How to Beat Donald Trump

I was interviewed about Donald Trump a few years ago - actually, about ten years ago, time flies when you're having a good time - and then quoted in and asked to blurb this 2007 biography of Trump, No Such Thing as Over-Exposure: Inside the Life and Celebrity of Donald Trump, by Robert Slater.

I admit that I admired something of Trump back then, or at least his success, which is why I was happy to blurb the book.   Slater thought I understood a bit of what made Trump tick.   I thought so, too, and think so today, when what makes Trump tick is vastly more crucial to our nation and indeed the world than it was a decade ago.

I told Slater, and he agreed, that Trump was motivated, to the point of being addicted, to two things. One has become obvious and all too well-known.  Trump is addicted to publicity.  He's the very embodiment of the principle that there's no such thing as bad publicity, aka the worst publicity is no publicity, and everything he's said and done since announcing his candidacy for President last summer proves this.   That was the sense of the title of Slater's biography of Trump.   No Such Thing as Over-Exposure.

But there's a second part to Trump's compulsion: he's addicted to winning. We saw the first major expression of this after his big loss in Wisconsin. He declined to appear on the Sunday talk shows, for the first time since November, the weekend after Wisconsin.

No candidate likes to lose.   But look at what Hillary did after her losses to Bernie - she immediately redoubled her efforts and media appearances.   Indeed, having lost a very difficult primary to Obama in 2008, she came back in 2016.   We've yet to see what Bernie will do in the future if, as now seems likely, he doesn't get the Democratic nomination, but so far he seems unbowed by the victories Hillary has mounted,   On the Republican side, Cruz and Kasich seem largely unfazed by their considerable defeats.

This analysis of Trump is of course now muddied by his big win in New York last night. But I think it will  prove out in the months ahead.  If Trump does not get the Republican nomination, I predict he'll kick and scream but do nothing more (though his supporters may riot), including not launching a third party effort. If he does get the nomination, and loses the general election, I predict we'll never see him run for office again. Trump's addicted to winning, and therefore hates losing with every ounce of his being.  That's why he traded so many of his companies off to bankruptcy - he'd rather leave the field than risk losing even more.

The way to beat Trump is, therefore, to beat him.  And although that might sound like tautological gibberish, I believe it has a deep grain of truth.  Trump has a glass jaw when it comes to losing.   It's why he sulked after losing Wisconsin.   He's probably won too many primaries to leave the political field any time before the GOP Convention.   But if he doesn't get the nomination, or does but loses the general election, we'll likely never see him on the ballot again.   That may be scant comfort, but it's something.

It may not be easy to stop Trump, but once that happens, I bet he won't be coming back soon, or ever again.

Hillary Clinton Sweeps All Five States Tonight: The Best Antidote to Trump

An excellent night indeed for Hillary Clinton, who won primaries in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri - or all five contests, over Bernie Sanders.

As I've said many times and in many places, Bernie Sanders is an excellent candidate, with courageous positions that have a lot to commend them.  But I prefer Hillary, for a variety of reasons - her stronger position on gun control, on stopping police who kill innocent African-Americans, to name just two - and now there is an additional, highly important reason:

Donald Trump did very tonight in the Republican primaries, too.  Kasich won Ohio, but Trump won the rest.  What happened in his campaigns over the weekend makes it more imperative than ever than the Democrats nominate a candidate who can beat Trump in the general election.

It's not even Trump's positions that are so frightening.  Cruz's are even worse.  It's the fascistic tendencies that Trump has displayed at his most recent rallies - inciting his followers to violence. Such incitements are straight out of the Joseph Goebbels handbook.  He was the Nazi minister of Propaganda, and though I know some people dislike comparisons in our current day and age to the Nazis, they can't be ignored.  We're not that far away from angry people taking up arms against innocent, law-abiding Muslim Americans, given Trump's rhetoric.

I know Bernie has done better in many polls against Trump than has Hillary.  But, in the long run, she's the more reliable candidate to beat Trump.  As she aptly says, she has been under GOP attack for decades.   She can better withstand whatever vicious barrage Trump and his ilk might bring against the Democratic candidate for President.

Especially gratifying, then, that Hillary Clinton swept all five of  the Democratic primaries tonight.

