Robert Leonard has interviewed Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa once a week on the radio for the last ten years. That might explain why he has such a high opinion of the Hawkeye State’s senior senator. And it could be that Grassley really is as influential in Iowa’s Republican circles as Leonard believes.
What impressed Leonard is that Grassley showed up for a Trump rally on Saturday. Of course, Grassley didn’t come right out and endorse Trump, and he’s scheduled to appear with Sen. Marco Rubio tomorrow. On the other hand, Grassley did take the stage on Trump’s behalf and he talked about “Making America Great Again,” which is The Donald’s mantra.
That was enough for Leonard to declare “I just watched Donald Trump win the Iowa caucus: Inside the one rally that sealed the deal.”
Maybe Grassley’s appearance with Trump was a hugely important validation that converted a toss-up race into a done deal. I’m skeptical, however. It seems like the key component of the Republican nominating contest this year is that the voters really don’t care what people like Chuck Grassley think.
To see what I mean, take a look at Byron York’s piece from New Hampshire. He went up there over the weekend and hobnobbed with a Who’s Who of Republican Establishment figures. He asked everyone he met whether they personally knew anyone who was supporting Donald Trump. For the most part, these establishment figures couldn’t come up with a single name.
In one of my first conversations at the Radisson, with two Republican activists, I asked a simple what’s-up question about Trump. Both immediately responded in exactly the same way: “I don’t know anybody who supports him.” They’re politically active and aware, but they said they have no contact in their daily lives with even a single person who supports their party’s front-runner.
After that conversation, I began to ask everyone I met: Do you know anyone who supports Donald Trump? In more cases than not — actually, in nearly all the cases — the answer was no.
While there is a bit of skepticism about the accuracy of the polls, the predominant mood is one of mystification. How can Trump be doing so well when virtually no one “respectable” is willing to admit that they’re supporting him?
I’m sure part of the explanation here is that there are a lot more people who are willing to vote for Trump than there are who are willing to tell their friends that they’re supporting him. But, back to the Grassley question, is it really likely that there are a bunch of potential Trump voters out there who were just waiting for Grassley’s tepid stamp of approval? It seems to me like a Grassley endorsement would be more likely to make people question whether Trump is really the outsider he claims to be.
It will be interesting to see how accurate the polls are. It’s a very challenging environment to try to gauge the mood of the electorate. In Iowa, you have the oddity of the caucus system which makes it harder to turn out minimally invested voters. In New Hampshire, you have a system where independents can choose either the Democratic or the Republican race, so some folks may be contemplating not whether to vote for Trump or Cruz, but Trump or Sanders.
In both cases, Trump will be challenged to do as well as the polls indicate he’s going to do. Maybe a semi-endorsement from Grassley helps. My guess is that it doesn’t.
No. You have miscalculated.
The “voters [who] really don’t care what people like Chuck Grassley think” have already made up their minds. There are still millions of voters in this country who do care what their PermaGov representatives think, and they are the ones who will listen…hard…when someone like Grassley speaks.
Score another win for Trump.
Watch.
AG
Gee, Arthur, that sound like the kind of thing Deepak Chopra would say.
Naaahhh…he’s to busy selling psychic snake oil to bother with this shit.
AG
Whoosh
I’m pretty sure that Deepak Chopra is the guy who invented the rhetorical style in which the writer ends everything with
Watch.
Bet on it.
It reminds me of the old James Carville line: Democrats have to fall in love, Republicans just have to fall in line.
That explains the persistence of Sanders and the eventual capitulation of the GOP to Il Douche.
I disagree. My reaction would be “establiahment is realizing we are gonna win, so they can join in or go under.”
Thats how I’d feel if $chumer or Obama endorsed Sanders.
Kinda goes back to the definition of “likely primary voters”. It could easily be that the R establishment in NH doesn’t know anyone who will admit to supporting Trump. But then the R’s have been living in a bubble for 20 years, not talking to anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
It would appear that that applies to the RWNJ R’s in NH as well.
My friend working for Sanders in New Hampshire says she sees A LOT of Trump yard signs. Dunno if that means anything, but it’s definitely there.
Trump has little support among the GOP establishment, so of course they don’t know anyone voting for him. What percentage of the NH has college degrees? Isn’t Trump’s base of support among the lesser educated?
It means that there are LOTS of people in NH who are supporting Trump and they don’t care who knows about it, of course.
AG
Raging assholes are never shy about trumpeting who they are to the world. The rage against PC speech because that imposes some potential costs to them — jobs, income, etc. — for their raging asshole displays.
are they actually in yards or on median strips and grass plots on road turns? one sees lots of median strip/ grass plot signs around election time in NH
In yards.
in yards, then in means something.
“there are a lot more people who are willing to vote for Trump than there are who are willing to tell their friends that they’re supporting him.”
Or maybe there are a lot more people willing (actually, eager) to tell pollsters they are voting for Trump than actually are voting for Trump, or possibly anyone.
I don’t know of course, but isn’t that another possibility?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428407/donald-trump-polls-analysis
By the same token, it COULD mean that Trump’s support is even stronger than it seems. But I doubt that, because there is a big difference between telling a pollster what you think he wants to hear, and actually going out and pulling that lever.
