I'm simply not getting too worked up about the polls, my position is, as always, work like Biden is 10 points down. Not really worried about the money either, I want to see how much money trump spent on his lawyers in May. Paying lawyers to file motions is expensive enough, but paying three lawyers to sit in a courtroom all day for 5 weeks ($2,000 an hour EACH?) is crazy expensive. Plus the bulk of the grassroots donations trump got are probably not sustainable month to month. So the world turns as before - and I just donated another $25 dollars to Biden!
Best thing the Dems have going for them is the total takeover of the RNC by tRump loyalists, who then will carry out tRump's directives. And, as we all know, "everything tRump touches, dies", and that would include the RNC and campaign "management".
tRump tried to "manage" his various trials, and in doing so lost all of them. I'm wagering his streak will continue despite tens of millions of dollars pouring into the campaign, a good chunk of which is being diverted into legal fees.
The guy is a loser, but nobody close to him dares to speak those home truths.
Since he thinks he doesn't need votes, that they have all they need and will argue that the election will be stolen, I guess he thinks it doesn't matter if he outsourced the ground game to a third party. Plus when that strategy fails and he loses (honestly) but can't overturn it in the courts (again), he will be able to blame them, especially since nothing is ever his fault.
Important to note the difference between Trump eliminating Biden's advantage in cash in-hand and Biden's advantage in fundraising or total expenditure (I'd argue the latter is a better measure of a campaign's financial prowess once we hit March - if they can't spend it, it doesn't matter that they have it). Also, Trump's fundraising bonanzas around his indictments didn't prevent him from being well behind Biden overall in FY23. His fundraising pattern consolidates revenue around a few days per year, while Biden's is a constant flow.
Finally, this seems obvious: The reason the Trump Campaign is outsourcing everything is because they (and now the RNC) have no functional, well, campaign. FWIW, beyond sharing Mellon as a donor, they now share with RFK Jr. the strategy of hiring all their operatives. By many reports, that is not working out very well for Kennedy so far. Similarly, outsourcing all your advertising to third parties prevents any message discipline. I suspect that Biden's PAC ads are being honed alongside his campaign ads to push a cohesive sales pitch in specific places. I expect ads for Trump to be scattershot at best and probably offensive in some cases at worst.
If the CF's strategy for raising funds is leveraging events that stimulate the outrage button amongst his loyal followers, he's gonna need some more trials and convictions before November to keep the dollars flowing; opposite the strategy of delaying all these processes until after November. The victimization story will go stale without new evidence to stoke the boilers, i.e. more judges, witnesses and juries producing "sham trials and witch hunts" against the would be dictator.
A couple things occurred to me: 1) Isn't outsourcing a candidate's campaigning the same kind of thing DuhSantis did? We saw how that worked out for him. If your candidate is an uncharismatic loser, you still (probably) aren't going to win.
And B) If all this money is going to Turning Point USA et al, where's Dumpy going to get the money to pay his legsl bills?
And III) The GOP still has a twice-impeached rapist-racist felon as its candidate. Maybe I'm delusional, but I think that's going to matter in the end, when people go to the polls.
I agree! He is the ugliest candidate to ever run for president. There won’t be new voters saying”I think I’ll vote for tfg because he’s a convicted felon”.
Turning Point USA and Charlie Kirk are a gift ! Even conservatives are upset.I mean…what could possibly go wrong with having Candace Owen and Alex Jones on your side ??
And I wonder if those paid canvassers will have Charlie Kirk’s messaging ?? ➡️“Women in their thirties are past their prime” and “birth control makes women angry and bitter.”
The ground game is primarily about low-information voters, because the rest of us have pretty much made up our minds a long time ago. Those who generally don't pay much attention. The fact that his trial received OJ-like media attention will probably reach them, but the fact that he is also a rapist, or that he was impeached, may not register.
I agree that it will be very difficult for the Orange Puffy's ground game to get established. I would think that beyond inheriting a collection of people who have already answered yes to the question, "Have aliens eaten your brain?" they won't be able to leverage much of any existing ground game effort.
"Total paid canvassers: 3,000, at least." I'll believe when I see it. Reminds me of Trump's 2020 campaign boast of having 50,000 canvassers going door-to-door across the nation. It's all a mirage.
