Trump Fires Campaign Manager

Donald Trump has fired his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. It's not clear why and Lewandowski says he doesn't have an answer.

Will he get a new campaign manager? Does he need one? Maybe not. Reports are that campaign chairman Paul Manafort is in charge. According to Slate, Trump doesn't really have a campaign to manage.

< ISIS Releases Video Praising Orlando Attacks | Supreme Court Weakens Protection Against Illegal Searches >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Just reading snippets via Twitter (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 11:36:48 AM EST
    about his campaign expenses in May...a lot of the money went to his family and renting out Mira Lago and renting his helicopter from himself.

    Grifter does not even begin to cover it. The GOP is the biggest mark ever.

    I hope HRC finds an effective way (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 12:06:14 PM EST
    to describe what Tr*mp is up to, so that "angry voters" can understand it. Unbelievable that he can attract support from the very folks who are so often taken advantage of and treated as easy marks by rich scammers. While it is easy to put Tr*mp on the defensive, he is very clever at turning such situations to his apparent advantage.

    Firing can be a way to change (none / 0) (#1)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 20, 2016 at 09:07:33 PM EST
    the subject.  Donald Trump surely needed to (1) change the downward eddy of the past few weeks by publicizing a change that could be called "decisive" and all that, AND (2)make a show to re-persuade the biggies in the Repub party that he got rid of the bad guy (played by Lewandowski) so that he, Donald, will now be transformed into a presidential type personality.  

    If people buy that pile of bunk that Lewandowski was leading go-it-alone Trump astray, there is that old Brooklyn Bridge for sale ... Lewandowski was a handy set-up scapegoat as bad guy.  On to Trump's next maneuver and inevitable mess ... and, another fall guy.

    I decided I thought Donald could win (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 20, 2016 at 09:39:25 PM EST
    The nomination very early.  But I'm starting to think he might not be the nominee.

    ... any attempts by the Republican Party's powers that be to deny Donald Trump at the convention what he won fair and square at the polls is fraught with serious risk.

    Suffice to say that Trump will not leave Cleveland empty-handed. If the present palace intrigue against him succeeds and the nomination goes elsewhere without his acquiescence, he'll walk out and likely take at least several million angry GOP base voters with him. Then what would the party elite do?

    It would probably be better for them long-term if they simply write this presidential election off, by giving Trump the nomination he earned at the polls, and then allowing those GOP candidates down ticket the opportunity to publicly repudiate him in an effort to save their own respective campaigns. Otherwise, the sort of Machiavellian machinations that would be required to dump Trump could literally tear the party asunder in Cleveland -- and on prime-time national television, no less.

    Either way, we could be on the cusp of one of our country's periodic major political realignments, which last happened in the 1960s and '70s when Democrats finally kissed off their Dixiecrat wing and as LBJ effectively predicted, wrote off the South. How this will ultimately shake out ten years hence, I really have no idea.

    But the Republican Party, as at least as we've come to know it since the advent of Ronald Reagan's conservative coalition in the aftermath of Watergate, clearly cannot persist in its present form. The so-called "Reagan Revolution," which was nothing more than a longstanding but ungainly political alliance of convenience between self-serving economic plutocrats and dogmatic social ultraconservatives, has perhaps finally run its course.



    we will agree to disagree (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 03:46:29 PM EST
    It would probably be better for them long-term if they simply write this presidential election off

    i dont think so.  this election is lost.  writing it off is not the point.  the question is do the want to go out on their feet or their knees.  Trump is a disaster.  dumping him would be a disaster but at least those republicans who can still make a race would not be forced to answer for every insane thing he says until election day.
    i agree that the party is at a fork in the road.  they can go with the insane white nationalist racist and be destroyed as a party for at least a generation or they cane dump the white nationalist and his batsh!t followers and try to salvage a party that can run a viable candidate, most likely Ryan, against Hillary in 4 years.  and as you say they can do it on live tv.
    the mention of the dixiecrats is interesting.  because its more or less the same people being flushed out of the other party.  what will they do?  excellent question.  i would be willing to bet if they do dump Trump there will be blood.  literally.  and im sure the sane republicans expect that too.   it might stop them.  it might convince them they have to act now or be lost permanently.

    pass the popcorn  


    Interesting (none / 0) (#11)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 04:09:43 PM EST
     mulligan poll

    Trump 29, Cruz 15 everybody else <10, pretty much what it was 6 months ago Interesting that while Trump's support seems to be reverting back to his knuckle dragging base, none of the also rans gained any support from the band wagon jumpers.


