Lion of the Blogosphere

Anti-Trump super PACs and Wisconsin

There was a massive amount of anti-Trump advertising in Wisconsin. In addition to $1.4 million spent by Cruz, $2 million was spent by anti-Trump Super PACs. And there was also probably a big wave of last-minute ads not accounted for in yesterday’s news.

Where is the anti-Trump money coming from?

The “Club for Growth” is a super PAC with the goal of keeping Republican Party policies friendly to huge corporate interests and the super-rich. Of course they have the usual claims about why having low taxes on the richest Americans trickles down to Joe Schmoe, in reality they don’t care about Joe Schmoe. Why are they wasting their money on trying to take down Trump? Besides the ickiness of Trump’s PROLE demeanor, they are probably afraid that he might actually get elected, implement his anti-immigration policies, and significantly increase labor costs (which would be a big boon to Joe Schmoe but hurt the super-rich).

And then there the Our Principles PAC, which is run by a lot of Republican insiders who previously worked for Jeb Bush, Romney, etc. A big source of funding is Marlene Ricketts, wife of billionaire J. Joe Ricketts who became a billionaire by owning discount brokerages which eventually became Ameritrade and then T.D. Ameritrade.

The other big-player in Our Principles PAC is billionaire Meg Whitman, who was the CEO of eBay and then became CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

So we see that Our Princples PAC is also backed by super-rich Big Finance and Silicon Valley types. In both cases, they probably want Hillary to win to prevent Trump from implementing his anti-immigrant policies. Plus there are some Republican types who are either duped into thinking they are “helping” the party, or they are just so familiar with the Republican Party that bends over to huge corporations and the super-rich that they can’t imagine any other way.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 6, 2016 at 9:05 am

54 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Does it never occur to you that some people think that someone as ignorant and low class as Donald Trump shouldn’t be allowed to be the US president?


    April 6, 2016 at 9:24 am

    • Yes, I believe people think that’s why they won’t vote for him, but that’s a message they learned from the mainstream media bashing of him.

    • Pro tip: As long as you vote Republican, you will always be seen as ignorant and low class.

      So vote for the approved candidate who is currently one full step ahead of the FBI.


      April 6, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    • Over who?

      Crazy religious nutjob Ted Cruz?

      Incompetent loser who didn’t have a real job until his 40s Sanders? Who still has 60k+ in personal debt to this day while making nearly 200k/yr for the past decade?

      Clinton is at least smart, but completely unscrupulous.

      Trump who is a competent businessman that has been in the public light for decades, the worst the MSM can dredge up on him is soundbites. Trump is the highest class candidate, he just doesn’t hold back on what he says.


      April 6, 2016 at 6:31 pm

      • “Trump who is a competent businessman”

        Exactly. He may not be god’s gift to business, but at least he’s not a screw-up either. He couldn’t have possibly made so much money being incompetent even with all the luck he had.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        April 6, 2016 at 7:15 pm

      • You used to call Trump a bozo. You were right.


        April 6, 2016 at 9:36 pm

      • He’s not a screwup, but has been a repeated fraud and charlatan. I’m not sure that’s better.


        April 6, 2016 at 11:55 pm

    • You need some new material.


      April 6, 2016 at 7:12 pm

    • Trump makes sense on key issues. Nobody knows everything. I don’t think he knows less then Clinton, for example. What does she know more then Trump?

      What’s low class about Trump? All politicians have filthy mouths and minds, Trump is much better then them. Trump is simply the best!


      April 6, 2016 at 8:05 pm

  2. Governor Walker came out for Cruz. The very influential local talk show guys came out for Cruz. The suburban matrons in a ring around Milwaukee consider themselves too sophisticated for the boorish Trump. The rural areas are mono-cultural and appreciate Cruz’s “Pray our Way to the Future!” plan. As a politically lonely Wisconsinite, I’m not surprised by the result.

    April 6, 2016 at 9:30 am

    • look at the map for results- what Trump did the win was the boonies.

      For instance Trump did best in Iron County with 60%. Middle of nowhere, 25K annual income, 20% college educated.