How do I get a job on this team? I'll be happy to go door to door and talk with likely Republican voters about the benefits of having a convicted felon with multiple bankruptcies in charge of your social security check, your food stamps, your government-subsidized healthcare, and so much more. If you can't trust a felon convicted of fraud 34 times, who can you trust?
That's actually a really good idea. Seriously. Get paid by these fanatics, canvas, and calmly tell voters the full list of his crimes, both convicted and still awaiting trial.
Eventually, we'd probably get fired, but who knows who's minding the store? We may not!
The tribal mindset exhibited is why we are a third world shithole. It’s not about the opposition. NOTHING the GOP says or does has bearing on the Democratic Party platform. EVER! Have you ever read it? It’s the largest corporate subsidy proposal in our history as a nation.
It’s about your party platform and holding all, no matter party affiliation, accountable to the Oath and WtP.
We are already seeing an uptick in foreign trolls on social media. What's to stop some of this money making it into the hands of Russian and Chinese trolls to flood the media sites with their propaganda. It's already happening and what's to stop them from colluding again with these foreign agents. Remember the media promised to self police but we have seen how that works.
Those trolls may not even need payment, or collusion. Putin has a strong vested interest of his own in seeing Trump win. And while it's not as clear, I also suspect Xi is also more Trump-inclined.
Seems to me pretty much ALL your favorite dictators are Trump-inclined. Unlike him, they are all actually pretty damn smart, and didn't get where they are playing checkers instead of chess (except Kim - total nepo baby, but Grandpa and Daddy trained him up well). They know how to push all his buttons, and he will happily do anything they want him to do, as long as the flattery keeps coming, and he sees $$$ coming. NATO? Kiss it bye-bye. Taiwan? Swallow it whole, Mr. Xi - we good. He doesn't much like Iran - now - but that can change in a heartbeat and on a whim. Think those mullahs don't understand how to manipulate an ignoramus like The Convict? Think again.
Every one of them will pour money and disinformation into this campaign.
Wondering the difference in small donor versus large donor amounts between the campaigns. I may not understand it completely but my impression is that having a higher number of small donors could indicate more enthusiasm about (and possibly votes for) a candidate.
I note that the Trump campaign doesn’t have to spend as much money for publicity as all the news organizations give him so much coverage - his rallies, his tweets, all appear, usually glossing over the bonkers statements, while the quiet work Biden is doing gets scant attention.
The most worrying thing to me is the fact that while Democratic messaging focuses a lot on hiw great the economy is doing, they seem unwilling to address the fact that for millions of people, making ends meet right now is a huge issue. It's as if that demographic doesn't exist to them. It's a huge mistake to sweep us under the rug as if our current experience is somehow invalid or the outlier. If the Republicans start messaging to this, it could be a factor. I understand that the President doesn't control pricing. But he's also someone to "blame" for the real misery a lot of folks are in. When people can't afford everyday expenses, and it doesn't seem like anyone is doing anything, the current administration is going to take the hit.
I really hope somebody of the Biden campaign saw "The Daily Show" on Monday. Jon Stewart's guest was Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II who wrote the book "White Poverty". According to him there are 130Mio Americans living in poverty and they are a significant voting block. If they would unite they could dominate any election. The Dems need to highlight their work on the student loans, the credit junk fees etc. This makes a real impact for this demographic group.
I respect the work Rev. Dr. Barber does, so I would wonder where he gets that number - 40% of Americans are living in poverty? It was about 12% in 2022 per the US Census and the Fed. I can imagine there are some factors that the govt. doesn't take into account, but a 233% difference doesn't seem reasonable.
I think it all depends on how you define poverty. 34% of US workers make less than 20 dollars per hour. The surges in costs of living post pandemic have been more than most of us can absorb. Is it poverty? It's getting too damn close.
All good points - those in poverty are also less likely to vote: in 2022, middle income voting rate was 67% vs. 33% for those living below the poverty rate. Of those that didn't vote, 28% didn't due to scheduling conflicts and another 18% didn't because they "weren't interested" (!). There is indeed a big opportunity for outreach on issues and logistical support.
