Tuesday, December 1, 2015

The Politics of Trump's Meeting With the Black Pastors

No real surprise that Trump says it went swimmingly-'it was full of love.'

Say this for Trump-it was kind of a coup. Mark Stevens isn't exactly the most prominent African-American you'd want to endorse you but he is a Black minister who clearly loves him some Donald Trump.

Still, while,you know me-I'm the biggest Trump Democrat around-I have to admit that The Donald overplayed his hand by claiming the Black ministers were all endorsing him.

Once he learned they weren't all going to endorse him, he cancelled his press conference with them.

You have to be careful with this sort of thing, Mr. Trump. This is not a crowd that you can let think you are presuming their vote. And apparently many in the room actually demanded an apology from Trump for his past conduct and statements.

But this is one of these things where just simply being at this meeting where these Black pastors were willing to meet with him sort of elevates him in a way-which is why you suspect many of them will be criticized for having done so.

Al Sharpton said on Sunday that it was a smart move by him and Joy Reid made an important point last night on Lawrence O'Donnell-who as usual was just consumed with loathing for Trump.

Lawrence, save it for the general. You should be more strategic with your loathing.

Reid pointed out that Trump is actually fomenting a fissure between the old guard of Black leaders and activists and Black Lives Matter.

Trump blamed no other ministers endorsing him along with Stevens to pressure from BLM-which may well be true. If any of those other ministers did endorse him they d be in huge trouble you'd imagine.

And I imagine that BLM is not happy that they met with Trump at all. Now when the media comes after him for what his supporters did to that BLM protester, he can fall back on this meeting with the ministers.

Now, obvously, Trump isn't going to win the Black vote in the general election. But this is a way of giving himself some deniability.

An interesting aside is the division that Reid mentioned between BLM and the old guard of civil rights leaders and activists. To get a flavor of it, consider what the activist who was manhandled at the Trump rally, said in an interview.

He said that unlike the 60s activists he believes in fighting back. This is interesting. Recall when Bernie talked about marching in the 60s he was derided. BLM doesn't necessarily look favorably on the old guard of activists,


  1. "Lawrence, save it for the general. You should be more strategic with your loathing."

    Whether he intends it or not, Lawrence loathing Trump now (I claim) strategically helps Trump. Who's going to be impressed by Lawrence's loathing? The average GOP primary voter? Maybe... if by "impressed" I mean "inclined to adopt the exact opposite attitude that Lawrence has... because... well, it's Lawrence!"

    Also, in terms of what's strategically good for HRC winning the general, I'm thinking this meeting with the black ministers fortuitously fell apart. Do you think the average GOP primary voter is going to trust what black ministers think? Again, they may well be inclined to be very suspicious of the endorsement of a bunch of black ministers.

    Trump obviously had his eye on the general in seeking this endorsement, but that's precisely where the goals of Trump and the goals of Trump Democrats' diverge.

    At this stage of the game there's no indication the GOP primary voters are thinking about electability. They feel they've been sold out the past 8 years by listening to the electability argument, and they're sick of it. Plus the right wing media crowd always says the same thing after losing the general "The problem was the GOP candidate wasn't conservative ENOUGH! America is crying out for TRUE conservatism!"... which demonstrates where the self serving interests of the talk radio crowd and the interests of the Republican party diverge!

  2. No, I don't think Trump's meeting was necessarily about the general. It's to just have an answer for those who criticize him for what his followers did to the Black Lives Matter protester or the fake black crime statistics.

    It's more to assure white suburban voters.

    1. But do GOP primary voters care about "those who criticize him?" The only thing they care about is that Trump go out and redouble his efforts to earn more of their criticism. Trump's uncategorical and complete rejection of their criticism is music to their ears.

      Imagine what's going to give a Trump supporter a raging hard on: to see another BLM protester roughed up, but more severely next time (maybe drawing blood?)... that combined with Trump bellowing: "Get that PoS out of here!! Get him out!!" and later not apologizing for it, but stating clearly that the protester was "Absolutely disgusting!" and that he richly deserved it.

    2. "categorical" not "uncategorical"

    3. I doubt he's thinking about the general here. I'm not saying that the base cares what the Beltway pundits say.

      But it still enables him to counter the BLM narrative.

      You could argue-that's what many pundits say-that there are more GOP voters who want to vote for Trump but are a little squeamish about supporting someone who is considered an out and out racist.

      This gives them some cover.

    4. It wouldn't surprise me if there are now people attending Trump rallies for the primary purpose of having an opportunity to beat up a protester. Lol.

      If I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of the average Trump supporter, I think they would swoon to Trump reporting that the ministers he met with were "too cowardly to endorse me... so I told those sniveling panty wastes to get the fuck off my property, and don't come back!! I don't need their pathetic support! They can go fuck themselves!'"

      I think that would be a big applause line at a Trump rally.

    5. Sure, I don't disagree with that.

  3. As for the general I have no concerns that Hillary will lose AA voters to Trump. When GOPers do this it's usually more about suburban voters who don't want to feel like racists.

    Like you always hear the Beltway pundits say that Trump has 30% but no more. Maybe he's trying to skim a few more off that top here.

    1. Maybe, but when was the last time the Beltway pundits were right about anything Trump related? I'm not so sure his ceiling is really that low. It's hard to tell. It may be that he'd do better "throwing them out on their black asses." (and using those exact words to do it). Lol.

    2. ... of course he'd mix in the obligatory "with all do respect" just prior to that.

      That phrase is hilarious, because you know what's going to follow will be anything but respectful.

      It's funny though, my ex-GF is black, and her sister is a conspiracy theory right wing lunatic and fundamentalist... a fan of Rush Limbaugh, the whole nine yards. I still see my ex sometimes (we have a mutual friend in hospice care, whom we sometimes visit together). and I swear a little of her sister will invariably rub off on her... we don't get into overly political discussions, but I can tell she's more favorably inclined towards Trump than against him. It's the business angle I guess... the idea that he can set the economy right again (my ex has a good job, but her sister (the nut) is an out of work accountant, and has been so for several years: too much free time to listen to the radio I guess). I got the impression from these ministers (what little I know of their motivation) that they too are hopeful Trump will do wonders for the economy.

    3. Well the Beltway is always saying he should worry about the general. So it's the same argument.

      I just don't think he's thinking that far ahead. His style is to wing it.

  4. Yes, Trump I think can appeal to some black folks by attacking Mexican immigrants who they think are stealing their jobs.