Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The real reason Trump's campaign manager was fired--his campaign raised 3.1 million in May. Clinton raised 27 mil. That's pretty bad.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/donald-trumps-may-fundraising-totals-are-stunningly-bad/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_fix-trumpmoney-1045%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Wow

But I thought trump promised to hire the best and smartest people to help him?

 Ustrello wrote:
But I thought trump promised to hire the best and smartest people to help him?

Also, I thought he was so loaded with money, that he didn't need donors??

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
But I thought trump promised to hire the best and smartest people to help him?

Also, I thought he was so loaded with money, that he didn't need donors??

Nah man, he has so many donors and you know what, they are the best donors. The best donors you have ever seen. Way better than her donors, he just has the best donors. You wouldn't believe how good his donors are.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
But I thought trump promised to hire the best and smartest people to help him?

Also, I thought he was so loaded with money, that he didn't need donors??

It gets even worse when you look into the numbers a bit deeper. Trump donated 2.2 mil to his campaign last month and his campaign ended the month with 1.3 million cash on hand. his campaign took in 5.4 million total including his own donation but spent 6.7 million. He is actively losing money...in the month after he secured the nomination. Clinton ended the month with 42 million cash on hand--after she paid for a 120 million ad buy in swing states from now until Nov. Tonight Trump announced he purchased a $700,000 ad buy for comparison.

Trump's appeal to his core supporters so far is partly that he is not part of the usual political machine that has hundreds of people sitting there to work the phones and raise money for a slick campaign.

In truth, though, Trump is a "Fake it 'til you make it" kind of candidate. He's achieved his current situation through a combination of luck and cheapness.

Now he has effectively won the nomination he has to hope that the GOP grandees will get the party machine out to support him.

 whembly wrote:

I don't even know how you reached to that conclusion...

You used the word "unknowable" regarding the concept of "trial and error", which sounds an awful lot like "faith" to me. Double points for assuming that society is a homogeneous thing because, given that we're having this argument, said assumption is plainly false. We are both natural-born citizens of the US, in case you have forgotten.

 whembly wrote:

Point being, no individual/groups of individual/government is perfect. So feth ups are bound to happen and thus governance evolves.

Do you agree with that premise?

That no government is perfect? Sure.

I'm not certain why that leads to political conservatism. Indeed that seems to work directly against it.

 whembly wrote:

Rubio is anti 10th amendment? I'm sure you can provide justifications for that retort...

Rubio's positions on immigration pretty much stomp all over the 10th Amendment.

 whembly wrote:

So Reagan is bad. Gotcha.

No, Reagan is dead and his coattails ran short some time ago.

I would personally say Reagan was overhyped as a president and ventures into middling/top low end presidency.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump's appeal to his core supporters so far is partly that he is not part of the usual political machine that has hundreds of people sitting there to work the phones and raise money for a slick campaign.

In truth, though, Trump is a "Fake it 'til you make it" kind of candidate. He's achieved his current situation through a combination of luck and cheapness.

Now he has effectively won the nomination he has to hope that the GOP grandees will get the party machine out to support him.

That's his play, but the RNC isn't doing much better. They took in 11 million last month and they have to try to divide that up not only with Trump, but with congressmen and senators as well. If Trump's numbers don't improve considerably, I would bet the money they would be willing to dole out to him would be sparse.

To put Trump's woes into perspective, he has less cash on hand than Ben Carson's campaign has remaining.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump's appeal to his core supporters so far is partly that he is not part of the usual political machine that has hundreds of people sitting there to work the phones and raise money for a slick campaign.

In truth, though, Trump is a "Fake it 'til you make it" kind of candidate. He's achieved his current situation through a combination of luck and cheapness.

Now he has effectively won the nomination he has to hope that the GOP grandees will get the party machine out to support him.

That's his play, but the RNC isn't doing much better. They took in 11 million last month and they have to try to divide that up not only with Trump, but with congressmen and senators as well. If Trump's numbers don't improve considerably, I would bet the money they would be willing to dole out to him would be sparse.

To put Trump's woes into perspective, he has less cash on hand than Ben Carson's campaign has remaining.

Do you have a link to that? I am not really disputing what you are saying. I just want to see it. I need a good laugh.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump's appeal to his core supporters so far is partly that he is not part of the usual political machine that has hundreds of people sitting there to work the phones and raise money for a slick campaign.

In truth, though, Trump is a "Fake it 'til you make it" kind of candidate. He's achieved his current situation through a combination of luck and cheapness.

Now he has effectively won the nomination he has to hope that the GOP grandees will get the party machine out to support him.

That's his play, but the RNC isn't doing much better. They took in 11 million last month and they have to try to divide that up not only with Trump, but with congressmen and senators as well. If Trump's numbers don't improve considerably, I would bet the money they would be willing to dole out to him would be sparse.

To put Trump's woes into perspective, he has less cash on hand than Ben Carson's campaign has remaining.

Do you have a link to that? I am not really disputing what you are saying. I just want to see it. I need a good laugh.

The numbers I culled from a number of sources but the Carson gem is in here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/paloma/the-daily-trail/2016/06/20/the-daily-trail-donald-trump-s-day-started-out-bad-it-got-worse/576814af981b92a22d22cda6/?tid=pm_pop_b

This is a classic quotation.

The Washington Post wrote:Soon after he was axed, Lewandowski emerged with several "Everything is Awesome" interviews.

But things aren't awesome. And they probably won't be anytime soon, says Chris Cillizza, because Monday's move doesn't get rid of the campaign figure generating the most damage to the campaign: Trump himself.