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/21/10637998/donald-trump-poll-republicans
That’s a lot more likely IMO. That’s how the Bradley effect worked; people were lying to the pollsters, not to their friends.
The tighter the polling screen for likely voters, the less of a lead Trump has, and that’s because his supporters are in fact people less likely to vote, middle-aged white guys who often don’t bother, many of whom haven’t even changed their registration from Democratic though they haven’t voted for a Democrat in 35 years. Not that Trump will necessarily lose, but it’s tighter than it looks.
It’s unlikely that many undecided voters are aware (or care) that Grassley appeared there.
It’s Iowa Republicans, and they love their Chuckles. And Rubio’s soft on ethanol. I think it could make a difference.
See my reply below.
My son did a report on biofuels for his science class, and what came out very clearly is that ethanol produced from corn is not only the most commercially developed biofuel at present, but also the one with the worst disadvantages. Relatively high energy input, high water input, lots of processing needed to make it usable, competes with food crops, reduced greenhouse emissions but still relatively high compared to other biofuels. Methanol’s a lot better, butanol better still, but they are barely available as yet. They can both be made from algae, butanol can even be made from bacteria and requires no additional processing to run an internal-combustion engine, with 70% less greenhouse emissions than gasoline.
Seems to me that “media” barons are the ones endorsing Trump and giving him lots of free media to keep his campaign going. No other candidate has been given as much free media attention as Trump.
Isn’t that the group who deserves study? Why are they doing this? Seems clear to me that the “media” barons have thrown their considerable weight, money, power and influence behind Trump. Has Trump struck a deal with them that they like?
Conservative voters, in particular, have been carefully taught over the past three decades to be very powerfully influenced by their tinpot “leaders” blaring at them 24/7/365. Most are supporting Trump. Now Palin’s been brought in on the action.
I’d look at the media barons, frankly, for why they want Trump to win.
As for the R establishment?? Seems to me that they’ve been kicked to the curb. Billionaire bloodless coup?
They give airtime to Trump because he’s supposedly ratings gold. I’m sure there is more to it than that.
And they may have thought those ratings were harmless profit seeking as Trump was expected to crash and flame out as quickly as Cain did in ’12.
Precisely, Marie.
Now they’re panicking.
However, the most crassly greedy among them must have figured out by now what a boon a Trump presidency would be to the media. An outrage a day!!! Pure media gold.
AG
Maybe in the very early days, the media barons decided to give Trump tons of exposure based on ratings/ad income. I can see that, but over the course of time, his media exposure has been quite excessive, including on the so-called “public” (ha ha) media (NPR/PBS) – yeah, I know those are basically corporate shill outlets, but still…
Trump continues to garner ever more air/print time, insofar as I can see.
Yes, the GOP establishment – via the usual idiocracy pundits, like Bobo Brooks – are having fainting spells and panic attacks, but from where I sit, it sure doesn’t look to me like the media billionaires are freaking out. If anything, they’re providing Trump with even more attention.
Ergo, to be redundant: what’s up with that? What’s the angle of the media elite?? Why so in love with Trump? Did they strike a deal with him? I’m serious.
Forget about the GOP “establishment.” Clearly, they’re toast at this point. That’s not who’s leading the charge, and that’s for sure.
Do you want my most cynical interpretation?
But of course!
* Looks expectant *
The long version or the short one?
Whatever suits you! Don’t be a tease!!
Would the long one make a good diary entry?
Not keen on turning a longish response comment into a diary for a variety of reasons.
Okay, then; as you will.
Short version: what Grassley revealed as 2016 GOP Presidential election plan version 4.0. Only difference between it and 1.0 is they’ll take a loss instead of being indifferent to winning or losing. In the near term Goldwater worked out well for them.
Thanks for linking that very interesting article, which helps firm up the issue.
So here’s another way to phrase the question: is Trump bringing out voters that don’t usually vote, or is he just getting them to say they will vote for him, when in reality they still won’t bother to vote?
Since Sanders’s strategy depends on energizing a lot of new voters, the same question should be asked about him.
Well, if I still have a grasp on reality, I would have to say that Trump is a “feel-good” bullshit artist appealing to people through the emotional satisfaction of finding their collective fantasy world reinforced. The same appeal as Fox News and RW talk radio. Whereas Sanders’ campaign is a serious attempt to energize constituencies that have not previously been heard from.
The secret to Sanders’ strategy is that he is seriously aiming to empower his supporters. I think his “ground game” is incomparably superior to Trump’s, and the way he is educating his audience is far more likely to build the confidence, enthusiasm, and HOPE to make damn sure they actually get out and vote.
Many commentators, such as Charles Blow in today’s Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/25/opinion/hillary-clinton-stumbles.html
state that Sanders’ New Deal-like policy goals are far less likely to be realized in the current political climate than Clinton’s incremental ones.
But I think these commentators miss the point that Sanders is seriously aiming to empower his supporters. If he succeeds, the “current political climate” will be significantly different. That is really what he means by “building a revolution.”