    The people behind (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 04:17:53 PM EST
    The dump Trump movement have said everywhere they don't care who it is.  It's anybody but Trump.  

    I understand as well as anyone how far fetched this idea is.   IMO it's no more far fetched than candidate Trump.  There is going to be a valiant effort starting yesterday to turn him into a candidate that is not a joke.   A dangerous joke.  Will it work?  Maybe.   But IMO it depends entirely on Donald stopping what he has done for the last year and essentially becoming a different person.  Possible?  Sure.  What are the odds.


    They (none / 0) (#17)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 05:08:13 PM EST
    may not care in public but in the back rooms the wheels are certainly turning, as I said before they will not launch this without a candidate in mind to rally behind from the jump. They would be fools to leave it up to a wide open floor fight.

    IMO if Trump can reel back the over the top rhetoric for the next few weeks and at least make a stab at some serious fund raising efforts, nobody will pull the trigger in Cleveland. A couple of more weeks of Trump being Trump all bets are off.

    He's off to jolly old England this week and if he somehow makes it through looking "presidential" and stay cool for couple of weeks when he gets back, I think this insurrection will be forgotten.

    Interesting enough, it's quite possible that Ivanka is a key to this, she seems to be gaining some influence in the campaign and may actually be the one to talk some sense into dear old dad.


    I think it might be Mitt (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 05:17:54 PM EST
    The more I think about it the more sense it makes.

    Mitt (none / 0) (#24)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 05:51:24 PM EST
    makes the most sense to me, he has been the defacto leader of dump trump movement for a long time, name recognition, decent favorables, very familiar to the money men, deep connections with the party, competent campaigner and  no political future to squander away. It seems to me he is the best possible candidate that this power grab could produce.

    There is simply no Republican better suited for the ad-hoc sprint to November that these plotters envision.


    One other thing (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 04:24:55 PM EST
    That poll was asking voters.  This will not be asking voters.  It will be up to the delegates at the convention.   Not as easily fleeced as the free range rube.

    One problem, though, as I see it. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 05:00:36 PM EST
    An overwhelming preponderance of these delegates have been pledged to Trump on the first ballot, by virtue of duly certified primary election results.

    Noble motives and good intentions aside, to so openly and wantonly violate that first ballot pledge would be to effectively cast aside 48 years of painstaking gains by those party members who've been committed to a more open and transparent nominating process. It's tantamount to a reversion back to the days of the proverbial "smoke-filled back room" -- sans the actual smoke, of course, since everyone agrees that second-hand smoke is a public health hazard.



    Not optimal (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 05:09:36 PM EST

    But like I said.  Pick your poison.   There are certainly options being floated openly to make rules changes to allow it to happen.  Even by Paul Ryan.  His conscience quote was not a slip of tongue.


    Also (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 05:21:27 PM EST
    It would be a terrific civics lesson for the whole country.  People need to know that primary elections are pretty much a sham.  That they are not really elections at all and probably should not be called elections.  They are a candidate selection process in which BOTH parties, in different ways, can basically pick whoever they want when the rubber hits the road.

    A teaching moment.  Brought to you by Trump Inc.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#22)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 05:32:26 PM EST
    the voters don't like Cruz and the rest of them anymore now than 6 months ago. Stealing it from the 29% guy to give it to 15% guy who has high unfavorables built in makes little sense.

    I understand delegates are not rubes, but they can and will be bought. The game has moved away from the media driven electoral frenzy and now they are playing on establishment turf. Governors, Senators and many other party functionaries will come loaded with bags of political favors ready to help them discover their "conscience" so they can vote on it.


    Many of whom are (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 05:42:10 PM EST
    Candidates themselves.   I believe it's entirely about Donald and their defensive crouch in relationship to him.

