Plug and play Ted unplugged in Indiana

Plug and Play Ted got unplugged.

Ted Cruz makes much of what he calls his ground game. What Cruz did in Iowa and in Wisconsin, to his success, was to plug into the ground operation of one of the insiders. In Iowa it was Steve KIng, in Wisconsin it was Scott Walker. No surprise that Walker would have a strong grass roots effort in Wisconsin, including media, given his political career.

So Ted was good when he could plug his campaign into the state grassroots in the state he was going. He did not have that other places and he lost big-time. So he depended on that network to deliver success to his campaign.

However, Trump was not fortunate to have all that access and capability. Rather he just built it himself as he went. And Ted mocked Trump recently for parachuting into states like Mick Jagger and then leaving. But Donald turned out the vote, even in Michigan. His ground game is self-constructed

But now, or since Trump’s constant winning streak cannot be undone, Ted reverts to inside political chicanery. That’s right, the outsider Ted is playing inside-baseball politics. We’ve seen it all along. Then we hear Cruz drones say Donald just does not know how to play the game, or doesn’t understand the rules.

So Ted puts his faith, besides the primaries, into the delegate process and hopes for a contested election. Yesterday Jan Brewer criticized how she was shoved out of the delegate process. Now comes the story of Jim Gilmore.

Washington Post

Jim Gilmore may be a former governor, state attorney general, Republican National Committee chairman and presidential candidate. But he couldn’t get elected as a delegate to his party’s national convention.

When delegates were selected at Virginia’s state convention in Harrisonburg this past weekend, Gilmore, 66, put his name forward and was shut out.

The process was heavily politicized, as supporters of Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) maneuvered to elect a delegate slate that they hope will block billionaire Donald Trump from winning the Republican nomination for president.

While Trump won Virginia’s March 1 primary and garnered twice as many votes as third-place finisher Cruz, the party activists at the state convention picked 10 Cruz supporters and three Trump supporters to head to Cleveland.

Gilmore said he had been “informally assured” that he would be on the delegate slate — “that it was a no-brainer.”

But that was before the “strong-arm tactics at the convention” forced him out, he said.

More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/2016/05/02/61d0e896-107e-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html

So Brewer was a one off that didn’t know what she was doing or talking about?

Gilmore has said he is interested in bringing Va into the Republican column and keeping it there. He admits that seems to be Trump. He will support the nominee and says we need to unify the party behind our nominee and beat Hillary. But even that is being undermined by Cruz. So for all the talk Cruz has about consolidating and unifying, he is a divider.

Now in Indiana, on the cusp of losing the Hoosier state, after counting on a win there, he recoils and unloads a diatribe on Trump and those supporting him. But he got Pence’s tepid endorsement, if you can call it that, late in the game where Pence said nice things about Trump as well. Then Came Ted’s scorched earth tirade of personal attack on Trump.

Does he really think this would help him on the verge of losing the primary? Apparently so, but then his back room delegate chicanery continues despite whatever he says publicly. Two faces of a campaign — the outsider pretender vs. the political operative grasping at any tactics he can — damn the unity talk.

RightRing | Bullright

We reached the point…maybe of no return

We have reached the point. No, not the point of fusion, antimatter, or quantum physics squared, or the missing link. We may have reached the point where estabo candidates think Trump could win Iowa and potentially the nomination and, according to some, possibly the White House. Granted there is a ways to go, but that sort of sentiment is bound to have an effect on the election.

But then leave it to a politico like Mark Halprin to state the obvious, and cause everyone to start to talk about it, gasp, openly. Sea change is here?

Halperin: Trump Reached ‘Turning Point,’ ‘Most’ Estab Cands Think He Can Win Nomination

by Ian Hanchett17 Aug 2015 | Breitbart

Bloomberg Politics Managing Editor Mark Halperin stated that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has “reached a turning point” where the “establishment candidates” think he can win Iowa, “most” believe he can win the nomination, and “a significant number think he could win the White House” on Monday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Halperin was asked his writing that “Most importantly, we’ve reached a turning point with Trump, the major establishment campaigns of both parties now think Trump could win Iowa, and most of them think he could win the nomination, and a significant number think he could win the White House.” And that the campaigns were in “full freak out mode.”