Remember that line of John Lennon, “You say you want a revolution … you’ve got to free your mind instead.” Well, it’s not an either/or. First you free your mind, then you get your revolution. Because when the first happens as a social phenomenon rather than a purely individual one, you’ve got your revolution. The rest will follow.
Thus, if Sanders does win, he comes in with a strength and breadth of support not seen since FDR. But even if he loses, he will have launched a powerful movement that will continue exerting pressure on Hillary and on congress. Or at least that’s what he’s trying to do.
Trump is not a parallel to Sanders on the right, he is a simulacrum and a parody, and I do not think he can pull off anything of that kind. He’s throwing gasoline on an existing fire, not educating anyone, not building anything, and he doesn’t have anything like the breadth of support of Sanders.
(This was in reply to Yastreblyansky.)
You make some very good points in re to Sanders, and I agree. There are rumblings out there, including Bloomberg’s “threat” to run as an Indie, which are indicative of more fear/concern over Sanders than Trump.
The media barons effectively shut down almost any exposure to Sanders for as long as they possibly could. What little attention was paid to the D Campaign early on was mainly on HRC.
Nowadays, the media barons have to give Sanders some of the attention he is due, and the 1% ain’t happy about that.
Fancy that, the GOP establishment is having fainting fits over Trump, but the 1% is more afraid of Bernie.
Interesting times. Why is the 1% not afraid of Trump?
“Why is the 1% not afraid of Trump? “
I guess that may be a rhetorical question, but I’ll answer it anyway.
They’re not afraid of him because he’s one of them, and more straightforwardly than Hillary is. So . . . “let’s make a deal!”
Oligarchs and Aristocrats are much more likely to consider themselves able to control demagogues like Trump, rather than Sanders.
Trump is just repeating Walls, Mexicans, Muslims, and Strength. Trump’s supporters don’t really care how any of those problems get solved, as long as their fears are expressed by a leader as the fears that if addressed, will make America Great Again.
Sanders, on the other hand, stays on message and has specific policies that he thinks will make the average American much better off. And those policies, while not necessarily soaking the rich for everything they have, are clearly aimed at making sure the rich lose some of their power and prestige in re: pulling the levers of government for their own behalf.
So, the oligarchs and aristocrats (wannabes…so far) look at Trump as one of their own playing Demagogue, and think they can work with him, because he is one of them.
Sanders is most certainly not an oligarch, nor an aristocrat (wannabee)… or an enabler of the oligarchy to continue owning and operating this country for their own behalf.
Many non-Trumpsters are against Trump and HRC as both being pandering pricks, while saying they don’t want Sanders, but believe that Sanders is at least authentic.
And there it is. The Establishment will ultimately fall behind Trump as one of their own who coopted their machinery, whereas they know damn well Sanders is not one of their own.
Trump is giving instant gratification to his ‘supporters’ as part of his shtick, they aren’t even thinking about governance. He’s not a genuine candidate, just a daily reality TV experience; his ‘product’ is delivered by watching or talking about him.
All of that may be true.
That said, Trump commands his followers in the sense that they recognize and acknowledge what he’s selling.
Trump is a marketer, not a builder, and not a developer.
Trump sells you shit. Period.
His followers won’t just give up on him, because they see what he is selling, and they literally buy it up.
He’s selling nationalism, jingoism, racism, and tribalism. The only thing required to buy those things are dissatisfaction.
You think a lot of people are dissatisfied? I sure do.
NPR media matters had an item on the relative amount of coverage for trump, clinton and sanders; re: sanders they started out with some complicated parsing to show there wasn’t actually a blackout on sanders. I think they were also suggesting they didn’t have to cover him at first b/c didn’t think he could win [that was briefly alluded to but I missed part of it]. and btw there are an enormous number of fluff articles about Clinton in the NYTimes, extra “non political” coverage that keeps her name out there – should start counting to see if there’s one every day.
Media matters December 2015: Report: ABC World News Tonight Has Devoted 81 Minutes To Trump, One Minute To Sanders
Tyndall Report
Guess having the most small donations ever (by a very wide margin) and raising $74 million in campaigns fund, almost exclusively from non-maxi donors and more than any one of the GOP candidates isn’t particularly newsworthy or meaningful.
Doubt the ratio of Clinton coverage on NPR compared with Sanders was much different from that of the broadcast news.
Well the 1% clearly doesn’t want it known that the little people are actually making a dent in the POTUS race, which, since Citizens United, is meant only to be preserve of the very wealthy and very connected. How dare the Hoi Poloi horn in their horse race??? And by supporting a self-professed socialist, no less. The very idea! Information must be suppressed, STAT!
That makes sense, esp the coverage of HRC in the NYT. I mean, really, HRC is Wall Street’s candidate. While she doesn’t provide the reality tv-grabbing headlines, Wall St AND the MIC know they’ll be in good hands with HRC.
Bernie Sanders? Well, not so much. Follow the money. Cui Bono applies… always.
I read the Times every day and, to be fair, in comparison with other MSM they have lately been giving Sanders pretty decent coverage. Certainly way better than the ABC hacks.