      Thats bumpkinvile.

      Lion of the Turambar

      April 6, 2016 at 1:12 pm

  3. Greta van Susteran asked Trump in a townhall the other day about corporate mergers (specifically in the case, airlines) and how the anti-trust department of the DOJ under Trump would look. This is the first time I think anyone has asked Trump directly about his views on monopolies and enforcing anti-monopoly laws. Trump said he thinks corporate mergers hurt competition and shareholders and that he favors strong competition at all levels and that he would look very hard at this issue as president. But he specifically declined to mention any industries saying it wouldn’t be smart to create additional opposition before he’s won the election.

    Andrew E.

    April 6, 2016 at 9:38 am

    • Wow, great answer by Trump! All other Republicans believe that the government shouldn’t interfere with mergers because it violates libertarian laissez-faire principles.

      • When Trump is knowledgeable about policy issues he gives excellent and thoughtful responses. He’s gotta start doing some homework to avoid “gotchas”. It won’t be hard, it’s not like we’re talking Sarah Palin here. He’s smart and a quick learner.


        April 6, 2016 at 8:00 pm

  4. A lot of Super PAC people (and let’s be frank, a majority of Republican voters) are probably also worried that Trump will just ruin the economy, period, considering his policies are incoherent and the candidate has not expressed the bare minimum of economic literacy one might expect from a president.

    Trump is calling for massive increases to federal spending along with a giant tax cut for the rich. He apparently wants to use massive hikes in tariffs to cover all the new debt he will create, which other countries are supposed to go along with simply because Trump is the magic man who can make “good deals.”

    Any group looking out for America’s economic interests would be insane NOT to oppose Trump.


    April 6, 2016 at 9:40 am

    • “Trump is calling for massive increases to federal spending along with a giant tax cut for the rich. ”

      And Cruz calls for an even greater tax cut for the rich and abolishing the IRS? Why aren’t they worried about Cruz?

      • Cruz’s plan probably calls for big cuts in government spending too, but Cruz does not talk about that in public. Behind closed doors, Cruz probably tells big donors that he will make big cuts in Medicaid, food stamps and other safety net programs. Cruz probably also wants to start cutting Medicare and Social Security to pay for his tax cuts. With all those cuts and the fairy dust of rapid growth, he will claim to balance the budget.

        This is probably all non-sense, but Trumps plan to balance the budget is even bigger nonsense.


        April 6, 2016 at 2:42 pm

      • Cruz is a pussy and owned by his donors.

        Panther of the Blogocube

        April 6, 2016 at 3:11 pm

      • Because Cruz’ while economic plan might not be perfect, it’s still better than Trump’s.

        Seriously lion, is your argument now just “well everyone sucks, who cares.”


        April 6, 2016 at 3:33 pm

      • Actually, no plan at all is better than abolishing the IRS. And Trump isn’t serious about his tax plan anyway, one of Jeff Sessions’ arch-conservative people wrote it and Trump was too lazy and too disinterested in policy to reality-check it.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        April 6, 2016 at 7:12 pm

      • Because they know he doesn’t mean it.

        “Besides the ickiness of Trump’s PROLE demeanor”

        GOPe hatred of Trump has nothing to do with that. Stop it already, Lion. This is a fixation of yours.


        April 6, 2016 at 7:09 pm

      • It’s the main reason they hate Trump. But it’s taboo to publicly state it.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        April 6, 2016 at 7:17 pm

      • Bullshit. They don’t care a damn about his manner, only his independence from the party line. Do you think if he was on board with immigration and trade, they would hate him?

        You are obsessed with these things, so you project your obsession onto others. You don’t seem to understand that if someone advances another person’s interest, no one cares what you look like.


        April 6, 2016 at 9:26 pm

      • George W. Bush was a prole and a GOP-E darling.


        April 6, 2016 at 11:56 pm

      • “George W. Bush was a prole and a GOP-E darling.”

        Whoever writes stuff like this is a 24-karat asshole.


        April 7, 2016 at 9:04 am

    • Nobody opposed Obama very convincingly. Worrying about debt is so 50s.


