What's Next For Señor Trumpanzee Now That His Dreadful Campaign Is Dead In The Water?

Yesterday started with polls from Georgia, Alaska, Utah and Arizona-- four deep red states that Romney won, respectively, with 53%, 55%, 73% and 54% of the vote. It's unlikely, but Trump could actually lose all four-- and not because those states' Republican governors are rigging the election against him. Even mainstream Republican voters are starting to finally realize what has infected their party.

Let's look at the results in Utah in 2012 and then compare them to yesterday's polling results from the very biased Republican Party polling firm Rasmussen, which basically exists to make Republican candidates think they have a chance to win even when they don't. Utah, 2012, actual election results:

• Mitt Romney- 72.79%
• Barack Obama- 24.75%
• Gary Johnson- 1.24
• Jill Stein- 0.38%

Rasmussen's Utah survey of likely voters released yesterday:

• Donald Trump- 30%
• Evan McMullin- 29%
• Hillary Clinton- 28%
• Gary Johnson- 5%
• Jill Stein- 1%

Margin of error is 4%, which means Trump, McMullin and Clinton are tied... in Utah. So what's next for Trump after what seems to be turning into a spectacular defeat in exactly 3 weeks from today? Is there some strategy behind the apparent madness of the Donald Trump campaign? It sure isn't an exercise in GOP party building-- quite the opposite, in fact. Olbermann hinted at it in his video above and we've discussed it here before: Trump TV. He sure has an audience ready for all the unhinged hatred, paranoia, bigotry and white nationalism he's built his campaign on. I expect crackpot hedge fund billionaire, Robert Mercer, a fringy right-wing loon, will bankroll a proto-fascist network fronted by Trump and run by Roger Ailes, Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Con-man. The Financial Times reported that Ivanka's husband, Jared Kushner, publisher of the money-losing New York Observer, is trying to make a deal-- or might be trying to make a deal, having "approached one of the media industry’s top dealmakers about the prospect of setting up a Trump television network after the presidential election in November... [He] contacted Aryeh Bourkoff, the founder and chief executive of LionTree, a boutique investment bank, within the past couple of months, according to three people with knowledge of the matter... [T]he approach suggests Mr Kushner and the Republican candidate himself are thinking about how to capitalise on the populist movement that has sprung up around their campaign in the event of an election defeat to Democrat Hillary Clinton next month."

Mr Bourkoff, who launched LionTree in 2012, has advised on transactions worth more than $300bn, including Liberty Global’s $23.3bn acquisition of Virgin Media and Verizon’s $4.4bn takeover of AOL. He is also John Malone’s favoured adviser and helped the so-called “Cable Cowboy” consolidate the US pay-TV industry — in deals that culminated in Charter Communications’ $78bn takeover of Time Warner Cable this year.

More importantly, Mr Bourkoff is a friend of Mr Kushner, who is married to Mr Trump’s daughter Ivanka. The two have worked together in the past: Mr Bourkoff advised Mr Kushner, who also owns the weekly New York Observer newspaper, when he tried to buy the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team four years ago.

Establishing a Trump television network would be difficult, even with a potentially large audience for its programming.

Cable and satellite companies are loath to take on extra channels in an era of shrinking audiences and “cord-cutting”-- the cancellation of pricey pay-TV subscriptions in favour of cheaper, online alternatives. An “over the top” digital service would be one possibility but still costly because Mr Trump and Mr Kushner would need to spend heavily on marketing, talent and technology.

Roger Ailes, the former head of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Channel, is a friend of Mr Trump’s but would be prohibited from working on a Trump television venture by the terms of his exit agreement with the news network. He parted company with Fox this summer following an independent investigation into claims he sexually harassed Gretchen Carlson, a former Fox News presenter.

However, Sean Hannity, Mr Trump’s biggest cheerleader on Fox News, would be free to work for a prospective Trump network. Mr Hannity was among several Fox stars, including Bill O’Reilly, with clauses in their contracts allowing them to leave if Mr Ailes did.

Talk about a Trump network has persisted, partly because of the fervent crowds that Mr Trump continues to attract on the campaign trail and his existing links to conservative media. Mr Bannon, the chairman of Breitbart, a network of rightwing news sites, was hired in August to run the Trump campaign. Breitbart is currently on a global expansion push, with the aim of adding sites in Germany and France to its existing operations in the US and Israel.

Easy as it is to write Trump off as a buffoon and a useful idiot, this could be a very dangerous enterprise between Bannon's aggressive fascism and Mercer's humongous fortune. Very dangerous, even if we get to enjoy watching the demise of Fox News in the process.

