politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Mark Levin to #NeverTrumpers: The “Stop Trump” effort must not extend to the general election
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/ ... xtend-to-the-general-election/
Published: Apr 7, 2016
Author: Allahpundit
Post Date: 2016-04-07 10:13:36 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 8685
Comments: 58
Via Breitbart and the Right Scoop, you can grumble about this if you’re #NeverTrump but we all understand, I think, that the vast, vast majority of the party will come around to his position by November, right? Don’t get me wrong, stalwart anti-Trumpers may have the numbers to fatally damage Trump’s chances even if they’re just five percent of the electorate. But that’s probably what they’ll be — five percent, not a third of the party despite how much fun it is to ooh and ahh over numbers like that. Never underestimate the power of partisanship, especially when you’ve got a Democrat as unlikable as Hillary topping the other ticket. And even if five percent of Republicans do end up as #NeverTrumpers, that’s not necessarily a death sentence for Trump’s campaign. Why? Because some segment of Bernie fans claim that they’re #NeverHillary: By comparison, Clinton supporters are considerably more open to supporting Sanders should he overtake her large lead in delegates and win the nomination. Just 14 percent of Clinton supporters would shun him in the general election, while 79 percent would support him, the poll found. What’s the actual number of Sanders supporters who’d sit out an election with either Trump or Cruz, both of whom will be painted by Democrats as unprecedented threats to the republic, as GOP nominee? Two percent? Remember all the Hillary fans who vowed after 2008’s bitter primary to loss to Obama that they’d never vote for him for president? How’d that work out? Anyway, click the image to listen to a preview of what conservative media’s apt to sound like this fall if Trump seals the deal in Cleveland. Levin has endorsed Cruz and has fiercely criticized Trump over the past few months (even over the Michelle Fields incident, which is unusual in major conservative media) but he’s prepared to set that aside in the name of beating Clinton. I wonder where Glenn Beck, Trump’s most strident critic in conservative talk radio dating back to last year, is on that. If anyone’s going to carry the #NeverTrump banner to the bitter end, it’s him. How could you do it under these circumstances as bad as the Republican may be, how could you stay home and allow that? Or worse, how could you vote for that? That’s a disgrace, an absolute disgrace. So you duke it out in the Republican primary process. You duke it out Republican convention. You insist that rules are rules and the rules be followed. And you call them out if they try to change them. And you fight like hell. But you do not vote for Hillary Clinton. Or you don’t not stay home. ‘Wah, my candidate isn’t nominated,’ and let the left elect their favorite candidate. Not in this election. That’s my view. Poster Comment: Levin is lowering his rhetoric against Trump. Clever. One out of four Sanders supporters– 25 percent – say they would not back Clinton in a general election if she became the Democratic nominee for president, while just 69 percent say they would support her, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll. 
If you believe Hillary Clinton is virtually as off her rocker, left-wing socialist as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), if you believe that Hillary Clinton is in part responsible for the rise of ISIS and for what took care of Benghazi and what’s taking place in Libya and that [Vladimir] Putin is on the move and that China is on the move and all the rest of it, then how the hell – how the hell could you take any steps – passively or affirmatively that would put that woman in the Oval Office?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: TooConservative (#0)
Levin's dreams of rewriting the Constitution are fading along with Cruz's campaign.
Krauthammer gave him a shoutout also: "Trump Has "The Most Rock Solid Floor Of Support" In Memory, "Despite The (Wisconsin) Loss"
Kind of a gratuitous shot there. This has nothing to do with Levin's pet project. The upshot is Levin isn't going to be a #NeverTrump type or continue talking like that. I expect we'll see much the same from others like Vannity and Ingraham and Limbaugh overall. And they'll also shy away from any #NeverCruz talk. The talk radio people, mostly having done so much to help Trump, don't want the blame for Trump getting the nomination. And Levin doesn't want any blame for encouraging people to be stay-homes or third-party voters if Trump does get the nomination. So they're all going for a GOP unity message. Not much of a surprise. It occurs to me that they already know the fix is in and that Trump won't be the nominee. If so, this would be a smart play to invoke fair-contest rules to try to shame the Trump people into voting for Cruz (or another nominee).
