(no subject)

[randomness]

Long and informative piece on the Koch brothers pulling back from this year's presidential race.

Koch allies say the brothers took tremendous interest in Bernie Sanders’ unlikely success — particularly his resonance with young voters who represent the future of the electorate — and drew stark conclusions about their own efforts. “Dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into elections doesn’t persuade enough people to achieve lasting change,” one Koch confidante says. “To achieve lasting change, the effort has to begin much earlier.”

Comments

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

Trump has enough money of his own that he doesn't need the Koch brothers'. A number of saner conservatives also seem to want to avoid association with Trump, either out of an honest desire to avoid being associated with his overt racism or a fear that eventual anti-Trump backlash could hurt them and their interests.

also it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't choosing to concentrate more of their money on several of the Senate races around the country. Several Republican Senators are up for re-election or are retiring this go-around, and there's a strong Democratic campaign to "Take back the Senate!" I haven't seen a lot of analysis on what Congress is likely to look like after November, though.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

also it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't choosing to concentrate more of their money on several of the Senate races around the country.

That's in the article. They're apparently pulling back there as well:

Yet this comes nowhere near their involvement in 2014, when there were a comparable number of competitive Senate races. According to the Kantar Media Group, the Koch network advertised in 11 Senate contests during that midterm cycle, and aired nearly 44,000 ads by Labor Day. They won’t approach those figures in 2016. Koch officials see two major differences between the cycles: Trump has exacerbated what was already a more challenging political climate for Republicans in 2016, and there are fewer candidates on the ballot whom the Kochs consider ideological allies.

Florida is the only additional Senate race the network is considering getting involved in, but the primary isn’t held until August 30, and it’s understood internally that spending on TV after September, when ad rates spike, is a waste. (Freedom Partners, despite pleas from allied outside groups, refused to back Representative Ron DeSantis in the primary.) The Kochs’ political operation has spent less than $10 million total so far on paid media in this year’s Senate contests, according to public filings; by this point in 2014, they had spent over $35 million.

And in certain contests, such as the Wisconsin Senate race, Koch sources say the continued spending is aimed as much at keeping up appearances – and standing with an ally on principle – as it is on winning an election some network insiders consider out of reach.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

Also, Trump is hardly conservative in a number of ways. Certainly if your brand of conservatism is pro-business, anti-regulation, small-government, and low-taxes, Trump shares almost few of your values. Where Trump is definitely conservative is the sense of ethnic community, but "rural and exurban whites who aren't doing all that well economically" is not huge fund-raising territory.

It's going to be an interesting question whether Trump gets enough money to mount a full campaign. It's widely considered that $1 billion is needed today (compared to $400M for Romney and $700M for Obama in 2012). Trump is said to have only $300M of liquid assets, and he's probably smart enough to not put all his chips on one hand. I don't think Trump is going to be able to draw the traditional business money. One question is whether he can turn his mass appeal into contributions. That can be done (witness Obama), but it requires a good organization.

It's conceivable that Clinton will outspend Trump by a factor of 2 or so. According to Freakonomics, that's enough to move the vote by 1% -- which might matter in this election.

Maybe he can tap Putin for $2 billion or so... though I'd like to know how the money could be smuggled into the race without being found out.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I'd like to know how the money could be smuggled into the race without being found out.

I don't think it'd be possible to smuggle $2 billion in Russian money into the United States to support Trump, given the existing sanctions regime in place against the Russian Federation, particularly as the Obama administration isn't likely to be looking the other way.

Also, it's unclear Putin *has* a spare $2 billion, the Russian economy being what it is nowadays.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

particularly as the Obama administration isn't likely to be looking the other way

Bwahahahaha!

it's unclear Putin *has* a spare $2 billion

I suppose if Putin really twisted arms he could squeeze it out of his oligarch friends. But that would cost him political capital he probably doesn't have right now. And as you say, oil being the price it is, he can't just loot it directly.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I suppose if Putin really twisted arms he could squeeze it out of his oligarch friends.

