Sunday, August 2, 2015

Thoughts On Trump (and the other candidates)

One of my last lectures/class discussions in my AP US History class last year was looking ahead to the 2016 election. I tried to fit pictures of all of the declared and likely Republican candidates on one PowerPoint slide, kind of pyramid style, with the "important" ones on top with bigger pictures and the less important ones at the bottom. As an afterthought I put a silly little picture of Donald Trump at the very bottom. My students and I had a quick laugh and we moved on to a more serious discussion. No Republican is laughing now. (By the way, I also had to explain who the hell Bernie Sanders was and the students had a laugh at his disheveled photo and then we discussed Hillary's democratic coronation. That conversation would go differently now as well).

For months now media types from all parts of the spectrum (MSNBC to right wing talk radio) have been predicting Trump's demise. This is a joke, right? People are supporting him because he's entertaining, but they wouldn't really vote for him, right? According to the media experts, every misstep is the end of Trump. Out of the gate with his illegal immigrants are rapists ("somebody's doing the raping, Don!") talk. John McCain isn't a hero because he got captured. Stupid statements like these should sink most candidates. Only his poll numbers actually go up after each of these supposed screw ups.

I believe a poll earlier in the week had Trump at 25% in a field of now 17 Republicans, the closest to him was Jeb, behind him by double digits.

Trump is not going away, and I'll tell you why. First, he has a limitless bankroll, and doesn't need to depend on begging for donations to keep his campaign afloat. It can all be self-financed, a la Ross Perot in '92. (In fact, I would not be surprised if Trump starts buying 30 minutes slots in prime time to present his case. Just wait. That is coming.) Secondly, he is a celebrity who knows media. He is the most media savvy candidate on either side. Third, he doesn't have to fight for headlines. He steps on the street and it is a CNN lead. The media is Trump-crazy (not fawning over him like they did Obama, but they can't get enough of him, and that is all he needs). And he is in command when dealing with the press. Did you see the interview he did with Anderson Cooper recently? He mandhandled Cooper. Totally controlled the interview, to the point to where Cooper was trying to point out to Trump where he (Cooper) had in fact been complimentary of Trump in the past. A leading newpaper in Iowa recently editorialized that he should drop from the race, he simply banished any journalist from the paper from any of his events. He doesn't need them like the other candidates do. It matters less that much of what Trump says makes no sense (a wall will be built on the border and Mexico will pay for it!) What matters is when he appears on television he is in command. He has sucked the air out of the Republican race. Rand Paul was reduced to taking a chainsaw to the tax code and Lindsey Graham had to make an SNL-like short getting rid of his cell phone just to get TV time.

Something a little less obvious. Even though I agree more with establishment Republicans, I know how the right wing thinks because I listen to a lot of talk radio. They despise the Boehner/McCain Republicans. They feel like the mainstream media is a Left Wing conspiracy. So the more the establishment Republican Party and the mainstream media tries to dismiss Trump or take him down, the more support he will garner from the right. His "straight talk" style is an aphrodisiac to the angry, politician hating Tea Party/right wing types. And they are loudest in the primaries. Something Trump and Sanders have in common, by the way, is that they have tapped into a Populist anger out there combined with a straight shooter persona when skepticism about politicians is high. Opposite ends of the spectrum, but the populist roots are close to the same. Trump has also mined that old nativist tradition in American politics that has popped up periodically, from the early 1800's, the 1920's, and other periods. The fear that new immigrants ain't like the older immigrants, they will ruin our great nation with their crime, strange beliefs and dangerous political ideologies.

But would Trump get support in the general election? He obviously would have trouble with the Hispanic vote. That is a real issue because it is a crucual demographic for the Republicans in the future. And as I have commented in the past, there are many segments of the Hispanic community that lines up very nicely with Republican values, both social and economic. It is an issue of messaging. Trump has done real damage in that crucual effort. But if Trump were to force his nomination on a cowering Republican establishment, what's their alternative? Vote for Hillary? The hatred for Hillary is so strong that it will bring out much of the Republican base, Tea Party and establishment. (Much like Reagan's 1980 victory was as much an anti-Carter vote as it was for Reagan). The real question is whether Trump could get independent votes, the ones that now determine general elections. His favorables are not strong with independents, but he has time and has exceeded expectations thus far.

This is a fascinating race even without Trump. There are 17 Republican candidates because Hillary is so beatable. I predict that in the end, Biden will jump in and give Hillary a real race on the Democratic side. People don't like Hillary. Polls indicate that over 50% of the American public sees her as untrustworthy. Benghazi and the email scandal are not going away and they shouldn't. She is a terrible campaigner. Her speeches are shrill and dripping with insincerity and poll tested lines. Are you willing to listen to four to eight years of that? Even most Democrats are just lukewarm on her. The alternative to Hillary, until Biden gets in? Socialist Bernie Sanders.

What about the other 16 Republicans? That is sort of the shame here. There are some very good candidates on the Republican side. There is a website with a questionnaire on issues, go here, and there are others out there as well. It matches you up by percentage with all of the candidates based on how your responses match up with their positions. Probably not an exact science, since candidates positions can slip all over the place, but it is fun. I had my students all do it. If you do it, make sure to adjust the priority meter, it makes a difference in the results. Anyway, my results were what I thought they would be. John Kasich was my highest match, followed by Chris Christie. Jeb was fairly high. Hillary was in the middle, by the way, and Ted Cruz was dead last. When I did it in the spring, Trump wasn't an option.

