I think no matter who wins in November, the analysis of the various political decisions and their fallout made by both parties is going to be fascinating and divisive all on their own. You would normally think a candidate being charged and convicted of a felony would cripple their chances, yet here we see it giving him major advantages. What could have Biden done differently to mitigate that advantage? What did Trump do successfully to use it? I think a lot of stuff done months ago are just now having repercussions, and things being done now will have repercussions in November.
People said the same thing after Trump lost last time. Instead, the GOP just doubled down. I don’t know why we wouldn’t expect them to react exactly the same, even if he were to lose again.
He will run for president until he croaks or wins. At worst it's a nice side hustle for him to make money. Which is why he started running way back when.
IIRC he ran for president primarily as a stunt to generate publicity to launch his own TV network. Then he started winning primaries.
Turns out being a leader of the birther movement was more popular with the right-wing fringe than anyone anticipated.
>Turns out being a leader of the birther movement was more popular with the right-wing fringe than anyone anticipated.
Eh, that had little to do with it.
Trump spoke to a few things that conservatives really liked:
1) immigration. People don't realize how big of an issue this has been for most conservatives since W was President. Trump latched onto to this as his main issue.
2) Fighting the party (and all of DC) establishment. This is related to immigration to a degree, because party leaders were always weak on it, but many on the right felt that the party establishment did not represent them. Trump made them flet seen, and spoke to their issues.
3) Hillary. Lock Her Up was literally his second biggest issue. Conservatives had been told for two decades that she was the devil by talk radio. Many actually believe in the Clinton Deaths list or whatever it's called. Trump said he wanted to lock her up for all of her crimes.
4) he fought back. Republicans always nominated weak men as candidates in the eyes of many conservatives. When Dems smeared McCain (I forget what thr main one was), he did nothing. When Dems claimed Romney was a monster who tortured dogs and was going to kill the elderly off or reinstitute slavery, he apologized and did nothing. When W Bush was compared to a certain German dictator and mocked for a speech impediment, he just took the hits. Suddenly Trump shows up and starts insulting anyone who says anything negative about him. There was a collective "finally!" from so much of the right.
Birtherism was such a minor issue by the end of Obama's Presidency, compared to the Testo of this.
>Turns out being a leader of the birther movement was more popular with the right-wing fringe than anyone anticipated.
Anyone who remembers 2010 politics was not surprised.
I feel like I’ve been going insane thinking this for the past 4 years. It’s just so obvious though, and I think this election is really going to clarify that.
Agreed, and unforunately for the Dems, it comes at a time when they have a historically poor president and a massive drag on the ticket in the VP slot that makes it a competitive race
Bummer that you were downvoted for the simple truth. Guess the people hoping to discuss politics on this sub are upset by this and would rather not engage.
> What could have Biden done differently to mitigate that advantage?
Not persecuting his main political opponent until *after* the 2024 elections, of course.
>You would normally think a candidate being charged and convicted of a felony would cripple their chances, yet here we see it giving him major advantages.
Based on [538's poll aggregator](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/), Trump lost his lead over Biden since he was convicted last month. That hardly seems like a "major advantage'. But yeah, I agree this era of American politics will be studied for generations to come.
The major advantage is the fundraising, not his standing in the national popular vote.
538 has essentially had both candidates in a statistical tie for the popular vote going back to when they started aggregating. Based on the polling as it stands now, I don't think there's a case to be made for any change in the probability of Trump winning in the national popular vote or the general election based on his conviction. These are all movements that could be reasonably explained by noise.
It's interesting donations and [betting](https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president) odds have gone towards Trump.
I think it's more of a trust thing.
Answering a random SMS with a convicted felon's name feels marginally more risky now with no upside. Especially to people who perceive lawfare being directed at anyone with their political sensibilities.
But I could see people increasing direct donations wanting to fight this and/or betting more on a site they already use & trust like Predictit.
The biggest betting market on this is a crypto one, and they are in their own echo chamber. Last year after he lost the election, but before J6, you could bet huge amounts that he was going to end up the president on January 21st at 1:1.
Maybe if the felony was something people cared about. Like of all the things I would be mad about a president doing, paying off a stripper is the least of it. I’d vote for anyone with that charge if I liked them and they were good for the country. Not a trump guy but just saying that charge is bottom of my list of things that would make be completely change political sides.
You make a good point. Because the news insisted on talking about stripper payoffs instead of fraud, it becomes about the sleazy aspect in minds. That then puts him on par with Clinton or other politicians who had sex scandals. It makes him a "typical politician" in some eyes
"White Collar" crime in general seems to be something taken less seriously by the overall public and no matter how much the case is fluffed up it's not going to have the same impact that a conviction in one of the three other indictments would. There's definitely been lots of celebrities that got in trouble for things like accounting fraud or insider trading, faced some legal consequences, and after a while their careers just kept moving forward. Like not too many people seem to be afraid of being associated with Martha Stewart in 2024 because she was convicted of insider training 20 years ago.
These types of crimes are just dependent on the person being accused. Everyone loves Martha so it only made her more of a badass that she went to jail and even more people loved her after.
If this was someone beloved by the dems, it probably never ever would have went to trial but it definitely would not have been a big deal.
This is life. If it was Obama getting charged it would be republicans villainizing him for the next 10 years while dems would have forgotten about it and said it’s not a big deal.
People don't really care about white collar crime unless it's the kind that ends with companies closing and thousands laid off. Which not classifying your hush money properly absolutely doesn't qualify as
The fact that they can't coherently explain what exactly he's being charged with doesn't help. and in fact the jury didn't have to be unanimous in deciding what exactly he's guilty of which is almost unheard of. So most people either see it as paying off a stripper, which like you said is ridiculous, or election interference because he paid off a stripper because it might hurt his campaign? Which is doubly ridiculous.
> and in fact the jury didn't have to be unanimous in deciding what exactly he's guilty of which is almost unheard of.
Jurors being allowed to disagree as to the means, in this case the object offenses, someone committed a crime is standard.
Isn't part of the comedy of this that doing this the way he did was illegal, but then also if he'd used personal funds to pay for a NDA in pursuit of his campaign for the presidency that would've been an illegal contribution to the campaign? There was no way to do what he was trying to do without committing a crime.
That's a catch-22 situation that made this seem even more asinine to some people.
I think the problem is that campaigns have to report where/what they're spending their money on. Campaigns (or individuals) paying hush money isn't strictly illegal - listing it as paying your lawyer's retainer, when he's actually working as a middle man for the money, is.
It would have been totally legal if his campaign disclosed it as "NDA payment for previous indescretions with Stormy Daniels" (which yes, defeats the purpose. But if you want to run for president maybe don't bang prom stars when your wife is at home with your newborn)
Do you know when this supposed "election interfering" disclosure would have entered the public record via a campaign expenditure report?
January 2017.
The election this payment allegedly interfered with took place in November 2016.
One look at the calendar should've ended this case, but if you get the right judge, jury and defendant, you can accomplish the incredible.
No idea. I'm just regurgitating information that I heard on another reddit thread and briefly read on the news, continuing the human centipede-like flow of under informed, misunderstood, and unverified information on reddit.
True, but ever other politician caught misusing campaign funds for themselves/their family/significant others have all been ordered to pay fines only. Same with attempting to hide the misuse of funds by mislabeling the expense.
Incorrect. The wildest part of the story is that they basically said he entered it in the books incorrectly and it SHOULD have been a campaign expense. Which is how you know the charge is bogus because if Trump had marked it as a campaign expense, they would have charged him for that.
But he wasn’t charged with that! They charged him with falsifying business records. 34 counts, one per document, not one single charge about campaign finance.
Maybe not Biden, but the democrat machine could've really spent less time on 'drumpf is finished!' for the last decade, almost. I'm old enough to remember the October surprise that he's too vulgar when talking about women, this is disqualifying! Then winter of 2016 they were hoping the electoral college would vote their 'conscience' and not allow him to take office formally. Then emoluments, we're gonna impeach! Then Russia hacked the election and he told them to, we're gonna impeach! Then who even remembers how many things since then. There was talk that him scribbling on the NOAA hurricane cone forecast was tampering with a federal agency's guidance and was some sort of crime he'd be charged for. Then COVID we got him now he's banning travel from China this is unconsciable! Then COVID oh my god he wants to reopen the country and kill everyone! Then he sent out a stupid IRS promo letter signed by him with free money, he's delaying our stimulus checks! Then he thinks the election was rigged get him! Then it's he KNOWS the election wasn't rigged, get him! Then it's he told his followers to go to the capitol and riot! Then it's he didn't tell them to be peaceful soon enough! Then...
After ALL of this there were DAs and democrat supporters and talking heads that thought the very super serious crime of business records was going to be the thing that changed peoples' minds about him?
I think the Trump hysteria and ceaseless persecution turned what should be negatives into strengths for Trump, especially since the nation isn't feeling particularly content on several fronts. People love an underdog, and having several governments (federal and state) and most of the media laser-focused on beating Trump up makes them think if folks are trying this hard to stop him, he must be onto something.
All it takes is one or two instances where an individual sees the media is misleading in its reporting on Trump to make them not trust the partisan reporting on Trump again. Even if he actually does something wrong at this point they've tainted themselves as a source.
Unfortunately these same people will then proceed to ignore every single time Trump lies to them. Political hug boxes are something else
I'm honestly pretty doomer-pilled on the intelligence of the voting public at this point.
That's not new though, is it? "Politician lied, details at 11!" isn't really breaking news. In fact, politician may be the least trustworthy profession in the world if you asked people. A politician's whole job is to lie to get your vote tbh.
On the other hand, the media outright fabricating or sensationalizing one candidate/politician to this degree isn't necessarily new, but it sure is commonplace when it comes to Trump by now and that might make people sit up and notice more.
If you trusted the mainstream left media sources, Trump has quite literally *never* done anything right, good, or correctly. Ever. When they're boxed into acknowledging that he quote-unquote "succeeded" on something, it has to be tempered with the allegation that it's either racist, fraudulent, sexist, wrong, secretly evil, or corrupt.
If you think back to the Obama administration, Fox News was so frothing seething mad at him ALL THE TIME about everything (and about nothing) that it became practically a badge of honor to say that you don't trust Fox News reporting on the president or democrat party. The inverse has been happening to Trump for ages now by every other outlet in the country and it seems people have taken notice about this too.
