusions of grandeur and superiority…
hard to tell a billionaire from a self made family that they are deluded as to their ability. hard to tell someone that can dial up foreign leaders (due to the real estate stuff), that they are delusional they can call foreign leaders, famous others, etc.
at what point does achievement mean your actually better able than others and can say so? running a company with over 30,000 people is pretty exceptional
the whole thing makes me think of the movie
It Happened on Fifth Avenue
the scene where Michael J. O’Connor (ruggles) keeps calling his office telling them to buy or short stock, or what the status is on some real estate sale, and Aloysius T. McKeever (moore) humors him as to his crazy megalomaniacel delusions are ok as long as he doesn’t take them too far, and gets his communal work done. (while they are living in oconnors summer mansion on 5th)
America has always had a love hate relationship with its successful people, even more so the more they found out how much they were worth (which is why so many have tried to hide it, and funny they wonder why hillary has a megalomaniacal obsession with money, after all, she is collecting a 250k salary for campaigning, while trump is not taking a salary… bloomberg didnt either, but i assume thats so he dont cahnge his bracket for the cap gains rate not for any real act of charity or such, eh?)
i recommend both films…
it happened on fifth avenue, and west side story
🙂
if you have a delusion you could become president, and you actually do, is it still a delusion? what if the delusion others believe becomes real? was it the delusion of the actuator, or the delusion of those who lacked belief or confidence in the success of the other? why is it wrong for a successful person to not pretend they are unsuccessful? hillary is worth millions give or take, is it better she cries poverty, or is it a lie? would you hate trump more if he pretended to modesty? other than remain anonymous, what could he do to be liked? who is that successful we like? if we like the very successful, does it help if we dont know how successful? do we accept entertainment millions as better (while ignoring roadies) while business millions is bad (as we cant forget the workers)?
I always respected Joe Walsh (never got to meet him)… “Everybody’s so different I haven’t changed”
Thats the same thing, in a different way that Odetta Holmes (yes, THAT odetta) told me and a few others at an intimate gathering. if your waiting to feel successful or that you have gotten to where you are, that wont happen, you always feel like you, and everyone else changes…
Its interesting, but who with that kind of wealth do we like… not are indifferent to, but actually like? the late Steve Jobs? his coworkers said he was horrid, unlike trumps… and what about Steve Wozniak? poor woz… poor myrvold…
i guess we like Paul McCartney… but i am not sure if he is worth a billion yet… Carlos slim? Jack Ma? warren buffet? Steyer? Paris Hilton or Conrad Hilton? larry ellison?
at what dollar amount do we have to start disliking someone? just curious… its an interesting question
I find the kill terrorists thing also interesting…
its bad to go after a family, a la the russians, and many others today and in past history… as a way to win and insure its lasting… very common historically.
however, its ok to blockade a whole nation for what its leader does when the state in that location does not allow honest elections…
you CAN impact a million people for the actions of one leader, but you cant impact that leaders family and leave the millions out of it?
it becomes an old example of the named few are protected the unnamed thousands are ignored?
I always find such moral posturing very interesting, and that what i ask says nothing of my own position on it. and we also have to accept that the expression said sometimes is an expression to gather among a feeling, and that when reality comes to the fore, the expression is never carried out
how many times do people say “i could kill you” and not mean it?
but i want to get back to the hard question of which innocents matter more? do the innocents related to the terrorist, that helped raise him, support him, etc (assuming close relatives), matter more than lets say the children mass murdered by decapitation by a single jihadi?
Moral action is usually about the person or entity that moral action or inaction is about. To avoid being considered X we wont do Y. Until things get complicated, cause sometimes not doing Y, can make one considered worse than X.
its not about the family of isis, or the family of the 74 children beheaded, is it?
as a people we clearly express that one man can kill 740 innocent children by some very heinous means, and know his loved ones are safe (something he would not do if roles were reversed), and all that is really permitted is finding them.
