Trump's most "devastating" attack yet - on Jeb, not Hillary

Of all the uproariously funny — and, in some cases, witheringly accurate — comments that have sprung from the mouth of Donald J. Trump, I believe this is the funniest and most accurate, hurled yesterday at his town hall meeting in New Hampshire, which was booked "at the same time as the former Florida governor," Jeb Bush, was holding his town hall meeting in New Hampshire:

Right down the road, we have Jeb — very small crowd. You know what’s happening to Jeb’s crowd right down the street? They’re sleeping now.

Whatever network I was watching (all three cable-news outlets carried Trump's burlesque) almost instantly provided a a smaller-screen box of Jeb's somewhat live! town hall meeting, and sure enough, the participants looked as though they were fighting the somatic effects of a "Tylenol PM" overdose. Hillary's email troubles might not be "devastating" for her campaign, but Trump's remark about Jeb's atmospheric lifelessness, and the cut-away news coverage of it, were devastating indeed.

If Trump's offensive sustains — and I see no reason why it wouldn't — Bush could find himself pursuing the ignominious destinies of Rick Perry and Lindsey Graham. That much seems analytically plausible. What bewilders, though, is why Bush hasn't unleashed, in a counteroffensive, a few tens of those tens of millions of super-PAC cash against Trump.

My guess is that Team Bush believes it's too early for such an assault; that few voters are paying any attention to politics in August. Team Bush is wrong; it is following the conventional and now outdated playbook. The Obama campaign proved in the summer of the 2012 general election that August was as good as any month for destroying one's opponent. And in 2015, the Trump campaign has continued to upend all the traditional political rules.

By every measure, except that of cash, Jeb Bush is going down. Yet the cash won't do him much good once voters write him off — which they're doing, and which Trump is expediting.

 

Comments

[Anne J]

Say what you want about Hillary's campaign being "joyless" at least she looks focused. My biggest concern with her is the endless, and I mean ENDLESS hounding of her every move just like when she was first lady, a self sustaining attack machine that really doesn't change anyone's mind much, one way or the other about her. Then we have Jeb, who as I have observed before, just looks like he really doesn't want to be there. He looks uncomfortable and his head and body movements remind of someone in search of the nearest restroom. And then of course there is the fear that we will get another four to eight years of W and he has done nothing to calm down that panic. He has all the money and a sense of entitlement to power that goes back several generations and that is all being turned on its ear by a loud, shiny object in a bad toupee.

[Bob]

You're too smart to write it, but I'm not. Didn't the appearance of the insert with the guy nodding off in the foreground seem just a little too perfect? It doesn't seem far-fetched the Trump campaign set up a camera and signaled The Donald when to deliver the line. It's also not impossible that the main broadcast producer(s) also got the signal, which would be catnip for them. This is uncomfortably close to conspiracy theory, but the Trump Show has a lot of TV experience and knows how to coordinate an effective shot, in more than one sense.

[Peter G]

Not to worry. I have learned lately from watching Morning Joe that the e-mail thing is bigger that Watergate. Courtesy of Bob Woodward, one of the guys who investigated that particular sequence of events. Mostly those reporters are talking to themselves and getting very little traction with anyone but themselves. There is a very good reason that journalists as a group are less highly regarded than congress. The reason for the Watergate hyperbole? Something has to be done to take the focus off of Trump. And it must be done now. Chris Hayes covered the same issue last night on the same cable network and concluded that it looks pretty much like bullshit as usual.

I note that Heilemann came closest to admitting the truth this morning, which is that people aren't asking him about the facts of the purported e-mail scandal, they're asking him if they think it will influence anyone else. The answer is in the polling. And it isn't in what Democratic candidate Democratic voters prefer but who they will vote for given the opportunity.

[Peter G]

These are the joys of the uniquely American primary system wherein candidates provide lovely soundbites and images to be used against the winning candidate of their party when they themselves lose. Many mean things are said by candidates for leadership in parliamentary systems it is true but it isn't actually part of the electoral process and usually takes place after an electoral defeat and not as part of the election itself. To every season spurn spurn spurn.

[Bob]

The show would be better compressed into 6 months. The mean would be meaner, the lies more incredible and the backstabbing more vicious. Why are American elections the only things getting slower instead of speeding up?

[RT]

"My guess is that Team Bush believes it's too early for such an assault; that few voters are paying any attention to politics in August."

Jeb! would be right if he was a Democrat, but GOP primary voters *do* pay attention to politics in August.