Trump's Revenge

Guest Cartoon 

 Peter Sage Introduction of Guest Post:

A recurring theme in this blog is the notion of ones point of strength being ones point of weakness.  The week of Obama's showiest triumph in his presidency--the White House Correspondents Dinner, when he humiliated Trump, and then the White House announcement of the killing of Osama bin Laden--could be the week that assured that Trump would attempt to re-define himself from trivial showman into Obama's successor.  Obama won big that week, but decades from now historians may write that he should not have run up the score.

In this Guest Post Thad Guyer posits that Trump can acquire the delegates he may need to get his GOP nomination through the inducements and persuasion available to a billionaire celebrity.   He need not use the heavy-handed threats I imagined in my April 19 post when thugs threatened murder.   Politicians are cut from the same cloth as actors and athletes--people who seek the limelight--and his Celebrity Apprentice show demonstrated that people will risk their reputations so long as they can do it on a big stage.  Trump can give uncommitted delegates a whirl at the Big Time, can let them enjoy their moment of celebrity, before they cast their vote to make America great then return to their home towns with stories to tell and exciting selfies of themselves amid wealth, power, and glamour.  

It may be an easy sell for someone with Trump's skill and resources.  Trump is not asking them to trade their vote in exchange doing treason; he asks for their vote in an effort to make America rich and powerful, and they will have tasted a bit of it themselves and will have assured themselves they are doing the right thing because wealth and power are very, very nice things, and there should be more of it.

Thad Guyer

Thad Guyer's insight is that Trump has had years of experience in courting and seducing the kind of people who become uncommitted delegates in Cleveland. Trump is no amateur here.  Thad Guyer is an attorney who represents whistleblowing employees, so he pays close attention to arguments and messages that are persuasive to judges and juries.  This has helps inform his close observations of the 2016 election.

Guest Post by Thad Guyer:

“Revenge of The New Celebrity Delegate Show”

Although Mitt didn’t put it this way, we will probably all soon be watching Trump’s new franchise, “Celebrity Delegate Show”, in which GOP convention delegates will be wined-‘n-dined for their votes aboard Trump’s fleet of private aircraft en route to his Palm Beach Mar-a-Lago resorts, or his five star hotels from New York to Honolulu. "My guess is some delegates might like to fly around on Air Trump or perhaps get a membership to Mar-a-Lago," Romney said this week. (See, Newsmax, “Romney: Trump Will Win Nomination If Nobody Quits”http://goo.gl/qFVb6V).  Romney and the GOP establishment have, once again, grossly understated Trump’s armaments and potentials for using his money and celebrity for seizing the nomination from reluctant delegate hands.  

Obama Triumph

Trump’s inclination to raw vengeance will make Nixon’s “enemies list” look sophomoric. Indeed, a major impetus to Trump being a GOP candidate may be revenge. When President Obama hilariously humiliated Trump in front of his wife at the 2015 White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in Washington, D.C, he invoked Trump’s show “Celebrity Apprentice” to belittle the tycoon with the vast difference between being a showman and president.  As the New Yorker ( http://goo.gl/0t5tO5) put it:

“Trump’s humiliation was as absolute, and as visible, as any I have ever seen: his head set in place, like a man in a pillory, he barely moved or altered his expression as wave after wave of laughter struck him.”

Trump fled the dinner with his wife as soon as it ended, and Obama’s very funny roasting of the Donald that night lives on in YouTube. (https://youtu.be/Psa4RhJHuPg).

Trump, badly lit, humiliated amid a crowd laughing at his expense

Ironically, how successful Trump is with “Celebrity Delegate” will likely determine the historical legacy of America’s first Black president. Some of the red meat at every Trump rally is his pledge to eviscerate or dismantle every major initiative upon which Obama would hope to base his legacy:  Obamacare will be repealed and replaced, the Executive Order protecting four million illegal immigrants from deportation will be rescinded on Trump’s first day in the Oval Office, and the president’s “be nice” diplomacy worldwide will be swept away by ultimatum and heavy handed deal making.  The billionaire strongman will relish the historical payback for Obama’s flippant night of humiliation.

