Noted genius, Marc Thiessen of the Washington Post, thinks he has an explanation for why Donald Trump isn’t collapsing the way that the Republican Establishment assumed he would. It comes down to two things. First, the Republican electorate somewhat inexplicably believes (in overwhelming numbers) that Trump has the best prospects in a general election matchup against Hillary Clinton. Second, the GOP electorate also believes strongly that Trump is the most likely to shake up things in Washington DC.
This seems like a decent explanation until you examine it for two seconds.
On the first point, which of the other eleventy billion right-wing prospects is a good general election candidate? Is it Ben Carson? Really?
Surely people don’t think Ted Cruz or Chris Christie or Rand Paul are solid general election candidates. And who is the last person to acknowledge that the Bush Brand is deader than New Coke?
I know the press loves Marco Rubio but does anyone realize what his record down in Florida actually looks like when you scrutinize it? The man’s record makes Sarah Palin look clean. A Rubio candidacy will make the GOP wish they’d hired they guy who closed down the George Washington Bridge for days out of petty political spite. The Clintons would treat Rubio like a chew-toy and make him wish he’d kept the boring job that he hates.
I know no one really serious wants to put their eggs in Carly Fiorina’s basket, and the rest of the candidates are bordering on Alan Keyes-crazy and Gary Bauer-charismatic.
Except for Ohio Governor John Kasich, of course, who is the only guy in the field with the resume and the record and the willingness to pursue the middle to make an actual case for himself. Maybe the GOP base will figure this out in time, but it’s looking unlikely at the moment.
The bottom line is that when people say Trump is the most electable, that’s like saying the guy on the stool at the end of the bar is the most electable. Compared to Bush, Carson, et. al., that’s actually true.
So, it doesn’t explain anything to say that the base thinks Trump is the most electable. The question is why is he the most electable?
On the second point, it’s kind of a no-brainer that the guy famous for firing people is the best bet to shake up things in Washington DC. The question is why is shaking things up the most pressing desire of the Republican electorate?
I mean there’s obviously gridlock in Washington and Democrats are frustrated, too. But Hillary Clinton isn’t stuck at single digits in the polls, trailing a reality-television star. She has a contest on her hands, but she isn’t in free-fall like Jeb Bush.
No, the answer is the Republicans are like the boy who cried wolf. Their base doesn’t believe in them anymore. They were too full of shit for too long.
And it broke the party.
So, whether it’s Trump or a surging Carson, the base is clear that it wants nothing to do with the Republican Establishment or its shitty unelectable candidates.
I don’t know who can really blame them, and I certainly wouldn’t blame Trump.
If you don’t want to go too far back, I think you could start with George W. Bush and move on to Sarah Palin. Maybe the GOP should have shunned Trump when he started the Birther stuff instead of encouraging him and asking for his support.
In any case, Trump isn’t winning because he’s electable or willing to shake things up. He’s winning because none of them are electable and he’s willing to shake things up.
Trump is also willing to cross lines you’re not supposed to cross. Like saying he won’t cut Medicare and SS. Even Hillary is “open” to cuts, as was Obama. In the general, Trump is positioned to run to her left on this issue. Like saying Bush did not keep us safe since 9/11 happened on his watch, which is clearly true, and something that must be said just to keep us in touch with reality, but which has been verboten for even Democrats to say for 14 years now. He advertises that the Repub establishment doesn’t control him by kicking them right in the balls. Mind you, I’m not a fan. But when that yippy dog of a mouth is set loose, it sometimes bites the right leg. And a chunk of the right tends to trust someone who will call their party leaders on their bullshit (though he doesn’t call the base on their bullshit) right now, because the stench of the bullshit is overpowering even to them.
Well, Trump’s numbers have dropped since he stated that Bush didn’t “keep us safe.” Didn’t help Jeb, but might have hurt Trump.
To have hurt Jeb more, though, which isn’t bad politics. Strictly horse-race, Trump needs to keep Bush fighting a headwind right now because he’s got attrition problems already and low polls will ruin him. Every day Jeb spends talking about anything to do with W is a day lost when time, it seems to me, is running short.
Furthermore it seems the Right is sick of George W; sick of having lauded and defended him and then having lamely apologised for him for so long. “He kept us safe,” what does that even mean? The comments on the Rightie sites seems largely hostile to the Bushes.
What beats me is the sudden pile-on by the media on the Jeb campaign death spiral narrative in the past forty-eight hours; where did that come from? Bad luck for Jeb; he must be mortified.
