>No, I'm not. But if part of your self-described qualification for the office is your leadership experience and quality, then the inability to run a good campaign is a campaign issue.
>
>What are you talking about? This makes no sense to me. Have you been reading Saul Alinsky again?

Among Trump's regular assertions is that he'll have "the best people." But the folks running his campaign have been, frankly, terrible. In fact, they've been terrible in two senses. First, in that his campaign is a mess. He went to Washington state last night. The last time a Republican won Washington was Reagan's 1984 landslide. The closest recent race there was 2000, when Gore won by 5.5. FiveThirtyEight says Hillary has a 96+% chance of winning there. Why would Trump waste time on a rally there? This isn't the first time recently that he's spent his time in a state whose outcome isn't even slightly in doubt.

Similarly, all this confusion over the last week or so on what the Trump immigration policy is is a sign of a disordered campaign. Well-run campaigns have policies and put them on their websites. There might be tweaks, but everyone in the campaign knows the basic policy.

Beyond that, Trump's campaign leaders are terrible in the human sense. The more that comes out about Bannon, the more horrible he seems to be. Lewandowski hit a reporter. Etc., etc.

If Trump's value proposition is that he'll be a great president because he's a great leader who brings in great people to do the actual work, how come he can't find great people to run his campaign?

Tamar