mtutiger

First start I've caught of Mize this spring.... he looks really good.

To be honest, I don't know. And as far as the idea that Trump garners a higher level of scrutiny as a politician than he did when he was a private businessman, you won't get an argument from me. Either way, my point still stands. I will take the man and his posture at face value as to how he views this situation.

Donald Trump is also not easy to defend for most independents lol Again, I'm gonna trust Trump's political instincts on this.... based on the words from his team and his seven "Truths" from yesterday morning, I don't think he sees this as a positive politically, personally or professionally.

From Trump's posture on all of this, I don't think he sees this result playing out.

I guess Kevin O'Leary won't be swooping in lol

The polls don't have to be wrong for Chas's point to be still have validity.

This comports with my experience as well.

Yep... and a lot of very serious people and commentators, who should know better, always seem to go along with these defenses or go on about "context" as well. It just misses the forest through the trees....

There's also the fact that that Trump is, by no means, guaranteed to win in November. Regardless of whether someone or some group drops a half billion for him on that. That comes with more risks in terms of reputational damage, as well for someone like Elon who owns companies who contract with the federal government, it's not hard to see how their couldn't be downsides in the event that that sum of money gets dropped and Trump loses anyway.

Elon or someone else domestically seems more plausible to me than a foreign government.... although it's not without risks for him to weigh in that way either.

Yeah, that seems like a pretty huge complicating factor. And when people throw out these alternate funding scenarios, it seems like it gets avoided *a lot*

Wouldn't Putin be evading sanctions to even get the money to Trump in this hypothetical? Maybe the shell companies and cutouts exist to facilitate, but even getting money into the US from Putin seems like it would be a lot more difficult than it's being made out to be in this discussion.

I'm not sure that Engoron is the one who would seize the assets, my understanding is that NYS, under the auspices of James, would be the ones moving on assets. I also don't think NYS is nearly as concerned about the optics as you suggest. Given that it's the home of Wall Street, it's the one state in the country that I could see being able to handle a case of this magnitude. But time will tell.

Understood. But my point still stands.... they have to do both and they *did* both in 2020. And, money wise, they will have the resources to do both in 2024 to the extent they can.

Even aside from partisan breakdowns, there are shifts in the body politic that happen every cycle that candidates need to address. 2016 experienced a large shift away from HRC/Dems from WWC voters, 2020 marked a large shift away from Trump/GOP with suburbanites as well as a smaller but profound shift with Latinos toward Trump (particularly in FL and TX). I know that election wins require many groups, but in 2020 in particular, there were at least three states that Biden won (Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia) where historically GOP voters in suburban areas made a profound difference on the outcome. Including some who voted for Trump in 2016 I would imagine. In 2024, though the polling crosstabs are probably way overstated, there's likely to be a continued shift among Latino voters.... I imagine Biden's campaign will invest a lot of money trying to stem that shift (and could succeed to a degree), but if you're running one of these campaigns, that's the stuff you're gonna think about. Obviously this could be countered within suburban areas and further shifts there, but you have to put in the work *and* persuade in order to maximize those gains. That's why it isn't all just about turnout.... if that's all you are focusing on, you aren't addressing larger demographic changes and are hedging that you can retain every single vote you earned last time. And that's risky as hell.

I do think in terms of motivation, Trump has benefitted a lot from not being front and center in the news and seeing his remarks at rallies not getting more coverage overall. He's also not on Twitter these days, and his campaign has clearly worked hard to keep his public appearances for interviews generally with friendly press outlets. The "bloodbath" comments are a good example of the downside risks though, and probably mark the end of that honeymoon period. And it was always inevitable as this race shifts to a general election state.

Yikes

In the short term, I agree. In the long term, you always need to be adding.

I think they have to do both, personally. Not an either/or proposition.

Also it's a misunderstanding of the terrain upon which these elections are fought.... they aren't being fought over the die-hards, they are fought over swing voters and marginal voters in each party who are theoretically persuadable. I don't necessarily think that the truth or facts don't matter to everyone in this cohort.

I know my role around here is to push back against the "everything that happens is good for Trump" tendency, but the reaction from his allies suggests to me that they don't see this one as a win and that this broke through in a way that previous incendiary comments haven't. Like, they've come down hard trying to spin this one their way, they aren't laughing it off. I would add that there's a lot of other content in that speech that didn't get as much attention (such as the section where he continues to trash on Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley) that could be potentially damaging at a time when he is struggling to retain support from marginal GOP voters who want him to go away and is struggling to raise money from GOP donors (both large and small $$$)

There was plenty of gnashing of teeth this weekend about what he actually meant about the "bloodbath" comment (ie. ackshully, it's about the auto industry)... but I think that sort of misses the point.... the reality is that it's about his rhetoric and the fact that there is a history of it being inflammatory and leading to violence. And moments like that remind people. On another note, in the Evan Osnos profile of Biden's campaign in The New Yorker, they (particularly Mike Donilon) caught a lot of grief for saying that their campaign would be invoking themes around January 6th and democracy.... but this weekend is also a reminder that *Trump* will be invoking themes around January 6th too. Because of that, and because of the advantage that Biden/Dems have on issues surrounding it, it would be malpractice not to emphasize it at least to some degree while campaigning.

I honestly don't know either, but at least in the case of the EJ Carroll bond (posted by Chubb Insurance), the bond had to be accepted by the presiding judge in order to post.

Also, there's the whole "getting the money from Point A to Point B" issue....