Is Trump beginning his exit???

[Scout26]

Consider the source first, but he did cancel two events in California to campaign in New York, where he is virtually assured a win.  CA will be a hard fight, and there's a lot of delegates from there, so why pull out?  Because he never wanted the job in the first place?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-zombeck/donald-trump-is-beginning_b_9608654.html

[RocketMan]

I have wondered for a while now whether Trump's real aim all along has been not to become President, but to trash the Republican party.

[TommyGunn]

Is Trump beginning his exit???

   In a word; NO.

[just Warren]

If Trump exits it will be the best exit you've ever seen! I've talked to a lot of people and they say Trump is the best exiter the world has ever known!

[Ron]

He is changing his approach, making the pivot that many expected earlier in the campaign.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-team-vows-to-win-delegate-majority-as-rivals-prepare-for-open-convention/2016/04/09/daa4ffce-fdb3-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html

[charby]

Consider the source first, but he did cancel two events in California to campaign in New York, where he is virtually assured a win.  CA will be a hard fight, and there's a lot of delegates from there, so why pull out?  Because he never wanted the job in the first place?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-zombeck/donald-trump-is-beginning_b_9608654.html

I think cancelling an event gets more press than having the event. He is a different kind of campaign player and it seems to be working for him.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

The donald funneled money to his own companies and improved "his brand. Win for him. And if you bought the "hes funded his own campaign " hype the fec docs do not support that

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Viking]

I have wondered for a while now whether Trump's real aim all along has been not to become President, but to trash the Republican party.

Trump is nothing more than controlled opposition.

[Ron]

If he ran for president as a Democrat the Dems would be trotting out all his connections to and support of various Republicans over the years.

Trump has been swimming in the establishment waters for a very long time so it's interesting to me that he has chosen to run as a Republican instead of a Democrat.

Trump is very conscious and protective of the Trump brand so I find it unbelievable that he would wreck his brand just to help the Democrats. If that is the case the payoff would have to be huuuge. I find the theory that he is running interference for Hillary a little too conspiratorial to swallow.

Personally I think he is a patriot. A patriot in the sense that he loves the "old America". The USA that built an empire, won wars then rebuilt Europe, became an agricultural powerhouse and fed the world, became the technological birthplace of space exploration, computer technology etc.

He is an old fashioned nationalist, crony capitalist and statist who is utilitarian in philosophy.  He still values our American Judeo/Christian culture, especially American exceptionalism, and he wants to bring it back. A dominant, strong USA who is not dependent on or indebted to others is good for business.  

He is not a social conservative, a neo-con or an internationalist.

Would he be a good president? Who knows? Cruz is just as big a gamble IMHO and Hillary will be a horrible president.

Our choices are pretty lame. It's almost as if the choices reflect the overall condition/character of our country at large  

[BlueStarLizzard]

Trump is very conscious and protective of the Trump brand so I find it unbelievable that he would wreck his brand just to help the Democrats. If that is the case the payoff would have to be huuuge. I find the theory that he is running interference for Hillary a little too conspiratorial to swallow.

There is a difference between wreaking your brand and actually wreaking the brand.

Trump can lose in a multitude of different ways and still come out on top, brand wise. He is the type that can spin negative reviews in his favor and doesn't shy away from any publicity, because he can make bad publicity sell for him. No matter what he does with this, his payoff his huge and that's not counting anything he hypothetically gets from the Democrats.

[Ron]

If he actually ends up beeing the one running against Hillary, once he starts his attacks, he will potentially alienate half the country ie Democrats.

That certainly doesn't burnish his brand.

[230RN]

Undecided.

Let me repeat that:  "undecided."

However, I see it a little bit like Ron says:

He is an old fashioned nationalist, crony capitalist and statist who is utilitarian in philosophy.  He still values our American Judeo/Christian culture, especially American exceptionalism, and he wants to bring it back. A dominant, strong USA who is not dependent on or indebted to others is good for business.

He is voicing the frustration of so many people in the US over so many things that are wrong with "progressivism."  While he may not have hard-hat solutions to a lot of these problems, he is bringing them out in the open by totally disregarding the suppressive political correctness which is maiming our country.

"Building a wall" does not necessarily mean getting out there and pouring concrete.  It means exerting maximum effort to stop the influx of unlawful immigrants...  and the attendant crimigrants as well.  It may mean cutting off funding to cities which tout themselves as "sanctuary cities" for these people.