I think the news cycle was driven by events. Laying off staff is usually the first sign a campaign is in trouble. That said, I agree Trump gains more from killing Bush now than he loses with a modest poll dip, especially since the latter seems to be mostly to the favor of Carson, who I don’t think Trump sees as a threat (rightly). Carson doesn’t want the job. I don’t think Trump does either, actually, but he also cannot allow himself to lose, so he is in a real pickle.
Killing Bush means the establishment has to rely on a) Kasich showing signs of life. Bad news for us if it happens, but no sign yet, and he doesn’t have infinite money either, b) Rubio living down being pro-immigrant running against Trump. Good luck. or c) Fiorina. Trump saw the threat in Fiorina, which is why he attacked her when no one else was taking her seriously.
Yes, campaign staff layoffs and the weekend pow-wow with daddy, bro, and all the family political retainers were signs of a campaign in trouble. The MSM didn’t pick-up on Walker’s flame-out and doesn’t want to be caught flat-footed again.
I think that Kasich’s efficacy in the general election is quite overrated. He’s a hotheaded gaffe machine and has a couple of toxic positions on women’s rights and Medicare. Kasich is not the worst the GOP can do, but he isn’t as a strong of an electoral candidate as Romney was — who at least until the 47% comment managed to keep his leopard spots decently well-hidden.
The only two candidates I’d be worried about is Trump v. Clinton and Christie.
They’re all seriously flawed. But one of them is going to be nominated.
And Romney’s advantage in 2012 is that he had a pretty good run at it in 2008, so was well known and taken seriously as a contender. Kasich is barely able to introduce himself with this large a field and Trump and now Dr Ben sucking up all the oxygen.
Since this campaign lasts forever, he’s still got plenty of time to introduce himself, make a few bold not-insane points, and start climbing in the polls.
Not according to the latest polls, they haven’t. Trump’s numbers dropped after the 2nd debate, and the difference went almost entirely to Fiorina. Bush’s numbers dropped as well. That hardly implies that Trumps comments about W hurt his standing. He has since regained virtually all of his support as Fiorina’s support dropped off again.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary
CBS this morning: Carson 26, Trump 22. Some of the Huff post numbers (morning consult) are pretty iffy.
Battleground states: Iowa tied at 27% with Carson, Trump leading in NH 38% to 12% and SC 40% to 23%. Not too shabby and stomping on Bush et al. All these polls are virtually meaningless but the national ones more so.
Last numbers out of IA:
Monmouth, Carson 32, Trump 18
Loras College: Carson 31, Trump 19
DMR (The gold standard), Carson 29, Trump 19
Quinipiac: Carson 28, Trump 20
The only number showing a tie is the Yougov polls, which look pretty screwy in general. Hard to argue Trump isn’t going down in Iowa.
I posted the link to the CBS poll cited.
That is the Yougov internet polling – which looks bad. Trump leads in NH right now, but if he loses Iowa I doubt it lasts.
We’ll see. Cruz seems the only candidate positioned to benefit from all this weirdness. Rubio seems the obvious choice but he’s such a dill.
I can’t remember the last time the same Republican won both IA and NH. This year won’t be different.
Some of the bad numbers for Trump come from iffy pollsters as well (Gravis).
If you chuck Internet polls (Morning Consult et al.) and Gravis, the picture still looks reasonably good for Trump. One national poll with Carson ahead isn’t significant yet. Relevant link below.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary#!mindate=2015-06-01&estim
ate=custom&hiddenpollsters=morning-consult,ipsosreuters,nbcsurveymonkey,yougoveconomist,zogby-in
ternet,zogby-internet-university-of-akron,lincoln-park-strategies-d,robert-morris-university,saint-l
eo-university,yougov,gravis-marketingone-america-news
Should have referenced Iowa polls which is what I pay more attention to at this stage of the election cycle. DMR, which has the best track record in the state, has him down to 19% and three of the other four recent (10/14 to 10/25) polls have him at 18-20%.
His numbers have certainly tanked in Iowa. This morning suggests they are tanking nationally as well – but it is just one poll.
The Iowa decline is being traced to negative advertising by some – suggesting a parallel to what took Gingrich down in Iowa in 2011.
If Trump’s favorability numbers there are more-or-less the same and he remains a strong second-choice, it might be more that Carson is a more appealing GOP primary candidate than Trump messing up.
And it’s an important distinction, because if Carson goes down in flames or underperforms in the rest of the early primary states (and I think that’s quite probable, since the GOP calendar favors a candidate like Trump) then Trump can recover.
Maybe.
If it becomes clear Trump is going to lose Iowa then I think it will have broad implications for the rest of the campaign.
Why would it? When’s the last time an Iowa win (or Iowa loss for that matter) changed the tenor of a GOP nomation? I’d say that the closest was Romney 2012 and even then he had to endure a primary where he couldn’t put away the opposition until May.