Trump Doesn't Like The Media-- And Doesn't Like Women

The Committee to Protect Journalists is based in New York but the bulk of its work is usually in tyrannical and oppressive regimes in backward parts of the world-- Russia, Bangladesh, Mexico, Iran, Nigeria, Ethiopia, China, Pakistan... But not this week. If you've been listening to Trump's increasingly violent tirades against the media at his hate rallies filled with deplorables, you may have noticed he's riling up his low IQ fascist-embracing supporters. This week armed SWAT teams have had to escort journalists from Trump rallies to their cars. Cameramen have been attacked by out-of-control Trumpist mobs, riled up by their fuehrer. It's especially distrurbing that several police unions have endorsed Trump. Yesterday the Committee to Protect Journalists issued an unprecedented statement on their worries regarding Freedom of the Press under a Trump presidency:

Guaranteeing the free flow of information to citizens through a robust, independent press is essential to American democracy. For more than 200 years this founding principle has protected journalists in the United States and inspired those around the world, including brave journalists facing violence, censorship, and government repression.

Donald Trump, through his words and actions as a candidate for president of the United States, has consistently betrayed First Amendment values. On October 6, CPJ's board of directors passed a resolution declaring Trump an unprecedented threat to the rights of journalists and to CPJ's ability to advocate for press freedom around the world.

Since the beginning of his candidacy, Trump has insulted and vilified the press and has made his opposition to the media a centerpiece of his campaign. Trump has routinely labeled the press as "dishonest" and "scum" and singled out individual news organizations and journalists.

He has mocked a disabled New York Times journalist and called an ABC News reporter a "sleaze" in a press conference. He expelled Univision anchor Jorge Ramos from a campaign press conference because he asked an "impertinent" question, and has publicly demeaned other journalists.

Trump has refused to condemn attacks on journalists by his supporters. His campaign has also systematically denied press credentials to outlets that have covered him critically, including the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, Univision, and the Des Moines Register.



Throughout his campaign, Trump has routinely made vague proposals to limit basic elements of press and internet freedom. At a rally in February, Trump declared that if elected president he would "open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money." In September, Trump tweeted, "My lawyers want to sue the failing @nytimes so badly for irresponsible intent. I said no (for now), but they are watching. Really disgusting."

While some have suggested that these statements are rhetorical, we take Trump at his word. His intent and his disregard for the constitutional free press principle are clear.

A Trump presidency would represent a threat to press freedom in the United States, but the consequences for the rights of journalists around the world could be far more serious. Any failure of the United States to uphold its own standards emboldens dictators and despots to restrict the media in their own countries. This appears to be of no concern to Trump, who indicated that he has no inclination to challenge governments on press freedom and the treatment of journalists.

When MSNBC's Joe Scarborough asked him in December if his admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin was at all tempered by the country's history of critical journalists being murdered, his response was: "He's running his country, and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country... Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too."

Through his words and actions, Trump has consistently demonstrated a contempt for the role of the press beyond offering publicity to him and advancing his interests.

For this reason CPJ is taking the unprecedented step of speaking out now. This is not about picking sides in an election. This is recognizing that a Trump presidency represents a threat to press freedom unknown in modern history.

"We take Trump at his word," is an odd concept since almost nothing passes out of his lips that isn't a bold lie. His threats-- against minorities, his opponents, the media, women, and democracy itself-- is the exception. It's instructive to read the transcript unearthed yesterday of an ABC Primetime Live show that was never broadcast. The Hollywood Reporter published a report of the 1994 interview of Trump and one of his former wives, Marla Maples at Mar-a-Largo by Nancy Collins. Collins wrote that, according to his high-school classmates at the strict New York Military Academy, Trump’s view of women, "was pure Playboy. 'His model of behavior toward women,' one told me, 'was Hugh Hefner.' The key to Trump’s personality, explained another friend, lies in his fear of public embarrassment. 'Donald dreads humiliation and shame' one source told me during my reporting for the Primetime segment. 'If he feels that, he lashes out.'"

Let’s talk about women. Your feelings toward them seem conflicted, even chauvinistic, confusing since you adore and respect your mother so much.

I have great relationships with women, my mother, Ivana, Marla, my female executives are better than the men: tougher, smarter.

So why in 1992 did you tell a writer for New York magazine, Marie Brenner, that ‘You have to treat women like shit”-- ultimately pouring a bottle of wine down her back?

I didn’t say that. The woman’s a liar, extremely unattractive, lots of problems because of her looks.

