My outside-the-beltway analysis of something Trump is doing.

You'll notice that whenever asked about him,  Ted Cruz is saying nice stuff about Donald Trump.
You'll also notice that whenever asked about him,  Donald Trump is saying nice stuff about Ted Cruz.

Some things to consider about this...

Trump is a New Yorker.  He needs a Texas running mate for the same reason Kennedy needed Johnson.  Not only to help him in a potential general election,  but to also help him with "conservatives" in the nomination process.

Cruz is hispanic.  Trump needs a hispanic running mate to win back the hispanic vote.

Cruz is tea party.  Trump wants that vote too.

Cruz is anti-establishment.  Same as Trump.

And lastly but not leastly,  Cruz has now fully adopted the Trump campaigning style.  He's called the Senate Majority Leader in his own political party a "liar".

They're also both wackadoodles. There's your common ground. Who needs "beltway" analysis.

Trump is doing two things with this campaign that are ground-breaking and never been seen before.

One,  he's trashing every higher-up in his own political party.  Not only the opposing candidates,  but high-ranking republican public officials of every kind.
That was always one of the "Ten Commandment" rules of politics.  To not trash your own party members the way you trash the other party.
Trump is a one-man rule changer.  Because not only is he breaking this rule,  the voters are loving him for it.  

But there's another thing equally new and significant he's doing.
He's not cowtowing to ANY special interests on either side of the aisle.
Why?  Because he doesn't need their money.
And it's not just that he has enough of his own money to allow him to accomplish this.  Actually he's spending only a fraction of the money other candidates are spending.  That's because he is able to get all the attention he needs or wants without spending money.

It's all quite remarkable.

Also keep this in mind.

Remember a few days ago, the Republican Party made it known that Reince Priebus had contacted Trump and told him to "tone it down".

And then almost immediately after that,  it's become known that Priebus has now totally backed down from that.  Why?
Because all Trump had to do was threaten him with leaving the party and going independent.

Both Trump and Priebus saw that poll conducted last week which shows what would happen in a 3-way race with Hillary,  Jeb and Trump running as an independent.  If that was to happen,  Trump would take votes away from Jeb and ensure Hillary is the winner.  That's the very last thing Priebus wants to happen.  Trump's got him by the balls with that and both he and Trump know it.

It's gonna be interesting to see how this latest Trumpism goes down.

The main newspaper in Iowa writes a scathing editorial saying Trump is everything short of being the actual antichrist.

Trump responds by actually banning the main Iowa newspaper from covering his rallies.

Also unheard of in American politics.

"Attention" being the operative word. He's not as rich as he claims, and he's taken several hits lately on contracts that I'm sure made a difference in his bottom line. He's managed to leverage his daddy's millions and family name to accomplish what few others could do, simply because, at the heart of Donald, is a flim-flam man extraordinaire. Think Wally Yost on steroids...with a lot more lawyers and a propensity to sue at the drop of a hat.

You offer three points, Sal.

1. He's peaked

2. Only racist bigots support him

3. He's destroying the GOP
______________________________

1. I was totally convinced that, not only had he peaked with his McCain's-not-a-war-hero remark, but that it had finished him as a candidate.
I was absolutely shocked to learn that not only did it not finish him, it made him stronger.

2. Nah, it's not just racist bigots supporting him. That's just wishful thinking. It's a much larger portion of the the electorate who are so fed up with government and politicians and the status-quo that they are all rallying around him.

3. Your last comment is the most compelling and interesting aspect of it all.
What is he doing to the party?
That depends on how all this plays out. And as much as you might believe the fat lady has already sung on that, I'm not so sure of it yet.
Time will tell.

Floridatexan wrote: he's taken several hits lately on contracts that I'm sure made a difference in his bottom line.  

Tex,  you need to take your blinders off long enough to understand the REAL significance of this.

Yes, you're absolutely right.  There's no doubt this is going to hurt him financially and he knows that.  It already has.  For openers,  he gave up untold millions in income to do this instead of continuing the tv show.
But that's only the beginning.  He's made bitter enemies of so many (including the NY mayor)  that the Trump brand is not going to be worth what it once was.  And he has to know that too.  

What you're missing is this,  Tex.  He's taking the gamble of his life.  If he actually could get elected president then it will be worth it (that will balance out all the business problems and losses he's incurring).
But if he can't go all the way with it,  he'll probably end up a very diminished player on the American scene.
I think he fully understands the risk and he's just going for it.  Like a golfer who needs to eagle from the fairway to win the tournament.  
Seaoat should be able to appreciate all that being the gambler he is.  Seaoat himself may not be willing to make gambles like that,  but if he's been around gambling as much as I have he's known people who do.