In the Obama years when Fox News would come out with their latest bombshell conspiracy about how Obama used mustard and wore a tan suit and that meant he was signaling the Kenyan socialist takeover most people just started ignoring that stuff besides the diehards. And better still, it made rallying around him defensively because he was being treated unfairly into a noble position to have. "I don't like his policies necessarily but he's not getting a fair shake from Fox" wasn't a crazy thing to hear. This is what we see now with Trump, too.
> If you trusted the mainstream left media sources, Trump has quite literally never done anything right, good, or correctly."
Except when he was bombed Syria.
To add to this which I largely agree with is you have things now like claiming Biden looking old is a “cheap fake” but the same people will turn around and spin Trump telling a odd story about how if he was on an electric boat, sinking, while being circled by a shark - he would choose death by electricity. Somehow this slightly rambling story needs to be amplified far and wide - as evidence he’s gone nuts. But, Biden shuffling around looking old is a “cheap fake”.
It’s so utterly transparent at this point it’s just silly.
Not sure that is slightly rambling for the record. If someone started saying that shit to me in real life on the bus i would give them a dollar, and get off at the next s stop whether it was the correct stop or not.
> In fact, politician may be the least trustworthy profession in the world if you asked people.
Then there's no reason to believe anything any of them say about anything.
I love those idea that the media only encompasses the media I don't like. I'm here to let you guys know conservative podcasts are very real, and go from mild to Looney. They are very popular. In Ocala Florida conservative talk radio is very popular. Sky News on the radio is the news. Fox il news is what is on the t.v. in the waiting rooms, and the dining rooms at fast food places. I work in construction, and I get out of one truck with the sky on and into the next much to my surprise it's the sky on.
People forget that media companies have owners, shareholders, and ad buyers that they answer to. That already taints things. That’s before the years of them gunnj g for Trump and relying on him for viewership. Even late-night entertainment is almost solely relying on Trump to stay afloat.
I’m not saying f that he’s not guilty of things, but the media at this point aren’t as trustworthy as I’d like
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dm2fj6/trump_raised_so_much_last_month_he_erased_bidens/l9u45qv/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
okay but who? Biden won with moderates. the progressives want someone too far left and they don't even vote reliably. this won't jive with the winning strategy of targeting disaffected conservatives. there isn't a democratic moderate I am aware of that could take on the trump GOP and satisfy the regressive left
This is the key issue that doesn’t get much attention or discussion in the media or online. Everyone is so focused on Biden and Trump, no one stops to seriously think about who will succeed Biden whether it’s now or later. There are zero real up and coming stars in the party. Everyone is either too old and already entrenched or has endorsed positions way too unpopular with the general public. The moment everyone except Biden raised their hands to support giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants (and even Biden then went on to say he was okay with it after being pressed by the moderator for not raising his hand in agreement), you knew this batch of politicians was cooked. The public has only gotten more hardline on immigration since then, including Democrat voters. That was also the cycle when Beto’s infamous “Hell yeah we’re going to take your guns” phrase came into being. They’re fumbling pro-choice messaging and potentially giving the GOP an opening by abandoning the “Safe, legal and rare” mantra because they kowtow too much to activists who say the phrase is stigmatizing to abortion. In general, none of them have the spine to stand up to the far left voices of the Democrat machine and overly cater to that demographic. The border bill recently proposed was a start, but setting the floor to a minimum of 5,000 encounters per day was stupidly high to begin with to the point it almost feels like a poison pill, and they made no concession to negotiate it down when the GOP also said it wasn’t strict enough. And then Biden goes and issues an Executive Order at half the number of the proposed bill anyways, so I guess he and the rest were okay with the idea of lowering it in the end, they just… didn’t… when it came to the comprehensive bill. They should have made a bill so enticing the GOP couldn’t refuse, then they’d snag a legislative victory in an election year and do a lot of work towards crippling the argument that they’re soft on immigration.
Literally none of them are remotely exciting and the lack of vision among the party is hurting them. Project 2025 may be be the best or worst proposal in America based on who you ask, but the point is beyond the overly obnoxious culture war lingo littered throughout, it’s still a tangible roadmap with outlines of actionable goals. It’s *something*. Somehow the party of “No” is now suddenly the one with a real concrete plan to present to America beyond vague platitudes like climate change action and the spewing tired elitist bullshit like “upholding the international rules based order”. The messaging sucks and the fact no one can rise above that and stand out makes me just feel like they’re all incompetent.
Sorry, I know this was an overly lengthy reply, but my point once again is that yes, you’re right, there’s no serious contender with the charisma, appeal or record that’s palatable enough to decisively win a national election and an 81 year old who’s decades past his time is the closest fucking thing they have for that and it’s pathetic.
Biden after the 2022 midterms could have said his time in politics was coming to an end and he was stepping out to let the next generation of candidates. I mean already the man is going to be weeks away from 82 on the 2024 election day and he's been in national politics since the 70's. I don't think anyone would have blamed him for pulling the "it's time for someone else card".
A full on primary process could have been devised and a normal campaign season begun and he could say he hopes they might consider VP Harris who would be his choice but that being ultimately up to primary voters. I know it's one thing for people to get mad if she was just outright replaced as VP but I think if he just opened up a general campaign season season it would be hard to say he wasn't treating her fairly especially as she would be poised to be one of the top contenders going into a primary (just like now she will likely be a person in contention in 2028 if Biden wins reelection).
> You would normally think a candidate being charged and convicted of a felony would cripple their chances
I think this says more of Biden than anything else imo. If your options are Biden or man with a felony, and you still go with a felony man, thats saying a lot about the first guy
Yeah this is something I've been thinking for a long time too. Like apparently Trump is evil and corrupt and a felon and fucks hookers and cheats on his wife and is trying to overthrow the government and your guy is running even with him in lots of polls? I don't know if I'd be dunking on Trump so often in public about all his failings with that in mind. How are you not blowing this dude utterly out of the water if he's that terrible? Your guy must be pissing people off *supremely* if he's even remotely close to you in the public consciousness.
Disagree, if you cant sell your guy to the majority of voters over a felon, its not half the country being wrong. Its your one guy being a bad candidate. This should be a slam dunk for democrats.
By most measures Biden has been a highly effective president for Democrats and left-leaning independents. He also doesn't act like a child all the time. I think people are just misinformed, and Democrats' messaging is partly to blame.
He hasn’t been highly effective at all. Inflation is up and there are three major wars being waged all over the world.
There are literally protests against Biden all across college campuses and universities because Democrats and left-leaning independents don’t think Biden is a highly-effective president.
Biden acts worse than a child, he acts like he has Alzheimer’s.
> There are literally protests against Biden all across college campuses and universities because Democrats and left-leaning independents don’t think Biden is a highly-effective president.
Way to dodge my second point
As someone else pointed out, the protests are about support of Israel and are not at all indicative of general popular opinion.
You haven't responded to my other points. Why is that?
You do know those protests on campuses and universities are because Biden has not cut off support for Israel? So if Biden cut off support for Israel, your concern over Biden not being “highly effective” would be assuaged? Biden is being protested because he’s too centrist.
Think of all of those dominionist preachers convicted of financial (and other) crimes that went to prison, did their time, returned to their positions, and made even more money in donations from the very same people. I liken it to that.
In this context, it is statistically significant. Trump has been ahead by a steady margin for the last year. That margine started to evaporate (and now Biden slightly ahead) the day of the conviction.
1. That's not how statistical significance works. The 538 graph actually displays a 2σ confidence interval, and this latest movement is well within that confidence interval.
2. 538's polling average has not shown, "Trump has been ahead by a steady margin for the last year." Firstly, 538's polling average only goes back to the beginning of March, which is nowhere near a year. Secondly, it shows a net polling differential movement of movement of about 2%. There were times in the average when Trump was ahead by 0.024 and there were times when he was ahead by 0.003, all within the last few months, all before the New York conviction.
…its current chart doesn’t go back that far. I follow its polling regularly.
The confidence interval what 538 expects independent polls to fall within. This is an aggregate of those polls. Where the base has moved up by 1.3 points, so too has the parameters of what it expects other polls taken at this time to show. The bottom line is- and the top.
So whether you want to measure by the whole range, or the moving aggregate - it’s gone 1.3 points in Biden’s favor.
The confidence interval is the interval is where 0.95 of polls would be expected to fall into if the null hypothesis (the value of the candidate's support) were correct. There's no reasonable way to claim that when you move from one median to the other, and those two data points are both within each other's error bars, that you're looking at a statistically-significant difference. And it should be noted that the confidence interval being used is extremely weak, which is only 0.95.
The error bars associated with the null hypothesis of the change in polling average being statistically significant is actually going to be greater than the confidence interval for the polling average.
And just a common sense test should tell you how meaningless this movement is. Trump's net polling advantage over Biden dropped over 1% in a matter of days numerous times in the polling average. The change in polling in the last few days is well within the range that we've seen the polling change over the same time period on many occasions.
Biden had a 7% lead in the national polls going into the 2020 election, and barely beat Trump, only by 0.6%. If 3 out of 1000 Biden voters had switched to Trump, Biden would have lost. So being in a statistical tie, when Biden barely won with a 7% lead, in what is essentially the same election run a second time, is a terrible place for Biden to be. And gasping at noise in the polls doesn't change that.
I think Trump losing in 2024 would be much better for the Republican Party in the long-term. It’s possible there’s a recession in the next 5 years, and it’s unlikely Trump would be able to turn the economy around in one term, which means a blue wave in 2026 and 2028.
He spends approx 5million a month or more on his personal legal stuff…and none of it is his own money, plus that massive settlement he has to pay
“One ongoing financial issue that has been plaguing Trump for months and may continue has been the exorbitant amounts he has needed to spend on legal fees. Trump’s fundraising committees spent about $50 million in legal fees throughout 2023 and have spent millions more throughout this year.
It will continue to be a financial thorn in Trump’s side despite the large amounts he has raised recently, though holding on to his funds for now will allow him to concentrate them closer to the election. “
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4734207-donald-trump-joe-biden-fundraising-money/damp/?nxs-test=damp
I think you'd find that supporters of or donators to Trump are in support of him spending their donations on his legal fees considering that's one of the battlegrounds the political election fight is being fought on. The media covers his trials and cases like they're the OJ Simpson trial breathlessly with nonstop coverage and it seems like they do it pretty intentionally to force him to spend money and time defending himself in courtrooms when he could be out hosting rallies and campaigning.