Obviously The WP is totally biased so nothing they say can be true.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-16/more-companies-opt-to-sit-out-trump-s-coronation-in-cleveland

A growing number of prominent U.S. corporations are opting to drop or scale back their sponsorship of the Republican national convention next month in Cleveland, as the nomination of Donald Trump promises a level of controversy rarely seen in such gatherings.
Among those to signal in recent days that they won't sponsor the convention this year are Wells Fargo & Co., United Parcel Service Inc., Motorola Solutions Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Ford Motor Co., and Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. All of those companies sponsored the previous Republican conclave, in Tampa, Florida, in 2012.

Apple aren't sponsoring either

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/us/politics/apple-uneasy-over-donald-j-trump-wont-support-republican-convention.html?_r=0



TBF I'm sure there'll still be enough donors to get things rolling.

Apparently Trump has so far treated the $45 million he has spent on his campaign as loans to the campaign, and has been saying he will convert them into gifts.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In truth, though, Trump is a "Fake it 'til you make it" kind of candidate. He's achieved his current situation through a combination of luck and cheapness.

Well, there's also a major contribution from his opponents all being terrible. His primary opponents were all either obviously incompetent (Carson, Fiorina), bland and forgettable (Bush, Kasich), or spectacularly awful (Cruz). If there had actually been a candidate anyone wanted to vote for (other than as a "dear god anyone but Trump" vote) then I don't think Trump would have had any hope of winning.

Yes indeed, he was up against a weak field. That is part of his luck, and together with his personal style it enabled him to run a cheap campaign.

But it was a cheap campaign that, rather than saving money for the big game, simply didn't get much out of supporters' pockets. Partly because Trump presented himself as the self-made man who didn't need to play the usual political game.

Trump is now in the position that Clinton's campaign is reserving the best advertising slots, and he doesn't have enough money to make bookings.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes indeed, he was up against a weak field. That is part of his luck, and together with his personal style it enabled him to run a cheap campaign.

I suspect it wasn't luck and Trump decided to make a serious campaign because the competition was weak. I guess it's luck that such an opportunity happened at all, but taking advantage of the opportunity is good strategy, not luck.

Luck created an opportunity and Trump took advantage.

I wonder if he's regretting it now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Luck created an opportunity and Trump took advantage.

I wonder if he's regretting it now.

If he loses he certainly will as it will provide comedians and critics with ammunition to blast him with for years to come. For someone with as thin a skin as Trump that will be excruciating

That should tell the RNC convention delegates to drop Trump...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Luck created an opportunity and Trump took advantage.

I wonder if he's regretting it now.

If he loses he certainly will as it will provide comedians and critics with ammunition to blast him with for years to come. For someone with as thin a skin as Trump that will be excruciating

And with hands so small he can't cover his ears he will have to listen to all of it.

Can I just say that I absolutely adore this man.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-36586860

meanwhile evidently the Secret Service is still protecting Sanders at a sum of like thousands per day with detail SS agents to round the clock security of him, and one has to wonder why? hes lost, so why the detail still?

Asterios wrote:
meanwhile evidently the Secret Service is still protecting Sanders at a sum of like thousands per day with detail SS agents to round the clock security of him, and one has to wonder why? hes lost, so why the detail still?

It's not unprecedented to have a secret service detail for a popular, but losing/lost candidate until after their convention when the hoopla dies down a bit for them. Each case is handled individually. Also, the candidate can refuse at any time.

On an unrelated not, in the airport yesterday, I saw a dead ringer for Bernie Sanders wearing an "I'm not Bernie" t-shirt. He had fewer wrinkles.

 kronk wrote:

Asterios wrote:
meanwhile evidently the Secret Service is still protecting Sanders at a sum of like thousands per day with detail SS agents to round the clock security of him, and one has to wonder why? hes lost, so why the detail still?

It's not unprecedented to have a secret service detail for a popular, but losing/lost candidate until after their convention when the hoopla dies down a bit for them. Each case is handled individually. Also, the candidate can refuse at any time.

On an unrelated not, in the airport yesterday, I saw a dead ringer for Bernie Sanders wearing an "I'm not Bernie" t-shirt. He had fewer wrinkles.

problem is he still has the secret service detail because he has not dropped out, reason he has not dropped out is he is still waiting on Clinton to be jailed over her e-mail fiasco and come the convention if she is not arrested he will run independent, why you ask? because she will have to drop out eventually, and as long as he is running he has a chance.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Luck created an opportunity and Trump took advantage.

I wonder if he's regretting it now.

I can only imagine that the racist and sexist way Trump has chosen to run his campaign will have all but destroyed his brand. I'm thinking the biggeat regret he may have will be after he loses and the smoke clears, the impact on his businesses could be disastrous.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Luck created an opportunity and Trump took advantage.

I wonder if he's regretting it now.

I can only imagine that the racist and sexist way Trump has chosen to run his campaign will have all but destroyed his brand. I'm thinking the biggeat regret he may have will be after he loses and the smoke clears, the impact on his businesses could be disastrous.

and you still think he will lose, problem is you think people vote rationally, they don't they vote emotionally. all it takes is certain things to happen and people will flock to vote Trump and one of those is the camp I am in which is anyone but Hillary.

When your justification for why your chosen candidate will win is "people don't really think about who they should vote for, and if they did, my guy would lose", you might want to reconsider whether you've made the right choice.

 whembly wrote:
That should tell the RNC convention delegates to drop Trump...

Why? Who will they select otherwise? Cruz? Rubio? Kasich? Breaking all the RNC's rules?