Is it strength?
is it weakness?
is it strength seen as weakness?
is it weakness seen as strength?
what if the famlly was turned over to the victims families and we let them decide? i guess if they dont kill them, its a moral win, and if they do, we are morally faulted for turning them over for the obvious outcome
the interesting thing i have found in discussing these things is that the smart thinking person stutters and or says the wrong thing, as its complicated to them, and they can see two sides that could be acceptable depending on where you stand. but the dumb or ingratiating, can jump on the right answer, when the wrong answer would be jumped on just as fast in another location in front of other people.
and we have to figure out who is who or what is what by things that may or may not actually happen, even if the big mouth ends up in office. (in a way trust the founders limits on power – if they were that easy to get around, the favored would have gone a lot farther in 8 years than the unliked can)
So is the moral rule absolute? ie. murder 100, 1000, 10000, doesn’t matter… or is there a point where the 10,000 innocents become worth more than 10 family members? if its 1000, where the 999 cheaper than the one more that tripped the condition?
i find that people who learned from books mostly vs those that didnt go so far and lived in the world, dont usually give the same answers in situations like this. one group finds it easy to side with what the books tell them is the right thing, the other tends to choose its own end, as there was no book telling them what was right. in the other thread neo has a post as to erroneous research, sometimes the books are not right, and sometimes there is no real right or wrong that one could choose as both choices are not acceptable
its an interesting quandry, and one i am glad i dont have to choose… im the stutterer that gets it wrong as i can debate from either side and find good reasons for either choice with no clear moral answer given that there is no definition of moral that is universal. even that i can see from different moral ideas ranging from Jainism to the pragmatist… one would never act, and so would let others act knowing it would not stain them, the other would act as it was practical to save the greater number over the smaller and could not stand aside to see such acts continue.
neo,
Regardless of Trump specifically mentioning 9/11, it is obvious to me at least that, he is referencing ISIS, al Qaeda and any other group of Muslims willing to act on Muhammad’s dictates.
“he definitely is NOT talking about homes, as you originally said you thought he was.”
No problem but that was blert, I never mentioned ‘homes’.
“In addition, his whole riff on 9/11 terrorist’s wives is garbage, and he’s said it at least twice, once after people corrected him on it. Knave or fool.”
I remain persuaded that my interpretation of Trump’s intent when mentioning families is a probability, not merely a possibility.
“Trump’s megalomania goes way way beyond that of the average politician.”
Change “megalomania” to bombastic self-importance and I can agree. I just am not yet persuaded that Trump is a megalomaniac.
“that even includes Obama, my previous champion of the trait.”
IMO, Obama far exceeds Trump because Obama is a “true believer” in his ideology. There may be no moral limit to what Obama can excuse in pursuit of his ‘truth’, whereas I do think Trump has his limits to what he can justify.
“Do not pretend he is anything like “half of Congress.”
OK after further reflection, I have to grant that. In the main, they are merely self-deluded, self-important little men.
Artfldgrs,
it becomes an old example of the named few are protected the unnamed thousands are ignored?”
As you no doubt remember, Stalin spoke of it, “The death of one man (or a few) is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic”
Matt_SE:
What on earth are you talking about?: “Trump performed up to the level of his longer-term average”? I notice that you don’t include a link. Did you know that there were only two polls of Kansas in the RCP average? And that the second one had pretty bad methodology (small sample; 440 total who “completed the survey,” so that the GOP respondents would probably be about 220)? However, if you weight both polls equally (the more recent one and that one), Trump’s average between the two comes out to be 30.5, and Cruz’s would be 21.5. The actual results were Trump 23.3 and Cruz 48.2. By no stretch of the imagination can you say that Trump performed as expected, even if you use the average and weight both polls equally.
Nate Silver, who is probably the best poll analyst of all, said that in order to get a valid average these two Kansas polls should not be weighted equally. When he predicted the results in the Kansas primaries, this was how he did it:
These were the same two polls that RCP listed. When Silver crunched the numbers, weighted for the above differences, he came up with 33.1 for Trump and 31.8 for Cruz. Trump obviously underperformed by Silver’s measures as well as RCP’s.
Geoffrey Britain:
Your interpretation of Trump’s intent is not supported by his words. Mine is.
I’m not sure why you’re giving him the benefit of way too much doubt, and interpreting his words in ways that just are not supported by the text, because if I recall correctly you’re not a Trump supporters, at least not particularly.
I did an analysis of Trump’s margins and Kansas was the outlier. His average performance deviates from RCP predictions usually by 3-4%. It’s really quite stable.
If KS is a blip, that doesn’t bother me much.