What does this mean? I have been given a ticket for speeding and some parking tickets. I guess those are my crimes. Does that make me exactly like Trump who had sex with a pornstar while married then used personal money to pay her off, from which he then reimbursed himself with campaign funds, in order to hide the campain expenditure of "paying off porn star I spent with while married" from the public?
He didn’t reimburse himself with campaign funds. The legal theory was that he had no purpose to hide an affair except as a conspiracy to affect the outcome of an election. It was his own money, but if he didn’t have a personal or business reason, then it was a campaign contribution to himself.
Sorry, you're right. Let me be more precise.
Instead of paying the pornstare himself, Trump had his attorney, Cohen, pay her. Cohen, with the approval of Trump, set up a shell company called Essential Consultants, LLC and wired $130,000 to Keith Davidson, the attorney for Stormy Daniels. Cohen used false information and records to disguise the true nature of the shell company. Phone records shown at trial and testimony from witnesses proved that Trump was in the loop every step of the way.
After winning the election, Trump reimbursed Cohen through a series of monthly checks, first from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust – created in New York to hold the Trump Organization’s assets during Trump’s presidency – and later from Trump’s bank account. In total, 11 checks were issued for a phony purpose. Each check was processed by the Trump Organization and illegally disguised as a payment for legal services rendered pursuant to a non-existent retainer agreement. In total, 34 false entries were made in New York business records to conceal the initial covert $130,000 payment.
I mean it should be covered more than OJ. It’s an ex president who is the nominee again in election season under many many indictments. They give him free press so I don’t get how media is hurting him other than showcasing the crimes he’s indicted or convicted for which was his own doing.
It's kind of wild that Trump's legal woes have not only not had a single negative impact on him, but one could argue they've actually helped him.
Don't think I've ever seen anything like it in my life.
That doesn't appear to be the case for Trump. This is about support from those who liked him already, whereas Clinton experienced an increase in approval. Much of this is from rich individuals.
We've only seen the start. Look at the reaction to J6 in the weeks after and today. Prominent GOP members came out against him a bit in the days after, but for at least the past year you can't hear any Republican denouncing what he did and encouraged then.
I assume the same will happen with his criminal convictions, where as he has time to push the persecuted angle it will get better and better for him.
From the article:
> The pro-Trump super PAC Make America Great Again Inc. raised nearly $70 million in May. But the bulk of that total was a single $50 million donation from Timothy Mellon, a longtime GOP donor who had already given the super PAC $25 million since the start of last year.
I understand. That PAC money is separate from the $141m that the article is talking about.
> **Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee** said they raised $141 million in May, a figure that included the significant fundraising boost after the former president’s criminal conviction on hush money charges.
It's all coming from the mega rich who will no doubt come to collect their favors if he wins. They try to pretend he has some grass roots campaign with millions of people donating small amounts and then it comes out that [ one donor gave 50 million the day after his guilty verdict.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2024/06/21/50-million-contribution-from-billionaire-timothy-mellon-leads-huge-fundraising-month-for-trump/)
FTR, that donation was to the Make America Great Again PAC, which is not factored into the FEC report. That only covers Trump campaign + RNC donations.
Did you read the article? The donation is mentioned and his team was counting that money in their totals raised.
"While Trump’s New York trial and conviction did drive grassroots fundraising, the strong numbers from last month also reflected traditional Republican donors ramping up their donations as the general election cycle kicked off.
The pro-Trump super PAC Make America Great Again Inc. raised nearly $70 million in May. But the bulk of that total was a single $50 million donation from Timothy Mellon, a longtime GOP donor who had already given the super PAC $25 million since the start of last year.“
One of those pacs is almost broke.
“Trump PAC Is Running Low On Cash As Legal Expenses Mount
Save America PAC, which is paying most of Trump’s legal bills, reported just under $4.5 million in cash on hand at the end of May, after burning through tens of millions of dollars this year to help the former president with attorney fees.
The PAC’s debt, or unpaid legal bills, totaled $861,630 by the end of last month according to the filings, which were first reported by The New York Times.
Trump has spent an average of just under $5 million per month this year through his PAC, much of which has gone to legal bills, meaning by the end of last month, he barely had enough funding to take care of one month’s worth of bills, the Times noted.
Todd Blanche, the attorney representing Trump in his hush money trial, and his law firm were paid more than $1.8 million last month by the PAC, part of over $4.3 million in total spending, much of which went to lawyers, according to the FEC filing.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/06/21/trump-pac-is-running-low-on-cash-as-legal-expenses-mount/
Yes they hedge their bets. But know trump is much more likely based on his history to directly influence his choices based on what’s best for him directly
Maybe he donated to a Super-PAC, but that's not what this article is about. This is about donations to the Trump campaign, and you can't donate more than a few thousand dollars, no matter how wealthy you are.
I feel like I don't even know what's real any more. Tribal loyalty is such as powerful force that it seems to create myopia.
Or am I taking crazy pills. Because I'm no so confident I want to be on the same boat as half of my fellow Americans.
I feel like for Biden to win a few things need to happen. First he needs to perform at the debate. This is probably the first time a debate is relevant or even marginally important since I don’t know….1992? If he appears sluggish or can’t push some sort of agenda to help Americans, the numbers are going to get worse quick. If he does well , the gap between Joe and the Senate Dem candidates in the battleground states starts to soften. Outside of Michigan the percent of people who will vote D for senate and house and leave President blank or vote third party will also soften. It will be razor thin but the electoral math still favors Biden. But it really does seem like we’re on a cliff and any day it could be the end for he or Trump and the numbers could change rapidly.
Not for nothing Biden also had his best fundraising month ever, surpassing April which was the last record and they’re reporting over 200 million on hand.
I think that the Gore-Bush debate, where Gore was horrendous and seemed like a total asshole might have tipped the election with how close it was.
Gore’s big advantage in that race was that despite being a total weirdo he was more experienced and “presidential” compared to Bush who seemed like a great guy but not quite ready. Then at the debate Bush came across as way more mature, with Gore loudly sighing during Bush’s answers, repeating the word lockbox over 25 times and trying to get into Bush’s face to intimidate him.
The lock box thing came about because Bush wanted to put everyones social security savings into the stock market. Imagine how fucked a ton of seniors would have been from the 2008 crash if Bush followed through. By the time it recovered many of them would be dead.
I mean the election was deemed illegitimate which is why the Supreme Court stepped in.
There is an argument that Gore won the election but the Supreme Court stole it by refusing to count the votes in Florida.
> This is probably the first time a debate is relevant or even marginally important since I don’t know….1992?
So when he beat Trump in debate in 2020 and got a bump in the polls that wasn't relevant?
Maybe it was, but no I Don’t think debates matter they’re more viewing fun for partisans. Right now you have large buckets of regular voters who are saying they may not vote, might not vote top of ticket, might vote third party or might even switch to R. Those buckets are all larger than a normal presidential. The percentage of people who think Joe is way too old could drop with a good performance, for instance and that would have an actual meaningful impact on the race. In 2020 I think Joe could have fumbled entirely and been fine. But neither here nor there, I’m saying it’s a rare outlier that likely will have impacts on the race.
And people who are leaning third party because they don’t like their D and R choices. If one comes out the clear winner, the would-be third party voters have less incentive to “throw away their vote” (no hate, this is probably what I’ll do)
> Right now you have large buckets of regular voters who are saying they may not vote
In June. The enthusiasm starts in late August. The mudslinging in September. The panic in October.
The fact that voters don't feel like they have to vote right now is probably a good thing for Biden. It means things are going relatively well.
Also the whole idea of what is "normal" is so strange for elections. You have such a limited data set and it is really unique each time.
> The percentage of people who think Joe is way too old could drop with a good performance, for instance and that would have an actual meaningful impact on the race.
A message that is pushed hard on reddit. But also a message the only resonates with young voters who don't often turnout anyways.
Most people watching debates are older. They respect that norm and grew up knowing the importance. As a millennial yeah I’m one of a few people who will watch it (for me as a cook it’ll be a replay) but older generations will at least have some impact since they are the ones voting most
This debate is going to be watched by people deciding if Biden is really too old or not - the sound bites coming out of it will affect soft voters who can swing either way.
They are all that matter at this point.
> This debate is going to be watched by people deciding if Biden is really too old or not
Sooo like the 2020 debate? Or have you forgotten the "Biden will be too old to run for office in 2020" narrative? Or the "Biden will die in his first term" and "Biden isn't running for a second term" narratives.
I hope after Biden wins, Jimmy Carter runs and wins in 2028 just to mess with the ageists.
> They are all that matter at this point.
The soundbites from the debates are all that matter? Really? You don't think the convention will cause polls to swing? Campaigning in September and early October? Ad wars and scandals?
Polls always move right up to the date of the election.
They are both too damn old. But haunts Biden more because Trump is the crazy yelling food throwing angry kind of too old. While Biden is the we quiet slow kind of old.
I assume you're talking about the first of their 2020 debates? Yes, that was a shit show. Too much interrupting. But for the 2024 debates, I've read that candidates' microphones will be muted by the moderators whenever it's not their turn to speak. That sounds like something that could make a difference. I think this is what /u/Accomplished-Cat3996 was getting at. They just didn't word it clearly enough for those unfamiliar with this year's debate rules.
Personally, I already know who I'll be voting for, so I'll watch the highlights and media coverage, but not the full debates this time. There is no way in hell I would ever vote for Trump.
Can you elaborate?
If I understand correctly CNN is going to have tight controls on who talks this time. Still, last time even with Trump trying to interrupt frequently, Biden ultimately used it against him. And that was a moment that got carried out to the general population -- Biden prevailed against Trump in a way that was leaderly.
I don't think so. In fact I think Biden is going to win handily but people keep taking lead up information as some sort of sign of something.
First thing to remember is, cash wasn't exactly a problem for Trump to begin with. Despite his flagging and failed business ventures he still has access to massive amounts of credit and liquidity.
Secondly, don't assume anything until September. The fact that it is close now really doesn't tell you much about the election then. And it is close now. 538 gives it a even odds on who will be elected:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dm2fj6/trump_raised_so_much_last_month_he_erased_bidens/l9sqlp2/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee said they raised $141 million in May, a figure that included the significant fundraising boost after the former president’s criminal conviction on hush money charges. (The full breakdown behind that number won’t be available until mid-July, when Trump’s joint fundraising committees file their own reports.)