      April 6, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    • This whole notion that tariffs are going to cause some kind of cost increase in bogus. Companies cannot simply jack up their prices in proportion to the size of the tariff. All businesses face downward sloping demand curves that severely price increases.

      Think of it this way: does anyone honestly think they are getting a 35% discount on prices right now? That if a company could simply raise its prices by 35%, then don;t you think they would have done so?

      There will be no ruining of the economy. There will simply be the removal of privatized profits and socialized costs.


      April 6, 2016 at 12:45 pm

      • map wrote:
        “This whole notion that tariffs are going to cause some kind of cost increase in bogus. Companies cannot simply jack up their prices in proportion to the size of the tariff. All businesses face downward sloping demand curves that severely price increases.

        Think of it this way: does anyone honestly think they are getting a 35% discount on prices right now? That if a company could simply raise its prices by 35%, then don;t you think they would have done so?

        There will be no ruining of the economy. There will simply be the removal of privatized profits and socialized costs.”

        EXACTLY…..corporate profits are at or near an all-time high, and one big reason is they are able to chase cheap overseas labor without repercussions from america….but if there were a tariff, that would put pressure on corporations to keep prices down to beat the competition even while costs rise due to tariffs.


        April 6, 2016 at 10:33 pm

    • are probably also worried that Trump will just ruin the economy, period, considering his policies are incoherent and the candidate has not expressed the bare minimum of economic literacy one might expect from a president.

      Sigh. Trump is the only one talking sense about the economy. All the pieces are there, smart people should be able to put it together rather than have Trump spoon feed you. See here for example:

      “All other candidates are beginning their policy proposals with a fundamentally divergent perception of the U.S. economy. They are working with, and retaining the outlook of, a U.S. economy based on “services”; a service-based economic model.

      While this economic path has been created by decades old U.S. policy, and is ultimately the only historical economic path now taught in school, Trump intends to change the course entirely. Because so many shifts -policy nudges- have taken place in the past several decades, few academics and even fewer MSM observers, are able to understand how to get off this path and chart a better course.

      Candidate Trump is proposing less dependence on foreign companies for cheap goods, (the cornerstone of a service economy) and a return to a more balanced U.S. larger economic model where the manufacturing and production base can be re-established and competitive based on American entrepreneurship and innovation.

      No other economy in the world innovates like the U.S.A, Trump sees this as a key advantage across all industry – including manufacturing.

      The benefit of cheap overseas labor, which is considered a global market disadvantage for the U.S., is offset by utilizing innovation and energy independence.

      The third highest variable cost of goods beyond raw materials first, labor second, is energy. If the U.S. energy sector is unleashed -and fully developed- the manufacturing price of any given product will allow for global trade competition even with higher U.S. wage prices.

      In addition the U.S. has a key strategic advantage with raw manufacturing materials such as: iron ore, coal, steel, precious metals and vast mineral assets which are needed in most new modern era manufacturing. Trump proposes we stop selling these valuable national assets to countries we compete against – they belong to the American people, they should be used for the benefit of American citizens. Period.

      EXAMPLE: Currently China buys and recycles our heavy (steel) and light (aluminum) metal products (for pennies on the original manufacturing dollar) and then uses those metals to reproduce manufactured goods for sale back to the U.S. – Donald Trump is proposing we do the manufacturing ourselves with the utilization of our own resources; and we use the leverage from any sales of these raw materials in our international trade agreements.

      When you combine FULL resource development (in a modern era) with with the removal of over-burdensome regulatory and compliance systems, necessarily filled with enormous bureaucratic costs, Donald Trump feels we can lower the cost of production and be globally competitive. In essence, Trump changes the economic paradigm, and we no longer become a dependent nation relying on a service driven economy.

      In addition, an unquantifiable benefit comes from investment, where the smart money play -to get increased return on investment- becomes putting capital INTO the U.S. economy, instead of purchasing foreign stocks.

      With all of the above opportunities in mind, this is how we get on the pathway to rebuilding our national infrastructure. The demand for labor increases, and as a consequence so too does the U.S. wage rate which has been stagnant (or non-existent) for the past three decades.