Celebrity Apprentice:  No shortage of eager contestants

When Trump launched Celebrity Apprentice on NBC in 2010, critics questioned whether credible celebrities would subject themselves to such a show.  Multi-cultural contestants Arsenio Hall, Piers Morgan, Dionne Warwick, Dennis Rodman, Geraldo Rivera and dozens of others answered that question over five seasons, until Trump quit to replace Obama. (See, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Celebrity_Apprentice). Trump attracted popular celebrity actors, singers and journalists, just as he created celebrities in his first franchise “The Apprentice”.  It is hard to imagine that Trump will not easily attract far more delegates than he can use to shamelessly pander themselves to enjoy the gold-plated amenities the billionaire can offer. While reiterating that he has no plans to take advantage of the Republican delegate system, no one can doubt how effective his resources will be in doing just that.  As he put it:

Something to talk about back home

"Look, nobody has better toys than I do. I can put the delegates in the best planes and bring them to the best resorts anywhere in the world. Doral, Mar-a Lago. *** We’re gonna send you to Mar-a-Lago on a Boeing 757. You’re going to use the spa, you’re going to do this, you’re going to do that. We want your vote.”

See, ABCNews, “How Donald Trump Could Woo Delegates With His Toys” http://goo.gl/zcXsAr.  So there will be a choice for the delegates:  Do they stick with the dildo slayer to whom they have promised their non-binding second ballot votes, or do they agree to hear what the Donald’s people have to say while sipping margaritas poolside with the setting tropical sun?  Or perhaps they would prefer a less pleasant visit from Trump’s supporters.  See, Politico, “Delegates face death threats from Trump supporters” http://goo.gl/9VHucd.  Obama never imagined this surreal spinoff of Celebrity Apprentice, or such a potential historical payback.

Cruz and Dildos: A lawyer's response to my request

A lawyer represents his client.

Peter Sage's Introduction of a Guest Post.

I received my first response to my request for comments on the Cruz/Dildo matter from Florida attorney Robert Guyer, who responds with a defense of the legal profession, one of several approaches I had thought Cruz might take.  (Please note the previous post, where I ask for comments.)  

The issue here is whether it is in the Democrats' interest to attempt to force Ted Cruz to talk about his defense of the State of Texas' law banning dildos.   My premise is that any time Democrats can force an opponent to talk about dildos the better for them.

How should Cruz do?   He could respond with dignity, my Guest Post suggests.

Robert Guyer reaffirms the dignity of fulfillment of duty of a lawyer to his client.  It is the most principled argument because it avoids sensationalism, avoids discussing the merits of the case, and it asserts the primacy of rule, order and professionalism.  

Is it the politically optimal approach?  It would probably allow Cruz to respond without saying "dildo", which is a matter of practical value.    I suspect it would re-affirm the notion as Cruz as a disciplined lawyer obligated to duty--acting not as a politician but as a professional.   It would resonate with people with strong respect for authority: policemen, military, and more generally voters who perceive Trump as unruly and undisciplined and "unpresidential" and see Cruz as the alternative.  It would re-affirm the Cruz brand, but might not expand it.   I think the argument has the virtue of being honorable--which may be sufficient.  Surely, even this year, a brief, principled argument has some merit.

But it has the disadvantage of not countering the Democratic attack meme: that there are red state conservatives out there attempting to tell people they cannot buy a fifteen dollar item to use in the privacy of their own bedroom, another example of Republican over-reach for them to cite. And by responding to the attack Cruz dignifies it as a matter worthy of issue, a dangerous path, since it allows cable panel debates:  Dildo, lawyer, dildo, duty, dildo, professionalism, dildo.  

Robert Guyer is a lawyer in Florida whose practice has moved primarily toward teaching citizens how best to influence legislation, with a book and seminars presented nationally.  His website,  http://learn-to-lobby.com  describes his approach for helping citizens be effective in shaping legislation.

Guest Post by Robert Guyer

Robert Guyer: Guest Post 

As our grandfather - criminal lawyer, mayor of Cleveland, and known as the “boy-millionaire” in the 1920s – taught Thad and me as children, “It’s not for me to judge the guilt or innocence of my client, but to represent him to the best of my ability.”   This is the star to which we were taught to navigate. 