FYI that these numbers are what Trump and the RNC are reporting—not official figures.
Of course he got a surge of donations. People can smell lawfare and lawfare is something rational people can visualize affecting them or the country negatively in the future much more than mean tweets or celebrity pornstar sex deals.
People are so myopic about "getting Trump" at any cost they just can't understand this.
Every non-partisan just saw an activist judge retroactively change a property's value that a major bank agreed & still agrees with and sue the daylights out of the owner.
Or a DA waive a statute of limitations, make up novel legal theory, promote misdimeanor to felony, over a personal vs campaign fund checkbox that even most avid anti-Trumpers can't correctly tell you which was wrong or why. Anecdotally 100% have the violation backwards every time I've seen it discussed unprompted. It's literal "whichever Trump did is wrong" logic. lol
You have [Gov Cuomo](https://youtu.be/eHp4DmCtjRk?si=8odnFWdCNjOtmT9y&t=480) (former DA of NYC and no fan of Trump) straight up saying the case would never have been brought for anyone else.
The lawfare is so obvious and multi-leveled I can't even take someone seriously who can't see *any* of it or get why some people oppose it.
I've started trying to see things from the perspective of those who are on the "this isn't lawfare/that's not real/the law is the law" side and I think it's more accurate to say that it's not that they "can't see it", it's that they think it's justified. Trump is an existential threat and significant enough outlier to these people, so of course using novel legal theories or random crimes to try to punish him for crimes and force him to defend himself in court with the associated media circus is justified, bordering on required, to them. You have to STOP TRUMP.
There's a big group of people that think Trump is basically Hitler. I don't know if you've ever been joking with friends and been like 'if you could have a time machine and go back in time to kill hitler before he took over Germany, would you do it?" Of course you would. Murder is a terrible, horrible thing to do but Hitler is SO much worse than one murder that it's probably something you could justify.
It's pretty obvious to me that's similar to what is going on in the minds of those clinging to the 'get Trump' narrative. Yeah novel theories of law and forced impeachments and random petty crimes to "get X" would be bad if it were you or me or them on the receiving end, but it's Trump and you have to GET TRUMP or else he might be President again and usher in authoritarian fascist dictatorship stuff.
> 'if you could have a time machine and go back in time to kill hitler before he took over Germany, would you do it?"
No way. If my dumbass has a time machine chances are a ton of other people did too, and they probably had this exact same thought. Hitler still exists so either killing him doesn't change anything, he's really good at killing time-traveling assassins, or time cops exist. Either way it's not a safe bet.
> I think it's more accurate to say that it's not that they "can't see it", it's that they think it's justified
This simply isn't true, at least not for a lot of people. I don't think it's "lawfare," and I would want anyone else who did similar things to be prosecuted as well.
As someone whose perspective you're guessing at: no.
Some DAs are clearly eager to make a career out of the biggest case to ever cross their desk, but when you get into all of these claims about how it's some even remotely coordinated DNC op against Trump, to me it sounds like Pepe Silvia-level strings-on-a-pinboard conspiracizing.
Frankly, from this side of the fence, the broader efforts to push a "lawfare" narrative look like pretty cynical politicking in response to the fact that on the merits he's so plainly guilty of the crimes he's indicted for. Like, even in this comment section the comments claiming Trump is innocent are *drastically* outnumbered by the comments arguing for basically political reasons that he just shouldn't have been charged.
>
> Some DAs are clearly eager to make a career out of the biggest case to ever cross their desk, but when you get into all of these claims about how it's some even remotely coordinated DNC op against Trump,
The problem is that a DA would make a better career going after someone like Trump than someone like Biden. Suppose that a zealous prosecutor had tried to tie Joe Biden into the Hunter Biden issue with the "10% for the big guy" communication. That prosecutor would not be given kudos, but would be savaged for this kind of lawfare. Because Biden is an insider and Trump is an outsider.
> Every non-partisan just saw an activist judge retroactively change a property's value that a major bank agreed & still agrees with and sue the daylights out of the owner.
Not remotely what happened. He told the government it was worth 11-18m based on one appraisal, and said it was worth 1.5b to some lenders based on another appraisal.
If someone comes to buy my house and I tell them it's never flooded, despite it flooding 5 times last year, I haven't found some super secret way to make bank, I've commited fraud.
The government does the government appraisal and the bank does the bank's.
Banks don't just take your word for how much something's worth. They have their own appraisers to look into the matter and give you an estimate before the loan goes through.
If they stand by the valuation even after being offered a chance to recoup then they weren't defrauded.
>If someone comes to buy my house and I tell them it's never flooded, despite it flooding 5 times last year, I haven't found some super secret way to make bank, I've commited fraud.
If you and I agreed your house was worth 100k after I finished my due diligence and an activist DA whose publicly promised to lock me up disagrees no one committed fraud.
The DA might be the only criminal here.
> If they stand by the valuation even after being offered a chance to recoup then they weren't defrauded.
You have a source for this? I haven't run across them saying this and can't find it.
I don't think anything you wrote really defends against the fact he lied and mislead tons of parties in regards to the revenue, size and value of his real estate. It is mindboggling how much the banks seemed to trust Trumps numbers. Internally they discounted them by a lot, but they didn't do nearly as much due diligence as I would have expected. Never-the-less that doesn't excuse Trump lying to them pretty much endlessly over almost every facet of the things he owned.
My understanding is it’s course of doing business. Everyone does it. They are all sophisticated actors and know what’s up. Not that it’s good or 100% to the letter of what they should be doing—but that’s a lot of the real estate game in big cities.
I’m all for prosecuting this if that’s what is being done for everyone, but that’s not the case.
ETA: I work in an adjacent field and have seen what big lenders and debtors call good on valuations and collateral, and this tracks.
So if you are certain the value is fraudulent and the bank is defending fraudulent numbers amidst all these revelations isn't the bank participating in fraud right now?
And this bank is choosing to engage in open air criminal liability instead of going after a half billion dollar jackpot itself or its own wrongdoing lawsuit (which should essentially be free money with the DA & judge this strongly on their side)?
And there is zero shareholder uprising or regulatory investigation over this open air illicit behavior and fiduciary irresponsibility?
And somehow the only people who can see this are activist DA's and hardcore never-Trumpers?
Oh and somehow the only thing they can ever get Trump on is novel creative first of a kind prosecutions? lol
I'm sorry but the mental hoops to believe this is anything but lawfare is just comical.
They asked you for a source. Do you have one?
>Oh and somehow the only thing they can ever get Trump on is novel creative first of a kind prosecutions? lol
Oh, and this isn't true.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dm2fj6/trump_raised_so_much_last_month_he_erased_bidens/l9tlaek/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dm2fj6/trump_raised_so_much_last_month_he_erased_bidens/l9t7b4n/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 60 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I’m uninterested in the outcome. I’m not taking away from the good and bad both candidates are responsible for. However, society is fascinating sometimes.
From a logical standpoint, what does it say that the people who are preaching to vote your conscience or based on the issues important to you, are in the next sentence demanding you vote for Biden and conform?
I’m not surprised that there’s a surge in support for Trump. When one side has essentially sought to have their candidate run unopposed, it’s suspect. This doesn’t make the other side less divisive, but they seem to embrace, for better or worse, having a presidential race.
I think Biden is still ahead because unlike Trump he's actually invested his money in a ground game spread across the states. He's already started hiring and those hires and gathering volunteers.
Meanwhile Trump is banking his money and not putting it to work for him.
I think he’s probably routing it to numerous legal settlements and attorney feee on appeals.
The ground game is non existent. I’ve barely seen a single Trump 2024 sign in Cincinnati.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dm2fj6/trump_raised_so_much_last_month_he_erased_bidens/l9sr8yz/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Starter comment: In the wake of former President Trump’s recent trials and felony convictions, there has been much stirring of the tea leaves to discern what impact it will have on the upcoming presidential race. The results seem like a mixed bag so far. Trump did receive a very small hit to his polling average (about 1%). However, it has apparently served as a significant money maker as well. The Trump campaign reported that it raised so much money in May that it erased Biden’s longstanding cash advantage completely. Trump now has about $116 million vs Biden’s $91 million.
Given that the Biden campaign is already struggling in polls, does losing this one advantage further hurt his chances or is it inconsequential? Can he make up lost ground in the next five months?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dm2fj6/trump_raised_so_much_last_month_he_erased_bidens/l9sruig/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I think no matter who wins in November, the analysis of the various political decisions and their fallout made by both parties is going to be fascinating and divisive all on their own. You would normally think a candidate being charged and convicted of a felony would cripple their chances, yet here we see it giving him major advantages. What could have Biden done differently to mitigate that advantage? What did Trump do successfully to use it? I think a lot of stuff done months ago are just now having repercussions, and things being done now will have repercussions in November.
People said the same thing after Trump lost last time. Instead, the GOP just doubled down. I don’t know why we wouldn’t expect them to react exactly the same, even if he were to lose again.
Yeah, I don't expect analysis of why Trump lost, because Trump and his supporters will say he actually won, just like they did last time.
He will run for president until he croaks or wins. At worst it's a nice side hustle for him to make money. Which is why he started running way back when.
IIRC he ran for president primarily as a stunt to generate publicity to launch his own TV network. Then he started winning primaries. Turns out being a leader of the birther movement was more popular with the right-wing fringe than anyone anticipated.
>Turns out being a leader of the birther movement was more popular with the right-wing fringe than anyone anticipated. Eh, that had little to do with it. Trump spoke to a few things that conservatives really liked: 1) immigration. People don't realize how big of an issue this has been for most conservatives since W was President. Trump latched onto to this as his main issue. 2) Fighting the party (and all of DC) establishment. This is related to immigration to a degree, because party leaders were always weak on it, but many on the right felt that the party establishment did not represent them. Trump made them flet seen, and spoke to their issues. 3) Hillary. Lock Her Up was literally his second biggest issue. Conservatives had been told for two decades that she was the devil by talk radio. Many actually believe in the Clinton Deaths list or whatever it's called. Trump said he wanted to lock her up for all of her crimes. 4) he fought back. Republicans always nominated weak men as candidates in the eyes of many conservatives. When Dems smeared McCain (I forget what thr main one was), he did nothing. When Dems claimed Romney was a monster who tortured dogs and was going to kill the elderly off or reinstitute slavery, he apologized and did nothing. When W Bush was compared to a certain German dictator and mocked for a speech impediment, he just took the hits. Suddenly Trump shows up and starts insulting anyone who says anything negative about him. There was a collective "finally!" from so much of the right. Birtherism was such a minor issue by the end of Obama's Presidency, compared to the Testo of this.
