People who know I am interested in politics often ask me things like “Can Trump really win the Presidency?” while at the same time shaking their heads in disbelief that such a thing might be possible. To those accustomed to European sensibilities, he seems more like a cross between Berlusconi and Le Pen, with none of the “charisma” or political experience of either. Are things really that bad in the USA that wanton ignorance, crass narcissism, racist demagoguery and an authoritarian complex are what turns people on?
Trump keeps breaking through the ceilings that the political commentariat seek to place over his head. His appeal was said to be limited to 30% of the most committed Republican Primary voters. Then that became 40%, then 50%+. It was said that the Republican establishment would never allow his nomination at their convention in Cleveland. Except that now they have effectively thrown in the towel and conceded he will be their nominee. Most have made their peace with him and now seek influence within his inner circle. House Speaker Ryan and the Bush family are some of the few remaining hold-outs.
It seems all he has to do is say a few soothing words, and they come crawling back to his eminence: previous insults brushed under the carpet. In fact it never seems to matter what he has said or done in the past. The only reality which matters is what he has said in the latest news cycle. The latest opinion polls have Hillary Clinton leading him by about 4% in national polls. But opinion polls have little credibility this far out from the actual election in November. Hillary still has to shake off her challenger, Bernie Sanders, to be confirmed as his opponent, and it is anyone’s guess how many of Sanders’ supporters will eventually turn out for Hillary.
Few pundits or political scientists predicted his success. A former top staffer maintains that he never expected to poll more than 12% either, and that his campaign started out as little more than a brand building exercise for his various businesses. Some research shows that an authoritarian personality trait is the best predictor of who will support him – better than gender, ethnicity, educational attainment or income. Arthur Gilroy, writing on Booman.com argues that he will win because he is a professional celebrity, and that in virtually every election since JFK vs. Nixon, it is the candidate who is better at doing what a celebrity does who wins: Looking good, being entertaining, saying witty or memorable things and acting natural on TV is what winning US elections is all about.
Whenever one sees vox pop interviews with Trump supporters at his rallies, a recurring theme is: “He says it as it is”, “he speaks the truth”, “he’s not afraid to make big decisions”, “he’s not beholden to big money donors”: Except he is. None of the messy complexity that politics often entails: the compromising, diplomacy, and lengthy negotiations. And the irony is that people who have never had much in their lives seem to identify with someone who was born with it all. Trump inherited about as much wealth as Warren Buffet, but it is Buffet who has expanded his inheritance into a much larger fortune. Indeed Trump would have made a much larger fortune had he simply invested his inheritance in Index linked funds. Instead Trump has stiffed many workers, suppliers, and investors when some of his ventures failed. He has never treated the little people with anything but contempt.
Of course even good entertainers can sometimes reach their sell-by date. People become bored with their shtick and move on – to the next big thing. But is Hillary ever likely to be that big thing, or even just slip in by default as enthusiasm for Trump fades after a long political season? Indeed will he become bored with it all and tire of the long grind?
His ego is such that I doubt he will pass up on the opportunity to become the biggest winner of all. The opportunity to humiliate the political establishment which has never given him too much respect will be too big to give up. He is like the dumb kid in class who was looked down on by the smart kids. But he is going to show them all. He will have the best women, the best words, the best products, the best House, and the biggest job in the land. Think of the marketing potential! He could be sharing some Trump water with Vladimir Putin – another strong man he admires.
Hillary is everything he hates – an opinionated women, educated, an establishment icon. “She’s got nothing going for her except that she’s a women. She would get 5% of the vote if she were a man” is his most heartfelt put down. No doubt this resonates with some men used to bossing their wives, who now feel humiliated by women making greater strides in the workplace. His only comment on Carly Fiorina, ex Hewlett Packard Chief Executive and an early rival for the nomination was that she was ugly. “Who would vote for a face like that?” Never mind that Trump, himself, is hardly an oil painting…
So how can a candidate who has said and done so much to humiliate and insult women, Hispanics, Moslems, immigrants and the Republican establishment still be competitive in the race? Are there enough white males with inferiority complexes or authoritarian tendencies to bring his candidacy over the line? Will many women and minorities vote for him anyway out of some Stockholm Syndrome like identification with their tormentor? Will religious conservatives overlook his obvious failing to respect their beliefs, values and morals in his own personal life?
My take is that Hillary will struggle to overcome him until some time in the fall by which time former Sanders’ supporters will have overcome their disappointment at his failure to win the nomination, and reluctantly fall in line behind the Hillary bandwagon. The media have a huge vested interest in a competitive race and will continue to portray it as a close run thing despite all evidence to the contrary. Trump’s right hand man, Paul Manafort has a long track record working for unsavoury dictators and using false flag and black operations to discredit opponents. Hillary had better be ready for a dirty war.
But she will win by a large margin: The only question is whether her coat-tails will be long enough to drag in a Democratic majority into both Houses of Congress as well. As the Republican policy of scorched earth towards Obama has shown, there is not much a President can do if he doesn’t have a Congress he can work with, and right now winning both houses is still a tall order, given the gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics Republican controlled State Houses have been engaging in.