He remains very opposed. I thought his remarks were in the context of "Yes, he lost badly in Wisconsin but he still keeps all of his core voters and they never desert him, no matter what." Trump has made repeated personal attacks on Krauthammer, far more than Krauthammer's attacks on Trump's policy ideas or conduct.
I won't do either. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Stupid people think dumb things are smart.
yup ,Trump will have a solid 35-40 % support in the general election. He will have a hard sell to the rest of the American people ;let alone conservative voters . I get Levin's point . I voted for less than ideal standard bearers before . But Trump takes that to places I many not want to go. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Whoa! Sounds scary. Trump is talking about a lot of positive things for the country -- the border wall, deporting illegals, pausing Syrian immigration, "fair" trade, tax cuts, fixing the VA, strengthening the military, etc. You're familiar with those issues and more. What I don't understand are these negatives you're referring to -- negatives that offset these positives to the point where you may not vote for him. Maybe I'm missing something. What are these negatives?
if he's so big on reducing taxes then why did he criticize Scott Walker for not raising taxes in Wisconsin ? I opposed his statist authoritarianism ,his lack of conservative constitutional principles .His lack of basic knowlege and curiosity of the issues confronting the country is frightening .I question his temperment for the office . He is erratic, inconsistent and unprincipled. He possesses a streak of crudity and cruelty . I know his supporters praise his 'telling it like it is " . I find his whole style unstatesman-like. He mocked a disabled reporter ,he disparaged John McCain's service . He called one of the finest men in the nation , Ben Carson ,pathological .He is the mean spirited parody of a Republican that plays well on Saturday Night Live. I disagree with most everything he says are his positions except for perhaps border security (something every other Republican candidate also favored except Jeb). His so called fair trade will be a disaster for the economy as most punitive tariffs are . Going isolationist does not strengthen the military . If Trump is the standard bearer ,the GOP will no longer be a conservative party; it will be a nationalist populist one not much different than where Bernie Sanders is leading the Dems. Trump is the very type of person the founders feared ;the demagogue who promises to do whatever it takes ;constitutional or not, to achive their goals. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Because Walker spent the state into a massive deficit.
And those are his good points! LOL
Standard Lefty propaganda, straight out of the WI Dem playbook. Trump hurt himself with WI GOP voters by spouting that stuff. It was part of the effort to contest the WI Supreme Court and recall Walker. None of it is true.
What a load of whiny, Mickey-Mouse generalized crap. Which is exactly what I expected. Look at the recent GOP Presidential candidates. Look at the current crop of Republicans in Congress. And you tell me the GOP is a conservative party that you want to preserve?
Hmmm. Nope.
Yeah. About $2.2 billion worth. He refused to raise taxes because he was running for President. He papered over the shortfall with voodoo budgeting.
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau shows Wisconsin is $1.8 billion in the red for 2015- 17, your hysterical squawking notwithstanding.
It may be "only" $1.8 billion now.
Ah, voodoo economics. So you are a Bushie!
I see an additional $1.8 billion in revenue. The budget is now balanced.
The state debt was $2.9 billion when Walker took office. When they had a $900M increase in tax revenue, the Dems naturally wanted to spend it. The GOP resisted and chose to spend down the debt. Watchdog.org, 2013: Anybody want to look at Wisconsin’s debt? … Bueller? … Bueller? I doubt that will interrupt Roscoe's lovely recitation of Dem lies about WI state finances.
Massive immediate deficit PLUS massive long term debt obligation to hide the shortfall. Under Scott Walker, Wisconsin keeps increasing its long- term borrowing The two-year, $70 billion state budget signed in July authorizes an additional $2.05 billion in borrowing, with $1.64 billion of it paid for with general fund revenues. That continues a borrowing trend that has tripled since 1999 under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Under Walker’s 2013-15 budget, debt service will climb even higher, claiming 5.26% of general fund dollars in 2014 and 4.88% in 2015, according to WISTAX. The state’s historical debt level target has been 4%.
BTW, try looking up the words "deficit" and "debt." It might help you avoid humiliating yourself as badly in the future.
I could always lie or just make stuff up, just like your man-crush Donald does over and over. You Trumpkins sure are butt-hurt over Wisconsin running Trump out of the state on a rail.
Try looking up the words "deficit" and "debt."
I want a conservative party ;and that won't happen with Trump at the head of the ticket. You have to be kidding me. Trump is a north east liberal RINO in the mold of Romney . He just has better schtick . "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Like Obama, Walker was able to spend more without raising taxes. What a man!