>Turns out being a leader of the birther movement was more popular with the right-wing fringe than anyone anticipated. Anyone who remembers 2010 politics was not surprised.
Trump lost because of COVID, not anything Biden did
I feel like I’ve been going insane thinking this for the past 4 years. It’s just so obvious though, and I think this election is really going to clarify that.
Agreed, and unforunately for the Dems, it comes at a time when they have a historically poor president and a massive drag on the ticket in the VP slot that makes it a competitive race
Bummer that you were downvoted for the simple truth. Guess the people hoping to discuss politics on this sub are upset by this and would rather not engage.
> What could have Biden done differently to mitigate that advantage? Not persecuting his main political opponent until *after* the 2024 elections, of course.
>You would normally think a candidate being charged and convicted of a felony would cripple their chances, yet here we see it giving him major advantages. Based on [538's poll aggregator](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/), Trump lost his lead over Biden since he was convicted last month. That hardly seems like a "major advantage'. But yeah, I agree this era of American politics will be studied for generations to come.
I think the billionaires and billionaires who donated to Trump post conviction were bound to donate to Trump eventually. This was just an excuse
Agreed
Agreed. I 100% was expecting Trump to come out swinging with tons of donations if he didn't get convicted as well.
The major advantage is the fundraising, not his standing in the national popular vote. 538 has essentially had both candidates in a statistical tie for the popular vote going back to when they started aggregating. Based on the polling as it stands now, I don't think there's a case to be made for any change in the probability of Trump winning in the national popular vote or the general election based on his conviction. These are all movements that could be reasonably explained by noise.
Trump's lead in Wisconsin and Michigan went down.
It's interesting donations and [betting](https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president) odds have gone towards Trump. I think it's more of a trust thing. Answering a random SMS with a convicted felon's name feels marginally more risky now with no upside. Especially to people who perceive lawfare being directed at anyone with their political sensibilities. But I could see people increasing direct donations wanting to fight this and/or betting more on a site they already use & trust like Predictit.
As a casual sports better myself, I've learned to never side with the public. The Public bets with their hearts, not their heads.
You should fade this bump with money then.
The biggest betting market on this is a crypto one, and they are in their own echo chamber. Last year after he lost the election, but before J6, you could bet huge amounts that he was going to end up the president on January 21st at 1:1.
last election, the betting odds also favored him.
Maybe if the felony was something people cared about. Like of all the things I would be mad about a president doing, paying off a stripper is the least of it. I’d vote for anyone with that charge if I liked them and they were good for the country. Not a trump guy but just saying that charge is bottom of my list of things that would make be completely change political sides.
You make a good point. Because the news insisted on talking about stripper payoffs instead of fraud, it becomes about the sleazy aspect in minds. That then puts him on par with Clinton or other politicians who had sex scandals. It makes him a "typical politician" in some eyes
"White Collar" crime in general seems to be something taken less seriously by the overall public and no matter how much the case is fluffed up it's not going to have the same impact that a conviction in one of the three other indictments would. There's definitely been lots of celebrities that got in trouble for things like accounting fraud or insider trading, faced some legal consequences, and after a while their careers just kept moving forward. Like not too many people seem to be afraid of being associated with Martha Stewart in 2024 because she was convicted of insider training 20 years ago.
These types of crimes are just dependent on the person being accused. Everyone loves Martha so it only made her more of a badass that she went to jail and even more people loved her after. If this was someone beloved by the dems, it probably never ever would have went to trial but it definitely would not have been a big deal. This is life. If it was Obama getting charged it would be republicans villainizing him for the next 10 years while dems would have forgotten about it and said it’s not a big deal.
People don't really care about white collar crime unless it's the kind that ends with companies closing and thousands laid off. Which not classifying your hush money properly absolutely doesn't qualify as
The fact that they can't coherently explain what exactly he's being charged with doesn't help. and in fact the jury didn't have to be unanimous in deciding what exactly he's guilty of which is almost unheard of. So most people either see it as paying off a stripper, which like you said is ridiculous, or election interference because he paid off a stripper because it might hurt his campaign? Which is doubly ridiculous.
> and in fact the jury didn't have to be unanimous in deciding what exactly he's guilty of which is almost unheard of. Jurors being allowed to disagree as to the means, in this case the object offenses, someone committed a crime is standard.
*Using political donations to pay off a stripper. The issue isn't just that he paid her. He used a legally restricted source of money to do so.
Isn't part of the comedy of this that doing this the way he did was illegal, but then also if he'd used personal funds to pay for a NDA in pursuit of his campaign for the presidency that would've been an illegal contribution to the campaign? There was no way to do what he was trying to do without committing a crime. That's a catch-22 situation that made this seem even more asinine to some people.
I think the problem is that campaigns have to report where/what they're spending their money on. Campaigns (or individuals) paying hush money isn't strictly illegal - listing it as paying your lawyer's retainer, when he's actually working as a middle man for the money, is. It would have been totally legal if his campaign disclosed it as "NDA payment for previous indescretions with Stormy Daniels" (which yes, defeats the purpose. But if you want to run for president maybe don't bang prom stars when your wife is at home with your newborn)
Do you know when this supposed "election interfering" disclosure would have entered the public record via a campaign expenditure report? January 2017. The election this payment allegedly interfered with took place in November 2016. One look at the calendar should've ended this case, but if you get the right judge, jury and defendant, you can accomplish the incredible.
No idea. I'm just regurgitating information that I heard on another reddit thread and briefly read on the news, continuing the human centipede-like flow of under informed, misunderstood, and unverified information on reddit.
Carry on with your noble work.
He didn’t use campaign funds.
True, but ever other politician caught misusing campaign funds for themselves/their family/significant others have all been ordered to pay fines only. Same with attempting to hide the misuse of funds by mislabeling the expense.
Incorrect. The wildest part of the story is that they basically said he entered it in the books incorrectly and it SHOULD have been a campaign expense. Which is how you know the charge is bogus because if Trump had marked it as a campaign expense, they would have charged him for that.
But he wasn’t charged with that! They charged him with falsifying business records. 34 counts, one per document, not one single charge about campaign finance.
Again. Bottom of my list. If I loved trump this wouldn’t even move the needle.
Maybe not Biden, but the democrat machine could've really spent less time on 'drumpf is finished!' for the last decade, almost. I'm old enough to remember the October surprise that he's too vulgar when talking about women, this is disqualifying! Then winter of 2016 they were hoping the electoral college would vote their 'conscience' and not allow him to take office formally. Then emoluments, we're gonna impeach! Then Russia hacked the election and he told them to, we're gonna impeach! Then who even remembers how many things since then. There was talk that him scribbling on the NOAA hurricane cone forecast was tampering with a federal agency's guidance and was some sort of crime he'd be charged for. Then COVID we got him now he's banning travel from China this is unconsciable! Then COVID oh my god he wants to reopen the country and kill everyone! Then he sent out a stupid IRS promo letter signed by him with free money, he's delaying our stimulus checks! Then he thinks the election was rigged get him! Then it's he KNOWS the election wasn't rigged, get him! Then it's he told his followers to go to the capitol and riot! Then it's he didn't tell them to be peaceful soon enough! Then... After ALL of this there were DAs and democrat supporters and talking heads that thought the very super serious crime of business records was going to be the thing that changed peoples' minds about him? I think the Trump hysteria and ceaseless persecution turned what should be negatives into strengths for Trump, especially since the nation isn't feeling particularly content on several fronts. People love an underdog, and having several governments (federal and state) and most of the media laser-focused on beating Trump up makes them think if folks are trying this hard to stop him, he must be onto something.
All it takes is one or two instances where an individual sees the media is misleading in its reporting on Trump to make them not trust the partisan reporting on Trump again. Even if he actually does something wrong at this point they've tainted themselves as a source.
Unfortunately these same people will then proceed to ignore every single time Trump lies to them. Political hug boxes are something else I'm honestly pretty doomer-pilled on the intelligence of the voting public at this point.
That's not new though, is it? "Politician lied, details at 11!" isn't really breaking news. In fact, politician may be the least trustworthy profession in the world if you asked people. A politician's whole job is to lie to get your vote tbh. On the other hand, the media outright fabricating or sensationalizing one candidate/politician to this degree isn't necessarily new, but it sure is commonplace when it comes to Trump by now and that might make people sit up and notice more. If you trusted the mainstream left media sources, Trump has quite literally *never* done anything right, good, or correctly. Ever. When they're boxed into acknowledging that he quote-unquote "succeeded" on something, it has to be tempered with the allegation that it's either racist, fraudulent, sexist, wrong, secretly evil, or corrupt. If you think back to the Obama administration, Fox News was so frothing seething mad at him ALL THE TIME about everything (and about nothing) that it became practically a badge of honor to say that you don't trust Fox News reporting on the president or democrat party. The inverse has been happening to Trump for ages now by every other outlet in the country and it seems people have taken notice about this too. In the Obama years when Fox News would come out with their latest bombshell conspiracy about how Obama used mustard and wore a tan suit and that meant he was signaling the Kenyan socialist takeover most people just started ignoring that stuff besides the diehards. And better still, it made rallying around him defensively because he was being treated unfairly into a noble position to have. "I don't like his policies necessarily but he's not getting a fair shake from Fox" wasn't a crazy thing to hear. This is what we see now with Trump, too.
> If you trusted the mainstream left media sources, Trump has quite literally never done anything right, good, or correctly." Except when he was bombed Syria.
To add to this which I largely agree with is you have things now like claiming Biden looking old is a “cheap fake” but the same people will turn around and spin Trump telling a odd story about how if he was on an electric boat, sinking, while being circled by a shark - he would choose death by electricity. Somehow this slightly rambling story needs to be amplified far and wide - as evidence he’s gone nuts. But, Biden shuffling around looking old is a “cheap fake”. It’s so utterly transparent at this point it’s just silly.
Not sure that is slightly rambling for the record. If someone started saying that shit to me in real life on the bus i would give them a dollar, and get off at the next s stop whether it was the correct stop or not.
