Donald Trump “enters the general election campaign laboring under the worst financial and organizational disadvantage of any major party nominee in recent history, placing both his candidacy and his party in political peril,” the New York Times reports.
“Mr. Trump began June with just $1.3 million in cash on hand, a figure more typical for a campaign for the House of Representatives than the White House. He trailed Hillary Clinton, who raised more than $28 million in May, by more than $41 million, according to reports filed late Monday night with the Federal Election Commission.”
“He has a staff of around 70 people — compared with nearly 700 for Mrs. Clinton — suggesting only the barest effort toward preparing to contest swing states this fall.”
The Washington Post: “Donald Trump’s campaign raised $3.1 million in May and ended last month with $1.3 million in the bank, a remarkably poor showing that will only heighten Republican concerns about his ability to run a serious general election campaign against presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Trump’s paltry fundraising last month is totally inexplicable given that he effectively secured the Republican presidential nomination on May 3 when he crushed Texas. Sen. Ted Cruz in the Indiana primary.”
The Huffington Post reports Trump’s presidential campaign paid more than $1 million last month to companies controlled by the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.
“A campaign to stop Donald Trump from becoming the Republican presidential nominee has the support of nearly 400 delegates to the GOP’s convention next month, according to organizers, quickly transforming what began as an idea tossed around on social media into a force that could derail a national campaign,” the Washington Post reports.
“While organizers concede their plan could worsen internal party strife, they believe they are responding to deep-rooted concerns among conservatives about Trump, who is suffering from declining poll numbers after weeks of missteps and embarrassing headlines.”
Gabriel Sherman on how Corey Lewandowski was fired: “At around 9:30 Monday morning, Donald Trump and his adult children gathered for a regular strategy meeting at Trump Tower. Also present were senior staff, including Corey Lewandowski, the campaign’s embattled manager… According to two sources briefed on the events, the meeting was a setup. Shortly after it began, the children peppered Lewandowski with questions, asking him to explain the campaign’s lack of infrastructure.”
“Their father grew visibly upset as he heard the list of failures. Finally, he turned to Lewandowski and said, “What’s your plan here?”
“Lewandowski responded that he wanted to leak Trump’s vice-president pick. And with that, Lewandowski was out. Trump has long viewed announcing his running mate at the GOP convention next month as a valuable card to play. He was shocked that Lewandowski didn’t have any other ideas.”
“Shortly after the meeting, Lewandowski was escorted out of the building by Trump security.”
The Lid: “Even if Lewandowski’s ouster makes nervous Republicans feel a smidge better, the way it was handled probably gave them heartburn anyway.”
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) told the Washington Post be that Republicans are partially culpable for attacks like the Orlando nightclub shooting because they refuse to restrict gun sales to those on the terror watch list. Said Murphy: “We’ve got to make this clear, constant case that Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.”
He added: “ISIS has decided that the assault weapon is the new airplane, and Republicans, in refusing to close the terror gap, refusing to pass bans on assault weapons, are allowing these weapons to get in the hands of potential lone-wolf attackers. We’ve got to make this connection and make it in very stark terms.”
Mark Leibovich says Republicans sure don’t like talking about Trump:
To a comical extent, top Republicans willed themselves invisible when I reached out to them for this article, fearing, not incorrectly, that the conversation would turn to Trump. This included some of the most typically quotable Republicans, including former Trump challengers like Graham (“He’s sorta had his fill talking about Trump,” a spokesman emailed), Perry (“Thanks for thinking of him”) and Ted Cruz (“Not great timing on our end”); the previous nominee Mitt Romney (“You are kind to think of me,” he wrote); Trump stalwarts like Chris Christie (“We are going to take a pass this time”); Trump-averse Republican governors like Charlie Baker of Massachusetts (“The governor won’t be available”); and senators like Mike Lee, of Utah (“Senator Lee would love to talk to you about the state of the G.O.P. and conservatism in general. We are free anytime after Nov 8.”).
Jonathan Chait: “Donald Trump appeared on the national political stage almost eight years ago. Only then he was called ‘Sarah Palin.’ The circumstances of Palin’s ascent came very differently. While Trump nurtured his fame for decades in the New York media spotlight and won the Republican nomination after a protracted nationwide campaign, Palin was plucked in her political youth from the most remote state in the union and presented to the party as a fait accompli. Having no chance to consider or debate her selection, Republicans defended her unreservedly. What critics saw as dangerous ignorance buttressed by anti-intellectual resentment, conservatives defended as populist authenticity, a noble victim of venal coastal elites.”