Because you say so.
No you don't. You want a liberal Obama, Clinton open borders sell out the American people piece of shit. You're a social conservative and liberal on trade etc. At least you get it half right.
And what makes you believe that Trump will be able to achieve any goals, --- that are not constitutional? ALL of our presidents have ultimately been stymied by our constitutions separation of powers, -- and I don't see any changes coming..
I don't see much that has constrained 0bama. I think it is altogether too likely that 0bama will become known as the first true post-Constitutional president, one who rules the country like a banana republic. Hugging up to the Castros is pretty natural. 0bama has ruled America the way the Castros have ruled Cuba for decades.
and Trump has the same basic positions on trade as Bolshevik Bernie Sanders. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Pat Buchanan is the definition of a pure conservative. The founding fathers would have considered you a traitor. Because they sought independence. You like interdependence with a global body bossing Americans representatives around. In short you are a sell out. Enjoy being ruled by democrats. You've made your roost now live in it.
Mark is a shill for cruz, his claim of being a Constitutionalist falls flat since no one has seen Cruz's CRBA, that includes Mark. Without a CRBA, Cruz needs to be naturalized.
Eli, Eli, nai erchomai Kurios Iesous.
What makes ANYONE believe that Trump will be able to achieve any goals, --- that are not constitutional? ALL of our presidents have ultimately been stymied by our constitutions separation of powers, -- and I don't see any changes coming.. Sure, he's 'unconstrained'; -- he ignores the Constitution, and the People, -- and we ignore his failed presidency. You really think Obama is RULING? -- Hell, around here, he's hardly ever mentioned, unless some late-nite comic cracks wise about him. Get a grip, his 'reign' has been a joke..
Because they sought independence. You like interdependence with a global body bossing Americans representatives around. No they would not consider me a traitor. Their rhetoric matched Adam Smith's on free trade. But their actions did not match their rhetoric. They started the revolution in Boston protesting tariff created monopolies and then mimicked the merchantile policies of the crown. Their reasoning behind the protectionism was not to support American businesses as much as a way to fill the government coffers without putting a heavy tax burden on their new constituents(who had fought the war in protest of burdensome taxes ) . When they passed the first tariffs in the 1st Congress ,they said that this was a temporary measure. The Tariff Act of 1789 did what it was intended to do. The United States collected 80 to 95% of its revenue from foreign imports. Few constituents complained. But as is often the case in government ,temporary measures have a way of setting themselves in cement . We still have a complex system of tariffs ,quotas ,and subsidies today ;many more than most Americans imagine . But now we pay the price in the cost of the goods ,and we still are taxed to death domestically . So what was the unintended consequences of the tariffs passed in the 19th century ? Well for one thing it helped divide the nation. The tariff justification shifted from revenue to protecting 'infant industry '. That meant that northern industry was being protected from primarily British industry . The unintended consequences was that the Southern states got to pay higher prices for goods. It also had a negative effect on the South's chief revenue source ..... cotton. Without the ability to export goods into the United States ,the Brits did not have the revenue to pay for cotton. So the export market suffered .....doubly when the Brits retailated with their own export restrictions. This led directly to the Nullification crisis in 1832. Southern States like South Carolina made a compelling case that the tariffs were in fact unconstitutional because they favored one sector of the economy (and one region) over others . They were not alone. NE shipping also suffered from the government manipulations . The British reduced their imports of cotton , which weakened the southern economy even more The tariff forced the South to buy manufactured goods from U.S. manufacturers, mainly in the North, at a higher price, while southern states also faced a reduced income from sales of cotton and other agricultural products . In November 1832 South Carolina voted to 'nullify ' the Federal law leading to a constitutional crisis that was a foretelling of the Civil War. Tariff disagreement was one of the major causes of the Civil War. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
You recall this thread from a few days back. Now Levin's flipped and gone full #NeverTrump: Mark Levin just announced on his radio show that he is now officially #NeverTrump. This just after he hammered #NeverTrumpers the other day. He explains below: Levin attributed his #NeverTrump conversion to the sleazy tactics of Trump thug Roger Stone, who he says put out an obscure article claiming he was bought and paid for by the Establishment, simply because the Senate Conservative Fund bought copies of his books to promote membership a couple of years ago. But Levin said he wasn’t involved in it, nor did he have any control over it. Levin says what this is really about is his support for Ted Cruz. And because of these smear tactics, Levin has decided to become #NeverTrump. He adds that if Trump’s henchmen piss him off again, he will then encourage all his listeners to become #NeverTrump.