What the Trump Defeat in Iowa Says about the Limits of Social Media

I don't think I've seen anyone mention this as yet, so I'll make the point here:  I think Trump's defeat in Iowa last night, coming in a clear second to Ted Cruz, says something about the limits of social media.

Or at least that a superior number of Twitter followers did not equate to success in a political caucus. Trump has 5.99 million followers on Twitter.   Cruz has 779 thousand.   I have no idea how many of them are in Iowa, but Cruz's victory in Iowa shows that Twitter clout isn't all it's cracked up to be - at least, not politically - and that other factors enter in voters choices in caucuses.

Ron Paul actually learned a similar lesson back in 2008.   Twitter was much smaller then, but there was a lot of political action on Digg, which operated like Reddit does now, and was much bigger than Reddit back then.   In those days, editorials and other articles on the Internet praising Ron Paul were regularly voted up to the front page of Digg by its readers.   Articles about Ron Paul dominated Digg for months and months.  But when the primaries came, Ron Paul was in single digits.  (For more on social media in the election of 2008, see my New New Media.)

Hillary and Bernie are more equally matched now on Twitter - Hillary has 5.28 million followers, in comparison to Bernie's 1.3 million and 1.33 million on his two active accounts - which makes it no surprise, Twitter-wise, that the two finished so neck-and-neck in Iowa.   Or even that Hillary won, albeit by the most narrow margin.

But unlike the Democrats, for which numbers of Twitter followers were roughly in synch with the Iowa results, the defeat of Trump given his huge Twitter presence says something else.   Likely the reason for the Trump discrepancy has something to do with the nature of his Tweets, and what it is about them and him that attracts so many followers.   Unlike Hillary and Bernie and Cruz, Trump's in fact have very little political content, trafficking instead in broad insults and truculent declarations.  It may well be that these are fun to read but insufficient to galvanize true political support.  Which would certainly be a good thing for our country.

Good News in the Iowa Caucus Results

Looks like Hillary Clinton won by a razor-thin margin in Iowa - which I'm glad to see, since I like her position on the NRA - receiving an "F" from the gun lobby - better than Bernie's D- from the same organization, and I also think Hillary's extensive foreign policy experience is a necessity in the next President, in this especially dangerous day and age.

But Bernie can hold his head up high.  He started in Iowa with next to nothing in voter support, and ignited a revolution that brought him all the way to the edge of winning.   I don't support his socialism - I think there's an enormous value in capitalism and its spur to human invention - but there's more than enough room in the Democratic party for his kind of progressivism, and our country benefits from his voice.

And I'm also glad that Trump came in second in the Republican caucuses, and almost came in third.  I agree with nothing Cruz says, but at least he offers real political content, rather than the insults and empty hyperbole of Donald Trump.   As I pointed out in McLuhan in an Age of Social Media, Trump is the ultimate "cool" candidate (in McLuhan's terminology, meaning that his communication has ultra-low content), trafficking in tweets and in speeches which are almost literally compilations and repetitions of his 140-character digital missives and misses.   It's good to see voters reject that in favor of something more substantial - however much I may find that substance dangerous and unacceptable.   It's good to see Trump's glistening egg-shell of invincibility, his cult of being a winner, beginning to crack.  I suspect Iowa will be the beginning of the end for him and his ego.

The 2016 Presidential election moves to New Hampshire next week. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are currently way ahead in that state. But if anything is clear from tonight in Iowa, and previous years in New Hampshire, nothing is certain in politics.

Donald Trump, Lawrence O'Donnell, and the KIND Fund

Lawrence O'Donnell presented a fascinating and instructive true-story at the end of his Last Word hour on MSNBC last night.   Here are the details:  Donald Trump sent Lawrence a check for $10,000 made out to the KIND Fund - UNICEF's Kids in Need of Desks charity, which uses donations to buy desks for kids in need in Malawi, a charity that Lawrence (with the help of Victor Chinyama) began with UNICEF in 2010 and talks about frequently on his show.  Lawrence said he appreciated the check, but couldn't accept it - technically, because it was made out to the KIND fund, not UNICEF, but, more importantly, as Lawrence explained, because he as a news commentator could not accept a gift for his charity from a Presidential contender.  Lawrence made a new contribution of $10,000 himself, so that his refusal of Trump's contribution would not result in the children in Malawi not receiving the desks this money will buy.  (You can see the video of this entire segment here.)