      As the wage rate increases, and as the economy expands, the governmental dependency model is reshaped and simultaneously receipts to the U.S. treasury improve. More money into the U.S Treasury and less dependence on welfare programs have a combined exponential impact. You gain a dollar, and have no need to spend a dollar. That is how the SSI and safety net programs are saved under President Trump.

      When you elevate your economic thinking you begin to see that all of the “entitlements” or expenditures become more affordable with an economy that is fully functional. As the GDP of the U.S. expands, so does our ability to meet the growing need of the retiring U.S. worker. We stop thinking about how to best divide a limited economic pie, and begin thinking about how many more economic pies we can create.”

      Andrew E.

      April 6, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    • The federal government was mostly funded by tariffs in the nineteenth century.

      In fact, a big reason the federal income tax was instituted in 1913-4 was that the Democrats had control of the White House and Congress at that time, and in those days tariffs were a partisan issue, with Democrats favoring low tariffs and the Republicans favoring high tariffs. The Democrats realized that if they cut tariffs as much as they wanted to, the federal government needed an alternative source of revenue, and so they brought in the income tax.

      Raising tariffs would enable income taxes to be reduced. Usually proposals to reduce or eliminate the income tax propose some sort of national sales tax as an alternative. A tariff is just a sales tax on imported goods only, essentially domestically made goods get a discount.

      The argument is made that protectionism means less economic growth, but taxes in general reduce economic growth and always have. Taxes on goods hurt commerce, whether or not the discriminate in favor of domestically produced goods. Income taxes are essentially taxes on wages and have a negative effect on the labor market. The problem is which particular effect is least harmful. But the US economy did fine in terms of growth during the high tariff era.


      April 6, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    • “the candidate has not expressed the bare minimum of economic literacy one might expect from a president.”

      Neither has anyone else. At least Trump mentions stagnant wages. He and Bernie are the only ones who have any clue at all, though both are very unsophisticated on economics.


      April 6, 2016 at 5:48 pm

  5. “And then there the Our Principles PAC, which is run by a lot of Republican insiders who previously worked for Jeb Bush, Romney, etc.

    In both cases, they probably want Hillary to win to prevent Trump from implementing his anti-immigrant policies. ”

    Wait what?

    Its the fiendish Fluoridates controlling the Boy Sprouts working for the Gnomes of Zurich.

    Lion of the Turambar

    April 6, 2016 at 9:41 am

    • With the Mind Control Satellites.


      Half Canadian

      April 6, 2016 at 3:48 pm

      • Orbital mind control lasers.

        Controlled by the Semiconscious Liberation Army.


        April 7, 2016 at 1:31 am

  6. Yes to all of this. And middle class white schmucks across the fruited plain buy into the “freedums! growf! libertees! uhhhrrr!” that the rich feed them via their sock puppets on talk radio, the Wall Street Journal and so on. That super Prog guy that wrote “What’s the Matter With Kansas” or whatever it was, was correct that people vote against their own interests. Only I’m pretty sure he’d be 100% in favor of open borders, so he doesn’t really know what their interests are, but his point was accurate anyway.

    Though honestly, until Trump there really WAS nobody to vote for. No one on either side gave a rat’s patootie about the white middle and working classes, other than to farm them for votes and taxes. Now that someone showed up who might actually help, they can’t see through the noise. Well, the working classes can, but much of the middle can’t, because they’re too “smart.”


    April 6, 2016 at 11:10 am

    • That’s a brilliant comment and I passionately agree with it. Though, to be fair, things have changed. Or, at least, things have been changing for decades and have recently reached a critical point. Freedom. growth and liberties made sense before. Now we have bigger fish to fry.


      April 6, 2016 at 3:30 pm

  7. As a rhetorical point, anti-immigration is pro-immigrant. By keeping the country nice and livable, we’re making it a better place for the select group of people who we allow to enter.