He mentioned something that the official yearly income for poverty is $13000/year. I looked it up and it is defined as that for a single person household. For a family of four it would be $26500. The Census Bureau uses three times the cost of a minimum diet in 1963 as a formula. Of course this is totally out of touch with reality since most of the money these days goes to housing. I would guess Dr Barber uses another guideline to come to his number and it probably more realistic. But I have not read his book.
That's another big part of the problem, the governments refusal to use realistic figures in gaging poverty or anything else for that matter. And states are more than happy to adopt these completely unrealistic numbers for their own programs.
Unfortunately the Dems are NOT the wise crusaders fighting for the salts of the earth. There are many good Dems. However, there are, also, a lot of Cafe Latte liberals Dems. Adversity keeps acquainting us with these strange bedfellows.
Some 50 years ago I made up the term cafe latte liberal—or at least thinking I did, recognizing I may have read it somewhere—to have a specific meaning to describe a portion of the Democratic distribution of voters. I believe a specific incident was a major part of my incipient formation of that phrase.
Th incident was a neighbor living with the assistance of food stamps. This neighbor came from a wealthy family and she drove an expensive sports car while finishing her college education at the local university.
I asked her why she was doing this and she responded so she could understand what it was like to be poor. You can guess what I thought about that answer.
Because politics was everywhere during that period I was aware of many liberal politicians positioning themselves as champions of the poor who clearly didn’t seem to have any understanding of the impact of poverty on one’s life especially if black. This led to my general distrust of politicians, a distrust that has been confirmed time so that my prior probabilities have not varied much with addition information.
I doubt my use of the adjectival phrase cafe Latte is the same as yours. But to answer your question I’ll choose instead to ignore it since the answer is obvious and supported by basic arithmetic in our electoral system. So my guess is you have a point to make. Just say it.
You aren't wrong - but as long as they're gonna vote Blue (and they certainly are), I'm OK with them. We just really need to get the lower information and lower income folks to see clearly how much worse it'll be if The Convict wins, and make sure they know they MUST show up to vote.
Making the equity firms divest 20% of the housing stock would help drive down housing and rent costs. Which in turn, would help Biden and the Dems.
Theres a bill, right now, that’s coming out of committee that does just that. I’ve already written to all my representatives asking them to support it.
Rent prices are out of control and the 20& 30 year olds are furious. It’s taking half their paychecks.
We need their votes. Half voted (an all time high) in 2020. We cannot afford to lose them.
That is a good idea in general, but there's a big catch: politicians of both parties have, for decades, promoted home ownership as a safe investment with above-average returns.
Anything that lowers housing costs would, by necessity, lower home values, and be political suicide among the voters who are home owners. Which is more than half of Americans.
This is all true - but home values are currently artificially inflated by the private equity that poured into the market during the pandemic. Combine that with still-high interest rates, and the equation doesn't work. Your house may be worth far more on paper than it was 5 years ago, but if you want to sell and no one can afford to buy it - is it really?
And that's why politicians need these equity firms who *can* afford to buy.
You are right, of course, that home values are artificially inflated. But when you are in your mid-60s and expect to refi your house into a reverse mortgage, it doesn't matter if it's artificial or not; a collapse in home values will be devastating. And politicians fear that. Think 2008 was bad? A return to sane housing values would be worse.
There is another issue: a drop in housing values would freeze construction. With all of today's mandates, the cost of construction is so astronomical that you need high resale values to make the math work.
I'm simply not getting too worked up about the polls, my position is, as always, work like Biden is 10 points down. Not really worried about the money either, I want to see how much money trump spent on his lawyers in May. Paying lawyers to file motions is expensive enough, but paying three lawyers to sit in a courtroom all day for 5 weeks ($2,000 an hour EACH?) is crazy expensive. Plus the bulk of the grassroots donations trump got are probably not sustainable month to month. So the world turns as before - and I just donated another $25 dollars to Biden!
Yup…them damn lawyer fees😉
Best thing the Dems have going for them is the total takeover of the RNC by tRump loyalists, who then will carry out tRump's directives. And, as we all know, "everything tRump touches, dies", and that would include the RNC and campaign "management".
tRump tried to "manage" his various trials, and in doing so lost all of them. I'm wagering his streak will continue despite tens of millions of dollars pouring into the campaign, a good chunk of which is being diverted into legal fees.