It may mean farmers will have to hire local citizen-job-seekers to work their farms.

A lot of things he says are like this... pointing out the problems with the march toward total socialism/communism.

That's the way this old fashioned patriot sees it.

And I'm stunned that all this political incorrectness is coming from someone raised in the same area in New York in which I, too, was raised.

So even if he withdraws, it was good music to hear.  Somewhat like the opening performance of the "Rite of Spring" ballet.  Caused riots, I am told.  But now it's a standard orchestral work. :D

Terry, 230RN

[MechAg94]

I agree that he is voicing those things.  I just don't if he actually believes what he is saying.  Any intelligent person could look at polling a year ago and come up with the issues he adopted. 

I am also not convinced he can get much of it done.  I am hearing his lower level election operations are not so good.  What does that say about setting up an administration?

[230RN]

(A) I agree that he is voicing those things.  I just don't [know] if he actually believes what he is saying.  Any intelligent person  could look at polling a year ago and come up with the issues he adopted.  

(B) I am also not convinced he can get much of it done.  I am hearing his lower level election operations are not so good.  What does that say about setting up an administration?
(Bolding, underlining, corrections mine.)

A:  But have the socialists/communists paid attention to them there polls?

B:  Are  you kidding?  "I am hearing" by innuendo also, that he's set up a moderately successful little business with a few employees, even.  No sense hiring people you don't yet need.

Undecided.

Let me repeat that:  "undecided."
...

Hey, you're making me drift closer to supporting him.  But apparently that's "politically incorrect" for this board.  

Terry, 230RN

[MechAg94]

A:  But have the socialists/communists paid attention to them there polls?

B:  Are  you kidding?  "I am hearing" he's set up a moderately successful little business with a few employees, even.  No sense hiring people you don't yet need.

A:  The establishment people on both sides were not as everyone knows, even you.  There were a some politicians talking about illegal immigration and getting little attention.  Trump came out of the gate with his wall comments and did it with style.  Then he didn't back off when he caught heat which is why a lot of people liked him even more than they might have. 

B:  Everyone keeps saying that, but I am not buying it.  If his election ground game were better, he would have done a little better on election day which means more delegates.  He would have played the caucus and party rules better and ended up with more delegates after the elections.  It has hurt him.  From what I have heard, he does well in polls, but tends to under perform on election day and he is losing with delegates selected outside the total vote.  Part of the reason Cruz is so close on delegates is because his election ground game is a lot better and he is winning more undecided voters on election day.  With the race this close, every little bit counts. 

[Perd Hapley]

I was unaware that Colorado had declined to hold a primary this season. That was in August. Cruz, predictably, had a much better ground game at the Colorado caucuses, and won all delegates.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29750206/angry-donald-trump-blasts-colorado-gop-results-totally

I'm not sure how this differs from, say, the Iowa Caucus, which Cruz also won.

[AJ Dual]

I was unaware that Colorado had declined to hold a primary this season. That was in August. Cruz, predictably, had a much better ground game at the Colorado caucuses, and won all delegates.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29750206/angry-donald-trump-blasts-colorado-gop-results-totally

I'm not sure how this differs from, say, the Iowa Caucus, which Cruz also won.

Trump is beginning his exit with his lack of a "Ground Game" and his "I'm awesome" seat-of-the-pants campaign style.

"It'll be UUUUUGE, I've got great people..." is working out well for him. 

[roo_ster]

I was unaware that Colorado had declined to hold a primary this season. That was in August. Cruz, predictably, had a much better ground game at the Colorado caucuses, and won all delegates.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29750206/angry-donald-trump-blasts-colorado-gop-results-totally

I'm not sure how this differs from, say, the Iowa Caucus, which Cruz also won.

Optics are pretty awful for Cruz.  And, to a lesser extent Trump.

Of course there is the tendency of those who get the numbers of voters to decry (what look to be legal/kosher) shenanigans such as delegate bribery & such after being out-maneuvered by the less popular but cleverer sort.  The reply of the clever folk with better insider hooks and knowledge of how to manipulate the system in their favor is correct (that they are using the rules to their advantage).  

But that is part of what folks are fed up with: insiders arranging the rules in their favor at the expense of the rest.  I do not think Cruz understands this due to his personality defects.