Cruz, meanwhile, has already had 4 states where he overperformed by more than 10%; 3 on Super Saturday and 1 on Super Tuesday. He is quite a bit more variable on paper, but most of it is due to events and momentum shifting. I think that will continue for a while.
But if you’d like, I’ll print out the entire list of margins.
Trump simply does NOT profile as a tyrant.
He’s the very inverse of the type.
I can’t recall a SINGLE tyrant that descended from entrepreneural Heaven.
Without exception they had BITTER childhoods.
Stalin and Hitler had virtually parallel childhoods. Both being nearly killed by their fathers.
Napoleon had the crap kicked out of himself – – punk that he was.
Soetoro had the crap kicked out of himself. — mulatto that he was.
This was so psychologically devastating that Barry refers to himself IN THE THIRD PERSON when relating the events.
That’s a TELL.
Napoleon, Soetoro, — name changes for political reasons — and early in life, too.
Stalin also changed his name — for image reasons.
Nero, Caligula, Alexander — all had weird — typically tragic childhoods.
Alexander — like our President — was largely out-grouped by way of his homosexuality — in a culture — like ours — that was hugely tolerant.
{ The Greeks and Macedonians didn’t care to see such behavior in their national leader// royal house.
{Think of the consequences for the succession.
Reading between the lines, it’s very apparent that Alexander the Great was hyper-compensating — in mental competition with his ( alienated ) father (Philip II) who was most likely assassinated by Alexander’s order.
Ivan the Terrible also fit this profile.
As you tick down the list, you realize that Trump is totally unlike the tyrants of history.
Happy childhood, LOVED his father — and vice versa.
Has happy, successful children — none of whom is neurotic.
VERY strange when you think about it.
Trump actually runs a fine organization — with far more demands than anything Kasich ever faced.
On that front Trump shames Kasich.
Trumps killer problem is that the MSM is laying in the weeds for him.
Ted Cruz sees it. He’s stated it.
Bombshells are SURE to come.
Trump is not an awful person. Hillary is.
He’ll shut up if elected.
I rather suspect that he’ll adopt Barry’s teleprompter stylings.
With thousands of Latino employees, Trump may surprise the heck out of everyone — and get a slug of votes from that faction.
Trump is virtually certain to alienate VAST numbers of classic GOP voters.
I see no way that they’ll shift. These are the folks that sat home rather than vote for Romney.
In sum, Trump is an okay guy — and a terrible nominee.
The latter matter is all that’s worth arguing about.
Ted Cruz is the only man standing who can obviously win in November.
He won’t alienate the base. He does NOT antagonize the average Trump voter. On policy, the two are often close.
If nominated, I believe Trump actually WOULD endorse Cruz.
Cruz would very, very, likely put Trump in charge of Commerce.
He’d LOVE it there. He’d be the point man on the biggest issues that he’s raised in his campaign.
AND, being Commerce Secretary would burnish his escutcheon to a high gloss.
The foreigners that are upset about Trump are the guys I want to be upset.
They’re jerks victimizing our middle class.
This is no powder-puff competition.
BTW, Hoover ran the US Federal government from the Commerce Department — when Coolidge was President.
It was a running joke at the time.
Hoover’s activism was ALL THROUGH the Harding Coolidge administrations…
Making him, in many ways, a three term president.
Harding and Coolidge merely rubber stamped Hoover’s policy notions.
( Harding had no national standing — nothing like Hoover’s.
( Silent Cal didn’t talk much even behind closed doors.
I can easily imagine a Cruz presidency with Trump doing the dirty work — in the weeds negotiating — while Cruz stumps for the end of the IRS.
I have no doubt that his crusade will be abetted by exposing un-ending violations of Federal law — by the IRS — at the behest of Barry and Co.
The scandals will be so severe that an Amendment will move rapidly ahead.
BTW, VAT + excise taxes + tariffs + land taxes = PLENTY of revenue.
You don’t really need Income Tax to balance the budget.
Tariffs on imported crude oil — from outside the Western Hemisphere — would save our industry — and not cripple our economy.
$65 oil is tolerable.
Land taxes — band width in the ether is = LAND.
Defunding whacko Leftist grants across academe — would do wonders to straighten that crowd out.
Most are nothing but Activist payola.
Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,
What is the worst possible outcome for the presidential election of 2016?