The guy is a loser, but nobody close to him dares to speak those home truths.
His delusion and sycophantic enablers are our secret weapons, Lance!
Since he thinks he doesn't need votes, that they have all they need and will argue that the election will be stolen, I guess he thinks it doesn't matter if he outsourced the ground game to a third party. Plus when that strategy fails and he loses (honestly) but can't overturn it in the courts (again), he will be able to blame them, especially since nothing is ever his fault.
It is known.
Indeed, on all points!
Important to note the difference between Trump eliminating Biden's advantage in cash in-hand and Biden's advantage in fundraising or total expenditure (I'd argue the latter is a better measure of a campaign's financial prowess once we hit March - if they can't spend it, it doesn't matter that they have it). Also, Trump's fundraising bonanzas around his indictments didn't prevent him from being well behind Biden overall in FY23. His fundraising pattern consolidates revenue around a few days per year, while Biden's is a constant flow.
Finally, this seems obvious: The reason the Trump Campaign is outsourcing everything is because they (and now the RNC) have no functional, well, campaign. FWIW, beyond sharing Mellon as a donor, they now share with RFK Jr. the strategy of hiring all their operatives. By many reports, that is not working out very well for Kennedy so far. Similarly, outsourcing all your advertising to third parties prevents any message discipline. I suspect that Biden's PAC ads are being honed alongside his campaign ads to push a cohesive sales pitch in specific places. I expect ads for Trump to be scattershot at best and probably offensive in some cases at worst.
If the CF's strategy for raising funds is leveraging events that stimulate the outrage button amongst his loyal followers, he's gonna need some more trials and convictions before November to keep the dollars flowing; opposite the strategy of delaying all these processes until after November. The victimization story will go stale without new evidence to stoke the boilers, i.e. more judges, witnesses and juries producing "sham trials and witch hunts" against the would be dictator.
A couple things occurred to me: 1) Isn't outsourcing a candidate's campaigning the same kind of thing DuhSantis did? We saw how that worked out for him. If your candidate is an uncharismatic loser, you still (probably) aren't going to win.
And B) If all this money is going to Turning Point USA et al, where's Dumpy going to get the money to pay his legsl bills?
And III) The GOP still has a twice-impeached rapist-racist felon as its candidate. Maybe I'm delusional, but I think that's going to matter in the end, when people go to the polls.
I agree! He is the ugliest candidate to ever run for president. There won’t be new voters saying”I think I’ll vote for tfg because he’s a convicted felon”.
Turning Point USA and Charlie Kirk are a gift ! Even conservatives are upset.I mean…what could possibly go wrong with having Candace Owen and Alex Jones on your side ??
https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-criticized-young-conservative-over-toxic-leadership-1914448
And I wonder if those paid canvassers will have Charlie Kirk’s messaging ?? ➡️“Women in their thirties are past their prime” and “birth control makes women angry and bitter.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBMdgM3eCtI
Just keep making my/our job easier ! ✍️👍💲📣🛒👕
The ground game is primarily about low-information voters, because the rest of us have pretty much made up our minds a long time ago. Those who generally don't pay much attention. The fact that his trial received OJ-like media attention will probably reach them, but the fact that he is also a rapist, or that he was impeached, may not register.
The Mellon donation is why Citizens United has to go!
Trump giving money to outsource is hilarious to me. It shows he hasn’t learned a single thing.
We all know how that worked out when he gave Bannon cash to build his wall.
That they found his Nevada team gambling when they should have been working probably still doesn’t click work Trump.
Let them all waste his money. That’s what Trump would do. It’s on brand for him.
It's gonna be a crimeapalooza!!
It'll take the DOJ dozens of years to clean it all up.
I agree that it will be very difficult for the Orange Puffy's ground game to get established. I would think that beyond inheriting a collection of people who have already answered yes to the question, "Have aliens eaten your brain?" they won't be able to leverage much of any existing ground game effort.
What about the 20 million from Bloomberg to Biden's campaign?
That just happened and will show up next reporting
Guessing that will be included in this month’s/next quarter totals
"Total paid canvassers: 3,000, at least." I'll believe when I see it. Reminds me of Trump's 2020 campaign boast of having 50,000 canvassers going door-to-door across the nation. It's all a mirage.