At the University of Florida law school I was taught in jurisprudence class that we lawyers are the “new priests” of society. People would no longer look to religion for behavioral guidance but to us lawyers. We lawyers had the power to create “rights.”   In our constitutional law textbook one author commented that the expansion of rights seems to be endless; there being no genesis beyond lawyers speaking them into existence. Rights are unknowable only awaiting lawyerly discovery.  

Lawyers discover new moralities hidden in penumbras, evolving standards of decency, and without  “even a thin veneer of law.” Lawyers give congregants anomie in place of moral consensus because lawyerly established rights largely come from shattering cultural consensus, mores, and the law itself. Ted Cruz knew all of this when the dildo case was his to argue. 

He also knew that not only is there no constitutional right to use a product, there is no constitutional right to manufacture or operate a business selling  them. Absent a constitutional right, then the will of the people as expressed through their enactment of laws must prevail. If the people want to allow or ban a product they can, whether the product is marijuana, bath-salts, or didoes.  

I represented corporations and industry associations before legislatures and regulatory agencies. Some of my principles’ positions were idiotic and even self-destructive. However, after I gave my counsel it was theirs to accept or reject. I recall at times fierce rebuff of my advice. However, if I was going to be their advocate it was my duty to the best of my ability to achieve their legal goals; while I was guided by law, morality, and legal ethics. If I didn’t give my best for them I would have violated the most fundamental duty of all attorneys and that is zealous representation of our clients.  (Restatement of the Law (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers. §16  Lawyer’s Duties to a Client–Generally American Law Institute. (2016))

I can’t speculate on attorney Cruz’s mind as he received the dildo case. Maybe he didn’t take to the priest role. He may have believed the people - not lawyers - have the right to structure their social order as they think best. However, I can say without a doubt that he had a duty to represent zealously his client – the citizens of the state of Texas. He did it and did it well. He has nothing for which to be ashamed. Rather, he should be admired as a lawyer faithful to his profession and his clients.

Request for Comments on Campaign Strategy

I would like your help with a blog post.

This is a kind of RFP, that is a Request For Post.   Let me explain.

This blog has attempted to explore strategy, messaging, and campaign style and to do so looking as objectively as possible on craftsmanship and skill, not on merit from my point of view.   My effort for objectivity has helped me see the deftness and appeal of candidates I don't expect to support as well as the problems in the campaigns of my preferred candidate.

So here is the little exercise:   What, if anything, should Democrats do with the bit of Cruz history that as Solicitor General in Texas he defended on behalf of Texas the Texas law that made the sale of "obscene devices"  that are "designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs."   That is, they had a law outlawing the sale of dildos in Texas, although not their private use of them by consumers.   

Cruz said the law was within the purview of a state to regulate safety and public morality and that even if the law were "uncommonly silly" (as he described it out of court) it was within the right of Texas to outlaw things that promoted immorality and the courts should leave this to legislatures and the democratic process to resolve whether it was reasonable or not as a law.   The plaintiff group argued that this was deep over-reach into the zone of personal privacy found in the 14th Amendment and that the court must decide that no legislature can create a law that invades that Constitutional protection.   The Appeals Court agreed with the plaintiff, not Texas.

I think I summarized this accurately, but in any case my primary interest is in the politics of it, not the law of it.

Here are links to two articles which describe the issue:  

http://www.snopes.com/ted-cruz-opposed-self-pleasuring/

http://goo.gl/UDYAnL

In an environment in which the opponent's record is used as a weapon to create fear or disgust or derision, and in which guilt by association is universal unless it is vigorously denied and condemned, what should Democrats do and what should Cruz do?   For example, Trump is not a Ku Klux Clan member.  But his hesitation instantly to condemn David Duke and the Klan was argued to be equivalent of support.  Hillary Clinton's standing near Bill DeBlasio when he made reference to "CP time" in a stupid joke was argued to be proof of her anti-black racism.  People are put into political traps because the only way to escape the charge would be for Trump strongly to condemn the Ku Klux Klan and u disavow them (which he did) or for Hillary strongly to condemn the joke as an outrage of overt racism voiced by a person she now utterly rejects (which she could not and did not do).