That statement is exactly why women think you’re a chauvinist pig.

They’re right-- and not. People say, "How can you say such a thing?" but there’s a truth in it, in a modified form. Psychologists will tell you that some women want to be treated with respect, others differently. I tell friends who treat their wives magnificently, get treated like crap in return, “Be rougher and you’ll see a different relationship.’ Unfortunately, with people in general, you get more with vinegar than honey.

Not with smart women. How did such a proponent of marriage get labeled a womanizer?

I’d love to reframe that, never liked it. It’s been perpetrated by the press probably because when I was single I had women friends on the good-looking side. But again, I think marriage is a great institution, doesn’t always work, but I believe in it.

So what happened to your marriage with Ivana?

A great misconception is I left Ivana for Marla. Marla had nothing to do with it, but leaving my wife for another woman makes a better headline. Our marriage hadn’t been working for three or four years.

Did you try to save it?

Unfortunately, I just let it meander. I’m much more indecisive in my personal life than everything else I do. I should’ve confronted the situation, sat down with Ivana, told her, "Let’s work it out or not. Do something.” We didn’t even see a marriage counselor, but I determined that marriage was over.

Ivana had not. She was shattered finding out about Marla, wanted you back, even getting a facelift, wept telling Liz Smith you no longer wanted her sexually-- all of which was played in worldwide media.

It was wild and wooly. Marla hated it, went into hiding and people started wearing “Where’s Marla” t-shirts. She finally talked to ABC-- a freebie when we’d been offered millions.

With your money you actually wanted to be paid? No shame!

Why not? You’re embarrassed for a day in the papers but have a million bucks in your pocket.

Back to your marriage with Ivana. What do you think went wrong?

My incredible success could have been a part of the problem. Everything I touched turned to gold. I’m in my thirties and my whole thing is going through the roof. Our life was so big, so perfect, it put tremendous strain on our marriage. I thought, "I don’t have time for the marriage." I don’t blame Ivana, she’s beautiful, a great mother-- I just started getting bored. Everything was just too ... easy. Maybe Ivana and I once had passion, maybe something, but it was really too much too soon.

It was like the Twilight Zone episode where a man dies and someone says, "You can have any wish you want.” [He says], “I want to win everything, never lose." He goes into business, every deal works; he plays golf, wins every time. Everything was perfect. So he tells the man, "I want something else to happen. This can’t be heaven." And he says, "It’s not. It’s Hell.”

Was there a precipitating event?

We had a great relationship for several years ... I was 100 percent faithful, loved Ivana ... then I asked her to take over Trump Castle. Putting your wife to work is a very dangerous thing-- the single biggest reason my marriage stopped being good, my fault more than hers. I thought, “Ivana’s a great homemaker, mother, but I’ll give her something really exciting to do”-- like raising kids wasn’t the most important job in the world. “Why don’t you run Trump Castle?” She knew nothing about casinos but she’d been with me. If you’re smart, you’re smart. She jumped at it, did a nice job, but I can hire someone to do that.

I don’t want to sound like a chauvinist, but when I come home at night and dinner’s not ready I go through the roof. But I got handed casino numbers. After 12 hours dealing with my companies, I didn’t want to talk business. I can instantaneously shut it off, my survival mechanism. But she’d be yelling into the phone with the casino; I didn’t want my wife shouting like that. Ivana had a great softness that disappeared. She became an executive, not a wife.

Presumably actress Marla Maples had that softness? In 1985 you literally met at church-- Marble Collegiate on Fifth Avenue-- fell in love and you moved her into an apartment. This went on for a couple years. Two women at your beck and call.

Not bad. Beautiful wife, beautiful girlfriend, everything beautiful. Life was a bowl of cherries.

... I’m sure you loved two women fighting over you. Once you were free, it took the birth of your daughter, Ariana-- and two months after that-- until you finally married Marla.

I don’t believe in having babies out of wedlock, neither does she. We were both surprised.

Were you using birth control?

We broke up and Marla stopped the pill, still off the day we got back together, nice knowing she wasn’t on it while we weren’t. Two months later Marla came home and said, "Guess what? I’m pregnant"-- not her intention. Lo and behold a gorgeous baby girl, all happened beautifully.

Wouldn’t that have been the moment to marry the mother of your impending child, instead of waiting until two months after Ariana was born? Why didn’t you?

Indecision. I wanted to be sure it was the right thing for me.

You seem to call all the shots in a relationship: when, if you’ll marry, or divorce, whether your wife will work, or not-- which Marla wants to do.

