Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why the Upper Midwest Hates Trump
The next big primary contest is Wisconsin. According to the Marquette Law School poll, Cruz is leading Trump by 10 points, a number confirmed in the latest Fox Business poll. In fact, Trump’s Wisconsin unfavorability rating is at a whopping 70 percent. Trump is leading nationally, so why is the Badger State so opposed to him?
One reason is the unique experience of Wisconsin Republicans. They’ve been through the political wringer with the thuggish protests of Scott Walker’s reforms, bitter recall elections, and unethical investigations of his supporters. The voters are in no mood for another round of political unrest, and are well briefed on the ideological underpinnings of conservative policies. When Trump repeated progressive lies about Walker’s record and tangled with popular local radio hosts, voters were not amused.
But there is something deeper at work. Find Wisconsin on a map and look to the left. In neighboring Minnesota, Marco Rubio beat Trump by 15; Cruz beat Trump by 8. Next door to Minnesota and Wisconsin is Iowa, where Cruz won and Rubio nearly came in second. While Trump can win in most parts of the country, the Upper Midwest is not buying what he’s selling. The only exception to this is Michigan, where the lion’s share of voters reside in the rust-belt southeast corner.
Most of us have heard of “Minnesota Nice” — the friendly, reserved, play-by-the-rules behavior favored by that state’s residents. But Wisconsin has a similar Scandinavian (though more German) culture, as do North and South Dakota. When the Upper Midwest of Europe relocated to the Upper Midwest of the United States, they brought their politeness, understatement, and emotional restraint with them.
All of these characteristics are diametrically opposed to the Trump ethos of baseless braggadocio, histrionic complaint, and conflict as first resort. Critics of Minnesota Nice cast it as barely masked passive-aggressiveness, but active-aggressiveness is considered not only unseemly, but unmanly.
Scandis find virtue in stoicism. When you’re shoveling a sidewalk buried in three feet of snow, your neighbor doesn’t want to hear your complaints — especially since she’s 68, has a bum leg, and cleared her driveway before the sun rose. Just do what needs to be done, and would it kill you to put a smile on your face?
I grew up in a Finnish family originally from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, so my four-foot-ten grandma (who lived to 100) instructed me in all the cultural norms, often punctuated by some choice cuss words from the old country:
- Don’t draw attention to yourself.
- Don’t use 100 words when zero will do.
- Don’t exhaust people with your problems; they have enough of their own.
- Deal with it.
There’s no room for boasting, tough talk, or threats — speak through your actions instead. If you have more than others, hide it so people don’t think you’re a [Finnish expletive]. Mrs. Gunderson is 68 years old and has a bum leg; shovel her driveway before you take care of your own.
Granted, these Upper Midwestern traits have faded as the residents are Americanized and job seekers from the rest of the country move in. But unspoken social contracts are a tenacious thing, especially when the brutal climes of the American steppe reinforce them each year.
New York values are not Iowa values. And they sure as paska aren’t Minnesota or Wisconsin values.
Published in General
Which illuminates a broader point: if the Republicans actually did what they say they will do, we’d have a lock on electoral politics in this country.
The few Republicans who do so, even if not perfectly, wind up hugely popular.
Sorry about your Illinois politics. Even if you don’t vote at the top of the ticket, I hope you will vote for the best choices you have otherwise.
No, I was interested in Wisconsin policy. I like to bicycle to town halls in Wisconsin, where I take photos and try to learn something about local government and local history at each one. That sometimes puts me in touch with larger Wisconsin issues, and I would like more of that. It would also be a good point of comparison with Michigan.
So far I’ve done this sort of thing in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. I’d like to do Indiana, as it’s a great state for riding, but there isn’t much left of township government there. Iowa did away with township government in the 30s. The Dakotas still have some township government, but maybe no township halls to take photos of. I’d like to do a better job of keeping up with state issues in all of these states.
Once again:
The presidency is an executive function, with a very long list of appointments to make. I am convinced that a Team Trump would do far less damage to America than would a Team Hillary.
Trump has a small operation. He will be inviting all sorts of people to fill Executive Branch positions. Since he is not an ideologue, and his campaign stresses business sense, he will be looking for competence and for team players who can get along with each other. I expect conservatives, liberals, centrists, and libertarians can all find work in a Trump Administration. There will be internal friction because they will be pulling in different directions. I expect the overall result to be a mediocre Administration and little in the way of signature accomplishments.
Hillary will bring a huge team of ideological Leftists with her. They will work hard to outdo Team Obama in weaponizing federal agencies to push America to the Left, reducing individual liberties and expanding the overreach of the Federal bureaucracies.