This event says a lot about both Trump and O'Donnell.  First, the charity is eminently worthy (I and my wife have made separate, much smaller, contributions to it).   Trump's contribution was thus to a good cause, and deserves at least some praise for that.  But what were its motives - there are, after all, many very worthy charities in this world.   My best guess:  Trump and his campaign have been delighted with Harvard professor Laurence Tribe's appearance on Lawrence O'Donnell's show a few nights ago, excoriating Ted Cruz's hypocrisy in being not a literal originalist about the Constitution and what it says about "natural born" and American Presidents - saying it's "settled law" though it's not -when Cruz has argued throughout his career that the Constitution must otherwise be literally respected. Trump has seized on this in his speeches, trumpeting Tribe's statements as support for Trump's attack on his leading rival, Cruz.

Given that backdrop, Lawrence O'Donnell had no choice but to refuse the donation, to make sure it could not be construed as some kind of reward from Trump for the Tribe statement.  The donation also shows something about Trump's thinking - rewarding people who support him has so intrinsically been the way he has done business all of his life, that it probably never occurred to him that making the donation could create an ethical problem for O'Donnell.   Trump truly does play by his own rules, which is no doubt one of the main reasons he has been doing so well in the polls.

As for the natural-born issue, I've to say, being a supporter of neither Cruz or Trump, that I think the interpreation that born of an American parent should be the equivalent of born on American soil should be the rule we follow when it comes to Presidential candidates.  I'd like to see the Supreme Court make a definitive ruling on this as soon as possible - which I know will need a case to be brought before it, after the case goes through the lower courts, which means it likely will be not soon at all.

In the meantime, kudos to Donald Trump for whatever part of his attempted contribution was truly charitable - and for writing the check which will indeed result in help for Malawi children, via Lawrence' O'Donnell's check which Donald Trump's check motivated - and kudos to Lawrence O'Donnell and his ethical compass for turning the original check down, and threading the needle in a way that did not disadvantage the kids in Malawi.

Third GOP Presidential Debate: Participants and Bystanders

Back with a review of the third GOP Presidential debate tonight, as always with the proviso that I've only voted for a Republican once in my life - for John Lindsay for Mayor of New York City decades ago - and no doubt won't be voting for any of the Republicans up on the stage in Colorado this evening.

But, that said, who did the best and the worst?

I think Chris Christie had the single best moment, when he said he did not deny climate change - as do many Republicans - and would do what he could to improve our climate by supporting private alternate energy enterprise.  That's an enlightened anti-government position on this issue.

The best exchange was between Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, who both came across well in Bush's attack on and Rubio's defense of his poor attendance record in the Senate.   In general, both Bush and Rubio had a good night, with Rubio somewhat better.

Cruz had a strong moment with the perennial Republican chestnut of attacking the media in general and the questions being asked of him and his colleagues in the debate.  But that was about Cruz's only moment.

Kasich started strong then all but disappeared.  Rand Paul gave some good answers but looked tired and bored.   Huckabee was unmemorable - except for his proud admission about wearing a Trump tie - and Fiorina was the dullest I recall seeing her in any of the debates so far.

Carson and Trump, the two front runners, were both ok, sometimes pretty good, but they often seemed more like bystanders than full-fledged participants in this economic debate.   Someone tweeted - I think it was Farhad Manjoo - that if "if you knew nothing about the polls and watched this you wouldn’t believe Trump and Carson were leading."  I've got to agree.

And so it goes.   Trump will have a chance to rekindle some of his fire on Saturday Night Live this weekend.   He'll need that, because he certainly didn't have all that much tonight.

PS: I thought Lindsey Graham was far and away the best in the junior GOP debate tonight, and was better than at least half the contenders in the main debate tonight.

First 2016 GOP Presidential Debate: My Ranking of the Performances

Continuing my tradition of reviewing the Republican Presidential Debates (and Democratic Debates), which goes back to 2007,  here's my take on what happened on Fox News in Cleveland tonight.