Historically IA for Repubs seems to not matter nearly as much as it matters.
Probably another case this cycle of not mattering, as the next contest in NH tends to favor, strongly favor, local guy Trump and the current IA leader Dr Ben is polling a distant second.
Even if the sedated doc manages to survive the next 3 months leading up to IA as he’s scrutinized far more intensely than before — very doubtful he will — then he’s also unlikely to get much of a momentum boost from winning IA. NHers and most voters elsewhere just don’t care what IAans think.
The IA caucus matters much more to DEM voters than Republicans. It’s like “fundie” central to the GOP RWNJ base. NH is where the more sober Republicans win and tend to go on to carry all the less “fundie” states that up until now have been the majority in the GOP.
There’s been enough of the old DEM progressive movements remaining in IA that it’s not a bad testing ground for for a liberal, authentic or PR manufactured, to get a read on how well that may play in other states.
Of course both states are contaminated by an actual or neighbor “favorite son” type factor. Something that Walker and Bachmann had counted on in Iowa but was too weak for them. 1988 was tough for them with Gephardt, Simon, and Jackson in the pack. Then they got to NH where “favorite son” Dukakis won the day. 1992 – Iowa, Harkin (an authentic favorite son and IMO the best of the lot that year) and NH, Tsongas.
I guess Obama’s being the bad guy here. According to TPM, the budget deal being negotiated with Boehner will include medicare and SS cuts. And Obama held all the cards this time. My guess is Clinton pretends to oppose to appease Sanders’ voters and also try to undercut Trump’s opportunity to run to her left on this.
I read your down in Florida link, and I don’t see where it necessarily sounds any worse than Whitewater. Rubio’s real estate partner was up to some shady stuff. So was Jim McDougal (sp?). I’m not seeing the red hands on Rubio, at least not in that article.
Id like to shake things up in Washington but not enough democrats do to matter. That and there’s no shadow party run by leftist rich folks to give the base an alternative to the party structure.
The problem with Rubio, plainly stated, is that he’s a wimp.
That’s not my problem with him, but it’s why he won’t gain any traction with the Republican base.
Thank you. I’m glad I’m not the only one that noticed. His record in the Senate makes him a dream opponent. It’s amusing how he always seems to fold under pressure.
the Republican electorate somewhat inexplicably believes (in overwhelming numbers) that Trump has the best prospects in a general election matchup against Hillary Clinton.
Guess it must be like their belief that McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan would beat Obama/Biden even as the match-up polling refutes the belief.
More like the belief that Gingrich should debate Obama. They hoped Gingrich would be offensive and they hope the same thing about Trump.
That was only a delusion among the racists that are only a majority or significant plurality in southern tier states.
That at this point the cohort of the Republican electorate which is buoying Trump’s polling will willingly wreck their own party if they continue to be frustrated at wrecking other stuff.
It’s actually a pretty good guess that the (overwhelmingly) most popular candidate in the primary also has the best prospects in a general election. Rule number one in politics is that you have to get your own people to the polls. If you can’t get them to back you in the primary, they won’t be tripping over themselves to elect you in November.
I’ll be as surprised as anyone if Trump actually wins the nomination, but one of these candidates undoubtedly will. You describe just how god-awful the rest of them are, yourself. They are his competition. So who will it be? Kasich? Kasich is at 2% in the polls right now, which puts Trump about 25 points ahead of him. In other words, most of the public doesn’t even realize he’s running. Thats not the person I’d pick to win the presidency in 2016.
If the opposition forms a natural majority even in electorally difficult conditions (like, say, 8% headline unemployment) and your coalition is already a high-turnout contingent, it’s very hard to say that a strategy of doubling down on your base is the right move.
I, however, disagree with the assertion that Trump is necessarily a weak general election candidate. Trump’s appeal, genuflecting to Norquist aside (and I think that will be Clinton’s only lifeline), is different from the long line of GOP Presidential candidates from Reagan up until Romney. He’s a Perot or Wallace-type. And he has a theoretical path to the Presidency — it’d involve picking off the 85%+ Midwest/Northeast/Chesapeake white states that until Obama the Democratic Party only won, if they did, by 1-5%. Trump won’t pick these states up by white identity politics, but he could win them through economic populism. Especially if he disavows his earlier tax plan and goes back to ‘let’s soak the rich!’
Which is why Trump v. Clinton is the only matchup that makes me nervous for 2016’s Presidency. Trump is running a different playbook from everyone else in the GOP field and either the Democratic Party doesn’t seem to notice or they think it’s a moot point.
I always love your insightful political analysis.