I am convinced that Team Hillary is a much more dangerous potential than is a possible Team Trump.
Always! My mom is a precinct committeeman, so I get lots if info on local politics, which are pretty conservative. I go to the little local functions and meet the candidates and so on.
That’s neat.
Another good source is rightwisconsin.com — Charlie Sykes’ website. And he and Belling and Jay Weber and some of the other influential talk show hosts have podcasts. But that’s more the politics than the policy.
I was talking today to another very smart person I know who has made in the past a very similar argument — that Trump would at least be competent. And at one point I kind of gave that credence.
But the absolutely breathtaking incompetence of Trump’s Wisconsin campaign has blown me away. If he could win that state he’d win the nomination, so presumably it’s something he cared about — and yet he’s manifestly utterly unserious about it. How in the world can we have any confidence he’d approach the presidency with more seriousness?
The person in question basically agreed with me, and thinks he lost the nomination this week.
Please don’t get our hopes up. LOL.
Your wish is my command. Here’s the flip side. Trump’s managed to lower expectations now. Everyone knows he’s going to lose Wisconsin; there are predictions he’s going to lose all but one or two of the congressional districts. It’s now within the realm of possibility that he gets shut out completely. That means that if Trump loses by a smallish margin and takes three or four CDs, he can spin it as outperforming expectations. That would help his narrative going into NY.
On the other hand, if he gets shut out — and if Cruz breaks 50%, which is just possible — that’s just really, really bad for him.
According to Nate Silver at his “538” website, Trump is running at 95% of where he needs to be to win, and would need to win 24 of Wisconsin’s 42 delegates to even be at 1,208 delegates, 29 short of a majority.
The Republican Party has had conventions since 1856. Ten conventions were open conventions and in 5 of them, the nomination was denied to a first ballot candidate who had a plurality of the delegates, but not a majority. In 1876, Maine Senator James Blaine had 47% of the delegate votes, but could never get a majority of delegates to support him. Trump’s support is soft, and there are a number of #NeverTrump delegates, who will never vote for him. After the first ballot delegates will be released to vote their consciences. If not Trump, then Cruz, Kasich and Rubio can all makes runs at a majority.
In 1880 James Garfield made a brilliant nominating speech. When that convention deadlocked, he was chosen by the delegates on the 36th ballot, and he was elected that November. The delegates may look at Speaker Paul Ryan and choose him. The delegates may decide upon a Kasich-Rubio or Rubio-Kasich ticket. The delegates may decide upon Cruz-Rubio or Rubio-Cruz. But a consensus will be arrived upon and a nominee will be chosen who isn’t a bully and who has not alienated 70% of all Americans, as Trump has.
I am not saying I think Trump would exhibit any competence, except that I do think he would be able to hire some competent staff. (Or, perhaps hire a bunch of folk and then fire the ones who turn out to be incompetent. That might me more his style.)
Your assessment of incompetence of Trump’s Wisconsin campaign is troubling, but then I wonder how much time or effort really went into it.
I am really hoping you are right about Trump losing the nomination.
If he does win the nomination, then I will vote for him.
Yes, reprehensible Trump would have my vote if he becomes the GOP nominee.
Yikes.
Lord, have mercy.
Yeah, there’s been a lot of chicken counting around these parts in response to a hopeful poll and some erosion of high-profile support. I want to believe too, but I’m waiting for the vote.
Two polls showing Cruz up ten, and one is the Marquette poll that — with good reason — is considered the gold standard in WI…
The blowout chicken-counting is premature, but I’m willing to predict Trump loses WI.
I can tell you — virtually none.
One factor in that conversation I mentioned above is that in the last conversation I’d backed up my prediction that Trump would lose WI with a few key facts about state politics. Trump proceeded to demonstrate he didn’t know any of them. Literally, I don’t think by Monday morning he’d spent ten minutes listening to anyone who really knows the state.
That’s what I find breathtaking. Because I don’t see any evidence that he takes foreign policy any more seriously than this campaign he presumably wants to win.
Plus the whole Heidi Cruz thing. This is someone who lets his personal ego get in the way of strategy. Every foreign leader will know that you can get under his skin, get him mad, and he’ll do stupid things.
If, like my grandmother, you came from Norway, eastern North Dakota had to look awfully good for general flatness, ease of plowing, and a weather novelty called summer. Similarly San Diego looked awfully good to Pops when he got out of his 1938 Hudson to begin his internship (entirely reasonable and varied topography, ocean proximity, and year-round warmth, although the marine layer–June Gloom–was an unexpected and profound disappointment.) I vest, Nordmenn! En optimalisering venter! (which may mean: Westward, Norwegians! An optimization awaits!)