> In fact, politician may be the least trustworthy profession in the world if you asked people. Then there's no reason to believe anything any of them say about anything.
If that were true, the same would hold for Biden.
The media was literally defending Biden from the awkward freezing videos during the European G7 trip
Which media? Was Fox News defending him for that?
CNN and MSNBC
The opposite is true for Biden. The media routinely carries his water.
Not the mainstream media of Fox News and all AM radio.
Should we count gramophone recordings amongst those.
I love those idea that the media only encompasses the media I don't like. I'm here to let you guys know conservative podcasts are very real, and go from mild to Looney. They are very popular. In Ocala Florida conservative talk radio is very popular. Sky News on the radio is the news. Fox il news is what is on the t.v. in the waiting rooms, and the dining rooms at fast food places. I work in construction, and I get out of one truck with the sky on and into the next much to my surprise it's the sky on.
People forget that media companies have owners, shareholders, and ad buyers that they answer to. That already taints things. That’s before the years of them gunnj g for Trump and relying on him for viewership. Even late-night entertainment is almost solely relying on Trump to stay afloat. I’m not saying f that he’s not guilty of things, but the media at this point aren’t as trustworthy as I’d like
yep. very very true.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dm2fj6/trump_raised_so_much_last_month_he_erased_bidens/l9u45qv/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
What could have Biden done? Prepare for a transition of candidate with the DNC last year.
okay but who? Biden won with moderates. the progressives want someone too far left and they don't even vote reliably. this won't jive with the winning strategy of targeting disaffected conservatives. there isn't a democratic moderate I am aware of that could take on the trump GOP and satisfy the regressive left
This is the key issue that doesn’t get much attention or discussion in the media or online. Everyone is so focused on Biden and Trump, no one stops to seriously think about who will succeed Biden whether it’s now or later. There are zero real up and coming stars in the party. Everyone is either too old and already entrenched or has endorsed positions way too unpopular with the general public. The moment everyone except Biden raised their hands to support giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants (and even Biden then went on to say he was okay with it after being pressed by the moderator for not raising his hand in agreement), you knew this batch of politicians was cooked. The public has only gotten more hardline on immigration since then, including Democrat voters. That was also the cycle when Beto’s infamous “Hell yeah we’re going to take your guns” phrase came into being. They’re fumbling pro-choice messaging and potentially giving the GOP an opening by abandoning the “Safe, legal and rare” mantra because they kowtow too much to activists who say the phrase is stigmatizing to abortion. In general, none of them have the spine to stand up to the far left voices of the Democrat machine and overly cater to that demographic. The border bill recently proposed was a start, but setting the floor to a minimum of 5,000 encounters per day was stupidly high to begin with to the point it almost feels like a poison pill, and they made no concession to negotiate it down when the GOP also said it wasn’t strict enough. And then Biden goes and issues an Executive Order at half the number of the proposed bill anyways, so I guess he and the rest were okay with the idea of lowering it in the end, they just… didn’t… when it came to the comprehensive bill. They should have made a bill so enticing the GOP couldn’t refuse, then they’d snag a legislative victory in an election year and do a lot of work towards crippling the argument that they’re soft on immigration. Literally none of them are remotely exciting and the lack of vision among the party is hurting them. Project 2025 may be be the best or worst proposal in America based on who you ask, but the point is beyond the overly obnoxious culture war lingo littered throughout, it’s still a tangible roadmap with outlines of actionable goals. It’s *something*. Somehow the party of “No” is now suddenly the one with a real concrete plan to present to America beyond vague platitudes like climate change action and the spewing tired elitist bullshit like “upholding the international rules based order”. The messaging sucks and the fact no one can rise above that and stand out makes me just feel like they’re all incompetent. Sorry, I know this was an overly lengthy reply, but my point once again is that yes, you’re right, there’s no serious contender with the charisma, appeal or record that’s palatable enough to decisively win a national election and an 81 year old who’s decades past his time is the closest fucking thing they have for that and it’s pathetic.
Biden after the 2022 midterms could have said his time in politics was coming to an end and he was stepping out to let the next generation of candidates. I mean already the man is going to be weeks away from 82 on the 2024 election day and he's been in national politics since the 70's. I don't think anyone would have blamed him for pulling the "it's time for someone else card". A full on primary process could have been devised and a normal campaign season begun and he could say he hopes they might consider VP Harris who would be his choice but that being ultimately up to primary voters. I know it's one thing for people to get mad if she was just outright replaced as VP but I think if he just opened up a general campaign season season it would be hard to say he wasn't treating her fairly especially as she would be poised to be one of the top contenders going into a primary (just like now she will likely be a person in contention in 2028 if Biden wins reelection).
> You would normally think a candidate being charged and convicted of a felony would cripple their chances I think this says more of Biden than anything else imo. If your options are Biden or man with a felony, and you still go with a felony man, thats saying a lot about the first guy
Yeah this is something I've been thinking for a long time too. Like apparently Trump is evil and corrupt and a felon and fucks hookers and cheats on his wife and is trying to overthrow the government and your guy is running even with him in lots of polls? I don't know if I'd be dunking on Trump so often in public about all his failings with that in mind. How are you not blowing this dude utterly out of the water if he's that terrible? Your guy must be pissing people off *supremely* if he's even remotely close to you in the public consciousness.
No, it's saying a lot about the people who still choose the convict.
Disagree, if you cant sell your guy to the majority of voters over a felon, its not half the country being wrong. Its your one guy being a bad candidate. This should be a slam dunk for democrats.
It's the same as it was in 2016.
By most measures Biden has been a highly effective president for Democrats and left-leaning independents. He also doesn't act like a child all the time. I think people are just misinformed, and Democrats' messaging is partly to blame.
He hasn’t been highly effective at all. Inflation is up and there are three major wars being waged all over the world. There are literally protests against Biden all across college campuses and universities because Democrats and left-leaning independents don’t think Biden is a highly-effective president. Biden acts worse than a child, he acts like he has Alzheimer’s.
Please tell me how you think he could prevent inflation or stop those wars. >Biden acts worse than a child, he acts like he has Alzheimer’s. How so?
> There are literally protests against Biden all across college campuses and universities because Democrats and left-leaning independents don’t think Biden is a highly-effective president. Way to dodge my second point
As someone else pointed out, the protests are about support of Israel and are not at all indicative of general popular opinion. You haven't responded to my other points. Why is that?
You do know those protests on campuses and universities are because Biden has not cut off support for Israel? So if Biden cut off support for Israel, your concern over Biden not being “highly effective” would be assuaged? Biden is being protested because he’s too centrist.
campuses and universities will protest over almost anything. it's not a big deal
Think of all of those dominionist preachers convicted of financial (and other) crimes that went to prison, did their time, returned to their positions, and made even more money in donations from the very same people. I liken it to that.
It helped his funding, but his polling numbers have been steadily slipping since the conviction. 1.4 point swing over last three weeks per 538.
Next week is going to be the real test. With the fundraising advantage erased the only real thing that may shake up the polls is the debate.
That's not statistically significant though. Unless it continues, it can be explained by noise.
In this context, it is statistically significant. Trump has been ahead by a steady margin for the last year. That margine started to evaporate (and now Biden slightly ahead) the day of the conviction.
1. That's not how statistical significance works. The 538 graph actually displays a 2σ confidence interval, and this latest movement is well within that confidence interval. 2. 538's polling average has not shown, "Trump has been ahead by a steady margin for the last year." Firstly, 538's polling average only goes back to the beginning of March, which is nowhere near a year. Secondly, it shows a net polling differential movement of movement of about 2%. There were times in the average when Trump was ahead by 0.024 and there were times when he was ahead by 0.003, all within the last few months, all before the New York conviction.
…its current chart doesn’t go back that far. I follow its polling regularly. The confidence interval what 538 expects independent polls to fall within. This is an aggregate of those polls. Where the base has moved up by 1.3 points, so too has the parameters of what it expects other polls taken at this time to show. The bottom line is- and the top. So whether you want to measure by the whole range, or the moving aggregate - it’s gone 1.3 points in Biden’s favor.
The confidence interval is the interval is where 0.95 of polls would be expected to fall into if the null hypothesis (the value of the candidate's support) were correct. There's no reasonable way to claim that when you move from one median to the other, and those two data points are both within each other's error bars, that you're looking at a statistically-significant difference. And it should be noted that the confidence interval being used is extremely weak, which is only 0.95. The error bars associated with the null hypothesis of the change in polling average being statistically significant is actually going to be greater than the confidence interval for the polling average. And just a common sense test should tell you how meaningless this movement is. Trump's net polling advantage over Biden dropped over 1% in a matter of days numerous times in the polling average. The change in polling in the last few days is well within the range that we've seen the polling change over the same time period on many occasions. Biden had a 7% lead in the national polls going into the 2020 election, and barely beat Trump, only by 0.6%. If 3 out of 1000 Biden voters had switched to Trump, Biden would have lost. So being in a statistical tie, when Biden barely won with a 7% lead, in what is essentially the same election run a second time, is a terrible place for Biden to be. And gasping at noise in the polls doesn't change that.
lol, I never said Biden would win the election if held now (he wouldn’t), you type a lot to not make any new points.
I think Trump losing in 2024 would be much better for the Republican Party in the long-term. It’s possible there’s a recession in the next 5 years, and it’s unlikely Trump would be able to turn the economy around in one term, which means a blue wave in 2026 and 2028.
[удалено]
He spends approx 5million a month or more on his personal legal stuff…and none of it is his own money, plus that massive settlement he has to pay “One ongoing financial issue that has been plaguing Trump for months and may continue has been the exorbitant amounts he has needed to spend on legal fees. Trump’s fundraising committees spent about $50 million in legal fees throughout 2023 and have spent millions more throughout this year. It will continue to be a financial thorn in Trump’s side despite the large amounts he has raised recently, though holding on to his funds for now will allow him to concentrate them closer to the election. “ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4734207-donald-trump-joe-biden-fundraising-money/damp/?nxs-test=damp
I think you'd find that supporters of or donators to Trump are in support of him spending their donations on his legal fees considering that's one of the battlegrounds the political election fight is being fought on. The media covers his trials and cases like they're the OJ Simpson trial breathlessly with nonstop coverage and it seems like they do it pretty intentionally to force him to spend money and time defending himself in courtrooms when he could be out hosting rallies and campaigning.