A useful point of attack

Politicians get tagged with things that can be attributed to them, either by association or by artful and intentional mis-reading of what they said, especially when it fits a narrative the opposition is trying to build.  An example in 2012 was Obama's awkwardly worded reference to business people being beneficiaries of the American military, our roads, our educational systems, etc.  It fit a narrative the GOP campaign wanted to project: Obama doesn't like or appreciate self reliant businesspeople.

The Democratic message game would be either to require Cruz fully to own and endorse the Texas law, saying that vibrator devices are a moral scourge, or to criticize Texas for making such a law, or to attempt a lawyerly fine line of saying he was doing his job which looks to the public like lawyerly hypocritical mealy mouth waffling.   Democrats charging that this is yet another example of Republican Big Government Bedroom Snooping associated with their meddling in women's reproductive freedom makes the charge part of a bigger picture of GOP culture war.

Bad Headline for Cruz

Plus it forces Cruz to try to explain dildos, which is the equivalent of a politician putting on a big silly hat of some kind--a sure-fire mistake.  Any sound bite with Cruz saying "stimulation of genital organs" makes him look creepy.

It would be a good attack point.   Wouldn't it?  Keep Cruz explaining dildos.  More dildos.  Repeat.  Saturday Night Live would love it.

But now switch sides.   How does Cruz parry this?  What is the strongest way to counter the attack?

***Immediately attack the attacker and hope to make her sorry she brought it up?  "This is yet another example of Hillary and Bill Clinton and their disgusting insertion of sexual behavior into the political debate of Americans who care more about their family's safety and job than they do hearing about Bill and Hillary's sexual fascinations!   You want to talk about sex, Hillary, bring it up with Bill!"

***Talk like a lawyer and a person of constitutional rectitude?  "I thought the law was silly and said so at the time.   I did my job, representing Texas, because I obey the rule of law, and if Hillary actually cared about the Constitution she would understand that."

***Attack the culture war snobs?  "Hard working Americans are tired of being sneered at and mocked by hipsters and snobs who think it is just dandy for men to put on a bra and waltz into bathrooms for women and girls.  I did not support the law--it went too far-- but I understood the impulse behind it, to get trashy anything goes in-your-face sexual acting out and bright purple tex toys out of the faces of our children.   I'm sick of the trust-fund snobs of the Upper West Side of Manhattan with their contempt for hard working Americans."

Would any or all of those responses be the right approach?    My own sense is that both sides might, even anticipating the other's response, be content to have it play out.    A Democratic weapon is the notion of Republican bedroom over-reach and it solidifies the base of younger people who fear and resent Republican initiatives in this area.   But a red-state Republican weapon is fear and resentment of liberal and PC snobbery on matters of sex, church, and civilization that fueled Reagan Democrats in the past and Trump now.

Imagine this to be a pop-quiz question in a political science course.   What should the Democrats do with this, if anything?   What should Cruz do if the attack comes?

Can Hillary push "Reset"?

Guest Cartoon

"You are too hard on Hillary!"

People have said that to me.   

I do not criticize Hillary for the sorts of things that reverberate in GOP and Fox News and talk radio circles: Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, supposed murders and lesbianism and whatnot.   I consider that she has been in the political arena where people who collect campaign money from oil companies and banks express shocked outrage that their opponent has proven herself to be utterly corrupt by having demeaned herself and her office by accepting naked bribes from oil companies and banks in the form of campaign money from oil companies and banks.   It is just political hypocrisy.

Hillary is who she is:   an experienced and very able practitioner of progressive domestic politics and a moderate national security hawk, and she does this in an environment where the political center of gravity is toward more conservative domestic politics, more traditional social values, and more hawkish foreign policy.

My concern about Hillary is that she is ignoring something voters are clearly saying they want: saying it through their votes for very improbable candidates Trump and Sanders especially, but also through their rejection of Jeb Bush and other overtly traditional candidates.   Voters want some sign of change.  Voters want to push "reset".