What she also won't do is apply that same standard to hillary. Hillary represented that she was broke upon leaving the wh to garner populist support. When in fact she is a rich bitch preying on the average folk by promising to confiscate the wealth of others... which she won't do because she is bought and paid for by corps, banks, wall st., and foreign interests. She also leveraged her husbands name and accomplishments to place herself among the ruling elite. It's good to be the queen.

Snark Spigot wrote:

Bob wrote:Nah, it's not just racist bigots supporting him.

Well, there are the hippie punchers - people who hate progressives because they're more intelligent, more secure, and happier than they could ever hope to be, so they gravitate toward anything that is opposed to what progressives advocate.

But they're mostly hateful bigots too, so the difference would be statistically insignificant.

Well now there's some truly unbiased analysis for you.  lol

What you're missing is,  they not only hate the "progressives",  they also hate the republican establishment.  And we could even say they hate republican "politicians" like they hate democrat "politicians". That's the headline to this story.

You can try to make this just another "progressives vs conservatives" feud like ross limbaugh and sean hannity and markle and pacedog and just about everybody else on both sides of the wrastlin ring have always done with everything for the last 20 years.  
But that doesn't account for all what's happening with this.  Face it,  that simpleton dichotomy just aint gonna work forever.  And we could be seeing the beginning of the end of it with this.

But, in the interest of truly unbiased analysis, I recognize the possibility that at any time Trump could derail the whole thing himself. All it would take is the wrong words coming out of his mouth off-the-cuff.
I don't know what those words would be, but I fully believe there are still groups of words that can sink him or anybody else.
It'll be fun to see what that turns out to be should it happen.

So far it apparently aint trashing war heroes in his own party. And I thought that would have been one of "the seven things you can't say on tv" (or in this case the campaign trail). I bet even George Carlin would have thought that was one of the 7 too.
But as we see, Trump is redefining what words can be said. lol

Question for you, Sal. I believe you'd be happy with a one-party government just as long as it represents whatever you define as "progressive".
Am I right about that?

See folks he can't answer that one quickly.  In his heart he wants to answer yes but he realizes that would be favoring what's tantamount to a form of dictatorship and he doesn't want to say that to you.

It all comes down to what he dislikes more.  Republicans?  or dictatorship?
If he did have to choose one over the other,  my money is on dictatorship.  lol
No different than the choice markle (or other "conservative") would make if the parties were reversed.  lol

Sal if I remember right, you're in your early 40's.
Even if you did start voting at the age you were first eligible, then you've only voted in presidential or congressional elections since Reagan was in office.

So who were the republican presidential and congressional candidates you voted for "40%" of the time?
Or are you talking about dogcatchers? lol

This is eerily reminiscent of seaoat telling us he's a "lifelong republican". lol

This is eerily reminiscent of seaoat telling us he's a "lifelong republican". lol

As a lifelong Republican, I can tell you his candidacy most reminds me or Ronald Reagan the first time he ran for President.  The news media thought he was a joke, but he could stand before people and talk pretty generally about things and the cynics just ate him up in the press as if he was a clown. He had governed the State of Florida competently, yet they always referenced the "actor" as if he was a joke.  President Reagan connected with people across the aisle.  He connected with Reagan democrats.  I personally think Trump is the definition of a joke, but he is connecting with eople.....people like celebrity.....and the sad thing is that the other candidates have now reverted to a slurry of bad utube video of burning budgets, destroying phones, or replying with blazing personal attacks.  I think Trump is in this for the long haul, and he will start getting ten Sarah Palin bullet points which he will drive home through the  debates.

Ted Cruz is a prototype political worm.  He is irrelevant to any sane discussion and most people cannot get him over the worm test.

Trump is a fake Ross Perot...he is the only hope of another Clinton getting into office..

I think seaoat makes a good observation. In the "connecting with people" category, Trump does have that in common with Reagan.
In that regard, both were/are populists who go directly to the voters for their support.
They also share one other similiarity. They both had national celebrity status and all the national name recognition they needed before they even entered the presidential race.

Snark Spigot wrote:My first presidential vote was for Reagan over Mondale, and my second was H.W. Bush over Dukakis.

I voted for many GOP congressional candidates in those salad days...

That's really interesting to learn,   Sal.  Because I've always wondered how you could be such a  "progressive/liberal" type when your age puts you in the original "reagan generation" which mostly rebelled against all that liberal stuff originated by the hippie faction of your parents' generation (mine).

Many of my generation had developed a philosophy that wanting wealth and money and shit should take a backseat to love,  peace,  living communally, and all like that.  
And then your generation mostly reverted to the philosophy of MY parents' generation which saw a comeback with Reaganism.

So you bought into into the reaganism in the beginning but then strayed from it later on.
That's indicative of an independent thinker.  I always respect that.