Here’s how much money was burned trying to stop Donald Trump

[bemildred]

Campaign finance law -- the creaky, leaky boundary between our political process and the trillions of dollars swirling around in our economy -- still affords some insights into how political forces wage their wars. For example, outside groups spending money on the presidential race must (within certain qualifications) report how much they spent and for or against whom. It's that "for or against" that's interesting, adding a little plus-minus variable to the numbers that tells us much more than we'd get just with a dollar sign.

The problem traditionally has been that parsing those reports is time-consuming. Enter ProPublica, the non-profit media site. It put together a nice little tool compiling those "independent expenditure" reports (as they're known), allowing us to more easily dive into the numbers.

And so we can see, relatively easily, how much money was spent against the top-tier Republican candidates since the beginning of the year. And when we do so, one name stands out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/06/heres-how-much-money-was-burned-trying-to-stop-donald-trump/

[bemildred]

1. Donald Trump represents the party base — it’s time for GOP leaders to finally admit it

In the days leading up to the Indiana primary, Ted Cruz announced that America faced “a time for choosing” .

He didn’t say it just to pretentiously quote Ronald Reagan in his failed attempt to catapult Barry Goldwater to the presidency (though it did have that added benefit). Rather, Cruz did it to frame the debate: Americans could either back him, a principled if widely reviled conservative insider, or they could back Donald Trump and “plunge into the abyss”.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/donald-trump-represents-the-party-base-its-time-for-gop-leaders-to-finally-admit-it/

[Baobab]

14. He was a Democrat until 2009

For most of the last decade, according to registration records..

[bemildred]

15. The question is not who he is so much as who he is pandering to.

I think to be fair, he would be willing to pander to most anyone, his opinions are cheap. He shows no sign of being ideological, that would require thinking and commitments.

Trump is Trump, parties get to be affiliated with him, not the other way around.

[Baobab]

16. "Hillary forces target Bush donors:Their message to moderate Republicans:She represents your values"

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hilary-clinton-bush-donors-222872


"Hillary forces target Bush donors: Their message to moderate Republicans: She represents your values better than Trump."

[bemildred]

17. Yeah, exactly.

Everything is play now, like in the Vietnam years, new coalitions are forming, outsider insurgencies on the right and the left, we live in interesting times.

[bemildred]

2. Matalin on Party Change: "I Am a Never Hillary And a Provisional Trump"; He Could Win In Landslide

Republican strategist Mary Matalin discusses Donald Trump and her decision to change her party affiliation on With All Due Respect from Republican to Libertarian. Matalin also said she is a "provisional Trumpster" and that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee "could win in a landslide."

Matalin said the change had nothing to do with Trump, but because Jeffersonian and Madisonian constitutional principles are better represented in the Libertarian party than Republican party.

"The more you attack him, the stronger he gets," Matalin warned on Bloomberg. "We've been wrong at every single juncture ... people are sick of political correctness, they are sick of identity politics."

The veteran Republican operative said Trump could win Colorado, New Mexico and possible some of the mid-western states. However, she said Trump will not win Pennsylvania.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/06/matalin_on_party_change_i_am_a_never_hillary_and_a_provisional_trump_he_could_win_in_landslide.html

[bemildred]

3. Sheldon Adelson Backs Trump, While Clinton Goes Fishing for Bush Donors

Donald Trump has landed his first megadonor. To this point, the presumptive nominee has had trouble winning over his fellow subscribers to Better Yachts and Private Islands magazine. The Koch brothers have decided they’ve got better elections to buy. Most of the Bush-family money lenders are still recovering from what the Donald did to their poor Jeb. But Sheldon G. Adelson — who spent $150 million helping Mitt Romney lose in 2012 — told the New York Times Thursday night that he wants to make America great again.

“Yes, I’m a Republican, he’s a Republican,” the casino magnate said when asked if he intended to support Trump this fall. “He’s our nominee. Whoever the nominee would turn out to be, any one of the 17 — he was one of the 17. He won fair and square.”

Trump began courting Adelson last October, when he accused the Jewish billionaire of trying to mold Marco Rubio into “his perfect little puppet.”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/adelson-wants-to-make-america-great-again.html

[merrily]

4. DWS has to share in the blame.

By delaying the first Democratic debate, she allowed Republicans to take up all the politics oxygen in the mass media. She could have had millions of dollars in free advertising for the Democratic candidates and she opted not to take it. She needs to be fired, but fat chance.


Democratic Underground for Tim Canova FL-23: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/du4timcanova

[bemildred]

5. Trunp's mastery of the media is a problem, but DWS is just a symptom of that problem, a minion.

So while I would like her returned to private life, very private life, I don't think anything you can do to her will fix the problem, she just becomes the scapegoat and the game goes on.

Letting Trump have a free run was a mistake, they thought they could use him, and he used them instead. Who knew?

[merrily]

6. Sorry, but she's a perp, not a scapegoat.

[bemildred]

7. The two things do not exclude each other.

You can take out after her if you want to, I will not.

[merrily]

8. Actually, they do exclude each other, if we are talking about a single act or single set of acts.

Perpetrator
noun
1.
a person who perpetrates, or commits, an illegal, criminal, or evil act:
The perpetrators of this heinous crime must be found and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Scapegoat
noun
1.
a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.

Both from dictionary. com

In the thing I described in my post, I was blaming her for what DWS herself did, not for anything others did.

Criticizing her in a post is "taking out after her?"

[bemildred]

9. It is extra convenient for scapegoats to be guilty, that makes them far better as scapegoats.

Again, the two things do not exclude each other. It is common in such entrerprises to make sure they are guilty, just to ensure loyalty.

[merrily]

10. Again, they do exclude each other. If you are responsible for X, you are not taking the blame for

others for X. And I did not accuse of her of anything for which she was not responsible, namely the debate schedule.

[bemildred]

11. I see. You are obviousy completely correct. Have a nice day. nt

[merrily]

12. I posted definitions and a specific comment. You repeated the same conclusory statement you posted

originally, without refuting what I posted, then went off in a huff. Again, I did not blame her for anything but her own actions. But you have a great day as well.

[bemildred]

13. Please see post #11, and repeat as necessary. nt

[fred v]

18. $20.4 million?

Cripes, that's enough to feed Chris Christie for a month!

[bemildred]

19. It's peanuts really, they will save the big bucks, the killer secrets, the really hard to refute

accusations, for the Summer and Fall.

Our current leaders won't take Trump seriously enough until he's been in the White House for three weeks, that would be to admit egregious error, and they never err.