How do I get a job on this team? I'll be happy to go door to door and talk with likely Republican voters about the benefits of having a convicted felon with multiple bankruptcies in charge of your social security check, your food stamps, your government-subsidized healthcare, and so much more. If you can't trust a felon convicted of fraud 34 times, who can you trust?
That's actually a really good idea. Seriously. Get paid by these fanatics, canvas, and calmly tell voters the full list of his crimes, both convicted and still awaiting trial.
Eventually, we'd probably get fired, but who knows who's minding the store? We may not!
The tribal mindset exhibited is why we are a third world shithole. It’s not about the opposition. NOTHING the GOP says or does has bearing on the Democratic Party platform. EVER! Have you ever read it? It’s the largest corporate subsidy proposal in our history as a nation.
It’s about your party platform and holding all, no matter party affiliation, accountable to the Oath and WtP.
Don't forget Melinda Gates.
She only endorsed him. I don’t believe she gave money to his campaign.
We are already seeing an uptick in foreign trolls on social media. What's to stop some of this money making it into the hands of Russian and Chinese trolls to flood the media sites with their propaganda. It's already happening and what's to stop them from colluding again with these foreign agents. Remember the media promised to self police but we have seen how that works.
Those trolls may not even need payment, or collusion. Putin has a strong vested interest of his own in seeing Trump win. And while it's not as clear, I also suspect Xi is also more Trump-inclined.
Seems to me pretty much ALL your favorite dictators are Trump-inclined. Unlike him, they are all actually pretty damn smart, and didn't get where they are playing checkers instead of chess (except Kim - total nepo baby, but Grandpa and Daddy trained him up well). They know how to push all his buttons, and he will happily do anything they want him to do, as long as the flattery keeps coming, and he sees $$$ coming. NATO? Kiss it bye-bye. Taiwan? Swallow it whole, Mr. Xi - we good. He doesn't much like Iran - now - but that can change in a heartbeat and on a whim. Think those mullahs don't understand how to manipulate an ignoramus like The Convict? Think again.
Every one of them will pour money and disinformation into this campaign.
Wondering the difference in small donor versus large donor amounts between the campaigns. I may not understand it completely but my impression is that having a higher number of small donors could indicate more enthusiasm about (and possibly votes for) a candidate.
Seen from that perspective, every 5 dollar donor is a voter. For the other side, every 30 million dollar donor is...one...voter.
I note that the Trump campaign doesn’t have to spend as much money for publicity as all the news organizations give him so much coverage - his rallies, his tweets, all appear, usually glossing over the bonkers statements, while the quiet work Biden is doing gets scant attention.
He definitely doesn't need to buy ads on Fox.
The most worrying thing to me is the fact that while Democratic messaging focuses a lot on hiw great the economy is doing, they seem unwilling to address the fact that for millions of people, making ends meet right now is a huge issue. It's as if that demographic doesn't exist to them. It's a huge mistake to sweep us under the rug as if our current experience is somehow invalid or the outlier. If the Republicans start messaging to this, it could be a factor. I understand that the President doesn't control pricing. But he's also someone to "blame" for the real misery a lot of folks are in. When people can't afford everyday expenses, and it doesn't seem like anyone is doing anything, the current administration is going to take the hit.
I really hope somebody of the Biden campaign saw "The Daily Show" on Monday. Jon Stewart's guest was Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II who wrote the book "White Poverty". According to him there are 130Mio Americans living in poverty and they are a significant voting block. If they would unite they could dominate any election. The Dems need to highlight their work on the student loans, the credit junk fees etc. This makes a real impact for this demographic group.
I respect the work Rev. Dr. Barber does, so I would wonder where he gets that number - 40% of Americans are living in poverty? It was about 12% in 2022 per the US Census and the Fed. I can imagine there are some factors that the govt. doesn't take into account, but a 233% difference doesn't seem reasonable.
I think it all depends on how you define poverty. 34% of US workers make less than 20 dollars per hour. The surges in costs of living post pandemic have been more than most of us can absorb. Is it poverty? It's getting too damn close.