Why? Have you looked at the kind of people he surrounds himself with? Corey Lewandowski, for example? Can you begin to imagine what an administration filled with thugs like that would look like?
Oh, yes. I expect a bumpy ride.
But from Trump I expect diversity of thought. That would be an atmosphere in which the “climbers” would rise. Morale would tank, backbiting would increase, and very little would be accomplished. Most importantly, I would expect Trump to fire troublemakers, since firing people is sort of a theme with Trump.
From Hillary I expect a team of ideologues. They see the world from the far Left, and would work together to destabilize and ruin America. They would be far worse than Team Trump. Consider how almost nobody that got in with Team Obama was ever disciplined in any way for even very awful infractions. The Leftist horde would be fully unleashed to re-make America as a Marxist utopia.
You are incredibly optimistic on the way a Trump executive branch would play out. Why do you assume he would punish even awful infractions? I think he seems to have exactly the moral compass Clinton/Obama criminal enterprises. Why would you assume the backbiting would lead to a stalemate? Isn’t it more likely that those who are expert at manipulation, who seem to be on the left disproportionately, would win out in this situation? What if he did appoint someone like his sister to SCOTUS? What if he just listened to his advisors, something you seem to think optimal, and they advise a Kagan or Ginsburg? What if we had lost the Senate? I think your dismal prediction is still Pollyannish.
And you think Hillary would be better ?
Trump won some of his celebrity for “You’re fired!” He would not hesitate to sack staffers.
Cabinet and Deputy Secretary level bureaucrats are subject to Advise and Consent. Those positions and the SCOTUS nominees will have to make it through the Senate, where Trump would be opposed by his own party.
Manipulators are part of every Administration. Backbiting is complained of by everyone who has served. I would expect it to be worse in a Trump Administration. However, I also expect a greater diversity of thought from Trump appointments. Since they will be pulling in different directions, I expect the overall result to be stalemate and very little to offer in the way of accomplishments.
I fear that a Hillary Administration would be much worse for America, because I think it would function better and accomplish more. They would be pulling together in the Leftist direction.
Like he’s fired Lewandowski? I’m guessing the only criterion for his maintaining an employee is that the employee be an uncritical sycophant.
I would expect anyone who disagreed with the guy on anything to be fired immediately.
MJBubba, you have been valiant in your efforts to try to win over the NeverTrump people to seeing some redeeming qualities in the guy, but it isn’t going to happen, because we see supporting him as genuinely evil. And even if you could win over a few of us here (and I don’t believe you can), we represent a huge percentage of the voting public that will never, ever, ever vote for Trump for dogcatcher, much less the presidency.
If your goal here is to get the presidency in the hands of someone other than Clinton, the best strategy is to work, donate, and pray for Cruz as much as is humanly possible.
While I will certainly not vote for Trump for the presidency, I really wouldn’t have a problem with him being a dogcatcher. Since I don’t live there, I wouldn’t mind if he ran for mayor of New York City.
Oh, I don’t see a lot of “redeeming qualities” in Trump. I agree with the assessment that Trump is evil.
But I see Trump as garden-variety evil. Narcissistic, bullying, brash, self-absorbed, etc.
I see Hillary as industrial-level evil, with a horde of minions to eat up the substance of the land like locusts.
Oh, I don’t see a lot of “redeeming qualities” in Trump. I agree with the assessment that Trump is evil.
But I see Trump as garden-variety evil. Narcissistic, bullying, brash, self-absorbed, etc.
I see Hillary as industrial-strength evil, with a horde of minions to eat up the substance of the land like locusts.
For what it’s worth, a tale of Trump and Johnny Carson.
Good way to put it. I can’t vote for either of them, but I think life and liberty would be in less danger from Trump than from Hillary’s hate machine.
How about this for a formulation: Trump is stupid and evil; Hillary is smart and evil.
If there were only domestic policy to worry about, I could see taking stupid and evil over smart and evil. But the world is a large, complicated, and dangerous place. I don’t think we can afford to have stupid and evil in charge.
Industrial strength corrupted evil. Is my new favorite for lair lair pant suit on fire
Sigh…Glen Doherty was unavailable for comment.
I so want a picture of this.
Or of trump sinking in a vat of velveeta.
The fact that Trump is such an imposter makes VELVEETA the perfect medium for his demise!
Neither one of them are real!
Just imagine a Democrat controlled Senate (which is quite likely with Trump at the top of the ticket) and a President Trump. Given his utter lack of principles, could you not see him nominating an ultra-liberal justice, ramming it through over Republican protests, and calling it a victory for bipartisanship?
No, I am not convinced that a Trump presidency would be any different than a Clinton one.