They want change in a variety of areas but her Democratic friends are focused on crony connection between Wall Street and other elites and government.  Trump voters who had been part of the Democratic Party coalition (i.e. Reagan Democrats) agree.   That is Hillary's identity problem--her being stuck in the deep mud of her own identity.  That is, she owes her success to her respect within people holding the levers of power, yet voters are uneasy or outright angry with those self interested levers of power.  The political traction that allowed her to get to where she is has now become a liability.

The Clinton Foundation succeeded tremendously in using the connection between government, celebrity, and corporate power.   Hillary is stuck with that history; it is part of her brand.  This connection between government and special interests is not unusual.  Indeed, our campaign finance rules nearly require it.  Supposedly if one takes campaign money from enough people then no one person controls you.  The revolving door of politics and special interests is so common as to be a cliche.  Elected officials and top staff to leave government to go to K-Street or Wall Street and vice versa.   Kasich did.  Cantor did.  Mitt Romney did.  Dick Cheney did the ideal round trip: government to megabucks at Halliburton then back.   The problem for Hillary is that this is better Republican branding--the brand of being business-friendly--not Democratic brand, though both parties do it.  (Democrats do it as a one way street, from government to the big bucks, but not back; Republicans can go back because the "business experience" doesn't mess up their brand.)  

Bad luck for Hillary.  She is stuck with being very business-friendly just at the time that notion got toxic because Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders channeled voter anger over the Wall Street bailout, crony capitalism generally, and trickle down economics.

Can Hillary become an agent of change?  Can she credibly appear to distance herself from that history?   She has not yet done so.   

I am reminded of being in the audience at performances for musician groups with a long history--performers who sometimes in mid or late career tour hoping to present new music or older familiar music in a new way.   I like the performer--which is why I paid a high price for the ticket--but I am unsatisfied with what they perform.   For example, imagine the Beach Boys, doing music from my youth.  I might go hoping to hear "Good Vibrations" live.   But instead, they insist on singing gospel songs.   Say, what?   They would be a beloved group but the concert would be disappointing.   They would have the potential to thrill but they are singing the wrong songs.   Hillary is the right performer, but she is refusing to sing the song I want to hear.   Or maybe she can no longer sing it.   In any case, she sounds "pretty good" to me, but I don't get the thrill I want to feel.

That is the reiterated comment I hear about Hillary, that she is "pretty good", the "best possible", and "on balance" what needs to be "settled for".   What is the missing piece: the notion of hope and change, the two words that were the basis for Obama's victory over her 8 years ago.  Voters want "reset", they want someone to be free, or freer, of the established political order.   Hillary is on stage now and she is performing a set the audience finds disappointing.   Voters want to hear her criticize the very special interests that brought her this far, that she is an agent of change, and that she is a vehicle of hope for something different and better.

Can Hillary be the candidate of Hope and Change?   If she isn't, then Trump might be.

Trump is becoming FDR

Guest Cartoon

Trump doesn't mind changing his mind.

Trump is a populist. He might even be an old style liberal.   He voices goals and impulses and desires that reflect a notion of a great America that acts in the interests of regular non-elite Americans.  Populism represents people who gamble at casinos, not people who own the casinos.   He voices their resentments over affirmative action and the perceived slights to the traditional majority, their perceived economic interest as it relates to immigration and foreign competition, and their fears at a time of ethnic and religious warfare.   

To my liberal, progressive, educated friends that does not sound "liberal".   It sounds George Wallace-like.   It sounds Archie Bunker-like.  It sounds blue collar, unsophisticated, conservative.

Hillary at a Fundraiser: a comfort zone

But Trump is flexible on policy and Hillary is not.  Yesterday I used the metaphor of a truck getting stuck in the mud--an example of having an attribute (traction in trucks, anti-elite populism for Trump, establishment credentials for Hillary) that gets you some distance but then becomes a liability.    Hillary is establishment, on the surface and deep down.   For better or worse Hillary is stuck being who she is.   She insists on keeping secret--and therefore alive as an issue--whatever she may have said to Goldman Sachs.  Today's news discusses how thoroughly she is a part of the interventionist strong-military cold war tradition that got America into Vietnam and now the Middle East.  (Read "How Hillary Became a Hawk" in today's NY Times: http://goo.gl/p5vbfb   Trigger warning: Liberals and doves and people unhappy with our Middle East interventions won't like what they read.)