Assuming that an election will actually take place, that is an easy question to answer — Hillary Rodham Clinton as the next president of the United States.
She is truly evil in every sense of the word, and the implications of what four (or eight) years of Hillary would mean for our nation are almost too terrible to imagine.
That is why it is so depressing watching what is happening to the Republican Party right now.
The civil war in the Republican Party is ripping it to shreds, and as a result of all this warfare every plausible scenario for what will happen the rest of the way ends with Hillary Clinton winning the 2016 election.
More at ZeroHedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-07/thanks-republican-civil-war-every-scenario-ends-hillary-winning-election
Looking for a reason to apologize for Trump’s rhetoric, and then excusing his statement(s) as a mere malapropism is a bit like me at age 10 offering my dad a lame excuse as to why I did not clean out the stalls and put down new straw before catching the school bus. Needless to say when I got home, dad did accept my explanation. As they say, that dog don’t hunt.
Say what you mean, mean what you say. OTOH, perhaps its best not to say at all; just accept your punishment. 😉
blert:
You don’t get it.
The fact that no tyrants have “descended from entrepreneurial heaven” is not the point; tyrants are rare in capitalist societies to begin with. There have only been a few so far. So the “n” is tiny, but give us time, give us time.
Secondly, you write:
I would not take what Trump says on his relationship with his father at face value. I have read biographies of Trump, and his father was a very tough, hyper-competitive man, with his sons competing for his love. Trump saw the example of how his older brother didn’t measure up, and how cruel his father was to that brother, and the toll it took. I would wager Trump was determined not to have anything similar happen to him, and his own extremely intense competitiveness (which I think was natural to him) was further enhanced by fear of his father’s disapproval and competition with his father, to best him and be even more successful. He was the favored son, but only because of his success. Love was very conditional in that family. I am basing this on several articles and a biography of Trump that I have read, plus my own observations of Trump’s behavior and my own conclusions.
Many people report having had “happy” childhoods who are not aware of the dynamics that are driving them. Trump’s huge ego is very very unusual, and I do not perceive him as a happy man. I see him as a person who is always trying to tell us how happy and successful he is, however.
Let’s just take Trump at his word though, and say he had a good relationship with his father. That would not make him unique among tyrants. For example, Mussolini seems to have been close to his own father, learned a trade at his knee, and adopted many of his political positions from him. Mussolini also seems to have had a similar temperament to Trump’s as a child in terms of getting into trouble at school:
You’re not going to get some Trump clone who also is a tyrant. But there is absolutely nothing about Trump that would preclude tyranny, especially his own intentions as he has expressed them. Time and again (and I have written about this at length) he shows, and states, tyrannical impulses.
Neo:
“Trump performed up to the level of his longer-term average”?
Somewhat off-point, but it reminds me of a calculation I did recently on Trump’s fabulous business success in response to one of his drones at Breitbart.
$200 million principal x 7% (average long term return on mutual funds) for 44 years (1972-2016) compounded annually = $3.926 billion + $3 billion he claims his freakin’ name is worth (depending on how he feels(!) on any given day)= approx 7 billion vs his claimed net of 8-10 billion.
Forbes’ estimate of his net worth is $3 billion, probably not including the hyper-inflated value of his name. If they’re close to correct, he could be a billion dollars richer if he had just plunked daddy’s money down in mutual funds and let it ride.
Meanwhile he could have continued his heroic, courageous, death-defying quest to boink every hot chick on Gaia.
neo,
“Your interpretation of Trump’s intent is not supported by his words. Mine is.”
That’s true, strictly interpreted literally, your interpretation is the probable one. My intuition, (sense of the man) leads me to imagine that it may be incorrect. I’m not saying the interpretation I offer of Trump’s possible intent is correct, only that it may be and that, I currently find it to be the more probable.
“I’m not sure why you’re giving him the benefit of way too much doubt, and interpreting his words in ways that just are not supported by the text”
The interpretation of Trump that you offer just does not resonate with me. Admittedly, the fault may well lie with me but until the view you offer of Trump does resonate with me, I can’t support it. My ‘jury’ on Trump is definitely ‘still out’.
I’m giving Trump the possibility that his intent is of a different caliber than the one you offer, out of an honest evaluation that simply perceives the man a bit differently than does yours.
