If Held Today, President Trump Would Win the #GOP Primaries

He's got a huge plurality of supporters in this this new poll out from the New York Times.

See, "Half of G.O.P. Voters Ready to Leave Trump Behind, Poll Finds":

Far from consolidating his support, the former president appears weakened in his party, especially with younger and college-educated Republicans. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida is the most popular alternative.

As Donald J. Trump weighs whether to open an unusually early White House campaign, a New York Times/Siena College poll shows that his post-presidential quest to consolidate his support within the Republican Party has instead left him weakened, with nearly half the party’s primary voters seeking someone different for president in 2024 and a significant number vowing to abandon him if he wins the nomination.

By focusing on political payback inside his party instead of tending to wounds opened by his alarming attempts to cling to power after his 2020 defeat, Mr. Trump appears to have only deepened fault lines among Republicans during his yearlong revenge tour. A clear majority of primary voters under 35 years old, 64 percent, as well as 65 percent of those with at least a college degree — a leading indicator of political preferences inside the donor class — told pollsters they would vote against Mr. Trump in a presidential primary.

Mr. Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, appears to have contributed to the decline in his standing, including among a small but important segment of Republicans who could form the base of his opposition in a potential primary contest. While 75 percent of primary voters said Mr. Trump was “just exercising his right to contest the election,” nearly one in five said he “went so far that he threatened American democracy.”

Overall, Mr. Trump maintains his primacy in the party: In a hypothetical matchup against five other potential Republican presidential rivals, 49 percent of primary voters said they would support him for a third nomination.

The greatest threat to usurp Mr. Trump within the party is Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who was the second choice with 25 percent and the only other contender with double-digit support. Among primary voters, Mr. DeSantis was the top choice of younger Republicans, those with a college degree and those who said they voted for President Biden in 2020.

While about one-fourth of Republicans said they didn’t know enough to have an opinion about Mr. DeSantis, he was well-liked by those who did. Among those who voted for Mr. Trump in 2020, 44 percent said they had a very favorable opinion of Mr. DeSantis — similar to the 46 percent who said the same about Mr. Trump.

Should Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Trump face off in a primary, the poll suggested that support from Fox News could prove crucial: Mr. Trump held a 62 percent to 26 percent advantage over Mr. DeSantis among Fox News viewers, while the gap between the two Floridians was 16 points closer among Republicans who mainly receive their news from another source.

The survey suggests that Mr. Trump would not necessarily enter a primary with an insurmountable advantage over rivals like Mr. DeSantis. His share of the Republican primary electorate is less than Hillary Clinton’s among Democrats was at the outset of the 2016 race, when she was viewed as the inevitable front-runner, but ultimately found herself embroiled in a protracted primary against Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont...

Still more.

And Bill Schneider suggested the other day that Trump might announce his 2024 run before the November midterms. We'll see. That's not unprecedented. Howard Dean formally announced his bid for the 2004 Democratic nomination June 23, 2003, but he was campaigning way before then, in the second half of 2002.

If Trump's able to raise a massive war chest --- to the tune of say $2 billion or so --- then he'd certainly scare off much of the competition. But let's see how much DeSantis is able to raise in 2023, should he throw his hat into the ring. He's the one on fire right now. I like him. I hope he's the nominee. He'll crush any Democrat in the 2024 general election.

Impeachment Has Been Great for Business

The GOP fundraising business, that is. Who didn't see this coming?

On Twitter:

Axios’ Swan: impeachment backlash helping Republicans build a “formidable” machine for 2020 pic.twitter.com/jyN4QPg3Bd

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) January 19, 2020

What Happened to Bernie's Financial Backers?

Remember how in 2016 Bernie was touting his average $27.00 contribution as a key measure of the populist revolt against the Wall Street billionaires club?

Well, that was then.

Bernie's moment has passed. He's just one of a dozen or more socialists on the stage nowadays.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Bernie Sanders’ famed $27 donors are split in 2020’s sprawling Democratic field":

Bernie Sanders' famed $27 donors are split in 2020's sprawling Democratic field https://t.co/lZmUtzzYTR

— Seema (@LATSeema) August 21, 2019

Small-dollar donors made Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential bid one of the most successful insurgent campaigns in Democratic Party history, allowing him to be competitive with establishment favorite Hillary Clinton.

But in the 2020 race, nearly 1.7 million, or more than 80%, of the donors who fueled his earlier run have stayed on the sidelines, according to a Times analysis of campaign finance disclosures through June 30.

The 2016 donors who are contributing this election cycle have given more than $32 million to the Democratic field. More than $16.2 million of that went to Sanders, making up about 45% of the money he has raised. But nearly as much went to his rivals, a sign of how split Democrats are as they try to figure out the best candidate to take on President Trump.