“The actual Palin, transparent to her handlers behind the scenes, was even more horrifyingly buffoonish than the public version.”
Ramesh Ponnuru: “Republicans need to start worrying about losing their majority in the House of Representatives.”
“Republicans accept the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, and they know that her election would probably end their majority in the Senate. But in a year that has upended political expectations, they have clung to one comforting assumption: Their hold on the House is secure.”
“But Clinton’s lead in the polls is widening to the point that Republicans need to set aside their complacency. Split-ticket voting has declined over the last generation. If Clinton wins big — because Republican voters stay home, or swing voters choose her party, or both — House Republicans will struggle to win re-election.”
There is this story in Politico that just has to be a set up. Apparently, anonymous Wall Street donors have told Hillary Clinton that she can either have their cash or she can have Elizabeth Warren, but not both. LOL. Ed Kilgore sniffs out what is going on:
If the Clinton campaign decided to plant a story to amplify the credibility-enhancing potential of a Warren pick to grieving Sandernistas, this is pretty much how it would read: The dozens of big-money donors all insisted on anonymity because “they feared Warren’s wrath”; they warn that a Vice-President Warren could jeopardize a deal on their preferred version of corporate tax “reform”; they suggest Warren doesn’t feel “comfortable spending time with the rich people you need to raise money from”; and they say there is a “chance for much better relations between business and the White House than during President Barack Obama’s tenure” — a tenure that was so unfriendly to business, it featured the bailout of the financial sector, a “free trade” agreement that actually offers trade protection to well-connected American industries, and a cabinet staffed with no small number of former Wall Street executives — but not if Warren is in the White House serving as the wet-blanket-in-chief.
The set up is that Wall Street says don’t pick Warren and then Hillary says Screw You, I’m Picking Warren. There is no better way to prove her independence from Wall Street to Sanders supporters. In my mind, there is no way this story from Politico is not directly from the Clinton campaign. And to me it signals that Warren is definitely the VP pick.
Especially when you add that to these reports:
Two of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) advisers told the Boston Globe over the weekend that the Democratic senator is “intrigued with the idea” of serving as Hillary Clinton’s running mate.
The Washington Post reports that Warren made a visit to Hillary Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters on Friday, where she greeted staffers, took photos and delivered a pep talk to mark the start of the general election, according to several people present at the visit. According to one person in the room, she told aides at Clinton’s New York headquarters, “Don’t screw this up.”
BuzzFeed: “During that 27-year period, Trump has claimed to donate millions to charity — especially when marketing products and events that bear his name. Some of those claims are in fact contradicted by the publicly available records. And while it’s impossible to estimate how much Trump has claimed to have raised for charity, the presumptive Republican nominee often touts his public-speaking fee at $1 million or more — and says he donates the fees to charity.”
David Wasserman on why this election may be a disaster for Paul Ryan: “At the moment, the likeliest outcome seems like a Democratic gain of five to 20 seats… However, don’t underestimate the effect that Democrats cutting the GOP majority in half might have. It could have big consequences for governing. Back in October, we predicted that Paul Ryan wouldn’t have it any easier than John Boehner did when it comes to fundamental spending and debt votes, thanks to rebellions from the very conservative House Freedom Caucus.”
“If Ryan were to lose half his 30-seat majority, he could be the last backstop against a Democratic White House and Senate. But Ryan would also likely be forced to reach across the aisle for Democratic votes even more often than Boehner did, giving the minority more leverage and possibly branding him as the GOP’s RINO-in-chief for good.”
“For reasons beyond simply the Trump conundrum, the speakership is looking less and less like the job Ryan signed up for eight months ago.”
A new analysis by Moody Analytics released Monday concluded that Trump’s proposed economic policies will mean 3.5 million fewer jobs, an unemployment rate of 7 percent (it’s currently below 5 percent), stagnating incomes, and declining stock prices and home values. Nolan McCaskill reports:
“Broadly, Mr. Trump’s economic proposals will result in a more isolated U.S. economy. Cross-border trade and immigration will be significantly diminished, and with less trade and immigration, foreign direct investment will also be reduced,” Mark Zandi, Chris Lafakis, Dan White and Adam Ozimek wrote in the report.
His policies would also diminish the country’s growth prospects, grow federal government deficits, increase the nation’s debt […]
“Driven largely by these factors, the economy will be significantly weaker if Mr. Trump’s economic proposals are adopted. Under the scenario in which all his stated policies become law in the manner proposed, the economy suffers a lengthy recession and is smaller at the end of his four-year term than when he took office,” the authors wrote.