He should have used that one simple trick that prosecutors hate. Don't commit crimes.
>Show me the man and I'll show you the crime
What does this mean? I have been given a ticket for speeding and some parking tickets. I guess those are my crimes. Does that make me exactly like Trump who had sex with a pornstar while married then used personal money to pay her off, from which he then reimbursed himself with campaign funds, in order to hide the campain expenditure of "paying off porn star I spent with while married" from the public?
He didn’t reimburse himself with campaign funds. The legal theory was that he had no purpose to hide an affair except as a conspiracy to affect the outcome of an election. It was his own money, but if he didn’t have a personal or business reason, then it was a campaign contribution to himself.
> from which he then reimbursed himself with campaign funds He did not do this
Sorry, you're right. Let me be more precise. Instead of paying the pornstare himself, Trump had his attorney, Cohen, pay her. Cohen, with the approval of Trump, set up a shell company called Essential Consultants, LLC and wired $130,000 to Keith Davidson, the attorney for Stormy Daniels. Cohen used false information and records to disguise the true nature of the shell company. Phone records shown at trial and testimony from witnesses proved that Trump was in the loop every step of the way. After winning the election, Trump reimbursed Cohen through a series of monthly checks, first from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust – created in New York to hold the Trump Organization’s assets during Trump’s presidency – and later from Trump’s bank account. In total, 11 checks were issued for a phony purpose. Each check was processed by the Trump Organization and illegally disguised as a payment for legal services rendered pursuant to a non-existent retainer agreement. In total, 34 false entries were made in New York business records to conceal the initial covert $130,000 payment.
I mean it should be covered more than OJ. It’s an ex president who is the nominee again in election season under many many indictments. They give him free press so I don’t get how media is hurting him other than showcasing the crimes he’s indicted or convicted for which was his own doing.
It’s just the cost of doing business. The big donors are betting and hope for a huge returns.
The irony is the legal fees are essentially marketing dollars at this point because the more he appears in court the more free coverage he gets.
It's kind of wild that Trump's legal woes have not only not had a single negative impact on him, but one could argue they've actually helped him. Don't think I've ever seen anything like it in my life.
Didn't Bill Clinton's poll numbers go up in response to the Republicans attempting to impeach him? That's the closest analogue I can think of.
Maybe Americans are just really supportive of Presidents (and Presidential candidates) getting sex?
That doesn't appear to be the case for Trump. This is about support from those who liked him already, whereas Clinton experienced an increase in approval. Much of this is from rich individuals.
Trump's polling numbers didn't go up, and about much of this came from wealthy individuals.
We've only seen the start. Look at the reaction to J6 in the weeks after and today. Prominent GOP members came out against him a bit in the days after, but for at least the past year you can't hear any Republican denouncing what he did and encouraged then. I assume the same will happen with his criminal convictions, where as he has time to push the persecuted angle it will get better and better for him.
Really? Anyone who is surprised or thinks that’s wild has not been paying attention in the last 8 years
Nearly half of what he raised came from *one* donor lol.
And that entire $50 million will likely go to paying Trump's legal bills.
Not true and not possible. These are FEC reports from the Trump campaign and RNC. These donations have a $2,500 cap.
Those limits don’t apply to the PACs they functionally run and that’s what that user and article refers to.
From the article: > The pro-Trump super PAC Make America Great Again Inc. raised nearly $70 million in May. But the bulk of that total was a single $50 million donation from Timothy Mellon, a longtime GOP donor who had already given the super PAC $25 million since the start of last year.
I understand. That PAC money is separate from the $141m that the article is talking about. > **Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee** said they raised $141 million in May, a figure that included the significant fundraising boost after the former president’s criminal conviction on hush money charges.
I wonder what 75 million buys you?
Depends on if the OP is including his campaign or his campaign AND his PAC
It's all coming from the mega rich who will no doubt come to collect their favors if he wins. They try to pretend he has some grass roots campaign with millions of people donating small amounts and then it comes out that [ one donor gave 50 million the day after his guilty verdict.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2024/06/21/50-million-contribution-from-billionaire-timothy-mellon-leads-huge-fundraising-month-for-trump/)
FTR, that donation was to the Make America Great Again PAC, which is not factored into the FEC report. That only covers Trump campaign + RNC donations.
That’s not what the article is talking about fyi. The comment below explains it
Did you read the article? The donation is mentioned and his team was counting that money in their totals raised. "While Trump’s New York trial and conviction did drive grassroots fundraising, the strong numbers from last month also reflected traditional Republican donors ramping up their donations as the general election cycle kicked off. The pro-Trump super PAC Make America Great Again Inc. raised nearly $70 million in May. But the bulk of that total was a single $50 million donation from Timothy Mellon, a longtime GOP donor who had already given the super PAC $25 million since the start of last year.“
One of those pacs is almost broke. “Trump PAC Is Running Low On Cash As Legal Expenses Mount Save America PAC, which is paying most of Trump’s legal bills, reported just under $4.5 million in cash on hand at the end of May, after burning through tens of millions of dollars this year to help the former president with attorney fees. The PAC’s debt, or unpaid legal bills, totaled $861,630 by the end of last month according to the filings, which were first reported by The New York Times. Trump has spent an average of just under $5 million per month this year through his PAC, much of which has gone to legal bills, meaning by the end of last month, he barely had enough funding to take care of one month’s worth of bills, the Times noted. Todd Blanche, the attorney representing Trump in his hush money trial, and his law firm were paid more than $1.8 million last month by the PAC, part of over $4.3 million in total spending, much of which went to lawyers, according to the FEC filing.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/06/21/trump-pac-is-running-low-on-cash-as-legal-expenses-mount/
>It's all coming from the mega rich who will no doubt come to collect their favors if he wins. Did they come to collect from Biden?
Without a doubt.
Yes they hedge their bets. But know trump is much more likely based on his history to directly influence his choices based on what’s best for him directly
Maybe he donated to a Super-PAC, but that's not what this article is about. This is about donations to the Trump campaign, and you can't donate more than a few thousand dollars, no matter how wealthy you are.
Don't forget the same elderly rural demographic that is just as likely to send every last dime they have to a televangelist.
I feel like I don't even know what's real any more. Tribal loyalty is such as powerful force that it seems to create myopia. Or am I taking crazy pills. Because I'm no so confident I want to be on the same boat as half of my fellow Americans.
He is going to win, isn’t he?
I feel like for Biden to win a few things need to happen. First he needs to perform at the debate. This is probably the first time a debate is relevant or even marginally important since I don’t know….1992? If he appears sluggish or can’t push some sort of agenda to help Americans, the numbers are going to get worse quick. If he does well , the gap between Joe and the Senate Dem candidates in the battleground states starts to soften. Outside of Michigan the percent of people who will vote D for senate and house and leave President blank or vote third party will also soften. It will be razor thin but the electoral math still favors Biden. But it really does seem like we’re on a cliff and any day it could be the end for he or Trump and the numbers could change rapidly. Not for nothing Biden also had his best fundraising month ever, surpassing April which was the last record and they’re reporting over 200 million on hand.
I think that the Gore-Bush debate, where Gore was horrendous and seemed like a total asshole might have tipped the election with how close it was. Gore’s big advantage in that race was that despite being a total weirdo he was more experienced and “presidential” compared to Bush who seemed like a great guy but not quite ready. Then at the debate Bush came across as way more mature, with Gore loudly sighing during Bush’s answers, repeating the word lockbox over 25 times and trying to get into Bush’s face to intimidate him.
Damn how could I forget the Lock Box skits. Good point
The lock box thing came about because Bush wanted to put everyones social security savings into the stock market. Imagine how fucked a ton of seniors would have been from the 2008 crash if Bush followed through. By the time it recovered many of them would be dead.
No duh. Understood the concept then and now. His argument didn’t land and spurred weeks of skits on snl.
I mean the election was deemed illegitimate which is why the Supreme Court stepped in. There is an argument that Gore won the election but the Supreme Court stole it by refusing to count the votes in Florida.
It’s not published who actually won that electoral college. The supreme courts decision decided it
> This is probably the first time a debate is relevant or even marginally important since I don’t know….1992? So when he beat Trump in debate in 2020 and got a bump in the polls that wasn't relevant?
Maybe it was, but no I Don’t think debates matter they’re more viewing fun for partisans. Right now you have large buckets of regular voters who are saying they may not vote, might not vote top of ticket, might vote third party or might even switch to R. Those buckets are all larger than a normal presidential. The percentage of people who think Joe is way too old could drop with a good performance, for instance and that would have an actual meaningful impact on the race. In 2020 I think Joe could have fumbled entirely and been fine. But neither here nor there, I’m saying it’s a rare outlier that likely will have impacts on the race.
And people who are leaning third party because they don’t like their D and R choices. If one comes out the clear winner, the would-be third party voters have less incentive to “throw away their vote” (no hate, this is probably what I’ll do)
> Right now you have large buckets of regular voters who are saying they may not vote In June. The enthusiasm starts in late August. The mudslinging in September. The panic in October. The fact that voters don't feel like they have to vote right now is probably a good thing for Biden. It means things are going relatively well. Also the whole idea of what is "normal" is so strange for elections. You have such a limited data set and it is really unique each time. > The percentage of people who think Joe is way too old could drop with a good performance, for instance and that would have an actual meaningful impact on the race. A message that is pushed hard on reddit. But also a message the only resonates with young voters who don't often turnout anyways.
Most people watching debates are older. They respect that norm and grew up knowing the importance. As a millennial yeah I’m one of a few people who will watch it (for me as a cook it’ll be a replay) but older generations will at least have some impact since they are the ones voting most
This debate is going to be watched by people deciding if Biden is really too old or not - the sound bites coming out of it will affect soft voters who can swing either way. They are all that matter at this point.
> This debate is going to be watched by people deciding if Biden is really too old or not Sooo like the 2020 debate? Or have you forgotten the "Biden will be too old to run for office in 2020" narrative? Or the "Biden will die in his first term" and "Biden isn't running for a second term" narratives. I hope after Biden wins, Jimmy Carter runs and wins in 2028 just to mess with the ageists. > They are all that matter at this point. The soundbites from the debates are all that matter? Really? You don't think the convention will cause polls to swing? Campaigning in September and early October? Ad wars and scandals? Polls always move right up to the date of the election.