First, as a preamble, I thought the 5pm appetizer debate, consisting of the seven contenders whose polling numbers didn't qualify them (by Fox's standards) for the main event, was one of the most boring political debates I've ever seen.   Sad to say, that debate made pretty clear why those seven candidates polled so poorly.

But on to the debate of 10, which took place from 9 to 11 tonight, I'll appraise this by ranking the performances from worst to best, on all the issues:

10. Ben Carson, neurosurgeon was amiable enough, but clearly out of his depth.  I'll be amazed if his polling numbers don't dip below one percent in the weeks ahead.

9.  Gov. Scott Walker, who was seen in reaction shots agreeing enthusiastically with whatever Carson was saying, didn't do very well himself.   I can't think if a single surprising or memorable point he made.

8. Sen.  Rand Paul came on strong with an attack on Trump at the beginning, and had a few good moments, but let Gov. Christie get the better of him in an exchange about hugs - Paul slammed Christie for hugging Obama, Christie responded that the hugs he most remembered were those of 9/11 victims.  This reprised, in effect, the exchange about national security between Ron Paul (Rand's father) and Giuliani in 2007, except tonight Christie did much better than Giuliani.

7. Gov. Huckabee had some strong moments - his best his joke at the end, in which he talked scathingly about someone leading in the polls with no valid ideas, whom we expected to be Trump, but turned out to be Hillary - but for the most part Huckabee looked and sounded tired.

6. Sen. Ted Cruz was clear and dynamic, but I can't think of an original or commanding idea expressed by him.

5. Christie had a surprisingly good debate, getting the best of Paul, as I said above, but also making powerful points about his success as Governor of New Jersey (and, fortunately for him, no one brought up Bridgegate).

4. Gov. Jeb Bush, as second in the polls after Trump, had more than anyone other than Trump to lose. He accounted well for himself  - spoke well, and came across as the compassionate conservative, especially on immigration, which is where he wants to be.

3. Sen. Marco Rubio came across as the man of the future - showing an understanding of the digital age - as well as compassionate and savvy on a variety of issues.   He was well-spoken, genial, and incisive.

2, Donald Trump held his own, including even in his answer to Megyn Kelly's question about the vicious and demeaning things he's said about women, and later defending his declared bankruptcies in response to a question from Chris Wallace.   For someone with zero experience debating and running in elections, Trump, whatever you may think of his views, stood strong up on that stage.

1. Gov. Kasich was the biggest surprise of the night.  He was powerful without being belligerent, and like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio displayed what seemed like a real compassion for humanity.

So there you have it - an honest appraisal, without reference to my own political views, which are mostly in disagreement with everyone on the stage (I voted twice for Obama).

Cruz vs. Feinstein on Gun Control: A Better Answer to Cruz

The exchange between Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) about the constitutionality of gun control has been getting a lot of coverage today.  Cruz asked Feinstein how, given the Federal authority to outlaw certain weapons as provided for in her bill, and the violation of the Second Amendment which he saw that entailing, would she feel about a law that outlawed certain books, and the violation of the First Amendment that such a ban would entail?

Feinstein told Cruz not to lecture her on the Constitution, Cruz said he respected her passion, and there has been a lot of commentary in the media about how well Feinstein stood up to Cruz's questions.  Be that as it may, there was no constitutional answer given to Cruz, so here's one now:

First, here are the texts of the First and Second Amendments:

• First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

• Second Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Cruz in his exchange with Feinstein pointed out that "the right of the people" is used in both Amendments - true - and that restrictions or control of guns (or arms) under the Second Amendment therefore should be no more allowable than restrictions of books under the First Amendment, because in both cases "the right of the people" would be infringed.   Not true.

Here's why:  the First Amendment associates "the right of people" to "peaceably" assemble and petition the government.  But before that, and before the phrase about "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," the First Amendment reserves the phrase, "Congress shall make no law" - a phrase that appears nowhere in the Second Amendment.

Had the Founders wanted the Federal government to make "no law" regarding possession of weapons or arms, they easily could have used that phrase in the Second Amendment.  Instead, they used the far weaker "shall not be infringed," which obviously leaves lots of room for reasonable laws that do not infringe.

And that, obviously, was a very smart distinction, because guns can kill and cause physical harm, but the worst that words can do is anger and aggravate.  The Founders had it right, and Cruz has it wrong.