    April 6, 2016 at 11:31 am

  8. Ultimately, the establishment never plays on an even playing field. Expecting them to play fair is like going to a casino and feeling scandalised when the odds favor the house. If a normal candidate were in Trump’s position, not only would the party have rallied around them at this point, but more importantly the establishment media would be talking about the race in the past tense and making anyone who continues to take the primaries seriously seem ridiculous. And voters would follow suit. But Trump isn’t a normal candidate and party leaders, the media, and the voters are within their rights to continue opposing him. The fact that these rights serve establishment interests—well, that’s what makes them the establishment. When the convention gyps Trump out of the nomination, it won’t be stealing, any more than it’s stealing when you walk out of the casino $500 poorer. It’s their convention—they’re following the rules that they created to give them options about how to respond to those that don’t serve their interests. Beating them at their own game is the alternative to violent revolution (or, in the casino metaphor, the alternative to robbing the casino), but nobody said it was going to be easy.

    Greg Pandatshang

    April 6, 2016 at 11:56 am

    • P.S. 80% chance that candidate Trump would be headed to a humiliating defeat against a weak Democratic candidate (vs. 99% chance of Cruz heading to a humiliating defeat, unless HRC is indicted twice during the campaign or something). Narrowly losing the nomination is very likely the best thing for Trump personally and maybe also for the Trumpist movement. It preserves the mythology of “I shoulda been a contender” instead of losing fair and square. Not really what I would root for, but a silver lining for the Trumpists.

      Greg Pandatshang

      April 7, 2016 at 10:29 am

  9. I still find the Wisconsin results somewhat puzzling. Trump carried the adjacent states of Illinois and Michigan. Why did he do so poorly in Wisconsin? Scott Walker didn’t help, and, as you point out, the super-PACS spent a lot of money trying to defeat him (and they succeeded). But is that all?

    Not sure how this bodes for the general election. A lot of Republicans don’t like Trump, but his supporters are very loyal and enthusiastic. If Trump enters the convention with the largest number of delegates, votes and states, but not a majority, he probably will not get the nomination. This will seem like the “smoke-filled room” scenario to his fans (except nobody smokes anymore, so we’ll have to come up with a better metaphor). They may well react with “we wuz robbed” and stay home or even vote Democratic in the general election. I don’t know if either Trump or Cruz can win in November. The GOPe hates both Trump and Cruz, but I think they hate Trump more. Do they really hope to lose this election but come back four (or eight) years later with another ¡Jeb! or Marco? Do they think their base will fall for that? If the Republicans lose this time, there may not be another Republican president.

    It all seems very messy and uncertain right now. The Democrats have not won three presidential elections in a row since WW II. Sanders is giving Hillary fits, and a lot of his supporters may also stay home if their man doesn’t get the nomination. Hillary, with a boatload of baggage and high negative ratings, is far from an ideal candidate.

    Then there are the land mines, which may or may not go off. For Cruz, it’s the National Enquirer allegations of numerous affairs. True? False? Who knows? If they are factual, however, Cruz’s support among his conservative Christian base (and his prospects) will disappear. For Hillary, it’s the email thing and the possibility of indictment. If this occurs, or if a leaked FBI report recommending indictment that is quashed by Obama and Lynch appears, she’s a dead duck.

    All in all, a very interesting election season. In November, it will seem obvious – he/she had it wrapped up from the beginning, no doubt about it. But for now, nothing is clear.

    Black Death

    April 6, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    • If the nominations are stolen too blatantly, a Trump-Sanders third party ticket would be worthy of some lols. The establishment parties would quake in their cuban heels.


      April 7, 2016 at 3:36 am

  10. You are dead right. I think this is the beginning of the end for Trump. Sad!

    Sagi Is My Guru

    April 6, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    • Wrong. This is just a bump in the road. Trump always has a way of bouncing back. He is probably a bit weary at the moment from fighting against all the aforementioned forces plus the MSM, who is stupidly killing their golden goose that brings in huge ratings.

      I don’t understand why ordinary citizens would not give the country a chance to tap into this guy’s wealth of experience, foresight, good judgment, and extraordinary skills to bring people together to accomplish a goal. He is a proven problem solver and hard worker, unlike the no-show junior senator who has one of the worst attendance records in his workplace.