“Bernie’s washed up. I just think he’s too old,” Audrey Tieger, 68, said of the 77-year-old Sanders...

"Washed up."

Sounds like a boxer passed his prime: "I coulda been a contendah!"

Keep reading.

'Complete Chaos' at Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

Not enough "diversity" at the DCCC.

At Politico, "DCCC in 'complete chaos' as uproar over diversity intensifies: Cheri Bustos, chairwoman of the campaign arm, is set to make a surprise return to D.C. on Monday in an attempt to calm protests," and "Top DCCC staffer out amid diversity uproar":

The executive director of House Democrats’ campaign arm is stepping down amid an outcry from Democratic lawmakers over the lack of diversity in the committee’s senior ranks.

Executive Director Allison Jaslow, a close confidante of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Cheri Bustos, announced her resignation at an all-staff meeting Monday, according to multiple sources. Jaslow said her resignation is effective immediately.

Jaslow’s sudden departure comes as Bustos tries to contain the fury from Democratic lawmakers and aides that she has done little to address the lack of diversity in the upper ranks of the campaign arm since winning the chairmanship late last year.

Two Hispanic lawmakers, Reps. Vicente González and Filemon Vela, called for Jaslow’s resignation in a statement to POLITICO on [S]unday."

2020 is going to be a hoot. Democrat circular firings squads all the way.

Via Memeorandum.

No PAC Money: Republicans Cutting Loose Vulnerable GOP Congressional Candidates

This was at NYT yesterday, "Republicans Abandon Vulnerable Lawmakers, Striving to Keep House."

And then this today at LAT, discussing my district and Huntington Beach, "Top GOP funding group snubs incumbents Rohrabacher and Walters 3 weeks before midterm election":

A top GOP funding group snubbed two Orange County incumbents three weeks before the midterm election https://t.co/dV2UkbXiuk

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) October 13, 2018

In a worrisome sign for two endangered Orange County lawmakers, a major Republican Party funding group has passed over the pair in its opening round of broadcast television advertising across Southern California.

The omission of Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Mimi Walters by the Congressional Leadership Fund, a political action committee closely aligned with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), comes at a crucial inflection point in the midterm election when the two parties begin assessing their likely winners and losers.

The decisions are particularly acute for the GOP, which is facing a tsunami of Democratic campaign cash ahead of a feared blue wave on Nov. 6.

“Republicans are taking a cold-blooded look at races to decide where to put resources and where to withdraw resources to put somewhere else,” said Stuart Rothenberg, a nonpartisan election analyst who has spent decades sizing up campaigns.

The GOP has already cut loose several incumbents, including Reps. Mike Coffman in the Denver suburbs and Mike Bishop in southern Michigan.

Democrats need a gain of 23 seats nationwide to take control of the House, which they surrendered after a blowout loss in the 2010 midterm election.

Candidates in California, where more than half a dozen seats are being seriously contested, are at particular risk of being cut off financially because of the state’s exorbitant advertising costs. Money saved in the costly Los Angeles media market can be spread over several contests in other states that may be considered more winnable.

The Congressional Leadership Fund, which collects multi-million-dollar checks from the Republican Party’s biggest donors, says it is spending nearly $12 million on cable television ads in four House contests in Southern California

On Friday, the super PAC launched an additional $5-million ad campaign on the main broadcast stations in Los Angeles, the nation’s second most expensive media market after New York.

But the fund’s opening broadcast ads support only two of the four Republican candidates in the Southland’s hardest-fought races: Rep. Steve Knight of Palmdale and Young Kim of Fullerton, relegating its Rohrabacher and Walters ads tocable channels with fewer viewers.

Courtney Alexander, the super PAC’s communications director, declined to comment on its advertising maneuvers.

“If the election were held today, we believe that both Mimi Walters and Dana Rohrabacher would win their reelection,” she said.

The fund is free to add Walters and Rohrabacher to its broadcast lineup later. But millions of Californians have already received their ballots by mail, so immediate advertising is crucial to the fate of the two lawmakers, who are each facing their most serious challenges ever.

Rohrabacher has served 15 terms in Congress and Walters is bidding to win her third term.

Their Democratic challengers are already spending heavily on broadcast television ads. Walters has aired some broadcast commercials too, but Rohrabacher has not.

Nationwide, Democratic candidates have raised far more money than Republicans. As a result, GOP candidates are counting on outside groups like the Congressional Leadership Fund to come to the rescue.

But those groups must pay as much as quadruple the rates that television stations are required by law to offer to candidates, so the Democratic dollars are buying far more ad time. And those dollars are expanding the political battlefield, pressuring Republican strategists to make hard decisions on where to commit precious resources and which candidates to let go.

“While most people talk constantly about whether [Democratic enthusiasm] will translate into turnout, it’s definitely translating into dollars,” said Rob Stutzman, a veteran Republican strategist in Sacramento. “Dollars aren’t decisive always, but it’s always a big advantage.

“When you’re these national committees and you’ve got problems in the suburbs of Dallas, Kansas City, Chicago, Philadelphia, you’ve got to start making decisions on where you can most effectively spend,” Stutzman said...

Still more.

Trump Plumps His 2020 Campaign War Chest

Trump's a man of massive ego, so being reelected in 2020 should be the ultimate goal. The ultimate validation.

And remember, if Roger Simon's right, it's going to be a cakewalk, heh.

At WaPo, via Memeorandum, "Trump's reelection stockpile grows as small donors keep giving."

Thanks to slew of fundraising emails, Trump/RNC raised $42.6 mil in Q1, more than 2x Obama/DNC eight years ago https://t.co/bGKCKXmNPY

— Matea Gold (@mateagold) April 14, 2017

Donald Trump Running 'Different Kind of Campaign' (VIDEO)

Laura Ingraham speaks out on Fox & Friends. Donald Trump needs to stop going after "personalities" and hit the Clinton machine with a clear and consistent message.

Watch, "Ingraham: Trump campaign needs to send a consistent message."

Trump calls into the show to talk about a "different kind of campaign."

Well, as in "different" means going completely "earned media," we'll see how that works. See previously, "Donald Trump Reportedly 'Getting Crushed' by Corrupt Democrat Party Money Machine."

BONUS: More video at Fox, "Corey Lewandowski discusses dismissal from Trump campaign." He mad a classy exit, that's for sure. I almost expect him to rejoin the campaign at a later date. That this was all choreographed to give the image of competence and change at Trump's headquarters. But we'll see. We'll see.

Donald Trump Reportedly 'Getting Crushed' by Corrupt Democrat Party Money Machine

Well, this is ironic, isn't it?

If Trump's campaign is really hurting for cash, he should loan his team's finance arm about $250 million, which shouldn't be a problem, right? Trump's supposedly worth $10 billion. No need to "self fund," which I thought was a stupid pledge in any case. But he needs to be up on the airwaves with rapid response ads and character attacks against Hillary Clinton and the corrupt Democrat smear machine.

If Reince isn't drilling the point home, then the fault lies just as much with the RNC as it does with Trump's organization. A Clinton-Democrat smear campaign of ads won't move the GOP blue-collar base, which already loves Trump, but it could convince some fence-sitting independents, who might succumb to the lies and demonization.

So, that's the problem.

It's all over Memeorandum right now, "Donald Trump Starts Summer Push With Crippling Money Deficit."

And on Twitter:

New @FEC reports just how thin @realDonaldTrump's organization is. https://t.co/W4EGZHz9bT Breaking it down at 10 am on @MSNBC w/ @jdbalart.

— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) June 21, 2016

FACT CHECK: PANTS ON FIRE https://t.co/Qvdm7CkQe8

— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) June 21, 2016

Donald Trump faces cash disadvantage heading into general election with Hillary Clinton https://t.co/WVCSgCt8wn

— Capital Journal (@WSJPolitics) June 21, 2016

Trump directed nearly a fifth of the $6.7M he spent in May to companies he owns or to reimbursing his kids: https://t.co/xXpuvw0q4w

— Rebecca Ballhaus (@rebeccaballhaus) June 21, 2016

Meanwhile, two of the three Trump super PACs didn't file reports with the FEC yesterday.

— Rebecca Ballhaus (@rebeccaballhaus) June 21, 2016

The presumptive Republican nominee drew fewer than 140 maxed-out donations in May.

— Rebecca Ballhaus (@rebeccaballhaus) June 21, 2016

Trump, in what he billed as first fundraising plea, says he'll match up to $2 million in donations in next 48 hrs https://t.co/uLUuMPXwlc

— Rebecca Ballhaus (@rebeccaballhaus) June 21, 2016

Donald Trump raised $3.1 million in the month after he became the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee, giving him a staggering cash disadvantage heading into the general election against Hillary Clinton.

After largely self-financing the primary election, Mr. Trump said last month that he would begin actively soliciting money for the general election. He appointed a national finance chairman and finalized a joint fundraising vehicle with the Republican National Committee. But his haul that month suggests his campaign was unable to turn his clinching of the party’s nomination into any fundraising boost.

Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, raised $27 million last month even as she sought to fend off the final weeks of primary rival Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign. She has raised $240 million over the course of the cycle, to Mr. Trump’s $17 million. (He has also loaned himself $45.7 million through May.)

Mr. Trump’s May haul, which he supplemented with $2.2 million in loans, left him with $1.3 million in the bank. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign had 32 times as much in its war chest: $42 million.

Mr. Trump’s cash deficit means it will be extraordinarily difficult for him to rival Mrs. Clinton’s expansive operation, both in TV ads and grassroots efforts. He has said he will rely heavily on the RNC, but the party’s efforts in battleground states are small in comparison to the Democrats and nonexistent in several blue states, such as California, that Mr. Trump says he wants to put on the map.

Mr. Trump, who touts his frugal operation, spent more than he raised in May, paying out $6.7 million over the course of the month. Of that, nearly 20%—or about $1.1 million—went to companies Mr. Trump owns or to travel reimbursements for his children, who serve as surrogates on the campaign trail.

In 2012, GOP nominee Mitt Romney raised $23.4 million in May, the month after he clinched the nomination, and had $17 million in the bank.

Mrs. Clinton’s super PAC also far outpaced Mr. Trump’s network of outside groups last month. The Clinton group, Priorities USA Action, raised $12.1 million in May, an uptick from the previous month, and has $51 million in the bank. Great America PAC, one of the super PACs backing Mr. Trump, raised $1.4 million in May and had about $500,000 on hand at the end of the month. Mr. Trump has at least two other groups backing him, too.

RNC Promotes Report Accusing Democrat Party of Conspiring to Nominate Hillary Clinton

Well, that oughta piss off a few Bernie bros, heh.

At the New York Post, "Leaked document shows the DNC wanted Clinton from start" (via Memeorandum):

DNC was pushing HRC as candidate from May, 2015 of last year. #Guccifer2 pic.twitter.com/0rJcTspOvl

— Kick (@MatthewKick) June 16, 2016

The document, posted online by the hacker “Guccifer 2.0,” outlines ways to hit back at the GOP presidential field, such as “use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”

Heh, guilty much?

Clinton Snarks at Trump on Twitter

It'll be a full-blown Twitter campaign this election, which must say something about the extreme significance of social media, or of modern times, or something.

I just can't help that it feels kinda stupid, insignificant even. Or, it's just weird.

And notice the pro-Clinton tone at this Politico piece. Here's hoping that Donald Trump blows off all the demands that he become more "presidential." Those are leftist demands for "civility," as in "civility bullshit."

. @HillaryClinton, taking a new posture on Twitter, snarks at Trump https://t.co/l3pqLVnDEb | Getty pic.twitter.com/QWv0VkLzlB

— POLITICO (@politico) June 18, 2016

Hillary Clinton Fundraising Off the Orlando Jihad Massacre, Demonizing Donald Trump

This is in the mail this morning, from the Hillary Clinton campaign. These people are freakin' shameless:

Donald --

In the wake of the deadliest mass shooting in United States history, the GOP nominee for president didn't pledge to stand with the LGBT community, didn't make a distinction between Muslims and jihadists, didn't lay out a measured and thoughtful plan to prevent tragedies like this from happening again.

Instead, he said I told you so. He took to the internet and fired off a tweet: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!”

We don’t need your self-congratulatory victory lap at a time of mourning, Donald. Our nation needs time to heal and reflect. We need a leader who can calmly and rationally lead us out of the darkness we find ourselves in -- not one who creates light with kerosene and a match.

Donald, the only thing standing between Donald Trump and the White House is you and this team. Today of all days, I need to know if you're in. Our country needs this campaign, and this campaign needs you:

Thanks,

Christina

Christina Reynolds
Deputy Communications Director
Hillary for America 

The bold highlighting is in the original.

Democrat Gov. Terry McAuliffe Under Federal Investigation for Illegal Campaign Contributions (VIDEO)

At CNN, via Memeorandum, "Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe under federal investigation for campaign contributions."

Plus, more at the video, "Officials: Virginia governor under FBI investigation."

More at Politico, "McAuliffe attorney denies knowledge of any DOJ probe" (via Memeorandum).

McAuliffe was Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, from 2001 to 2005. He knows exactly what's going on. The Democrats have a history of taking illegal foreign contributions. Flashback to 1998, at the Washington Post, "Gore's Ties to Hsia Cast Shadow on 2000 Race."

RELATED: From Michelle Malkin, "The Chinagate/Buddhist temple cash skeletons in Gary Locke's closet."

Donald Trump Rivals Brace for Crippling Loss in Indiana (VIDEO)

Well, let's hope so.

This primary season's dragged on far too long. Hopefully, even more of the GOP establishment will start to coalesce around Trump, and then folks can figure out a way to respond to the left's barrage of smears heading our way before the convention in Cleveland.

Or, that is, in a rational world.

At the New York Times, "Donald Trump's Foes Fear Indiana Primary Could Be Decisive Blow":

The coalition of Republicans opposed to Donald J. Trump’s candidacy braced Monday for a debilitating setback as he appeared poised for a victory in Indiana that would put him on track to seal the Republican nomination by the time primary voting ends next month.

The Indiana vote has emerged as a decisive and perhaps final test for Senator Ted Cruz, who has abandoned hope of overtaking Mr. Trump in the race but still aims to throw the Republican nominating fight to a contested convention in July. Mr. Cruz, of Texas, has pleaded with Indiana voters in recent days not to anoint Mr. Trump as the party’s standard-bearer, and has devised a series of long-shot tactics to derail him in the state.

On Monday, that mission of persuasion took on a vividly literal form for Mr. Cruz during a campaign stop in Marion, Ind. Confronted there by determined hecklers bearing Trump campaign signs, Mr. Cruz insisted to one that he was making a mistake.

“Donald Trump is deceiving you,” he said. “He is playing you for a chump.”

Polls now show that Mr. Trump has a clear advantage in Indiana, where 57 delegates are at stake. A survey conducted by Marist College for NBC News and The Wall Street Journal found Mr. Trump leading Mr. Cruz by 15 points there, and close to capturing an outright majority of the vote. Gov. John Kasich of Ohio was in a distant third place.

Mr. Cruz has signaled that he intends to forge ahead irrespective of the outcome in Indiana in a bid to block Mr. Trump from winning the 1,237 delegates required to claim the nomination. He spent part of the weekend campaigning in California, which is among the last states to vote, on June 7, and collected the endorsement of former Gov. Pete Wilson, who warned that Mr. Trump would doom the party as its nominee.

But Mr. Wilson conceded in an interview on Monday that a defeat in Indiana would imperil Mr. Cruz’s path forward. To win California, Mr. Wilson said, “the first thing he needs to do is win in Indiana.”

Without such a victory, Mr. Wilson said, “I think it’s much more difficult. The nearer that Trump gets to having the magic number, the more difficult it is.”

More.

Democrats Plan to Pound Trump Before He’s Nominated

I'm not sure what to think of this.

Donald Trump is not Mitt Romney, and he's not going to take attacks from the despicable Democrats lying down. And as we've seen since Trump entered the race, the more vicious the attacks on him, the more rabid his supporters become. I don't expect that to change once the attacks start coming from Pri­or­it­ies USA Ac­tion, or the DNC for that matter. Will Trump be able to respond in kind before receiving public funding for the general election (assuming he's not "self-funded" after all)? Who knows? Moe Lane seems to expect Trump to get blown out of the water, but he's blogging at Red State, hardly your neutral source for analysis on such issues.

In any case, at National Journal (via Memeorandum):

Super PAC will air $20 million in negative ads before Donald Trump can counter with general-election money, a strategy that defined Mitt Romney in 2012.

Democrats plan to pound Donald Trump before he’s nominated: https://t.co/4Pls1Dzh2D pic.twitter.com/SeCYtrhmGy

— National Journal (@nationaljournal) May 2, 2016

Don­ald Trump loves to brag about how he al­ways coun­ter­punches when at­tacked, but he could soon be tak­ing an un­answered, $20 mil­lion pum­mel­ing in those few states that will de­cide the Novem­ber elec­tion.

A series of ads paint­ing him as an un­ser­i­ous, un­ready, and un­scru­pu­lous busi­ness­man who also hap­pens to dis­par­age wo­men and minor­it­ies is to start air­ing June 8, the day after the fi­nal primar­ies in which Trump is likely to clinch the Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­en­tial nom­in­a­tion.

“That’s a good day to start,” said Justin Barasky with Pri­or­it­ies USA Ac­tion, a su­per PAC back­ing Demo­crat Hil­lary Clin­ton. “We’re not go­ing to the make the same mis­take Re­pub­lic­ans did in wait­ing too long [to go on the of­fens­ive].”

For five full weeks, in a lull between the primary sea­son and the GOP con­ven­tion, these mes­sages may have the air­waves to them­selves in sev­en swing states, with the no­tori­ously tight-fis­ted Trump loath to spend tens of mil­lions of his own money to counter the at­tack and the Re­pub­lic­an Party un­able to de­fend him un­til he of­fi­cially be­comes the nom­in­ee.