More: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/17/halperin-trump-reached-turning-point-most-estab-cands-think-he-can-win-nomination/

I’m not sure which part scares the estabos most: that he could win the nomination, or that he changed the race? (it may seem like the same thing but I don’t think it is.)  Apparently it has them in scramble mode. Perhaps because they now see anger on both sides?

Is that all it takes a Trump to come along and do this? Heaven knows we’ve been sending them the strongest possible messages for six years, or longer. Finally, maybe because they see it in black and white in the polls and in popular opinion?  Maybe because they see a potential threat with the popularity and money? At any rate, the establishment are finally sitting up and taking notice.  And they don’t like what they are seeing.

Well, they tried dismissing him, ignoring him, calling him names and ridiculing him….. never mind media’s evolution. It’ll be interesting to see if they see him as the problem.

Trump Fox hit parade keeps rolling

Ordinarily I might not be as critical of Megyn Kelly. But then there is nothing ordinary, really, anymore. This is not an ordinary election, these are not ordinary times, these are not ordinary people involved either. The circumstances here are not ordinary at all. It is serious stuff too.

But then as I criticized Candice Crowley for her moderator failures, I also am critical of Megyn Kelly’s. Fair is fair. She sensationalized the program and turned it more into reality TV than an episode of Celebrity Apprentice. Or maybe that was the role she thought she was playing? She begs for that comparison. The only reason the record number of people/viewers means anything is the heightened interest in the process. But not to Fox. Maybe Fox did well with sponsors, ads and eyeballs, or bottom lines. Good for them. Cha-ching cha-ching! But that doesn’t change the fundamental purpose of the event. Then they doubled down on that theme afterward by high-fiving each other.

That is just inappropriate behavior — no matter how well the event went or not. We had the coverage of Katrina non-stop. We had the Gulf War coverage, originally in 91-92 Even that was not sensationalized this way, as a historic major achievement. Need I mention 9/11? We didn’t see this much self-congratulation over those. No, instead they, Fox, became an inseparably integrated part of the story — a major one. Even the CNN Crowley incident, and their defense of her, was not this sensationalized by their own network.

Media covered natural disasters, riots, trials and OJ Simpson. Yet this was over the top, especially concerning a serious debate in above serious times. They turned it into their personal reality side show. Ironic that Trump was at the center of it. If they did want to cover all the candidates, with a modicum of equality, they failed focusing their attention on Trump and then themselves — personally and as a news organization. They put themselves front and center. They over-engineered it.

Then Fox complains about the viewers’ outcry after, as another news story. Poor Fox victims. It was not just one question or the one answer, it was laced through with the same sensational theme. And we don’t really need extra sensationalizing in this current reality. We have quite enough already. Then to turn that all into some success for Fox, I don’t understand that logic.

I think we are witnessing a media meltdown. When they can’t cover a major event like this without turning it into some side-freak show, then we are in a tailspin. Instead of discussing solutions to problems, they are busy compounding more layers of problems on top, mediopolizing. We evidently can’t even have the semblance of an objective process. We expect it from much of lamestream, Fox has just gone the way of the limousine media. Yet, its funny that their big problem is Trump. After South Carolina in 2012 you would have thought they would have been self-conscious of that. No, rather they played it up into a reality circus.(who knows where their research came from) Is viewer numbers and their TV personalities all they care about? Winners – Fox, at what cost? Losers – we the people, especially conservatives and Republicans. But P/C will rule with Democrats. They pander to Dems so they can still get interviews from them.

On a previous post Lafayette Angel came up with an idea of doing debates ourselves. That’s a heck of an idea. I could see conservatives doing that — not like CPAC or summit — it seems possible and attractive. Go around them. Then I had the thought it really wouldn’t affect media because they would critique it how they always do anyway. Just that they would not control the process. And why can’t we do focus groups, too? I think Lafayette Angel has something there. I’d like to say, “media, you’re fired!”

If Trump offended someone, then Fox broke their heart over objectivity. So they didn’t see this coming, like 10 miles away? Dumbass award goes to Fox.

RightRing | Bullright

Forewarnings of midterms

Shall we look back to see if there may have been indications of 2014 midterms landslide?