“if I recall correctly you’re not a Trump supporters, at least not particularly.”
I am not a ‘supporter’ of Trump at all. I readily acknowledge his faults and personally find bombast and narcissism off putting. I just don’t find those qualities to be equivalent to megalomania.
Recognizing Trump’s faults and IMO, his lack of suitability for the office he seeks… does not lead me to fail to appreciate that Trump has beat down the wall of PC that has prevented any national discussion of immigration and Muslim migration, which given the existential mortal threat they present is an invaluable service to America. For that alone Trump’s candidacy has had value.
I am a supporter of Cruz and have stated my belief that ONLY Cruz offers an actual path out of the wilderness…
Currently, I would support Trump if he wins the nomination, as even if his impulses are tyrannical, in my judgement, he would still present far less of a threat to the republic than does Hillary or Sanders. America can survive a bombastic, ‘wanna be’ tyrant constrained by hostility from both parties.
A Pres. Trump, acting as an ‘Obama on steroids’, would IMO be impeached and removed from office. I don’t buy the intimidation/threat/bribe scenario as persuasive in preventing a tyrannical Trump from removal. Americans are simply not going to accept a dictator, nor would the military support one.
IMO, what is persuasive is that America cannot survive another 8 years of Obama’s successor, who no matter what they do, will not be removed from office.
geokstr Says:
March 8th, 2016 at 7:57 am
Such notions don’t even make it up to wrong.
1) No way did Donald start out with $200,000,000.
2) His stake was never an inheritance. His father lived on for decades.
3) IIRC, his father staked him to rent controlled apartments by way of a Purchase Money Mortgage.
It HAD to be that way as at the scale involved, the gift taxes would be horrific.
A Purchase Money Mortgage = Daddy taking back Donald’s IOU to close out the transaction. That note would be a SECOND mortgage, conventional apartment financing would provide most of the leverage.
4) Donald used his sweat equity — from a rising real estate market — to compound up his holdings.
5) He moved AWAY from the properties that his father preferred. He started to acquire commercial properties that essentially are NOT rent controlled.
( Hotels… )
6) Even rent controlled apartments rise in value — as old folks move out // die off.
In his early years you can bet that Donald Trump REALLY kept track of tenant changes — the primary way he could bump up his rents.
During such bump ups, Donald soon found out that it was WELL worth his while to upgrade every apartment that could be repriced for a new tenant.
What started out small has grown to be the core dynamic for the Trump ’empire.’
You’ll note that Trump NEVER plays a pat hand. Every property is upgraded — or is a fresh build.
THAT is the source of his success — and why he sees himself as a builder.
&&&&&
One also has to tally up all of the money that Donald has taken out of his firm — to support his lifestyle.
Once done, it’s obvious that he’s FAR exceeded the rate of return one might expect from a passive investment on Wall Street.
&&&&&&&
He started out small — not big.
The bull market in real estate + crazy leverage = his success.
It’s a formula seen in ALL of his peers.
My old client went from middle class to Trumpian heights in one life time with the exact same formula.
He spent all of his latter years hiding from Forbes — as he loathed appearing on the Forbes 400 — for which my client was well qualified to be ranked.
His big difference, then, was staying out of the spot light. Most real estate tycoons operate that way.
By real estate development standards, Donald Trump is a SAINT.
For those criticizing him, come on over, I’ll introduce you to some REAL ^%$%$.
They’ll recalibrate your judgment.
Donald Trump is not an evil man. He’s just CERTAIN to turn off so many voters that he’s not electable.
He’ll never resolve the debate we have here at neo’s house — as he’ll never attain office.
Scott Adams is just flat wrong. He’s blinded by confirmation bias.
BTW, Donald’s father would’ve certainly forgiven a portion of the Purchase Money Mortgage year after year.
One can give away $10,000 per year per relative without triggering the Federal Gift Tax.
That figure has changed over the years — and I don’t think it’s even current. It’s just the last value I remember.
Trump made his fortune via hyper leverage.
In effect, shorting the US dollar.
Period.
It’s been a one-way bet for his entire lifetime.
Trump’s claim to be intrinsically worth $3,000,000,000 based upon his skill set and reputation is not so far off the mark.
Because his BANKERS treat him so differently than the average developer.