And Trump needs to wrap his head around the fact that he is up against folk who no longer even make an effort at appearing to take the votes/will of the GOP base seriously.  MOAR VOTEZ is a necessary, but insufficient, condition for a Trump victory.  

[Ron]

It's pretty amazing how that both political parties are so brazenly showing their disregard and flouting the will of the voters. (yes, I realize that there are published rules on how the choosing of candidates takes place beyond simple popular vote).

Of course we are all engaged in following the "inside baseball" of politics so we see it plain as day.

How many of the average non political folks are really paying any real attention at this point?

[Perd Hapley]

But that is part of what folks are fed up with: insiders arranging the rules in their favor at the expense of the rest.  I do not think Cruz understands this due to his personality defects.

I suppose that would depend on whether one thinks of Cruz as an insider. Or whether Cruz thinks so.

The outrage seems a little hollow from Trump. Had he actually cared about this, he might have been dealing the issue for the past several months, instead of taking the too little, too late approach.

Not that it will matter to his supporters, of course...

[AJ Dual]

I suppose that would depend on whether one thinks of Cruz as an insider. Or whether Cruz thinks so.

The outrage seems a little hollow from Trump. Had he actually cared about this, he might have been dealing the issue for the past several months, instead of taking the too little, too late approach.

Not that it will matter to his supporters, of course...

I do think Trump "wants to win" but he definitely seems to have a threshold, or an envelope where he's not willing to expend the effort past that point, and ground game, and delegate management definitely seems to be over that edge.

How he's managing this, or not, it's fair to say that's a glimpse of how he'd do in the general election, or as POTUS in the ever shrinking chance he should get there.

[MechAg94]

It's pretty amazing how that both political parties are so brazenly showing their disregard and flouting the will of the voters. (yes, I realize that there are published rules on how the choosing of candidates takes place beyond simple popular vote).

Of course we are all engaged in following the "inside baseball" of politics so we see it plain as day.

How many of the average non political folks are really paying any real attention at this point?

Considering the DrudgeReport headline is a post of an article from months ago.  It seems that Colorado's plans were public knowledge.  This wasn't something they just decided at the last minute. 

I caught a few minutes of Mark Levin's radio show a month or more back.  He described an account of the Republican Convention that selected Abraham Lincoln to run for President.  From the sound of things, candidate maneuvering to manipulate delegate voting was probably more prominent then than it is now.  Apparently split conventions were more common in the past.  When you think about, manipulating delegates is a small time application of manipulating Republican Primary voters on a large scale. 

What I am getting at is the maneuvering for delegate votes is something Trump's campaign should have been making efforts on weeks ago once it was likely he may not win a solid majority. At the very least, he needed to understand that a number of those delegates (even the ones voting for him in the first ballots) were not necessarily his supporters and he needed to make efforts to see that more of those people supported him on follow up ballots.

[makattak]

Considering the DrudgeReport headline is a post of an article from months ago.  It seems that Colorado's plans were public knowledge.  This wasn't something they just decided at the last minute. 

I caught a few minutes of Mark Levin's radio show a month or more back.  He described an account of the Republican Convention that selected Abraham Lincoln to run for President.  From the sound of things, candidate maneuvering to manipulate delegate voting was probably more prominent then than it is now.  Apparently split conventions were more common in the past.  When you think about, manipulating delegates is a small time application of manipulating Republican Primary voters on a large scale. 

What I am getting at is the maneuvering for delegate votes is something Trump's campaign should have been making efforts on weeks ago once it was likely he may not win a solid majority. At the very least, he needed to understand that a number of those delegates (even the ones voting for him in the first ballots) were not necessarily his supporters and he needed to make efforts to see that more of those people supported him on follow up ballots.

In my assessment, Trump is very much an "ideas guy" and leaves the details to underlings.

This, of course, means that "Personnel is policy" would be even more the case under a Trump administration.

[Jocassee]

In my assessment, Trump is very much an "ideas guy" and leaves the details to underlings.

This, of course, means that "Personnel is policy" would be even more the case under a Trump administration.

Exactly this.

Trump people can't get their heads around the fact that Trump's lack of organization in CO is an extension of his personality and his candidacy.

Make of that what you will.

[Pb]

The drudge article said the Colorado primary decision was made in August of LAST YEAR way before Trump was anything!