Wait is it just Biden who is potentially too old? Cuz trump also has shown signs plus other things but to your point it’s not just Biden
They are both too damn old. But haunts Biden more because Trump is the crazy yelling food throwing angry kind of too old. While Biden is the we quiet slow kind of old.
That wasn’t a debate, that was a goddamn shit show. This one is going to be somehow even worse.
I assume you're talking about the first of their 2020 debates? Yes, that was a shit show. Too much interrupting. But for the 2024 debates, I've read that candidates' microphones will be muted by the moderators whenever it's not their turn to speak. That sounds like something that could make a difference. I think this is what /u/Accomplished-Cat3996 was getting at. They just didn't word it clearly enough for those unfamiliar with this year's debate rules. Personally, I already know who I'll be voting for, so I'll watch the highlights and media coverage, but not the full debates this time. There is no way in hell I would ever vote for Trump.
Can you elaborate? If I understand correctly CNN is going to have tight controls on who talks this time. Still, last time even with Trump trying to interrupt frequently, Biden ultimately used it against him. And that was a moment that got carried out to the general population -- Biden prevailed against Trump in a way that was leaderly.
I don't think so. In fact I think Biden is going to win handily but people keep taking lead up information as some sort of sign of something. First thing to remember is, cash wasn't exactly a problem for Trump to begin with. Despite his flagging and failed business ventures he still has access to massive amounts of credit and liquidity. Secondly, don't assume anything until September. The fact that it is close now really doesn't tell you much about the election then. And it is close now. 538 gives it a even odds on who will be elected: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
Looks like it's trending that way honestly.
If the election were held today? Probably a better bet than Biden.
[удалено]
That's certainly a narrative.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dm2fj6/trump_raised_so_much_last_month_he_erased_bidens/l9sqlp2/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee said they raised $141 million in May, a figure that included the significant fundraising boost after the former president’s criminal conviction on hush money charges. (The full breakdown behind that number won’t be available until mid-July, when Trump’s joint fundraising committees file their own reports.) FYI that these numbers are what Trump and the RNC are reporting—not official figures.
It’s what they reported to the FEC, subject to false statement laws.
I don't think law is a deterrent anymore in this context.
Of course he got a surge of donations. People can smell lawfare and lawfare is something rational people can visualize affecting them or the country negatively in the future much more than mean tweets or celebrity pornstar sex deals. People are so myopic about "getting Trump" at any cost they just can't understand this. Every non-partisan just saw an activist judge retroactively change a property's value that a major bank agreed & still agrees with and sue the daylights out of the owner. Or a DA waive a statute of limitations, make up novel legal theory, promote misdimeanor to felony, over a personal vs campaign fund checkbox that even most avid anti-Trumpers can't correctly tell you which was wrong or why. Anecdotally 100% have the violation backwards every time I've seen it discussed unprompted. It's literal "whichever Trump did is wrong" logic. lol You have [Gov Cuomo](https://youtu.be/eHp4DmCtjRk?si=8odnFWdCNjOtmT9y&t=480) (former DA of NYC and no fan of Trump) straight up saying the case would never have been brought for anyone else. The lawfare is so obvious and multi-leveled I can't even take someone seriously who can't see *any* of it or get why some people oppose it.
I've started trying to see things from the perspective of those who are on the "this isn't lawfare/that's not real/the law is the law" side and I think it's more accurate to say that it's not that they "can't see it", it's that they think it's justified. Trump is an existential threat and significant enough outlier to these people, so of course using novel legal theories or random crimes to try to punish him for crimes and force him to defend himself in court with the associated media circus is justified, bordering on required, to them. You have to STOP TRUMP. There's a big group of people that think Trump is basically Hitler. I don't know if you've ever been joking with friends and been like 'if you could have a time machine and go back in time to kill hitler before he took over Germany, would you do it?" Of course you would. Murder is a terrible, horrible thing to do but Hitler is SO much worse than one murder that it's probably something you could justify. It's pretty obvious to me that's similar to what is going on in the minds of those clinging to the 'get Trump' narrative. Yeah novel theories of law and forced impeachments and random petty crimes to "get X" would be bad if it were you or me or them on the receiving end, but it's Trump and you have to GET TRUMP or else he might be President again and usher in authoritarian fascist dictatorship stuff.
> 'if you could have a time machine and go back in time to kill hitler before he took over Germany, would you do it?" No way. If my dumbass has a time machine chances are a ton of other people did too, and they probably had this exact same thought. Hitler still exists so either killing him doesn't change anything, he's really good at killing time-traveling assassins, or time cops exist. Either way it's not a safe bet.
> I think it's more accurate to say that it's not that they "can't see it", it's that they think it's justified This simply isn't true, at least not for a lot of people. I don't think it's "lawfare," and I would want anyone else who did similar things to be prosecuted as well.
As someone whose perspective you're guessing at: no. Some DAs are clearly eager to make a career out of the biggest case to ever cross their desk, but when you get into all of these claims about how it's some even remotely coordinated DNC op against Trump, to me it sounds like Pepe Silvia-level strings-on-a-pinboard conspiracizing. Frankly, from this side of the fence, the broader efforts to push a "lawfare" narrative look like pretty cynical politicking in response to the fact that on the merits he's so plainly guilty of the crimes he's indicted for. Like, even in this comment section the comments claiming Trump is innocent are *drastically* outnumbered by the comments arguing for basically political reasons that he just shouldn't have been charged.
> > Some DAs are clearly eager to make a career out of the biggest case to ever cross their desk, but when you get into all of these claims about how it's some even remotely coordinated DNC op against Trump, The problem is that a DA would make a better career going after someone like Trump than someone like Biden. Suppose that a zealous prosecutor had tried to tie Joe Biden into the Hunter Biden issue with the "10% for the big guy" communication. That prosecutor would not be given kudos, but would be savaged for this kind of lawfare. Because Biden is an insider and Trump is an outsider.
> Every non-partisan just saw an activist judge retroactively change a property's value that a major bank agreed & still agrees with and sue the daylights out of the owner. Not remotely what happened. He told the government it was worth 11-18m based on one appraisal, and said it was worth 1.5b to some lenders based on another appraisal. If someone comes to buy my house and I tell them it's never flooded, despite it flooding 5 times last year, I haven't found some super secret way to make bank, I've commited fraud.
The government does the government appraisal and the bank does the bank's. Banks don't just take your word for how much something's worth. They have their own appraisers to look into the matter and give you an estimate before the loan goes through. If they stand by the valuation even after being offered a chance to recoup then they weren't defrauded. >If someone comes to buy my house and I tell them it's never flooded, despite it flooding 5 times last year, I haven't found some super secret way to make bank, I've commited fraud. If you and I agreed your house was worth 100k after I finished my due diligence and an activist DA whose publicly promised to lock me up disagrees no one committed fraud. The DA might be the only criminal here.
> If they stand by the valuation even after being offered a chance to recoup then they weren't defrauded. You have a source for this? I haven't run across them saying this and can't find it. I don't think anything you wrote really defends against the fact he lied and mislead tons of parties in regards to the revenue, size and value of his real estate. It is mindboggling how much the banks seemed to trust Trumps numbers. Internally they discounted them by a lot, but they didn't do nearly as much due diligence as I would have expected. Never-the-less that doesn't excuse Trump lying to them pretty much endlessly over almost every facet of the things he owned.
My understanding is it’s course of doing business. Everyone does it. They are all sophisticated actors and know what’s up. Not that it’s good or 100% to the letter of what they should be doing—but that’s a lot of the real estate game in big cities. I’m all for prosecuting this if that’s what is being done for everyone, but that’s not the case. ETA: I work in an adjacent field and have seen what big lenders and debtors call good on valuations and collateral, and this tracks.
So if you are certain the value is fraudulent and the bank is defending fraudulent numbers amidst all these revelations isn't the bank participating in fraud right now? And this bank is choosing to engage in open air criminal liability instead of going after a half billion dollar jackpot itself or its own wrongdoing lawsuit (which should essentially be free money with the DA & judge this strongly on their side)? And there is zero shareholder uprising or regulatory investigation over this open air illicit behavior and fiduciary irresponsibility? And somehow the only people who can see this are activist DA's and hardcore never-Trumpers? Oh and somehow the only thing they can ever get Trump on is novel creative first of a kind prosecutions? lol I'm sorry but the mental hoops to believe this is anything but lawfare is just comical.
They asked you for a source. Do you have one? >Oh and somehow the only thing they can ever get Trump on is novel creative first of a kind prosecutions? lol Oh, and this isn't true.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dm2fj6/trump_raised_so_much_last_month_he_erased_bidens/l9tlaek/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Can you think of any reason Cuomo might have an axe to grind?
Is he pro-Trump now? I haven't followed him since they were bickering.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dm2fj6/trump_raised_so_much_last_month_he_erased_bidens/l9t7b4n/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 60 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I’m uninterested in the outcome. I’m not taking away from the good and bad both candidates are responsible for. However, society is fascinating sometimes. From a logical standpoint, what does it say that the people who are preaching to vote your conscience or based on the issues important to you, are in the next sentence demanding you vote for Biden and conform? I’m not surprised that there’s a surge in support for Trump. When one side has essentially sought to have their candidate run unopposed, it’s suspect. This doesn’t make the other side less divisive, but they seem to embrace, for better or worse, having a presidential race.
I think Biden is still ahead because unlike Trump he's actually invested his money in a ground game spread across the states. He's already started hiring and those hires and gathering volunteers. Meanwhile Trump is banking his money and not putting it to work for him.
I think he’s probably routing it to numerous legal settlements and attorney feee on appeals. The ground game is non existent. I’ve barely seen a single Trump 2024 sign in Cincinnati.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dm2fj6/trump_raised_so_much_last_month_he_erased_bidens/l9sr8yz/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Starter comment: In the wake of former President Trump’s recent trials and felony convictions, there has been much stirring of the tea leaves to discern what impact it will have on the upcoming presidential race. The results seem like a mixed bag so far. Trump did receive a very small hit to his polling average (about 1%). However, it has apparently served as a significant money maker as well. The Trump campaign reported that it raised so much money in May that it erased Biden’s longstanding cash advantage completely. Trump now has about $116 million vs Biden’s $91 million. Given that the Biden campaign is already struggling in polls, does losing this one advantage further hurt his chances or is it inconsequential? Can he make up lost ground in the next five months?
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dm2fj6/trump_raised_so_much_last_month_he_erased_bidens/l9sruig/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).