Trump isn't ideological and hasn't apparently thought very deeply or carefully about policy, not even after 9 months of campaigning.  How can he dare be so vague and uninformed--far less informed than any attentive reader of the NY Times or a serious news magazine like The Economist, or any regular reader of this blog?   Answer: he doesn't really care about policy.   He cares about America winning, America asserting its power, America serving the popular desires of Americans.   He does not feel the need to be consistent in policy, only consistent in seeking policies that reflect the voters' will.

Transition for Trump

Trump is transitioning, right now, before our eyes, shedding unpopular GOP policies.   

  ***He wants the GOP to change its abortion stance to allow abortions in some cases, which is popular.  (Current GOP platform says NO abortions ever, a tough position to run on.)

  ***He now says he wants very rich people to pay more in taxes, not less, which offends traditional GOP orthodoxy of trickle down, but is very popular.

  ***He is announcing his openness to LGTB position on bathrooms, which is popular with young people.

Text of a "Stop-Trump" TV ad run in Wisconsin:

That ad was intended to hurt Trump.  The GOP donor class is out of touch.   

This attack ad against Trump explains the problem that GOP orthodoxy is having with middle and working class voters, and why Trump is upsetting the GOP policy orthodoxy.  The elites want tough-love trickle down with tax cuts for the rich and austerity for the poor, and want the poor to like it.  Trump says the people deserve a bigger slice of the pie and the government is here to give it to them.  Voters prefer Trump.

Trump is flexible and is now sounding almost liberal.  He isn't saying, as Bill Clinton did, that the "era of Big Government is over."   He is saying, as did FDR, that government is here to serve the people by building infrastructure, by adopting policies to help workers, to tax the rich, to defend against frightening enemies, and by directly helping the needy.

Big government on behalf of the people: this is a rejection of Reaganism and an embrace of an earlier, very popular set of policies at a time of economic stress: the New Deal.

Getting unstuck in the mud of past impressions will not be easy  for Trump because first impressions are hard to shed, but he is making the effort.  Trump may appear "presidential" at last.  Trump cites George Patton and Douglas McArthur as military models.   Is his unfair treatment of Muslims presidential?  Well, FDR interred Japanese because FDR said they couldn't be trusted. Better safe than sorry.  America has since apologized for doing this, but it was popular when FDR did it, and now Trump is openly voicing suspicion of Muslims.  Some people are appalled--how un-American.  But in the moment of uncertainty, 1942, American interred Americans of Japanese extraction and it took 46 years for George H W Bush to sign an apology.   Trump is modeling FDR, not Bush.     

Trump has always been the "change" candidate and now he is shaping himself toward more of a compassionate populist who rejects the special interests and brings back into alignment the government and the will of the people.

Hillary, for now, continues to lead a coalition of aggrieved interest groups, which may be a winning hand.  There are a lot of women, Hispanics, blacks, and liberals who want a new Supreme Court.   But her situation is complicated by the fact that voters seem to be saying they are tired of the current political establishment and they believe that the special interests of money, PACs and K-Street are screwing the average person.   Voters are supporting candidates who say government and the interests and will of the people are not aligned.   Whatever Hillary said to the people at Goldman Sachs is troubling to lots of people and we will likely keep hearing about it and Hillary is keeping the mystery and conspiracy alive.   She scoffs when people say she is "establishment", but she is not doing what she needs to do to show she is in fact independent enough to be "Fighting for Us", her campaign slogan.

Voters want change.  They want to press reset on the special interests.  They want a new deal, and for that FDR, the author of the original New Deal, is the role model.  

Hillary may think she is the successor to FDR.  But so may Trump.

Trump-the-judo-master vs. Hillary

Guest Cartoon

New York probably settled some things.    

Hillary is unstoppable and Trump got his mojo back.