I don’t see it that way. I’m a great starmaker, which I’ve done with Ivana and Marla. I liked that. But once they are a star, the fun is over for me. It’s the creation process, like creating a building. It’s sad.

Hardly encouraging for the women in your life.

It’s complicated, I change from moment to moment. I’m not saying anybody gets a joy ride in this deal. But it could be a lot worse. I’m a very good husband.

Once the bride signs the pre-nup. Marla didn’t want to.

It’s a lousy concept-- “When you get divorced, this is what you’ll get”-- but a modern-day necessity. Marla doesn’t want to sign but she has to from my standpoint. I understand, a pre-nup feels like you’re giving up on the marriage before it starts.

But my businesses are big and complex. If things don’t work out, should a woman you happened to marry lay claim to Trump Tower? I don’t want to go through five years of turmoil and lawyers' fees.

Marla reportedly asked for $25 million, you negotiated her down to a million which looks a little …

Cheap?

Yeah, cheap.

Not so bad. You get married, doesn’t work out, you get a million bucks. I’m not the worst guy to be married to. I think a million dollars is a lot of money.

No, you don’t.

No, I don’t actually.

Especially for the mother of your child, loyal for six years, you’ve got the dough, give her the 25 mil.

I look at everything like a deal. I built this empire myself, nobody did it for me. If someone married somebody who built something this large, should she end up like the Queen of Sheba? If our marriage doesn’t work out, I don’t want to go through five years of lawyers, legal fees. If I give more, I want to make the decision, not some court saying, “You agreed to pay X-- and will.” Ivana challenged our pre-nup for three years, ending up with the original settlement.

What’s your relationship with Ivana now?

Once the litigation stopped ... we’re very friendly. We’ll always love each other, share three wonderful children.

Speaking of whom, how did your children deal with this emotional chaos?

It was a very, very tough period for them. They understood that things weren’t so great on the home front. But going to school every day, seeing your parent’s pictures on the front of every newspaper in the world, your schoolmates being gruesome in some cases. But Ivana and I did a good job. They didn’t read newspapers, weren’t allowed to watch TV, unless someone was with them. I learned how strong my children are, they came out magnificently, doing great in school, loved by both parents.

Still, there’ll be scars…

They’re so well-adjusted. Properly handled, you don’t have scars. (Right, Sigmund Freud?)

When Will Republicans Begin To Confront Their Demons? Are They Waiting For Paul Ryan To Say OK?

Mario Diaz-Balart-- still stuck like glue to Trump

I guess everyone figured out Trump-- and apparently Kellyanne-- have abandoned the Kellyanne Conway tele-prompter approach and that he's back to counting on rage, bluster and anger to get him through. Deranged neo-Nazi crackpot Steve Bannon has got to be a happy camper after Trump's bizarre performance last night. Yesterday, before the debate, the NY Times listed 150 Republican leaders who don't support Trump, although relatively few are current Members of Congress. Doug Heye, a former RNC spokesman declared the presidential race over and urged Republicans "to confront our demons," and examine how Trump could have captured the party. "Trump," he said, "represents an indelible stain on the GOP's soul." Criticizing Guiliani, Christie, Kellyanne Conway and other Trump enablers, without naming them, he said they sold out for money and power and "encouraged this fraud inside the party. And they knowingly have foisted a fraud upon the party."

Former Bush aide Joe Watkins said of PussyGate that "this latest Trump revelation is a Category 5 level political catastrophe. GOP elected officials who endorsed or supported him in recent months have to consider their own political survival-- especially if they are in a competitive race themselves this election cycle. No male or female GOP elected officials can offer any kind of justification for what Donald Trump said."

Most media types were hailing Maggie Haberman's Inside Trump Tower, an Increasingly Upset and Alone Donald Trump as yesterday's winner-of-the-day. It certainly painted an unforgettable picture: Trump Tower as "a kind of lonely fortress for its most famous occupant, who holes up inside, increasingly isolated and upset, denounced almost every hour by another Republican official... asked to stay away from a party gathering Saturday afternoon in Wisconsin, where Speaker Paul D. Ryan and other state luminaries took the stage, a striking rebuke that left the Republican nominee for president with no place to go on a Saturday 31 days before the election." Watching CNN Saturday, he became "more upset as he saw Republican officials condemn him one by one." (Why doesn't he just watch Fox if he wants to feel good?)

Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, an observant Jew who normally does not work on the Sabbath, was among those who gathered with him on Saturday, although the candidate’s oldest daughter, Ivanka, was not. Mr. Trump’s oldest son, Donald Jr., was there. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Rudolph W. Giuliani also showed up, as did the Republican National Committee chairman, Reince Priebus.