    On the first day of the "new era" of message discipline and media savvy what did Donald do?  On the day Hillary gives a blistering and humiliating speech about him and his key issue, business and economics, when he should be focused on responding to the whoopin she gave him, what did he do?

    He goes blathering down the rabbit hole about how Hillary is not a Christian and there is no "evidence" that she is.  This quote will be be lead on every evening news show.  It is insane.  It's pointless.  It's self destructive. It's stepping squarely on his new message didipline meme.

    Meet the new Trump.  Same as the old Trump.  

    A blown open convention was made NO less likely today.


    WSJ 39 minutes ago (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 05:55:04 PM EST
    In a meeting earlier Tuesday with a few dozen people who arranged the event, Mr. Trump suggested that Mrs. Clinton's religious faith was some sort of a mystery. The former secretary of state and New York senator is a Methodist.

    "We don't know anything about Hillary in terms of religion," Mr. Trump said, according to video posted on Twitter by one of the organizers, Christian minister E. W. Jackson, the 2013 Republican nominee for lieutenant governor of Virginia. He confirmed the video's authenticity in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

    "Now, she's been in the public eye for years and years, and yet there's no--there's nothing out there," Mr. Trump told the group. "It's going to be an extension of Obama, but it's going to be worse, because with Obama you had your guard up; with Hillary, you don't, and it's going to be worse."

    In the run-up to the 2012 election, Mr. Trump incorrectly suggested Mr. Obama was a Muslim and wasn't a U.S. citizen.

    Or, put another way (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 06:04:51 PM EST
    No - WORSE!!! (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 06:48:34 PM EST
    A METHODIST!! (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 07:20:05 PM EST
    There's a Methodist to his madness (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 07:45:22 PM EST
    A CNN poll of republicans (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 06:11:49 PM EST
    And republican leaning voters 51 want Trump 49 want someone else.   Scott Wlaker is now on the let them vote their conscience band wagon.  This is on Hardball right now.  Michael Steel is a double face palm

    Given what we know about Trump, ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 04:50:44 PM EST
    ... what say you to the possibility that he can be bought off at this late date -- that is, a deal is brokered by the GOP elite in which Trump agrees to vacate his presumptive presidential nomination in exchange for a direct cash payment of, let's say, $250 million?

    As far as I can tell, there don't seem to be any laws against that sort of back-room bargaining. From what I can see, the folks at the top of the GOP political food chain might just be desperate enough at this point to make such an offer to Trump. And Lord knows, they have any number of rich allies who'd gladly fork over the money.



    ha! Interesting idea (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 05:00:10 PM EST
    Maybe they can promise him to have all the events at his properties, rent his planes, eat his steaks, drink his wine and water.

    Nice little political party you've got there, be a shame if anything happened to it.


    Poetic (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 05:14:49 PM EST
    But no.  IMO.

    I think if Donald leaves he has to make it seem he was ejected so he can always say he could have beaten Hillary.  IMO there is not enough money in the world.  That is if it was done openly.  250 mill under the table to grease the skids out of Cleveland with a mutual non disclosure clause?  Sure,  maybe.

    But for him to make his post election media empire, which we know he is exploring, work I think he has to leave town with 10 million pissed off followers


    Hillary is about to do a speech (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 10:58:18 AM EST
    On Donald and his economics and business record.   Should be good.

    Starting any minute.

    I'm lovin' it! (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by vml68 on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 11:59:25 AM EST
    Clinton: "He's written a lot of books about business. They all seem to end at Chapter 11."

    Yes, funny and (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 01:18:06 PM EST
    with a point. Trump because 'the country needs a businessman' to run it---an appealing attribute for some, although our last presidential businessman was Herbert Hoover. Considered by none as a great president. And, while those Wall Street types are bad, businessman are good.

    Colateral damage from a Trump implosion ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 07:14:56 PM EST
    ... could include Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA), who suddenly finds himself in a very tough re-election fight. Voters in his otherwise conservative-leaning suburban San Diego district may be finally wearying of his perpetual conspiracy shtick. He barely squeaked through the June 7 primary with only 51% of the vote, and now faces a runoff with Don Applegate, a retired Marine Corps colonel. And if Trump goes down in flames in November and ends up takes a large chunk of the GOP with him, look for Issa to likely be one of those chunks.