The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Wolraich's picture

    Tit for Trump

    By Michael Wolraich on Wed, 05/11/2016 - 3:40pm | Politics

    Donald Trump likes to brag about his negotiating skills, but for a tough negotiator, he's awfully easy to manipulate. There are two types of people in Trumpland: those who are nice to Donald, and those who are not nice to Donald. If you flatter Trump, he'll treat you well. If you criticize him, he'll retaliate. "I'm a counter-puncher," he once told CNN.

    So to win Trump's favor, just say something sweet about him; Vladimir Putin praised him last December, and Trump has been preening over the compliment ever since. And to deliberately draw Trump's fire, say something nasty about him; last week Elizabeth Warren called him a bully and a loser, which dragged him into a distracting and unpresidential tweetfight with someone who is not his opponent.

    Read the full story at RollingStone

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Congratulations on the Rolling Stone credit Michael and on offering excellent advice to the Clinton team.  I most certainly hope they follow the strategy you outline.


    by HSG on Wed, 05/11/2016 - 9:05pm

    Thanks, Hal


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 05/11/2016 - 10:48pm

    Great stuff, Michael.  Congratulations. 
    This one paragraph just makes me shudder.  There is no dealing with a grown man who still thinks like this:

    "This election cycle, we have Tit for Trump. From politicians to journalists to pollsters, Trump is quick to praise anyone who speaks favorably of him, and even quicker to denigrate those who don't. "If I am treated unfairly," he once warned BuzzFeed, "I will go after that reporter." Referring to his Republican primary opponents, he told CNN, "I thought these people were all fine, and they came after me, and then I had to go after them."

    As you say, this is what would make him, and ultimately us, so vulnerable.  His reaction are like those of a spoiled, impetuous child.  Another shuddery passage:
     

    "Unlike game-theory automatons, humans can identify the tit-for-tat strategy and use the knowledge to manipulate their opponents. That is Trump's weak spot, a dangerous one if he were to become president. Savvy operators like Putin would soothe Trump with praise while quietly undercutting American interests. Conversely, adversaries who wanted to drag America into diplomatic or military quarrels could provoke Trump's fury with well-placed barbs."  

    The Republicans have to know this, too, which makes their caving to him as their candidate of choice so reckless.

    One more thing:  I'm kind of shocked by the comments over there.  The Dagbloggers should take a bow.  They've got it all over those sophomoric sillies.


    by Ramona on Wed, 05/11/2016 - 10:11pm

    I never pay attention to comments anywhere but dag.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 05/11/2016 - 10:47pm

    They called you a doo-doo head, but don't let it bother you.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 05/11/2016 - 11:55pm

    They always do. My whole life.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 8:19am

    Will set up a group hug as soon as finished seeing to Ramona.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 8:40am

    What?  What did I do now?


    by Ramona on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 10:45am

    We are bonding together to help you through your difficult time because we're a considerate compassionate bunch. Didn't you get the memo? "Almost Christlike in concern for fellow (Democratic) human beings" - that's us.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 4:01pm

    Oh, that. . .

    Right.


    by Ramona on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 4:37pm

    And here I thought you'd deigned to write about Trump trophy wives.

    The fly in the ointment is a 2-line game theory program: heads Trump wins, tails we lose.

    Trump doesnt mind looking stupid or bossy or sexist or peevish. He just does his thing. And wins.

    Rather than change the players, change the playing field. Up to now the game's on his terms, ones he's inherited, but that he's at home with. Make winning something else.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 05/11/2016 - 11:46pm

    Tit for Trump?  Tit for Trump?  Seriously?  The most sexist thing I've ever read in Rolling Stone this side of Avril Lavigne.

    Congrats, my friend.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 12:28am

    I pitched that for the title, but they didn't go for it, alas. It would have been a hit magnet. They don't have editorial control over dag though. :)

    Thanks again for hooking me up with Lauren!


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 8:17am

    Good article. I'll be watching for you to be on the cover. Congratulations.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 12:49am

    Insulting Trump or calling him a bully is like pouring gas on a BBQ. It's like trying to insult Ted Nugent.

     

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/13/2016 - 11:45am

    But where's Lashley now?  Out of work.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 9:44am

    Ah, but with Donald back in the ring, we'll have America's enemies smashed up against the turnbuckle and in a Bulgarian stranglehold.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 4:03pm

    Great piece, Michael. Congratulations.

    I haven't noticed Hil responding to the "enabler" taunts---which is a good sign. So far Trump has eaten everyone's lunch just by daily taunts and rash comments---which are then rebutted---netting him top coverage in the news cycle and, thus, winning.

    For Trump to win the Presidency, he has to win some rust belt states and Florida. So V.P. picks, and ad strategy must prevent him from gaining momentum in these states. The early ad strategy against Romney---undercutting his biggest claim to fame---his business experience---is at play with Trump. He's a business fraud who has used foreign labor and hurt American workers. Undercut what appear to be his strengths. If you play his tit for tat, you lose---great lesson there.

    To my mind, Warren is the best VP pick---both as a principled Sanders stand-in and to engage Trump and draw fire. If Webb wasn't so far out on some issues, he would be the attack dog personality I would like to see. A mild mannered man like Sherrod Brown would not work nor would a fresh faced youngster---imo.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 10:22am

    Thanks, Oxy. I agree that Warren would be a great VP pick in many ways, but I suspect that she's too independent for Hillary's taste. Presidential nominees prefer obedient running mates, and Clinton is a control freak.

    That said, McCain picked Palin, so who knows?

    There has been a lot of talk about Sherrod Brown, who I thought would be a good pick, but after writing that piece, I'm no so sure. I don't think he's ferocious enough.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 10:40am

    I'm not sure she's too independent, but the outsider role says things that aren't quite acceptable for an insider role, except Donald's changing all that. But Warren's star is "rising", and I personally find her much more credible than Bernie, but I think Bernie's given cover for Warren being more acceptable than 10 months ago, oddly vetting her rather than himself


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/13/2016 - 1:28am

    Good point on the unintended vetting. Interesting article.


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 05/13/2016 - 7:57am

    Now for a substantive comment, I love the idea thatm Trump could be goaded into multiple public feauds with some of the Democratic parties most cunning linguists, from James Carville to Elizabeth Warren to Sarah Silverman, Lena Dunham and Amy Schumer. He could spend months in combat with Comedy Central without laying a glove on Hillary,


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 11:27am

    I can't wait to see these surrogates defending HRC's hawkish ignorant positions on who to bomb in the MENA, a substantive subject Trump moved on to today but Clinton's positions and history seem to be attracting more and more neoconservative support daily.

    This is certainly the most bizarre election situation where the worst of the worst neocons are moving to the Clinton camp and  her Liberal supporters will be obliged to pander to their agendas.

     


    by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 2:50pm

    This is what has been predicted and what we've been waiting for for years. there was a small republicans for Obama contingent. If Sanders had won there would have been a republican for sanders movement. The republican for Hillary movement that's just beginning says more about Trump than it does about Hillary.

    As the republican party has moved further and further right it's been alienating moderate republicans for years. Eventually those moderates would abandon the republican party. I thought it would take a few more election cycles for it to be significant but I never expected the republicans to nominate someone so unstable and unqualified to be president. I'm happy to see republicans leaving their party and voting for the democrats.

    Have we reached a tipping point? Are we about to see a major shift in the direction of our country? Only time, and the elections results, will tell. But I am more hopeful than I have ever been that we might be able to begin moving forward again.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 3:14pm

    Okay, Peter - over the last months it appears tha ISIS has been pushed back and are losing control of their Caliphate. Is this bit of hawkishness good or you think we sbould just let ISIS do what they want to do? Was it America's fault that OBL hijacked planes and blew up embassies, or does he hold responsibility for attacking civilians and choosing destructive paths? Is it good that the US, Anonymous and others are trying to shut down terrorists like the ones in Paris and San Bernardino or is it a sign of too much American oppression? Did Hillary create Saddam Hussein or did he exist before, and was his invasion of Kuwait and Iran and bombong the Kurds a problem?


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 3:37pm

    Peter, should we leave the Mideast and let bloodbaths play out in Syria and Iraq and let a new caliphate be born (hundreds of thousands already dead)? When peaceful protesters rally and their governments kill them, what should we do? Is all military action of ours bad, and what do we do instead?


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/13/2016 - 1:14am

    Yes! Amy Schumer vs Donald Trump. No holds barred!


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 3:10pm

    Now Playboy; well I only looked for the tits.

    But enough of tat?

    WHAT?.....

    But I always looked at Rolling Stone for the Tats?

    WHAT?

    Have you ever felt like you were in a parallel universe?

    Rolling Stone.

    Are you frickin kidding me?

    All Righty Then.

    As it were.

    You really are on your own

     

     


    by Richard Day on Thu, 05/12/2016 - 6:59pm

    Michael, note the article by Jay Cost in the Weekly Standard on the Bull Moose Party.


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 05/14/2016 - 10:07am

    Thanks, Oxy. What a bizarre article. Here is his kicker: 

    This is a fitting description of the Republican party in 2016: the unprincipled Trump standing at the head of a corrupt political force, flanked on one side by K Street lobbyists who use government to line their pockets and on the other by professional politicians regurgitating Reaganesque talking points but lacking true beliefs. Having betrayed the principles that have animated it for so long, this party cannot secure responsible government anymore.

    You have to wonder what planet he lives on. When you eliminate "professional politicians" and Donald Trump's insurgency, who else is left in the Republican Party?

    Morever TR's bolt didn't save the party. It crushed it.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 05/16/2016 - 10:37am