Mr. Christie and Mr. Priebus told Mr. Trump that the situation with other Republicans was becoming dire. Other advisers assured Mr. Trump that attacking Mrs. Clinton over her husband’s behavior with women, and over reports that she had defended his behavior, would help rally Republicans again.

Ms. Trump and the rest of the Trump family made plans to travel with the candidate to the debate, in part to buoy his spirits.

But the real source of comfort to Mr. Trump seemed to be the small band of supporters waving Trump signs on the Fifth Avenue sidewalk outside the building. His fans clashed with people walking by, including a woman who told a female Trump supporter that she should go back to her “trailer.”

Mr. Trump could not resist the scene. Just before 5 p.m., he descended from what his aides grandly call “the residence” and strode through the marbled lobby, with his son and his campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, in tow.

He slipped through the glass front door, startling some of his star-struck supporters.

The crowd screamed and reached out to touch his suit jacket. He bathed in the rapturous admiration.

He pumped his right fist in the air and smiled. He looked rejuvenated.

He stayed for just five minutes, electrifying the scene.

But before he departed, one reporter screamed a question at him, asking whether he would remain in the race. “Hundred percent,” Mr. Trump replied.

He turned and headed back to the tower, clapping his hands as if to applaud his supporters, and himself.

Trump needed that enthusiasm from the deplorables who will never abandon him, who love him all the more for-- and because of-- his racism, his misogyny, his xenophobia, bigotry and for the hatred of a system he feigns for the benefit of those who really do hate it (and everything else that makes them the wretched of the earth). He needed it because the Republicans he threw his lot in with have been abandoning him very publicly. And it's been driving him insane. Those around him are likely worried he'll now go back to spending as much vitriolic energy against Republicans as he will against Hillary-- although he restrained himself from doing that during the debate last night.

Imagine how Trump must have exploded when he read that Pence said "I do not condone his remarks and cannot defend them. We pray for his family and look forward to the opportunity he has to show what is in his heart when he goes before the nation tomorrow night." We saw a flash of that last night when Trump peremptorily dismissed Pence's stated policy towards Syria and said, basically, that he's hasn't discussed it with Pence and that he'll just stick with Assad and Putin instead.

As dozens of Republican elected officials called on Trump to step down from the ticket, he said "I haven’t heard from anyone saying I should drop out, and that would never happen, never happen. That’s not the kind of person I am. I am in this until the end."

Even before we were reading the polls showing Florida voters abandoning Trump and ready to hand the state's must-win (for Trump) 29 electoral votes to Clinton, Florida Republicans joined the other rats in abandoning the SS Trumpanzee. GOP Congressmembers Tom Rooney, David Jolly, Carlos Curbelo, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are publicly saying they won't vote for him. Wormy little coward Marco Rubio is still too scared to unendorse Trump and hopes to get away with just saying, "Donald's comments were vulgar, egregious and impossible to justify. No one should ever talk about any woman in those terms, even in private." He's said even worse thing about Trump, but still urges his supporters to vote for him. That's the opposite of leadership and a perfect definition of political cowardice. In Patrick Murphy, Rubio has the weakest and most unqualified opponent the Democrats are running for Senate anywhere this year-- and because of his Trump-cowardice, he may even lose.

Florida Republican congressional incumbents with challengers attacking then for still still backing Trump-- Mario Diaz-Balart and John Mica-- are both frantically running around like chickens without heads trying to decide what to do. Maybe listening to GOP strategist Steve Schmidt on Meet the Press yesterday will help them. This is very powerful:




UPDATE: This Morning's Polling Catastrophe

The new polling from the Wall Street Journal and NBC reflects how likely voters were thinking after Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy" tape came out. A month from tomorrow, America votes. Over the weekend they told the pollsters that Clinton was going to win-- and win very big. In the 4-way match-up she's sitting with 46% to Trump's 35% and in a head-to-head, it's Hillary 52%, Trumpy-the-Clown 38%.

And among all registered voters, Clinton's lead is 13 points, her largest advantage over Trump since the poll began testing the pair last September.

As Republicans grapple with how to hold on to control of the House and Senate despite the Trump campaign's woes, Democrats overall now have a seven-point advantage on the question of which party voters want to see in control of Congress.

Forty-nine percent of voters say they'd like to see Democrats in power on Capitol Hill, compared to 42 percent who chose the GOP.

That's up from a three-point advantage for Democrats (48 percent to 45 percent) last month, and it's the largest advantage for Democrats since the October 2009 government shutdown.