Hillary will also have to realise that campaigning and governing in the USA at the moment is more like fighting a war than engaging in diplomacy and reasoned debate. To achieve anything Democrats are going to have to overcome their fetish for bipartisanship and compromise. Their opponents only see such posturing as a weakness to be exploited. The filibuster will have to be abolished in the Senate and the Supreme Court filled with activist progressives rather than conservatives.
It remains to be seen whether Hillary has the balls to be anything other than the archetypal weak women that Trump so despises. She has to become his worst nightmare, and that of his supporters. She also has to break with her big money donors on Wall Street and elsewhere if she is ever to be seen as anything more than an establishment candidate fighting off a populist insurgency. The neo-conservatives fleeing Trump and flocking to the Democratic Party in the hope of influence and preferment will have to be disappointed. Ultimately, her biggest challenge will be to take the big money out of US politics. The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC which effectively equated money with free speech, and corporations with people, will have to be overturned by a new majority on the court. Corporate donations will have to be de-legitimized as the bribery they truly are.
But does she even have the vision, never mind the will to go down that path?
Yes, people like celebrities, as long as they are entertaining. But Trump faces a dilemma of diminishing returns: in order for his shtick not to get old, he needs to be more outrageous every time; but the more outrageous he gets, the more he alienates key demographics. He has a choice between becoming boring or a complete clown; or thread a fine line in a kind of Goldilocks solution that seems to me very unlikely
You write:
“…or thread a fine line in a kind of Goldilocks solution that seems to me very unlikely.”
It may seem very unlikely to you, but he’s crazy like a fox. Do not discount his chances against a high-negatives candidate like Hillary Clinton. If Trump can manage to slide even a small degree in the direction of “respectable” while HRC is pounded over and over by her undeniable position as the candidate of the .01%?
All bets are off.
Bet on it.
AG
I do agree with you that Trump is crazy like a fox (as opposed to crazy from watching Fox…), and that the media will do everything in their power to make this a tight race. But Trump only has one tool in his toolbox (abuse), and that tool reaches a point of diminishing returns
You write: “…and that tool reaches a point of diminishing returns.”
From your mouth to God’s ears. Please!!!
Only…when does that happen?
People have been saying the same damned thing about Trump for almost a year now.
When, exactly?
AG
when he reaches the general election and:
the world is a shitty place, but it’s not THAT shitty
Watch.
GB
I hope that you are correct, GUBula. I really do. But ask…oh, say the inhabitants of Nigeria or Syria or Venezuela…how shitty the world is. We are not even close to that level yet, but we are certainly…as tech newspeak would have it…”trending” in that direction.
There’s lots of room to fall…bet on it.
Clinton or Trump…you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.
AG
Perhaps more importantly, the US is not that shitty a place – not so shitty to where it would be reasonable to equate the GOP primary and caucus voters with the general electorate, nor so shitty that it would be reasonable to expect that Trump or some Trump equivalent could garner anything beyond a minority of a general electorate.
It’s getting better and better for the highest income level. Up to 9% in 2015 from 4% in 1971. Upper middle income only up slightly from 10% to 12%. Middle income down from 61% to 50%.
I’m part of the demographic that is being squeezed out. Been aware of that particular article for a bit. A good reminder of what is happening, though. Depending on what I read (in what passes for spare time these days) the impression I get is that of a great deal of pessimism regarding income inequality in the short term. Probably will get worse for the course of this decade and possibly the next before it gets better. How much worse? That remains to be seen.
That was just part one. Part two was just published. America’s Shrinking Middle Class: A Close Look at Changes Within Metropolitan Areas.
This only looks at income. Add in wealth and debt and the inequality and lack of security becomes even more pronounced. And it’s not just inequality but the degree of inequality across the income/wealth tiers that defines the relatively satisfaction within in a population, community, nation.
Pinned it for later reading.
Trump will provide entertainment for people by his attempts to eviscerate HRC. He has no need to attack key demographics–he’s won the nomination. Now Trump will try to show that he really is a tolerant person and all that talk is history. Watching the Repub debates and his tweets, that’s how I see he operates.
That’s a good point; he will focus his attacks on Hillary instead of mexicans… but he is still in danger of overdoing it, and of alienating women by his attacks.
Also, if dems are smart, they will select a VP that will be “trump bait”, a part of some minority
I thought of that. However, if there is a reaction from the HRC campaign that Trump is insulting women, Trump’s campaign will say: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Then Trump invokes images of Harry Truman, who was very popular for saying what was on his mind. Trump can be pretty clever. That’s my observation.
Never forget Truman. He was the first national politician to really beat the…at that time nascent…mass media.
He had a lot of deservedly bad press, too. Read about his lifelong involvement with the Kansas City Pendergast gang.
Here, here and here.
Truman was a front man for top-level gangsters for years. So has been Trump, I will absolutely guarantee it. Just for starters, there is no way he could have remained in power as a casino owner in Atlantic City unless he had financial ties to the mob. I have worked there, and it is as crooked a city as has ever come down the pike, a place where the NYC, NJ and Philadelphia mobs…and the Providence boys, as well…set up a sort of “neutral” zone in the late ’60s/early ’70s in their own mutual skimming interest. Las Vegas East. The scam only began to fall apart when competition from newly opened casinos…also crooked, bet on it (I’ve worked in them, too. You can smell it in the staff dining rooms if you have good antennae.)…began opening hours closer to population centers along the northeastern corridor.