If Re­pub­lic­ans find this strategy fa­mil­i­ar, they should. It’s ex­actly what Pri­or­it­ies did to 2012 GOP nom­in­ee Mitt Rom­ney in those months after he had se­cured the nom­in­a­tion, fol­low­ing a long and ex­pens­ive primary battle—but be­fore he was of­fi­cially nom­in­ated and al­lowed to use mil­lions in gen­er­al-elec­tion money he had already col­lec­ted.

“Mitt Rom­ney was a fun­da­ment­ally likable guy. Look what they did to Mitt Rom­ney. They turned him in­to his­tory’s greatest mon­ster,” said Rick Wilson, a Re­pub­lic­an strategist and lead­ing “Nev­er Trump” voice who has been warn­ing for months that Demo­crats would start blis­ter­ing Trump the mo­ment he se­cured the nom­in­a­tion.

In 2012, Pri­or­it­ies spent $21.5 mil­lion at­tack­ing Rom­ney between May and the end of Au­gust, when the former Mas­sachu­setts gov­ernor form­ally ac­cep­ted the nom­in­a­tion at the GOP con­ven­tion in Tampa. The ads fo­cused on five swing states, most not­ably Rust Belt Ohio, and por­trayed Rom­ney as a heart­less plu­to­crat who en­riched him­self by shut­ting down factor­ies and ship­ping jobs over­seas. The ads were cred­ited with turn­ing Rom­ney’s busi­ness ex­per­i­ence from an as­set in­to a li­ab­il­ity among many gen­er­al-elec­tion voters. In Ohio, Pres­id­ent Obama re­ceived 2 per­cent more sup­port from white voters and non-col­lege gradu­ates than he did na­tion­ally—a big factor in his 3-point vic­tory there that Novem­ber that sealed his reelec­tion.

Wilson pre­dicted that Pri­or­it­ies would have a much easi­er chal­lenge with Trump than it did with Rom­ney, giv­en Trump’s already high dis­ap­prov­al rat­ings and the host of con­tro­ver­sies in his past, from the de­funct Trump Uni­versity to his mul­tiple bank­ruptcies in At­lantic City.

Pri­or­it­ies will also find its Re­pub­lic­an op­pos­i­tion in a far more pre­cari­ous fin­an­cial con­di­tion. While both Rom­ney’s cam­paign and his su­per PAC were de­pleted by the drawn-out primary, he was non­ethe­less a prodi­gious fun­draiser, ul­ti­mately col­lect­ing $820 mil­lion for him­self and the Re­pub­lic­an Party and an­oth­er $153 mil­lion for his tech­nic­ally in­de­pend­ent su­per PAC.

Trump has no fun­drais­ing op­er­a­tion, has in­sul­ted the tra­di­tion­al GOP donor com­munity, and as of yet has not be­gun rais­ing money for the party. At a re­cent meet­ing, Re­pub­lic­an Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee mem­bers pub­licly ex­pressed con­fid­ence they could raise all the money needed. But privately, some mem­bers wor­ried that Trump as nom­in­ee won’t be able to raise a frac­tion of the $1 bil­lion that Clin­ton and Demo­crats are likely to spend.

Trump has avoided spend­ing money on his cam­paign whenev­er pos­sible, largely re­ly­ing on free cable TV cov­er­age to spread his mes­sage. And it’s un­clear how eas­ily he can write him­self eight-fig­ure checks, even if he wanted to...

Well, that doesn't sound particularly auspicious for the Manhattan mogul, but then, it's been a completely unpredictably election season thus far.

My bet is that Trump will continue to assume the mantle of respectability, and he'll ingratiate himself with the GOP establishment while turning increasingly to a by-the-book mainstream presidential campaign. He's going to have to fork over some of own cash if he's serious about rebutting the left's smears before Cleveland, but we'll see. We're already seeing the Republican establishment warming to a Trump candidacy, and my main hypothesis throughout is the both Republicans and conservatives hate Hillary more than they hate The Donald, so by the time of the general election we should be seeing a full-on battle among the historical constituencies of the two parties.

We're in uncharted territory here, but I'm loving it.

Still more at the link.

Support for Hillary Erodes

Dick Brennan reports, for CBS News 2 New York:

Bernie Sanders Supporters Wear Robin Hood Caps at Netroots Nation in Phoenix

Because Sanders is proposing a "Robin Hood Tax," of course.

From Chris Cillizza, on Twitter, "The 1 pic that tells you everything you need to know about Bernie Sanders."

Bernie Sanders Tech-Savvy Campaign Shakes Up Presidential Race

At the Los Angeles Times, "The savvy tech strategy fueling Bernie Sanders' upstart 2016 campaign":

Bernie Sanders is more likely to sport a rumpled suit than a hoodie, has no affinity for geeking out on the gadgets of Silicon Valley and may prefer the company of protesters over programmers — yet no candidate running for president is more successfully leveraging technology.