Just a few hundred thousand dollars worth.
For example?
SCF snapped these up at publishers' clearing house rates. Probably for a buck or two. Then they gave them out as gifts for people donating to SCF. I would like to hear more from SCF about this. This is not the first time these books have been scandalized. They came out in 2009 in hardcover and became bestsellers. Somewhere around 2012-2013, SCF bought up some extras in paperback cheap as a donor lure. At the time, SCF was opposing McConnell's re-election in Kentucky. So the NRSC spokesman made these same attacks on SCF and Levin. Now the whole attack has been recycled by the Trumpkins over at ConservativeTreehouse and Breitbart.
Plus the cost to warehouse them forever.
"The exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world [is] possessed by [a people] as of natural right" Thomas Jefferson "The general principle in America being for a free trade with all the world, and to leave every one of their merchants at liberty to prosecute it as he may judge most for his advantage, I do not think...companies can be established there with any exclusive rights or privileges." 1780, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, “Beware the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry.” – Thomas Paine "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
I think you'd have to admit that American notions of "free trade" were quite different in that era from what they mean in the modern post-Friedman context. Given that the country was founded on using tariffs on foreign-made goods to protect American industry and help it grow, what we have today is nothing like the "free trade" as the Founders conceived of it.
#36 I admitted their actions did not match what they said. I also described where it led . Today we already have an out of control system of protectionist policies that include tariffs, subsidies , quotas ,parities ,import and export restrictions ,EX IM Banks dedicated to grant crony capitalist favoritism.
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
At some point, the publishers have a fire sale on old books and sell them out for $2 or less, sometimes for less than a buck (but they stick you for shipping). That's what happens to almost all the excess stock of old political books. Apparently, SCF grabbed up Levin's old paperbacks while they still had a little more value than that but they were paperbacks of a 5-year-old hardcover bestseller when SCF bought them as "free gifts" for their donors.
What a heavily altered "quote" you have there, tomder55. "That the exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world, possessed by the American colonists, as of natural right, and which no law of their own had taken away or abridged..." Thomas Jefferson Jefferson was asserting right of the American colonists [redacted and altered by you] to control their trade with their own laws [again redacted by you]. Busted!
Interesting assertion. How was Levin's royalty agreement structured?
The value of each book is irrelevant. It's the fact that they funneled $400,000 into Levin's coffers.
To his publisher. Levin probably would have made between 5%-10% of that. I think you don't understand how the publishing industry works with the advances, the percentages and so on. Those weren't books owned by Levin, they belonged to the publisher. Only if they got sold did Levin get anything out of them and, the later in the book's lifecycle, the less Levin would get.
That I would like to know but it's almost certainly confidential by contract for an author as popular as Levin. I do know how the publishing clearinghouses work. I used to get several catalogs from the bottomfeeders who would buy up these old excess stocks of books and sell them dirt cheap, relying on the hidden subsidy for shipping books via the post office. It's a small but significant segment of the publishing industry.
You left off the very next sentence. I wonder why? "And this open commerce being free to all Nations, and more profitable to Europe than to America, which can very well subsist and flourish without a Commerce with Europe..." 1780, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin
1. That I would like to know but it's almost certainly confidential by contract for an author as popular as Levin. 2. Like Hamilton Books? Yeah, me too. I rather doubt they ever had hundreds of thousands of copies of a given title on hand. 1. So you have no idea how much Levin may have pocketed from the sale or what part he may have played in arranging it.
Yep. These were ex-bestsellers on their way to the landfill. Normally before they get to Hamilton's or the others where the publisher sells them for 50¢ or so, you might have a deal where a conservative foundation or libraries get a chance to buy them for $1-$2. My guess is that Levin's publishers sold 200,000 paperbacks for $2 each to SCF. Or something along those lines. It was a book whose topics weren't too specific, that they could keep around for a while as grab-bag "gifts" to donors. I'd also like to know if SCF still has a warehouse of them sitting around. Even if SCF couldn't "gift" them all to donors, they could always donate them to libraries to spread the book's message and take a tax writeoff for their purchase. They're smart guys, they'd play all the angles.