Will the mass media do its job of Trump dumping by uncovering his criminal ties? They better get started if are going to do that.
I can see the headlines now.
It doesn’t have to be exactly “true,” after all. It’s not likely that he has done anythng even nearly as mob-connected as has say the CIA.
“Truth” in the minds of most U.S. citizens is still whatever the media say it is.
So it goes.
Unless Trump has already made his peace with the real powers-that-be…not an unlikely move from a back room, big-time negotiation vet…we will soon begin to see these stories in the news.
Watch.
A Nazi butler? Pshaw!!! More reason for the haters to vote for him.
But a criminal-type in the White House?
Heaven forbid!!!
Oh.
Nevermind…
AG
On eurotrib I asked:
European Tribune – Can Trump really win the White House?
Since nobody answered I did some back of envelope calculations myself:
European Tribune – Can Trump really win the White House?
So, apart from the crude nature of my model, I guess the basic truth is that a record low turnout would get Trump the presidency. Voter suppression is one part where the republicans are already doing what they can, but a campaign can also be geared towards lower turnout if it aims to turn up negatives rather then positives. There is also a questionmark on which way Clinton will go after the primary. If Clinton fails to gain the Sanders supporters, that would depress turnout and her votes. Which is exactly the way it is looking to go.
Hm, now I got myself worried Trump will win. Could someone point out the fault in my reasoning?
You make what you want of current polls, but some of them are damn close in key swing states at the moment:
Quinnipiac
FLORIDA: Clinton 43 – Trump 42; Sanders 44 – Trump 42
OHIO: Clinton 39 – Trump 43; Sanders 43 – Trump 41
PENNSYLVANIA: Clinton 43 – Trump 42; Sanders 47 – Trump 41
NBC/WSJ/Marist battleground polling over past 2 months:
FL: Clinton 49, Trump 41
OH: Clinton 48, Trump 42
PA: Clinton 54, Trump 39
The only state Trump has a chance at, imo, is Ohio.
I never overlook Florida. Since 2000, it’s bad juju. Obama barely got it in 2012. You are on the same track as me re: Ohio. The industrial Midwest is full of angry people and those who can are leaving in droves. Trust me.
Frank, 3 poll mean nothing right now. It’s only May. You have the conventions coming up, 3 debates, and lots of people are not all that primes about an election right now, even though the media will tell you differently. Wait until after Labor Day to get a pulse on how the country feels.
Clinton would have to be taken down by an epic scandal (like, say, the e-mail thing blows up or the paid speeches are worse than we thought) to lose to Trump this election.
The concern is with next election. Despite liberals salivating over their demographic advantage, things do not look too well for their putative permanent multicultural majority once you dig deeper. 2012 Obama got relatively killed with youth last election compared to his 2008 performance. My favorite takeaway is that Obama’s vote share of the Latino and Asian vote rose 10% in 2012, but <45 Latinos and Asians barely budged. Hillary Clinton’s numbers are almost certainly going to be worse than 2012 Obama’s.
And those numbers are almost certainly going to get worse after four years of neoliberalism, gridlock, and warhawkery.
The Democratic Party better learn pretty quick that you can’t sustain an American multiracial coalition without youth votes.
I’ve decided that Whoever’s In Charge must really want Hillary to be president. What else would explain her miraculous good fortune in running against the only candidate in history more disliked than herself?
Seriously, in the last FiveThirtyEight podcast, they do their data-geek thing and explain that all 1980-and-after presidential candidates are clustered in an undramatic range of net-favorability scores. Then there’s Hillary, laughably far outside that range in her own rarefied air of despisedness. And then there’s Donald, as far from Hillary as she is from everyone else.
What a country!
It all depends on Sanders supporters. How many will go with Hillary in the general, or how many want to screw over the country and vote for Trump.
Right, so screw over the country a bit less and vote for Hillary Clinton.
AS opposed to those who want to screw over the country and vote for Hillary.
Your constant attacks on Sanders supporters aren’t winning your candidate any votes, even if you do have Booman backing your slurs.
In the European Tribune diary, I have suggested to learn more about the Great Awakenings in America. Those waves of religious revival, Christian fundamentalism reflect well the history and strong influence of American anti-intellectual sentiments.
In another ET thread I hypothesize that the progressives often come off as creepy by the intuitive standards of leadership recognition, thereby provoking intense simpleminded reactions.
How much could this kind of focus help prospects of progressive politics?
That’s because they often are creepy arrogant geeks. Think Ralph Nader.
I think the fourth wave is receding.
Willkommen, dasmonde!
Hah! I see your user number is much lower than mine, although I don’t recall seeing your posts before.
Welcome to the USA site, then. Wish I had seen your diaries before.
Yes, I had reduced the number of sites where I dabble…
I like Carl Beijer’s hypothesis better.