      An establishment politician is a dime a dozen. But Trump is irreplaceable. If you don’t like him, you can always fire him in four years. But let this good man (he does have a heart of gold, according to those who know him well) have a chance to help save the country. A candidate with brains, heart, and integrity/honesty is hard to find indeed.


      April 7, 2016 at 12:01 am

  11. The Enquirer didn’t release the Cruz-prostitute story that Radaronline said would be released today.


    The Undiscovered Jew

    April 6, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    • Supposedly some character has incriminating documents but won’t release them.


      April 6, 2016 at 9:28 pm

  12. ‘and significantly increase labor costs (which would be a big boon to Joe Schmoe but hurt the super-rich).’

    I hope Trump wins and the salaries go up for workers. I took off today to work on a private job and wad able to pay my Tajik $260 for a 12 hour day. And why not? If I make money, everyone makes money. He was so happy that he had tears in his eyes. $20 an hour and$30 overtime – this was fair for what he had to contribute, or at least that’s what I think. Of course it was cash. I love being able to pay well for workers that are worth it.


    April 6, 2016 at 7:56 pm

  13. I think this is the beginning of the end for Trump. Sad!

    That doesn’t seem like a rational thing to say.

    Isn’t Trump about to pick up a massive haul in delegates through New York and I guess New Jersey. Or do you think Cruz is somehow going to capture them.

    Trump’s position isn’t great considering how much GOPe hate is directed against him but Cruz and Kasich or Ryan aren’t exactly overwhelming either.

    Trump just needs to get Roger Stone and other Evil Guys on our side to get behind the scenes and start cracking heads open.

    This is guerilla warfare.


    April 6, 2016 at 9:55 pm

    • Trump needs to win 1237 delegates, which he can’t do if he loses Indiana to Cruz.

      • Indiana is where the Stupid Christians and TruCons passed that “religious freedom” bill so their restaurants don’t have to serve homos. They are all about “muh gays”. Total Cruz country.

        Otis the Sweaty

        April 7, 2016 at 2:35 am

  14. There is good news for establishment haters:

    Trump won Paul Ryan’s district in Wisconsin. That means hopefully there is enough anti-establishment anger there to get Ryan to lose his job. Eric Cantor lost his job, and I think the guy lined up to primary Paul Ryan is a much better candidate.


    April 6, 2016 at 10:43 pm

    • Successfully primarying Paul Ryan would be a million times more satisfying than was getting rid of Cantor. The media disliked Cantor but they absolutely adore Paul Ryan.

      Also, getting rid of Ryan would show that no pro immigrant GOPer is safe.

      Otis the Sweaty

      April 7, 2016 at 2:38 am

  15. How is this even possible?
    I’ve checked the totals and they are approximately correct.
    I’ve updated the 2016 vote totals.

    April 6, 2016 at 8:19 am authorrichardskeet wrote:

    “Donald Trump Got More Votes In Wisconsin Than Mitt Romney In 2012, And John Mccain In 2008,
    yet he lost!

    TED CRUZ: 531,129————-48%
    DONALD TRUMP 386,370——35%
    (TOTAL- 1,090,000)

    MITT ROMNEY: 346,279——-44.1%
    RICK SANTORUM: 289,648-36.9%
    (TOTAL- 412,000)

    JOHN MCCAIN: 224,755 —-54.74%
    MIKE HUCKABEE: 151,707-36.95%
    (TOTAL- 402,699)

    We’re Supposed To Believe Ted Cruz (Who Moderates Hate,) Got 2Xs The Vote Of Mccain And 67% More Votes Than Mitt Romney?

    We’re Supposed To Believe Ted Cruz Got More Than 100% Of The Total Votes For 2008 And 2012?”

    Nedd Ludd

    April 6, 2016 at 11:31 pm

  16. You may want to see this analysis by Ricky Vaughn, which essentially proves the point I made about the importance of ethnicity:

    More broadly, it seems the battle is WEIRDO vs. clannish, in both parties (WEIRDOs favoring Cruz and Sanders).


    April 7, 2016 at 12:48 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: