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.
Never Trump, Never Hillary, and Strategic Miscalculations
On the flagship podcast some weeks ago, Bob Costa explained Donald Trump’s theory of the 2016 election. Among the country’s large body of nonvoters, Trump sees disaffected Americans who are disgusted by both parties. He believes his nationalist, populist message will resonate and bring waves of them to the polls. In fact, he believes he can bring them out in such numbers that he can afford to lose the votes of the limited-government, Tea Party, Reaganite Republicans who heretofore composed the GOP base. Costa’s reporting is corroborated by that of others, and bolstered by Trump’s own public statements. (“There were statements made about me — those people can go away and maybe come back in eight years after we serve two terms…. Honestly, there are some people I really don’t want.” Regarding party unity: “I don’t think it’s necessary; people will be voting for me and not for the party.”)
So is Trump’s strategy correct? Recent opinion polls suggest not. He is behind nationally, in swing states, and even in former GOP bastions. He claimed he would put states like NY in play; instead, he is 30 points behind there. The signs are clear: Trump has lost more Republicans than voters he has brought in. Jettisoning Reagan Republicans in favor of Reagan Democrats would appear to have been a strategic miscalculation.
At the outset of the campaign, many commentators and Ricochet members considered Trump’s strategy eminently plausible. Trump, they claimed, was a different kind of candidate, with a media savvy the others lacked. He could reach new voters by “disrupting the narrative” and bending the media to his will, inducing them to cover the stories he desires. In a sense, he has done just this, though not in the manner his supporters had hoped. His outrageous newsmaking has repeatedly distracted the media from Hillary’s deepening scandals: using racial language to criticize the judge on the Trump University case, starting a spat with parents of a Gold Star recipient, making bad jokes about Russian espionage and armed insurrection, calling for tribute from NATO members before honoring our treaty obligations, insisting that Obama “founded ISIS,” and more. In view of Trump’s daily whining about media treatment, however, it would appear that relying on his ability to generate positive attention for conservative causes — among them Hillary’s corruption — was a fairly large strategic miscalculation.
As Trump’s poll numbers plummet, his steadfast supporters have refused to consider their candidate’s failings — his lack of fundraising, advertising, or state-level organization. Instead, they have found a convenient scapegoat in #NeverTrump. These right-leaning commentators and voters were deliberately and strategically ejected from the Republican party by Trump, but no matter. They were Republicans once, and they don’t support the nominee. In a narrative reminiscent of Germany’s post-WWI “backstabbers,” it is only their treachery that can explain Trump’s looming defeat. (To some degree, Trump’s supporters are following the candidate’s lead; Trump has repeatedly attempted to humiliate rather than co-opt skeptical party members, a probable strategic miscalculation. He now pre-emptively advances the stabbed-in-the-back narrative, claiming the election is going to be “rigged.”)
Last week, Trump’s biggest boosters on Fox News considered who would be responsible for a Trump loss.
[Sean] Hannity said it was time to “name names” during his show before blasting the “stupid games” of the #NeverTrump movement’s advocates: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Sen. Susan Collins of Maine; Sen Ben Sasse of Nebraska; conservative commentator Bill Kristol; former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, and many others.
The Fox News host then asked [Laura] Ingraham if #NeverTrump was “sabotaging” Mr. Trump’s campaign.
“I would make the argument, I think very persuasively as well, Sean, that if you call yourself a conservative and a Republican it’s actually immoral not to vote for Donald Trump — if only for the reason of the Supreme Court,” Ms. Ingraham said, Mediaite reported.
Regardless of whether Hannity and Ingraham are substantively correct or not, their approach is thoroughly baffling. One would think that if it were essential to beat Hillary on election day, Trump’s supporters would do their utmost to convert Hillary voters to neutrals, and neutrals (like me) to Trump voters. But instead, ostensible #NeverHillary folks — from Hannity & Co. to various Ricochet members and contributors — reserve their worst disdain for the neutrals. Some even sniff that voting for Hillary would be more honorable. Expressing such sentiments may satisfy one’s personal, principled vanity, but they don’t help Trump defeat Hillary. At best, if you hope to garner more votes for Trump than for Hillary, turning your fire on neutrals instead of the Democratic nominee would appear to be a strategic miscalculation.
And furthermore: Consider what happens if Trump does go on to lose. Imagine a young GOP politician, recently elected to Congress. Would you like him or her to believe that #NeverTrump is a marginal group, one that can safely be ignored in favor of Trump’s brand of nationalist populism? Or would you rather persuade the young politician that #NeverTrump is a force so powerful that it can bring down a presidential nominee — a force to be dismissed at a politician’s peril? The latter would seem to be the most ironic strategic miscalculation of all.
Published in Politics
So, what are you saying? We should vote for Hillery instead?
The importance of #NeverTrump (God, I hate that name, the hashtag, the combined word, every part of it) is vastly overrated in the eyes of the ardent Trump supporters, and fairly unimportant in the, presumed, Fall of Trump.
That being said there are many in the #NeverTrump camp, mostly among the small group of paid commentators and think tank staff, who picked the exact wrong tack to respond to his candidacy for nomination and have an out-sized influence in the politically obsessed (like every Ricochetti).
People like Kevin Williamson (“Witless Ape Rides an Escalator”) and Rick Wilson (“Childless single men who masturbate to anime”) did the exact wrong thing to stop the Trump candidacy: they launched personal attacks on Trump and (and I cannot stress how important this is) Trump voters while dismissing both Trump and his voters’ chances in the primary.
It’s for that reason I tend to think very poorly of the #NeverTrump camp, who so far appear to be correct in their assumption that Trump would be a very bad candidate for President but take that as evidence that they’re right about everything else.
You see this sort of disastrous attitude in the endless “But he fights!” comment here on Ricochet whenever Trump’s bad polling, lack of understanding of public policy or hilariously inappropriate statements come up.
The polls are indicating that Trump is heading towards disaster, just as they indicated Romney was heading for disaster in 2012. I don’t remember 2008’s polling being a huge issue but I figured the campaign was lost during the financial collapse when McCain ostentatiously suspended his camp in an attempt to seem patriotic and ended up looking like a panicky senior citizen instead.
We’d probably be better off trying to mitigate the damage or getting Trump to correct course but that would be constructive behavior and if there’s one thing the GOP has proven time and again is that it’s much better at destroying itself than building something worthwhile.
Well put.
Trump as is his want is picking fights with people who have nothing to lose and can not actually be beaten in any significant way. From the Khans, to the Media, to the NeverTrumpers. All of these groups actually have nothing on the line while Trump has his whole candidacy. While he focuses on these various distractions Hillary is able to project the image of a serious politician engaging the issues even while she is ignoring all requests for accountability. If Trump wins his argument with the Khans, the Media, or the NeverTrumpers what does he really gain? How does he stop them? The Khans are private citizens if they shut up about him no one will care, their lives will go on as normal. The New York Times isn’t going out of print because it runs bad stories on Trump, nor CNN, so if they stop they lose nothing. Bill Kristol is not going to stop writing his columns, nor is Jonah Goldberg, Rob Long, David French etc. these guys already lost in the primaries when Trump won. The only person Trump can actually beat and put out of business is Hillary. If she loses this election its probably over for her politically. I’m sure his advisers are telling him something much like this, but he doesn’t seem to have listened to them.
Good summary. For me it’ s never been whether Trump could win, I am going to vote Hillary if it is close in Florida, and Trump is still on the ticket. It’s that Trump has no positives, temperamentally, character, or ideology. There can be no conservative movement with Trump at the helm.
Seems there has been a lot of miscalculation this election cycle.
The pro-Trump (primary voters) contingent miscalculated that their enthusiasm for their candidate meant he could sweep to victory with the big momentum, never really noticing that the number of people who were enthusiastic for the man was a plurality, but not a majority of republican voters, and that he had deep, deep negatives for the rest of the group.
They miscalculated that the distaste for Hillary would cover-off the distaste for Trump (it doesn’t for many). And they continue to miscalculate that the path to victory is yelling at the others: “If Hillary wins it will be ALL YOUR FAULT”, and that “YOU’RE IMMORAL!)*
I will likely vote for Trump as the Anti-Hillary, but it won’t be with any enthusiasm, and my vote just won’t be enough.
*I utterly reject this – while I’m sure there is plenty of blame to go around, the pro-Trump contingent has a share in it with their support for a candidate that was clearly a poor choice. If beating Hillary was job #1, they should have taken the whole group into consideration instead of just pulling their guy across the finish line then demanding everyone else get into line. Didn’t work with Romney, won’t work with Trump.
It’s really like watching a train wreck, and I mainly hold Trump responsible. As you said, it’s easy to scapegoat others, but there are so many things that Trump has done poorly or not at all, and so many that he continues to do to alienate people who might vote for him, that I see a high probability for disaster ahead. Now he is blaming the media. If he leaves the race (which I predict he will), he will have many different groups to blame. And they won’t include him and his campaign.
The candidate has to win or lose on his own (picking campaign staff is part of that.)
My main issue is I’ve already seen people drawing the exact wrong conclusions from Trump’s falling poll numbers and it’ll keep sinking us deeper until @iwe‘s solution is the only possible one for us to save ourselves.
Trump has achieved his primary purpose of damaging any potential GOP contender against HRC. Now he will achieve his secondary purpose of getting HRC elected. The only question that remains is if he is self aware of these actions or if he was just a loose cannon the elites encouraged to run. I personally believe he is just a stooge used by others much smarter than him..
I think any elites clever enough to do this would have been clever enough to not let things to come to this pass-
I think it’s a stretch to say they calculated. Except in the sense that an inebriated patron, who rants and throws a half-empty bottle at a picture of John Boehner hanging on the wall, is calculating.
This is exactly what I’m talking about.
What pass? HRC is going to get elected even with her obvious baggage. That is what they want, that is what they got. The train wreck is on the GOP side. Why would the elites care about that?
Besides it is not like they have total control. They just slant the field to get their way as much as they can. Trump’s level of success probably caught them off guard. They expected a favorable result they just did not expect it to go this well for them.
No, I remember Laura Ingraham going on and on about how Trump was where all the excitement was, and he was bringing in new voters, etc.
I’m not sure why it has to be that attacks on them got their back up. It could be, I won’t discount it entirely. It could also be that Trump was what they were looking for. They might like that he wants to increase the minimum wage or feel that Bush lied us into war in Iraq. If you are a Republican, there was only one place to go if you felt that way. If people really felt that way, I’m not sure it is correct to suggest if people were only nicer to them that they would have voted for someone else. I suppose we can never know the answer to this sort of thing, but I wanted to raise the alternative possibility.
It’s fair to say Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity may have calculated. I was describing the mass of primary voters.
It’s very possible that’s what attracted them to Trump initially. His vocal (although jn my opinion probably insincere) stance against immigration and political correctness could have attracted them too. But we’ve seen flash-in-the-pan candidates before.
By sneering at the voters, soi distant pundits who could have given cogent, emotion-free rebuttals instead communicated down the idea that only an idiot could be attracted to Trump.
If you want to engage in civil discourse you have to do it adult to adult. Too many anti-Trump voices talked, and continue to talk, like parents lecturing children. And that causes problems like a Trump nomination.
I have learned to dismiss outright anyone who used the term “whines” about the media. That’s like saying Reagan whined about the Soviets or that Bush (any of them ) whined about Saddam Hussien.
Still I read the whole thing. What’s your point? That Trump screwed up and could have had your vote? He left before kissing your baby, so now you will enable Hillary??
A lot of people the ones who don’t see the media as a threat, a sort of semi-biased referee, actually believe all their reports on polls they commission, they spin and go unquestioned by so many.
Trump is down, but he’s not out. Not yet.
The biggest miscalculation in this cycle is from those who are undermining Trump. They will never recover from this.
This argument would be more persuasive if Trump had come in second and would not come on board with the current nominee. I just looked back over the polling and Trump was mostly ahead in the polls from shortly after his entry into the race. It’s hard to convince people not to back the guy way ahead in the polls.
I agree that calling Trump voters idiots wasn’t going to convince them not to vote for Trump, but I’m not sure, in retrospect, anything would have persuaded them to change candidates.
Kurt Schlicter, over at Townhall, put it a little more graphically in a column entitled, “I Am Going To Vote For Trump Though It Makes Me Want To Projectile Vomit”.
Since you and Kay missed my point, I’ll be more explicit: That those who say they want to stop Hillary above all are shooting themselves in the foot.
Interesting that you think I’m “enabling” her by honestly reporting and analyzing. (And “enabling” her by recommending to her opposition how to improve their game…?) I’m not voting for Hillary. Since Trump won the nomination, I haven’t plumped for either candidate. I’ve sat back and waited for him and his supporters to make their case, commenting here and there as both candidates have made news. In this case, if you can point to anything I’ve said that isn’t substantiated, I welcome any corrections. I believe I’ve been fair.
“I think the Yankees’ manager is making some bad calls.”
“Why do you want the Red Sox to win?”
To be fair to Rick Wilson – he launched attacks at Trumps supporters after he was viciously attacked by them and had his daughter’s safety threatened.
A critique of Trump’s strategy is good. However the correctness of accurately stating Trumps strategy is crucial or else it becomes a straw-man argument, even if unintentionally done. I listened to the referenced podcast and read the DailyWire link. I perceived Trump’s strategy differently than you, which is the foundation for your critique, making subsequent discourse difficult. The Trump perception problem was clearly described by Peter Robinson in the podcast when he described one set of “intelligent friends” and another set of “intelligent friends” who when looking at the same set of facts (the words of Trump) come to diametrically opposed understandings of what was said. This is the problem I readily perceived in Ricochet conversations which lead me posit a theory based on differing frames of reference people have towards Trump.
I believe the bolded is inaccurate. I have a few Tea Party friends and follow their posting. Like every sector of the right, they have divisions about Trump. But at this point, they are publicly in the NeverHillary group and most will vote for Trump. He has not lost them.
That would be me (or more accurately was me) and I will vote for Trump.
I think there are cracks in your premise.
I don’t think the argument is that there are no Tea Party people who are going to vote for Trump or no Reagan Republicans who are going to vote for Trump.
The argument is:
It’s an argument about net gains and losses, not about whole groups staying or leaving.
We’re navel-gazing here.
Some of us support Trump and his agenda, etc.
Some of us want to see the nominally GOP candidate elected because the alternative would be devastating to the GOP, Conservatives, the Constitution, and the American people.
Some of us are willing to gamble that the severity of growing Leftist domination throughout the courts and government agencies is something we can recover from at some point in the future.
And yet, this third cohort has not put forth a business plan. In the aftermath of this election, when we’re lying flat on our backs, pinned down by the full force of our adversaries, how are we going to “become” a force that can compete electorally.
What’s the plan? Who’s going to rally our forces behind it?
These are serious questions that should be answered before gambling away an opportunity to stand on our feet and participate in the governing of our country.
Isn’t this discussion about what the Trump campaigns plan should be to actually win the election and justify the support of so many conservatives?
Tomorrow is GOP Primary day in Wyoming. There has not yet been one debate: Donald Trump vs Hillita Clintón. IMHO, it is way too early to be making defeat predictions based on polls.
The degree to which you lose the groups is crucial to the argument. I don’t think Trump is losing many in the Tea Party. To be sure, they would have preferred Cruz.
I am only guessing, but I suspect a third want Trump, and the balance will be Reluctant Trumpers.
In my circle, he has lost just about every one. We don’t have reliable data, unfortunately, that can indicate one way or the other whether your experience or mine is more representative. However, Trump has lost National Review, the flagship of Reaganite conservatism, as well as many who worked under Reagan (and GWB, for that matter). Also, when you compare Trump’s state-by-state polling data to Romney’s share of the 2012 electorate, you see that Trump is farthest behind Romney in the states where Romney did best, i.e., historically conservative states.