If a fellow gets to persistently obtain credit at below market normal rates and terms — yes that has real value.
And Trump has that ability — in scale.
I would say that he’s over stating his case — but he has a case.
He REALLY DOES get special treatment.
When he was in violation of his loan covenants — effectively insolvent — bankrupt — the syndicate refused to foreclose!
Instead, he was given a $650,000 per MONTH allowance!
Could you do that?
Very, very few real estate developers would ever be given that kind of slack.
The Biggest Bankers in our nation love Donald Trump. He’s been a cash machine for them. Hence, they’re willing to endure him — even when he’s upside down.
His casino fiascos entered Chapter 11 because the funds were owed not to bankers — but to bond holders.
He couldn’t finesse those loan covenants.
BTW, his peers also had even worse experiences in Atlantic City than he did, much worse.
http://www.thewrap.com/fox-news-bret-baier-some-republicans-could-back-hillary-clinton-over-donald-trump/
Again.
Trump sheds GOP votes FASTER than he gains Democrat votes.
He can’t possibly win in November.
Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum via Acting-Man.com,
A Serious Contender with a Plan
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-08/trumpomania-trumpopanic
An impressive discourse with lots of web links.
&&&&&
We need to stop thinking so much about stopping Trump — and more about stopping Hillary.
To my mind, Ted Cruz is the only fella that can stop Hillary AND has a shot at the nomination.
In the above linked missive, no words given about the huge number of GOP faithful that Trump is SURE to turn off.
A common theme is the question, “Why is the Republican Party ripping itself to shreds?”
The answer is simple- the Democrats have assembled a demographic edge in national elections- an edge that is only growing, and they intend to increase the rate of that growth by importing even more of their voters so that they can extend that edge back into the legislatures at the state levels. The Republicans are tearing themselves apart because there is no future in their present course. They must reinvent themselves.
Yancey Ward:
Depends what you mean by “present course.”
I can easily imagine the following: a conservative president elected in 2916 with a Republican Congess; successful policies implemented that help the economy, foreign policy, liberty, etc. etc.; people notice the contrast between the previous administration and this one; people realize the improvement is due at least in part to Republicans in charge; people start voting that way, at least for a while, if they can retain the information.
It’s not so very hard to imagine. It might have even occurred, but for the war within the Republican Party, a war exploited (although not caused) by Trump, and a war that is increasing in severity.
A war I predicted, by the way (last three paragraphs).
Geoffrey Britain, i forgot that quote…
he also said, size is a quality unto itself
as for oldflyer and his nasty anti trump point and claiming he doesnt care about Goldman sachs as his wife, if you look to the donations for the election, GS was one of the largest donators to Cruz election on his own website. so maybe it DOES have some meaning… eh?
sorry neo, didnt have time to read the answers to my points, but hopefully they werent misunderstood, as the morality point is just an interesting thing and can be taken many ways depending on where one is standing and what position one takes…
its just interesting, and hopefully it was taken that way
neo-neocon Says: to Geoffrey: Your interpretation of Trump’s intent is not supported by his words. Mine is.
and yet, in other points you said he lies…
so does it really matter if words today support something that changes tomorrow? unlike politicians and ideology, a business man changes tack all the time the instant something is not the way it was thought to be… thats called adaptability, but in politics its flip flopping…
note that yahoo was a search company
now its a holding company with a search engine
happens all the time in business…
not so much in liberal politics where someone who declares when they are 8 years old X must stay with X
why?
cause if your young and not socialist you have no heart
if your old and socialist you have no brain
and if we stop yo from flipflopping we geto to have your socialist answers stick when you have a brain to change them
🙂
Artfldgr:
Indeed, when someone lies and lies and lies there is no way to know for sure what they think and feel, and what they will do.
Nevertheless, it is still possible—and necessary—to try to evaluate that person and what the person thinks and feels and what that person will do if in office.
The very best way to do that is to study the person, and in particular I find that unscripted ad lib moments can be very telling, although all behavior and words are grist for the mill.
im a person who knows that birds of a feather flock together and a honest person does not make a team of establishment crooks that were caught and didnt do jail time, and are his key players… his team is mostly a rogues gallery of people we dislike if we dont like bank bailouts (silverado), war and toppling governments (iran contra), and cheating tax payers (woolsey)