Even as far back as 2012 primaries there were stunning warnings — which might have shaken libs’ status quo even then. No, they were busy whistling past the graveyard. Townhall had a piece in May, 2012 that Pepperhawk forwarded me then. “(H/T)

Remember this is early 2012:

Little attention is being paid by the national news media to the Democrats’ presidential primaries because Obama is assured of his nomination. But the large size of the anti-Obama vote — exposing deep unrest in his party’s political base — has shaken his campaign’s high command.

The latest explosions came in Tuesday’s Kentucky and Arkansas primaries which of course he won easily. But a stunning 42 percent of Kentucky Democrats voted for “uncommitted” on their ballot.

In yellow-dog Democrat Arkansas, 42 percent voted for a little- known Tennessee lawyer, John Wolfe, over the president of the United States.

And two weeks ago in the West Virginia primary, Keith Judd, a convicted felon and now Texas prison inmate got 41 percent of the vote.

Some smarty-pants political pundits who think they know everything say some of this is about race and that these states are firmly in the GOP column anyway.

It went on to say, and quote, what the Washington Post had said:

Such strong antipathy toward Obama at this end point in his trouble-plagued presidency is “an indicator of not-insignificant pockets of unrest within his party,” writes The Washington Post’s campaign trackers Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake.

Racial factors “may be less of a problem for Obama than the broader cultural disconnect that many of these voters feel with the Democratic Party.” And they quote Democrats who point to growing grievances that many in their party have over the political direction Obama is taking the country.

“The most significant factor is the perception/reality the Obama administration has leaned toward the ultra-left,” says former Democratic Congressman Charles Stenholm of Texas.

http://townhall.com/columnists/donaldlambro/2012/05/25/are_democrats_deserting_obama/page/full

With all they have done since, this should have told them not to take support for granted. But the institutionalized Left ignored all that and doubled down on race-baiting, claiming opposition to Obama’s agenda was due to racism. Well, they wore out that excuse. But it didn’t reflect the rising narrative or reality.  And it didn’t fit the reality in 2014. The meme was racism, women, Hispanics, oh my. (Dems refer to as their ‘core’ constituents)

Sure they can always make that claim, as overused as it is, but sooner or later it loses its sting. Just as the ‘war on women’ narrative lost its sting in the 2014 elections. And the ideal of hope and change was lost as well — proving you can overuse a term even if it is vague. Hope and change was redefined as failure. War on women drew yawns and boos at debates. Racism is still a euphemism for disagreement with Obama, but believable? Hardly. Racism is used for an excuse for losing, as an excuse for violent protests, and as an  excuse to oppose election integrity.

So “these are states with large populations of low income, blue collar, “working class” Americans who have been hit hardest by Obama’s economic policies” were instrumental in 2014, too. It seems working class Americans overall are disenchanted with Democrats as revealed in 2014 results. But want more proof? Dems rushed to have a pow wow over the midterm results. They emerged with the message they have to do a better job relating to “middle-class” working people. Well, duh. Their policies have been a thumb in the eye to the so-called middle class.

They don’t want to do anything to actually help the middle class, they just want to talk about it, while trudging on with their elitist policies. But talk about it they will, which rings as hollow as all their other talking point messages of late. We can count on that because it was the consensus of their 2014 autopsy.

When you can’t blame yourselves, then blame the middle class for not quite understanding your message. In effect, they blamed all their special interests. But they dare not blame the teachers’ unions, who dumped record amounts of cash into their coffers.

More insight, another article from Forbes, they analyzed 2014 results:

Perhaps the biggest attrition for the Democrats has been among middle-class voters employed in the private sector, particularly small property and business owners.

Rather than the promise of “hope and change,” according to exit polls, 50% of voters said they lack confidence that their children will do better than they have, 10 points higher than in 2010. This is not surprisingly given that nearly 80% state that the recession has not ended, at least for them.

The effectiveness of the Democrats’ class warfare message has been further undermined by the nature of the recovery; while failing most Americans, the Obama era has been very kind to plutocrats of all kinds.

What’s it mean? “Middle class” will be the most used words in Dem’s vocabulary.

RightRing | Bullright