If he can find it. His oligarch friends are well aware of Putin's need for cash and have been smuggling it out into London real estate as quickly as they can.

The oil price really has wrecked the Russian economy much more than any sanctions although those are helping make things worse.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

If he can find it.

Putin has them... Though it's not clear how much money you can squeeze in that manner, because an oligarch probably looks at his money as dynastic wealth for his descendants, and is willing to die so that his children can be rich. Which reminds me of the tale of the Amsterdam diamond dealer who was kidnapped and negotiated his own ransom. He later said that it was like negotiating any other business deal.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

There are other limits to how much he can squeeze the ones who are still living in Russia as well. For one thing, if he squeezes too many of them they may all get together and decide he's too much of a problem. Then *he* will be going away.

Another limit is that if he starts squeezing any one of them the rest may flee and take their money with them, which is even worse.

I think the only way he'll get a couple of billion out of the oligarchs is if he convinces enough of them it's a good idea to spend that money on the American election. I'm pretty sure even Putin doesn't think this is a good idea.

My suspicion is that Putin is looking forward to conning Trump out of a pile of money, not the other way around.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

One angle I thought of recently is that Putin probably is sending Trump money one way or another to help prop up Trump's personal or business finances. This is entirely legal but politically dicey, if it comes out.

It doesn't help Trump's campaign directly but is equally helpful to Putin in buying influence with Trump.

It's probably at least one reason why Trump refuses to release his taxes.

All that said, were I in Trump's position I'd be making sure I cashed Putin's checks right away. If Trump loses, he stops being useful to Putin, and were I in Putin's position I'd stop payment immediately.

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

Trump is not an evangelical and his record on Second Amendment issues--near and dear to the hearts of many conservatives--is sketchy at best. (There's a saying that "If a conservative is a single-issue voter, then that issue is the right to own a gun.") He's given money to anti-gun Democratic politicians in the past, and has voiced support in the past for an assault-weapons ban. He's now trying to palm himself off as a pro-2A candidate and it's not flying.

I've seen some allegations on Facebook (where, quelle surprise, the political feed leans so far to the left it's ready to fall over) that Trump's campaign is out of money; however, as the presumptive nominee, he's going to have access to the RNC's warchest.

Trump/Putin certainly makes for an interesting conspiracy theory, but I have no idea why Pooty-Poot would really profit from a Trump presidency.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

Trump/Putin certainly makes for an interesting conspiracy theory, but I have no idea why Pooty-Poot would really profit from a Trump presidency.

Trump seems to like Putin's style, and Putin is returning the favor. IMHO, Trump gives Putin what he craves, the attention due to being the leader of a superpower. (Whereas the last presidents have treated Putin as the fundamentally insignificant nuisance he is.)

A recent analysis I've seen suggests that the parties are realigning on a nationalist vs. cosmopolitan axis. If that really happens, a lot of conservatives will be aligned with Trump not because of 2^ndA or religion, but because he's the nationalist.

OTOH, I do expect, once Clinton can turn her full attention on Trump, that she will commission lots of dissident voices in the conservative community to peel off any parts that aren't firmly attached to Trump's nativist-nationalist core appeal.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

I've also seen pundits suggest that Putin likes Trump because he thinks he could hornswoggle a lot out of Trump.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I've seen that as well. Seems plausible.

[mangosteen]

Dumping hundreds of millions of dollars at getting the votes of a rapidly shrinking demographic doesn't persuade enough people to achieve lasting change, it's true.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. If people want to waste millions of dollars, they should give it to me instead of some political candidate.

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

Or me! I'll be happy to waste their millions. Hell, I'm happy to share the millions-wasting opportunity. :)

[bloodstones.livejournal.com]

I would also subscribe to the millions of dollars being wasted. I have many ways that I could waste it.