I don't see Kasich or Christie winning the nomination, though. Nor do I see Trump winning it, but the fact that he is in the serious conversation would have been laughable six months ago. Odds on favorites are still Jeb or Scott Walker in the end, and either one should pick Marco Rubio for VP candidate.

However things eventually turn out, the first Republican debate next week is now must see TV, with The Donald front and center.

And one other thing Trump has. He has the nuclear option of running as an independent if the Republican Party "doesn't treat him right". Like Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 and Ross Perot in 1992, that guarantees a Democrat president for the next four years. And the Republicans know it.

11 comments:

ANCIANT said...

My only thought: I think you far far overestimate the "hatred" for Hilary. No one (that I know of) is like, jazzed, about Hilary. She has baggage up the wazoo. But hatred? I don't think so. Weariness, is more like it. And, heap what derision on her that you like, she's competent. She's an adult. How many people in the GOP primary can say that?

I put Hilary as a 2:1 favorite to win the election. And I'll book bets on that right now.

Dezmond said...

You've been living on the Left Coast too long.

ANCIANT said...

I'm taking bets, Dez. You think she's going to lose?

Dezmond said...

I don't know yet. I do think she is very, very beatable. Right now she is polling over 50% unfavorable. That doesn't say landslide victory to me.

What makes you think she is competent? Can you give me one great accomplishment as Secretary of State? I mean, other than compromising national security with her home server, allowing a possible democratic movement in Iran go by without supporting it, showing Putin he has a free hand wherever he wants, bungling the Benghazi response and then outright lying about its cause, overseeing a deterioration in our relationship with Israel, helping to oversee a foreign policy that made the ground fertile for ISIS...other than those great accomplishments. It is remarkable, have you noticed that in her speeches she never refers to any specific thing she accomplished as Secretary of State? Why? Because there is none.

JMW said...


"There are 17 Republican candidates because Hillary is so beatable." I'm somewhere between you and ANCIANT on Hillary's beatability quotient, but that's not why there's 17 GOP candidates. There's 17 because no one or two have separated from the pack, so a lot of yahoos figure 'why not?'

Dezmond said...

See ANCIANT. You have undoubtedly been researching Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State for days now and in fact found no significant accomplishment.

ANCIANT said...

Sorry, Dez, I hadn't logged back in to see your withering reply.
I can't reply to those claims in enough detail to refute them, others than to say I don't really agree with your assessment of her tenure. I think, for example, that the whole Benghazi thing has pretty conclusively proven to be much ado about nothing--Fox News types trying to find more dirt to fling at her. I won't claim her time as Sec of State was some kind of unmitigated triumph, but I think, for example, that holding her responsible for the rise of ISIS is more or less ridiculous.

I base my claim that she's competent on her years of government service as (un-appointed, and thus justly resented) advisor to her husband and as a US Senator. I think she knows the issues and I trust her to be a fairly reasonable moderate on most issues.

I am not, by any means, jazzed about a Hilary presidency; nor have I decided, yet, whether I will vote for her. I'm going to watch the debates, give the candidates a chance, and try to make an informed decision, but I haven't done so yet. If the GOP can nominate someone I like, I might vote for him. If they nominate Trump (or Christie, or Graham, or Cruz, or Perry, etc etc) I won't. I don't know.

Dezmond said...

Things happen fast around here, ANCIANT. You must check several times daily to keep up.

Benghazi is not nothing. How she handled it as it unfolded is very significant and goes to her decisiomaking. It is a fact that she and the administration outright lied about the cause, so afraid to admit to spreading radical Islamic elements, instead blaming some bs video. Hillary kept the lie going longer than most.

Of course Hillary is not responsible for ISIS. But she led the state department for half of the presidency of Obama, whose Middle East policy has been a disaster. Our premature withdrawal from Iraq helped cause ISIS.

ANCIANT said...

Or, maybe our botched invasion of Iraq caused ISIS.

Dezmond said...

Obviously i have some revisions post debate, but that should be a new post. At the risk of doing what pundits have done all along, i think the women exchange with Megyn Kelly really did seal Trump's fate. He was a far longshot for nomination, now no way. But he still could keep his 25% or so and tale them with him in an independent run, and then game over.

Fiorina impressed. My guys Kasich and Christie were good.

I guess on ISIS we could all the way back to the Sunni / Shia split after Mohammad's death if we wanted to. But the Obama administration, like all administrations, must deal with the situation as they find it, not how they wish it to be. The fact is, had we not broadcast our intention of leaving and then pulled out so early, there would be no ISIS. Many experts were saying at the time that Iraq was not ready.

The middle east is a whole other discussion. Starting to miss the days of Saddam Hussein and Qadaffi, aren't we?

Unknown said...

Dear Dez,

Hey just wanted to check up and see how you are doing. I am waiting egarley in anticipation for your Rock Hall Snubs posts series. Hope it is soon! Keep on blogging!

Tyler