The liberal Vermont senator’s rapid rise from a token leftist to a rival with the potential to disrupt Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton’s path to the nomination confirms that technology, as political data wizards like to say, has become an equalizer in modern campaigns.

“It is extraordinary how this has revolutionized politics in America,” Sanders said in an interview. He is the first to admit that he is no techie. “I consider myself smart enough to hire excellent people who know its importance.”

The Sanders ascent is built on deft use of the campaign tools first developed a decade ago by fellow Vermonter Howard Dean. During his 2004 campaign for president, Dean also was not particularly tech-savvy, but his message resonated with those who were.

Sanders is the same. Recently, he overtook Clinton in the number of people searching for his name on Google. His Senate Facebook page has 1.3 million followers, more than any other senator.

An online effort to get volunteers to throw house parties in support of Sanders on a day this month has so many people signing up that the campaign is trying to figure out how to coordinate it all.

“Can you imagine 20 years ago anyone thinking you could sit down in front of your computer and talk to tens of thousands of people in America at once and do it at such a reasonable cost?” Sanders said.

Nobody doubts Sanders’ ability to draw a crowd. But until recently, a fiery liberal like him would have had considerable difficulty creating a durable campaign operation out of the large groups of peaceniks, environmentalists and college professors turning out to see him in liberal towns like Madison, Wis., and Iowa City, Iowa.

Now, off-the-shelf technology is available to build detailed profiles of the thousands who come to rallies and use the data to find many thousands more just like them in early-voting states. Sanders’ staff can tap into a massive voter file the Democratic National Committee makes available to candidates to pinpoint with precision which people who show up at a rally are prospective precinct captains in Iowa...

More.

And at Althouse, "'Wow. Did you give any actual thought to your choice of the headline and photo for this article?'"

Hillary's Culture of Corruption

At IBD, "Hillary Clinton's Culture of Corruption May Doom Candidacy":

.@HillaryClinton's culture of corruption may doom her candidacy http://t.co/EMqPUsTJ1l - #NotHillary2016 - pic.twitter.com/3QpSaeYP8C

— Daniel John Sobieski (@gerfingerpoken) April 21, 2015

Hillary's emails may be only the tip of an iceberg that could include Clinton Foundation donations to shield Boko Haram from being designated a terrorist group and her brother's involvement in a Haitian gold mine.

We doubt Team Hillary was thrilled or her critics surprised Tuesday when the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security named Mrs. Clinton's brother, Tony Rodham, in a report about a firm that allegedly received preferential treatment from the Obama administration.

The firm, Gulf Coast Funds Management, with Tony Rodham listed as its chief executive, allegedly benefited from what the report says was "politically motivated" intervention of then-United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Majorkas, whom president Obama promoted to be the No. 2 official at DHS even as he was under investigation.

Majorkas, according to the IG report, appeared to give "favoritism and special access" to politically connected Democrats who intervened in the application process for the EB-5 (Employee-Based Fifth Preference) visa program, which grants visas to wealthy foreigners who can invest up to $500,000 in U.S. business ventures.

Along with Hillary's brother, Gulf Coast is also linked to now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who served as chair of the Democratic National Committee when Hillary's husband, Bill Clinton, was president. McAuliffe's company was working with Gulf Coast, a firm that specialized in obtaining EB-5 visas for investors.

So we have a high Obama administration official conspiring to grant visas to wealthy investors in a firm run by Hillary's brother, Tony Rodham, that was assisting a firm run by Hillary's political ally Terry McAuliffe.

Now-DHS Deputy Secretary Alejandro Majorkas' intervention on behalf of McAuliffe's GreenTech Automotive company was "unprecedented," according to the IG report.

Last month, the Washington Post reported on another deal involving Rodham that could prove politically embarrassing and damaging for his sister. It seems that he sits on the board of a company that got a coveted gold-mining contract from the government of Haiti after the Clinton Foundation sponsored relief work in Haiti.

In interviews with the Post, both Rodham and the chief executive of Delaware-based VCS Mining said they were introduced at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, which seems more and more to be an unseemly mix of charitable work with the political and business interests of Clinton Foundation donors.

And then there's Hillary's strange dealings regarding the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram, which just recently pledged its allegiance to the ever-expanding Islamic State — dubbed the "JV team" by President Obama, who has yet to make good on his pledge to degrade and destroy them.

My god, you'd think the Clinton's care more about the interests of America's enemies more than America's interests!

Keep reading.

