Thread: Trump pivoting away from New York tabloid-style campaigning

Trump pivoting away from New Yorktabloid-style campaigning

By MichaelBarone(@michaelbarone)•6/22/16 6:41 PM
MichaelBarone Senior Political Analyst The Washington Examiner

Donald Trump is the latest proof of the saying that the campaign always reflects the candidate and the insight that the candidate is a product of his experience over the years. So as Trump reshuffles and rejiggers a campaign that has fallen behind Hillary Clinton after clinching the Republican nomination, it's instructive to look at his political ground zero.
Which isNew York and its tabloid politics. I first encountered this in summer 1961 on a family vacation to New York City, as a teenager allowed to travel on the subway (15 cent fare, a dollar gets you six tokens and a dime change) and arrange my own meals (a pizza slice, exotic food back home, for a quarter).
That was the summer of the primary between two-term Mayor Robert Wagner and a challenger supported by the bosses who had backed him twice before. You could watch the campaign in the headlines of the tabloid newspapers on the kiosks outside subway stations.
In those days circulation of the easy-to-read-on-the-subway tabloids was yuuuuuge: Over 1 million for the Daily News and Daily Mirror, about 800,000 for the then liberal New York Post. This was the media environment in which Trump grew up.

Politics was part of the family business. His father Fred Trump was well connected with machine Democrats in Brooklyn and Queens, which helped him get favorable zoning, land assembly and Mitchell-Lama subsidies for the giant apartment towers he built there.
The youngTrump was drawn to politics early on. At 19, he wangled a spot among the bigwigs at the ceremonies opening the Verrazano Narrows Bridge. In his 20s he capitalized on Trump contributions to the mayor and governor to make his first real estate deals in Manhattan.
In the years that followed he was an interested observer of New York's tabloid war campaigns. John Lindsay versus Nelson Rockefeller, Pat Moynihan versus Bella Abzug, Ed Koch versus Mario Cuomo, Al D'Amato versus Chuck Schumer: conflicts fought out in the morning and afternoon editions of the tabloids every day.
I remember watching David Garth, media consultant to Mayors Lindsay, Koch,Giuliani and Bloomberg, phoning tabloid reporters like Deborah Orin and TV anchormen like Gabe Pressman to feed them story lines and suggest headlines for their next edition or broadcast.
Especially the headlines, which dominated the front pages visible on kiosk stands. The Daily News's "FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD!" helped Jimmy Carter carry New York in 1976. The New York Post's 1983 classic "HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR" epitomized the feeling that the city was being overwhelmed by violent crime.

It is commonly said that today's political campaigning, over Internet blogs and Twitter feeds, with never-ending news cycles over every 24-hour period, is something entirely new. Well, up to a point.
Compressing your thoughts into 140-character tweets is not unlike attracting news kiosk browsers with a couple dozen ENORMOUS CAPITAL LETTERS on a tabloid front page.Sitting in your office giving phone interviews to selected media outlets is not all that different from what David Garth used to do.
Deorgatory epithets — Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, Crooked Hillary — were the argot of tabloid headline writers, and insults got you on the front page. D'Amato's characterization of Schumer as a "putz" had lamentable echoes in the primary campaign.
There are limits to the effectiveness of tabloid-style campaigning. The tabloid wars were unique to New York for the obvious reason that no other city has anywhere close to as many subway riders and therefore not as many tabloid buyers. And even there the tabloid wars seem a thing of the past. In New York's subways today you see more people reading their phones than staining their fingers with tabloid ink.
Moreover, even in the years of tabloid wars, New York candidates did other things, like raising money, running television ads and, drawing on experts and their ownin-depth knowledge of government, coming up with serious public policy proposals.

Until this week, Trump has done very little along these lines. And, having won the Republican nomination, he seems to have taken the view of many election winners: If his critics are so smart, how come their candidates lost and he won?
Now, firing his campaign manager and speaking with some seriousness about policy, he seems to have decided that updated-for-the-Internet tabloid war politics, sufficient in the primaries, aren't enough for the general election. Let's see if he sticks to it.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tr...rticle/2594661

If his critics are so smart, how come their candidates lost and he won?