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

Bernie may well do well in the remaining states but it simply won't matter because Hillary has a big enough head start that she can limp across the finish line.   She may well march across proudly, but either way, she now has it won.   Hillary will be the Democratic nominee.

Trump recovered from the Wisconsin loss, and by winning an actual significant majority shows plausibility that he is not a niche candidate with a low ceiling of 40%.  It is far from over but Trump showed he could change, he showed he could bounce back, and he showed that in some places a majority of Republicans like him.   That is a triple milestone.  Trump could easily be the nominee.

Trump gets great ratings because he fights asymmetrically.  He doesn't disagree, he de-legitimizes.  He has begun calling Hillary Clinton "Crooked Hillary."  This is a classic example of "begging the question", i.e. assuming a premise rather than proving it.   In debate or logic it is known as an "error".  In politics it is known as a winning formula.   

"Crooked Hillary."   Trump is trying to brand Hillary as "crooked" so that voters will have that frame or interpretation in mind as a way to understand or interpret future events.   Someone says she didn't handle her emails correctly, but she says it was perfectly legal?  Well, no wonder she would claim that because, after all, she's "crooked."   She got well paid by Goldman Sachs for doing a celebrity speech,  just like Reagan did after he was out of office.  Was Hillary corrupted by it?  Hillary claims no.   Well, no wonder she would claim that because, after all, she's "crooked."

Trump is a genius at getting the media to play along with it.  He has de-legitimized the media as a credible referee or objective truth-teller.  (Trump:  who are you going to believe, me or the lying dishonest media?? )

Hillary's strength is her brand of familiar center-left establishment reasonableness so she will likely be competent and reasonable, and her weakness is that very brand, because voters are saying they don't trust this system and want change.  Trump is well placed to exploit this positioning for Hillary, charging that she is sold out to Wall Street, is complicit in establishment mistakes domestically and abroad, is excessively politically correct, and that she is "crooked."  In short, he doesn't acknowledge Hillary for who she is, he accuses her of being who she is.

Trump's strength is that he is outside the box, flexible, extemporaneous, full of self-confidence, and a master at manipulating the status quo in media, in politics, and the established order among the interest group coalitions that have power in the Republican party.   His weakness is that those groups are threatened by him and as a seat of the pants talker he makes mistakes.  So he come across as "unpresidential."    Like Hillary, his strength is his weakness.   

Hillary will appear safe; Trump will appear risky.   The harder Trump attacks the more careless and unpresidential he may appear.  But the more safe and responsible Hillary presents herself, the more she is locked into a discredited establishment.   Each candidate has a brand that is weakened when it asserts itself because of the flip side embedded in the strength.

Hillary: success as a practitioner in the political system

The ability to do something very, very well (Trump disrupt a discredited establishment; Hillary as very responsible and experienced) has its downside.   Garrison Keillor related a charming story about a Minnesota farmer who came into some money and brought his older pickup truck to the Ford dealer to trade it in for a 4 wheel drive rig.   "My two-wheel drive pickup keeps getting stuck," he told the salesman.   Six months later he returned to the  dealership hoping to trade his new truck back in for a 2-wheel drive truck.  The salesman asked the problem.  "I still get stuck just as often, but now I get stuck further from the road."

Trump: success in discrediting the GOP establishment

Candidates strengths brought them far.   Trump's skill at discrediting the establishment has likely won him the Republican nomination and Hillary's experience as a practitioner in the establishment has almost certainly won her the Democratic one.   Each are now further into the mud flats where the very strength that got them this partial victory makes them more vulnerable to attack for that very attribute.  I expect both of them to get stuck in the mud of their own brand strength.   Only Trump could have so disrupted the GOP establishment.   Only Hillary could have done so well courting Democratic elected officials, raising money from powerful interests, and been involved so deeply in the health care and foreign policy achievements and disappointments of the country.  So they are now in dangerous territory,

Trump has the better record of flexibility to change himself as necessary which gives him the advantage getting unstuck.  But he may have already driven himself too deeply into the mud to get out.  In creating supporters he has created implacable foes.  The Stop Trump movement will remain into the general election.   No matter how flexible and good you are, if you are stuck too deep you are going no where.