'Clinton Cash' Book Bombshell Set to Explode Hillary Clinton Democrat Party Pay-to-Play Scandal

From Amy Chozick, at the New York Times, "New Book, ‘Clinton Cash,’ Questions Foreign Donations to Foundation" (at Memeorandum):

The book does not hit shelves until May 5, but already the Republican Rand Paul has called its findings “big news” that will “shock people” and make voters “question” the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.

The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.

His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.

In the long lead up to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign announcement, aides proved adept in swatting down critical books as conservative propaganda, including Edward Klein’s “Blood Feud,” about tensions between the Clintons and the Obamas, and Daniel Halper’s “Clinton Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine.”

But “Clinton Cash” is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author  to pursue the story lines found in the book.

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which includes Mr. Paul and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, have been briefed on the book’s findings, and its contents have already made their way into several of the Republican presidential candidates’ campaigns.

Conservative “super PACs” plan to seize on “Clinton Cash,” and a pro-Democrat super PAC has already assembled a dossier on Mr. Schweizer, a speechwriting consultant to former President George W. Bush and a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution who has contributed to the conservative website Breitbart.com, to make the case that he has a bias against Mrs. Clinton.

And the newly assembled Clinton campaign team is planning a full-court press to diminish the book as yet another conservative hit job.

A campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, called the book part of the Republicans’ coordinated attack strategy on Mrs. Clinton “twisting previously known facts into absurd conspiracy theories,” and he said “it will not be the first work of partisan-fueled fiction about the Clintons’ record, and we know it will not be the last.”

Mr. Schweizer and a spokeswoman for HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corporation and is publishing the book, declined to comment.

The timing is problematic for Mrs. Clinton as she begins a campaign to position herself as a “champion for everyday Americans.”

From 2001 to 2012, the Clintons’ income was at least $136.5 million, Mr. Schweizer writes, using a figure previously reported in The Post. “During Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions” with foreign governments and individuals, he writes. “Some of these transactions have put millions in their own pockets.”

The Clinton Foundation has come under scrutiny for accepting foreign donations while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state. Last week, the foundation revised its policy to allow donations from countries like Germany, Canada, the Netherlands and Britain but prohibit giving by other nations in the Middle East.

Mr. Schweizer’s book will be released the same day former President Bill Clinton and the Clintons’ daughter, Chelsea, will host the Clinton Global Initiative gathering with donors in Morocco, the culmination of a foundation trip to several African nations. (A chapter in the book is titled “Warlord Economics: The Clintons Do Africa.”)

There is a robust market for books critical of the Clintons. The thinly sourced “Blood Feud,” by Mr. Klein, at one point overtook Mrs. Clinton’s memoir “Hard Choices” on the best-seller list.

But whether Mr. Schweizer’s book can deliver the same sales is not clear.

More.

And man does this sound juicy!

See also Politico, "New York Times, Fox News strike deals for anti-Clinton research." Look, if the Old Gray Lady's striking a deal with Schweizer, you know he's got the goods. The editors have access to preliminary copies, so you know they're Jonesin' to rake some tabloid cash on the story. No one's above raw naked interests these days. No one.

And note:

The New York Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have made exclusive agreements with a conservative author for early access to his opposition research on Hillary Clinton, a move that has confounded members of the Clinton campaign and some reporters, the On Media blog has confirmed.

Yes, "some reporters" are confounded --- those paragons of dispassionate media integrity. Confounded I say! Why, how dare other dispassionate paragons throw tribal caution to the wind for the beef of a good tabloid romp?!! Heh!

And with Breitbart fingerprints too!

Still more from ABC News, "White House Won't Comment on Reports of Preferential Treatment for Clinton Foundation Donors." Well who can blame them? Hillary's running for Barack's third term --- or, Bill's, depending on your generational perspective!



Image Credit: Zero Hedge, "Secretary of State for Hire: Hillary Clinton Made Millions from Foreign Donors in Exchange for 'Favors'."

Kentucky Opportunity Coalition Has Spent $14 Million Boosting Mitch McConnell's Reelection Campaign

The Los Angeles Times does some campaign finance fearmongering with this report on the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, "Unprecedented amount of 'dark money' fuels midterm races."



The fact is, far-left financier Tom Steyer is the dark money kingpin in this election cycle. At National Review, "Dem Billionaire Tom Steyer Now Biggest Super PAC Donor of 2014."

The left --- including the leftist media --- thrives off lies and disinformation. That's frankly the only way they can win elections: lies, disinformation, and deceit. I mean, just think, they lied their way into the Oval Office in both 2008 and 2012, and how's that working out? Democrats simply don't want to be seen with Barack Obola. It's like he's a political plague, or something.