All good points - those in poverty are also less likely to vote: in 2022, middle income voting rate was 67% vs. 33% for those living below the poverty rate. Of those that didn't vote, 28% didn't due to scheduling conflicts and another 18% didn't because they "weren't interested" (!). There is indeed a big opportunity for outreach on issues and logistical support.
He mentioned something that the official yearly income for poverty is $13000/year. I looked it up and it is defined as that for a single person household. For a family of four it would be $26500. The Census Bureau uses three times the cost of a minimum diet in 1963 as a formula. Of course this is totally out of touch with reality since most of the money these days goes to housing. I would guess Dr Barber uses another guideline to come to his number and it probably more realistic. But I have not read his book.
That's another big part of the problem, the governments refusal to use realistic figures in gaging poverty or anything else for that matter. And states are more than happy to adopt these completely unrealistic numbers for their own programs.
Oh the great search
For cognitive tranquillity
Stay on message
Ignore whirlpools of chaos
Within the laminar flows
Of a mind’s view
Enjoy the Appollonian gift
Not hearing the Cassandra’s
Like Tammy Swisher
I hear the Clarion Calls
I hear you
“Laminar flows/of a mind’s view”—love it!
Unfortunately the Dems are NOT the wise crusaders fighting for the salts of the earth. There are many good Dems. However, there are, also, a lot of Cafe Latte liberals Dems. Adversity keeps acquainting us with these strange bedfellows.
I'm a Cafe Latte independent. Do I count? I think my vote has the same impact as the next guy.
Some 50 years ago I made up the term cafe latte liberal—or at least thinking I did, recognizing I may have read it somewhere—to have a specific meaning to describe a portion of the Democratic distribution of voters. I believe a specific incident was a major part of my incipient formation of that phrase.
Th incident was a neighbor living with the assistance of food stamps. This neighbor came from a wealthy family and she drove an expensive sports car while finishing her college education at the local university.
I asked her why she was doing this and she responded so she could understand what it was like to be poor. You can guess what I thought about that answer.
Because politics was everywhere during that period I was aware of many liberal politicians positioning themselves as champions of the poor who clearly didn’t seem to have any understanding of the impact of poverty on one’s life especially if black. This led to my general distrust of politicians, a distrust that has been confirmed time so that my prior probabilities have not varied much with addition information.
I doubt my use of the adjectival phrase cafe Latte is the same as yours. But to answer your question I’ll choose instead to ignore it since the answer is obvious and supported by basic arithmetic in our electoral system. So my guess is you have a point to make. Just say it.
You aren't wrong - but as long as they're gonna vote Blue (and they certainly are), I'm OK with them. We just really need to get the lower information and lower income folks to see clearly how much worse it'll be if The Convict wins, and make sure they know they MUST show up to vote.
I understand.
Making the equity firms divest 20% of the housing stock would help drive down housing and rent costs. Which in turn, would help Biden and the Dems.
Theres a bill, right now, that’s coming out of committee that does just that. I’ve already written to all my representatives asking them to support it.
Rent prices are out of control and the 20& 30 year olds are furious. It’s taking half their paychecks.
We need their votes. Half voted (an all time high) in 2020. We cannot afford to lose them.
There's no way that bill makes it out of the House
Agree, though I doubt it’s just the republicans that take money from equity firms.
This is true - but it'll make another excellent cudgel to whack the Rs with through the campaign.
That is a good idea in general, but there's a big catch: politicians of both parties have, for decades, promoted home ownership as a safe investment with above-average returns.
Anything that lowers housing costs would, by necessity, lower home values, and be political suicide among the voters who are home owners. Which is more than half of Americans.
This is all true - but home values are currently artificially inflated by the private equity that poured into the market during the pandemic. Combine that with still-high interest rates, and the equation doesn't work. Your house may be worth far more on paper than it was 5 years ago, but if you want to sell and no one can afford to buy it - is it really?
And that's why politicians need these equity firms who *can* afford to buy.
You are right, of course, that home values are artificially inflated. But when you are in your mid-60s and expect to refi your house into a reverse mortgage, it doesn't matter if it's artificial or not; a collapse in home values will be devastating. And politicians fear that. Think 2008 was bad? A return to sane housing values would be worse.
There is another issue: a drop in housing values would freeze construction. With all of today's mandates, the cost of construction is so astronomical that you need high resale values to make the math work.