Vague, not supportive of your outlandish extrapolation, and probably fake to boot. Can you point to a primary document source? (Assuming you even know the difference between primary and secondary sources.)
$400k at two bucks each equals 200k copies With a paperback retail of about $12 and a 10% of retail royalty, that's about a $1.20 per royalty per copy. $1.20 x 200k = $240k. How do you get to $20k?
I don't think any author ever gets more than a percentage of the actual sale price. So 200,000 books * $2 = $400K and assuming Levin gets 5% of the sale price, that would be $20K. Admittedly, I have only a wild guess about the details of Levin's contract. But I am pretty sure the publishers do not pay a retail royalty on a clearance book. It would ruin them. Seems to me, since this book and the SCF was part of the McConnell-Bevin race as well, that Levin's listeners ought to pester him until he tells exactly how much he did make from this deal. Especially since he's going #NeverTrump over it. I would like to know the details. Levin made good money off this book for a few years but I think he made chickenfeed on the SCF sale, just as he says.
I thought that % of SRP was pretty common. And as you said, celebrity author deals can be all over the board. As for it ruining the publisher, it depends on their reason for the payout/payoff. Do you think that Simon & Schuster expected to earn back the $8 million advance against future royalties they funneled to Hillary Clinton?
I think political bio books like Hitlery's or those by 0bama are a special category. The most they expect is to break even and they usually expect to lose money on them, perhaps a lot of money. I think only the obvious frontrunner (Hitlery) or the top challenger (0bama) get these sweetheart political bio deals. And, of course, it is a way to curry favor with the political establishment. You see the same with fashion designers dealing with political wives.
#2. To: TooConservative (#0)
"Levin is lowering his rhetoric against Trump."
#3. To: Roscoe (#1)
Levin's dreams of rewriting the Constitution are fading along with Cruz's campaign.
#4. To: misterwhite (#2)
Krauthammer gave him a shoutout also: "Trump Has "The Most Rock Solid Floor Of Support" In Memory, "Despite The (Wisconsin) Loss"
#5. To: TooConservative (#0)
But you do not vote for Hillary Clinton. Or you don’t not stay home.
#6. To: TooConservative (#3)
. If so, this would be a smart play to invoke fair-contest rules to try to shame the Trump people into voting for Cruz (or another nominee
#7. To: TooConservative (#3)
This has nothing to do with Levin's pet project.
#8. To: TooConservative, misterwhite (#4)
"Yes, he lost badly in Wisconsin but he still keeps all of his core voters and they never desert him, no matter what."
#9. To: tomder55 (#8)
"But Trump takes that to places I many not want to go."
#10. To: misterwhite (#9)
#11. To: tomder55 (#10)
why did he criticize Scott Walker for not raising taxes in Wisconsin ?
#12. To: tomder55 (#10)
if he's so big on reducing taxes then why did he criticize Scott Walker for not raising taxes in Wisconsin ? I opposed his statist authoritarianism ,his lack of conservative constitutional principles .His lack of basic knowlege and curiosity of the issues confronting the country is frightening .I question his temperment for the office . He is erratic, inconsistent and unprincipled. He possesses a streak of crudity and cruelty .
#13. To: Roscoe (#11)
Because Walker spent the state into a massive deficit.
#14. To: tomder55 (#10)
#15. To: misterwhite (#14)
And you tell me the GOP is a conservative party that you want to preserve?
#16. To: Roscoe (#11)
"Because Walker spent the state into a massive deficit."
#17. To: TooConservative (#13)
#18. To: misterwhite (#16)
About $2.2 billion worth.
#19. To: misterwhite (#16)
He papered over the shortfall with voodoo budgeting.
#20. To: Roscoe (#18)
(Edited)
"It may be "only" $1.8 billion now."
height="324">
#21. To: misterwhite, Roscoe (#20)
#22. To: TooConservative (#21)
Gov. Scott Walker has honed his reputation as a fiscal conservative, taking credit for closing a $3.6 billion spending gap left from the Jim Doyle administration. But a new report from the non-partisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance shows the state has actually just been borrowing more money.
You tax, borrow, and spend liberals never change.