Good point, voters liked someone who told it like it was and were far more interested in a candidate that was not a part of the establishment.

Now, firing his campaign manager and speaking with some seriousness about policy, he seems to have decided that updated-for-the-Internet tabloid war politics, sufficient in the primaries, aren't enough for the general election.

Trump had no chance of winning a general election continuing down the road that won the primaries. I think after the facts surfaced, we saw how much Trump trusts his kids to deliver him a realistic point of view of where he was at and where he was headed without some adjustments to the structure of the campaign.

Moreover, even in the years of tabloid wars, New York candidates did other things, like raising money, running television ads and, drawing on experts and their ownin-depth knowledge of government, coming up with serious public policy proposals.

While these vital activities were barely ramped up, you can't win without them in full function. This also demonstrates the candidates ability to select the right people to manage government if the election is won.

Interestingly enough, while Trump himself may seem a little uncomfortable scripted he will avail himself the opportunity to be on offense versus defense and quite possibly quickly build his warchest.

If Trump adjusts his candidacy to be a Republican hack, I will not vote for him in November. I expect him to continue to advance a presidency that he promised for the primaries, or he can forget my vote.

Certainly that comment would make someone out to be nothing more than a conditional voter fixated on a style that worked for the primaries and has not worked well at all since he became the presumptive nominee. I am sure you can see the difference between changing delivery style to gain enough votes to win a general election versus a continuation of his brash primary style which has clearly maxed out his support (not enough to win a general election) and mired him in the muck. To intimate that his candidacy will turn into a candidate who is a republican hack is a bit premature and shortsighted. Perhaps you enjoyed the candidate more when he was battling his thoughtless comments in the media instead of his opponent. That went nowhere fast and has forced the necessary change to extract the campaign from the grips of all the negative forces draining energy, time and resources from winning. You get nothing as far as his promises he made in the primaries if he does not win and to think you were getting 100% of his promises was never going to happen anyway.

I see the biggest changes are going to be in the candidates discipline and the necessary campaign infrastrucutre build out, policy detail and fundraising. Certainly not in the promises made in the primaries, there is no indication of that except for self-funding (surprise). The hispanics want to boycott Home Depot because one of the founders endorsed Trump. They falsely believe that the endorsement was made because HD will benefit from construction of the wall. The ones that work in construction and need HD's products and convenience will continue to support HD, where else are they going to go?

Originally Posted by joe s

Certainly that comment would make someone out to be nothing more than a conditional voter fixated on a style that worked for the primaries ... etc. etc. ....

I'm not kidding or fooling around. I am not a Trump-aholic or a Trump-o-maniac. I will only be convinced enough about a Trump presidency if I get constant reassurance that he will do what he has already said he is going to do. And even then when he gets in, I will continue to be skeptical until he actually gets it done.

If Trump and his politician supporters want a Disneyland ride in the White House, they are not going to get it from this voter. I know I am not alone in this.

His last speech was nothing but Hilary this, Hilary that, Hilary double plus bad. We get it. But voting against Hilary is not going to happen if the same rot that nearly got us Cruz as a Republican candidate is going to get a piece of a Trump administration.

I voted for Romney against Obama, but voted None of the Above in the race between McCain and Obama. And a lot of people clearly knew Romney better than I did. But I don't have to know that much more about Cruz and his ilk to sit this election out if they stick their nose in the tent.

What is it about Trumps positions that are either being compromised or at risk of being walked back to attract enough voters to win? Is there anything he has said that indicates a walking back or just pandering for votes?

By the way, I do appreciate your skepticism because I am not convinced he will do 100% of anything. It will be whatever he can get through. The article was about his genesis in politics, how he experienced it and is reliving it mirroring his campaign to the point where it is no longer is viable.