Here’s my own:
It won’t be Fiorina. If it is, there will be a Democrat or pseudo-Democrat in the White House in 2017. Both HRC and sanders have elected political experience at the National level. Fiorina has nothing except a failure record as CEO. If there is a woman in America more despised than Hillary, it’s Carly.
It won’t be Carson. Too extreme. too fruitcake religious. American voters like their leaders to be religious like Jimmy Carter, but not THAT religious. Not fanatical religious. Another gift to Hillary.
Kasich? Maybe. The establishment could push him up. I do respect your analysis, but everyone had written off McCain, but he came back through the process of elimination. Likewise, I wouldn’t write off Walker.
I think your Jersey roots give too much credence to Christie. For one thing, in the South and here in “flyover country” he is a disgusting buffoon. More so than Trump. The Southern Republicans will probably never forgive him praise of Obama in the aftermath of Sandy. New Jersey and New York arouse deep suspicions in Southern minds. TarheelDem please comment.
IMHO Sanders can beat Kasich or Trump. Hillary can beat Kasich. A dead dog could beat Fiorina.
Trump has a lot of negative things against him, but charismatic candidates can achieve much. In the general election if Trump could could present a presentable Veep (Kasich? Walker? Maybe [as VP only] Christie) and some believable lineup of experienced Republicans as presumptive SecDef and SoS. He might make it against Sanders with his Socialist albatross or Hillary with the loathing that she generates among many.
And please don’t comment about how you love Hillary and she isn’t loathed. Hatred of Hillary, almost unreasonable hatred, amongst a significant portion of the electorate is a fact and if her campaign doesn’t recognize it that will be her undoing.
Would be surprised if Trump looks to the pool of loser GOP POTUS candidates for a Veep. He doesn’t need to squander the high-profile VP slot to mollify the fundies or teabaggers. He’s got a few in his pocket that he can dispatch for local appearances in support of him.
He also should resist anyone that scares off a slice of the electorate that can go either way. That eliminates Cruz. A short list would include those with high-TV-IQ, a decent public record including election wins, and preferably a minority that is willing to roll the dice with an improbable POTUS candidate instead of waiting for a later opportunity within the party.
I would be surprised too, but it’s possible. Regarding minority VP’s, that’s a small list. Neither Carson nor the Pizza Guy are any help. Rubio? A Hispanic mayor? Or an Asian? There seems to be a fair number of Indian Republicans like Jindal and Haley. Maybe Haley, Governor, minority, Southern, female. I believe it was you on a different thread that pointed to a Trump strategy of aiming at white dominated northern and mid-West states. Maybe shoring up his southern flank and adding some Indian-Americans to that white mix would help. He might as well write off black votes and neither Carson nor the Pizza guy would help him with black voters against Hillary, maybe against Bernie since block voters seem to hate his guts. Trump/Christie makes absolutely no regional sense. He has a problem running against the Establishment then picking an establishment player as Veep. Haley is sounding more and more logical to me. What do you think? Not about Haley personally or her politics but as a cold political analysis? I value your analyses almost as much as Booman’s.
I always seem to overlook Haley. You’re correct that all the right RW boxes are checked with her. Except one biggie which is why I overlook her. The GOP could nominate Cruz/Palin and SC would remain red. So, Haley doesn’t bring an additional state into the electoral map equation. And the Indian-American population is too small to shift any other state as well. As a woman who isn’t stupid or crazy, she could add a point or two to the GOP popular vote but not enough to change the outcome. Plus, her husband has no TV-IQ.
Haley wouldn’t look as much like a desperate move as Palin was — and the MSM would be quick to embrace her and call it a savvy political decision by Trump — but it would be a Hail Mary on Trump’s part because it would mean that on his own he was losing to Clinton. He does need to attract more women and other minority voters than Romney did but not necessarily nationally. Selected states will do fine.
Trump may be in a better position to flip-flop on marijuana legalization than the other GOP candidates because he once did consider it a reasonable public policy position, but it would still be a flip-flop. Better than Clinton who is “evolving,” very slowly. (Maybe Chelsea will push her mother on this as Hillary claimed that Chelsea did on SS marriage some years after her 2008 campaign.)
There are slim-pickings for a Trump VP. And with Sherrod Brown’s endorsement of Clinton, the pool just got smaller for Sanders. (My respect for Brown just went down by many notches. Would have been fine if he’d remained neutral through SuperTuesday, but his endorsement does contradict what he’s has long stood for.)
I think the number one factor in the breakdown of the GOP has been the cooperation with Fox New / Conservative Media.
I think the point at which the cancer became visible was, if I recall correctly, during one of the Bush 1 elections and Rush Limbaugh was sitting next to Barbara at one of the conventions.
They let these guys into the house and now they have broken all the furniture.