#23. To: TooConservative (#21)
The state debt was $2.9 billion
#24. To: Roscoe (#23)
BTW, try looking up the words "deficit" and "debt."
#25. To: TooConservative (#24)
#26. To: misterwhite (#14)
Look at the recent GOP Presidential candidates. Look at the current crop of Republicans in Congress. And you tell me the GOP is a conservative party that you want to preserve?
#27. To: Roscoe (#22)
#28. To: tomder55 (#26)
"Trump is a north east liberal RINO in the mold of Romney"
#29. To: tomder55 (#26)
I want a conservative party ;
#30. To: tomder55 (#10)
Trump is the very type of person the founders feared ;the demagogue who promises to do whatever it takes ;constitutional or not, to achive their goals.
#31. To: tpaine (#30)
ALL of our presidents have ultimately been stymied by our constitutions separation of powers
#32. To: A K A Stone (#29)
You're a social conservative and liberal on trade etc
#33. To: tomder55 (#32)
and Trump has the same basic positions on trade as Bolshevik Bernie Sanders.
#34. To: TooConservative (#0)
#35. To: TooConservative (#31)
I don't see much that has constrained 0bama.
I think it is altogether too likely that 0bama will become known as the first true post-Constitutional president, one who rules the country like a banana republic. --- Hugging up to the Castros is pretty natural. 0bama has ruled America the way the Castros have ruled Cuba for decades.
#36. To: A K A Stone (#33)
The founding fathers would have considered you a traitor.
#37. To: All, Roscoe, misterwhite, A K A Stone, SOSO, ConservingFreedom, sneakypete, tomder55, tpaine, BobCeleste (#0)
(Edited)
BREAKING: Mark Levin just announced he is officially #NEVERTRUMP!
#38. To: TooConservative (#37)
simply because the Senate Conservative Fund bought copies of his books to promote membership a couple of years ago.
#39. To: tomder55 (#36)
Their rhetoric matched Adam Smith's on free trade.
#40. To: Roscoe (#38)
#41. To: Roscoe (#38)
"Just a few hundred thousand dollars worth."
#42. To: Roscoe (#39)
For example?
#43. To: tomder55 (#42)
"The general principle in America being for a free trade with all the world...
#44. To: TooConservative (#43)
#45. To: misterwhite (#41)
Plus the cost to warehouse them forever.
#46. To: tomder55 (#42)
"The exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world [is] possessed by [a people] as of natural right" Thomas Jefferson
#47. To: TooConservative (#40)
SCF snapped these up at publishers' clearing house rates. Probably for a buck or two.
#48. To: TooConservative (#45)
"Apparently, SCF grabbed up Levin's old paperbacks while they still had a little more value than that"
#49. To: misterwhite (#48)
The value of each book is irrelevant. It's the fact that they funneled $400,000 into Levin's coffers.
#50. To: Roscoe (#47)
Interesting assertion. How was Levin's royalty agreement structured?
#51. To: tomder55 (#42)
"The general principle in America being for a free trade with all the world, and to leave every one of their merchants at liberty to prosecute it as he may judge most for his advantage, I do not think...companies can be established there with any exclusive rights or privileges." 1780, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin
#52. To: TooConservative (#50)
2. I used to get several catalogs from the bottomfeeders
#53. To: Roscoe (#52)
(Edited)
2. Like Hamilton Books? Yeah, me too. I rather doubt they ever had hundreds of thousands of copies of a given title on hand.
1. So you have no idea how much Levin may have pocketed from the sale or what part he may have played in arranging it. If my assumptions are correct, Levin would have only gotten $20K or so out of selling out these remaining paperbacks.
#54. To: tomder55 (#42)
“Beware the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry.” – Thomas Paine
#55. To: TooConservative (#53)
If my assumptions are correct, Levin would have only gotten $20K or so out of selling out these remaining paperbacks.
#56. To: Roscoe (#55)
(Edited)
With a paperback retail of about $12 and a 10% of retail royalty, that's about a $1.20 per royalty per copy. $1.20 x 200k = $240k.
#57. To: TooConservative (#56)
But I am pretty sure the publishers do not pay a retail royalty on a clearance book. It would ruin them.
#58. To: Roscoe (#57)
Do you think that Simon & Schuster expected to earn back the $8 million advance against future royalties they funneled to Hillary Clinton?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]