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
To be fair, SoS, your circle is located somewhere near the Peoples’ Republic of Connecticut. There’s no way that socialist sinkhole is electing any Republican, Trump or not. I would expect no less from the PRCT. Seriously, man, flee at first chance.
I suspect that if these polls hold into October that Trump will drop out while complaining that the GOP establishment stabbed him in the back, the system is rigged, etc, etc. That way he can say that he never lost to Hillary and was never beaten. His statements rarely have any connection with reality as he’s repeatedly shown.
As far as Hannity, Ingraham, and other Trump supporters in the media are concerned, they are cynically sucking up to Trump supporters to increase their ratings, pure and simple. Their livelihood is based on those ratings so that’s pretty much all they care about. As always, follow the money.
People like Huckabee, Gingrich and Pence are merely trying to get a position in a theoretical Trump administration. They will quickly distance themselves from Trump once he drops out or loses. As politicians they crave political power and will dance to any tune that brings that about.
Those who complain about Goldberg, Williamson, Romney and other #neverTrumpers telling the truth as they see it need to explain why they think it is bad to tell the truth. Because the truth will get Hillary elected? Now that is some twisted thinking.
What this thread makes painfully clear is that – at least among the Ricochet/online amateur pundit crowd – this election is less about the actual candidates and more about us.
We’ve gotten to the point where people are (at least claiming to) be basing their decision not on the candidate themselves, but on their reaction to that candidate’s supporters/detractors/pundits. We have more posts analyzing the psychology of Trump supporters/haters/agnostics than about the psychology of the candidates themselves.
I’m a neutral like SoS, but I respect anyone on Ricochet who is going to vote for Trump or even vote for Hillary. But I’m losing respect for the people who constantly ignore the actual candidates for the sake of belittling people with whom they are otherwise in general agreement. And I’m also losing patience with the notion that somehow the opinions of little-known pundits such as Jonah Goldberg, Laura Ingraham, or any Ricochet member have actually moved the public opinion dial in any meaningful way.
I interpret the bulk of it as a discussion of Trump’s electoral strategy, although the final paragraph posits a scenario in which Trump loses, and raises the issue of strategic miscalculation. I added what I believe to be a more immediate strategic miscalculation.
Many of us #nevertrumpers think the dire circumstances you predict will happen if Trump is elected. Will they also happen under Hillary? Almost surely. However, if Hillary gets elected a small conservative minority will stand in opposition to her every move just like they stood in opposition to Obama. With Trump the conservative opposition will be eviscerated by their own party and opposition to his statist, anti-free market impulses will be divided because he’s a “Republican”.
You can disagree with my predictions but you can’t dismiss them.
Indeed it is circle based. I recently looked at several National Review articles and found astounding misrepresentations of facts concerning Trump. So you are quite right, they hate him. Then there are folks like my father in law. Older (70-80s) military types. I am on his mass emailing list, which allows me to see the emails of all his buddies (about 15 emails a day). They are all rock solid Trump supports (a demographic I am sure is under-surveyed). To get a gist of the other side of the aisle I send folks to Wikipedia’s page on Trump Endorsements (most are Reluctant Trumpers).
Well it only becomes immediate should Trump lose correct?
For a taste, here a few of the names from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Greg Abbott, Bob Dole, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Scott Brown, Trent Lottt, Tom Coburn, Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Newt Gingrich, Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen, Pat Buchanan, Dennis Prager, Dr. Larry Arnn, Walter Block, Pamella Geller, David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin, Vox Day, Milo Yiannopoulos, Steve Forbes, Marc Faber, Stephen Moore, Carl Icahn, Peter Thiel, Dick Morris, Ed Rollins, Ann Coulter, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Savage.
And these which are solid supporters: Ben Carson, Rudi Giuliani, Sheriff David Clarke, Joe Arpaio, Allen West, Michele Bachman, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh,
I’m not sure I understand your line of questioning, counsel. Are you attempting to hijack this thread?
For balance, here are some NeverTrumpers found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Trump_movement:
George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Michael Hayden, Karl Rove, William Kristol, Ben Stein, Glenn Beck, George Will, Jay Nordlinger, James Lileks, Rob Long, David Brooks, Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro.
And Ricochet NeverTrumpers gave me (I have not checked the list, some might be Reluctant Trumpers): Steve Hayes, Jonah Goldberg, Charles C.W. Coooke, Kevin Williamson, Susan Collins, Jim Geraghty, Ben Sasse, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Adam Kinzinger, Larry Hogan, Michael Chertoff, Michael Bloomberg, Erick Erickson, Charles Krauthammer, Max Boot, Mark Helperin, Bret Stephens, Greg Mankiw, Charles and David Koch, Meg Whitman, Mark Kirk
You said it was “more immediate” strategic miscalculation – what makes it more immediate than assessing the miscalculations that are currently leading to Trump losing the race?
True, to a degree.
Why not also acknowledge the ReluctantlyTrump efforts at outreach to neutrals that some of us are contributing on Ricochet? Better yet, why not participate in those discussions?
Because NeverTrump is a strategy designed to defeat Trump. It’s happening now. I think it would be smart for GOP strategists to have a rebuilding plan in place before dropping bombs on Republican voters.
You’re saying that Hillary, Inc. is no worse than Trump?
You’re saying that the Conservative minority’s opposition against a President Hillary would be more effective than against an incompetent President Trump?
How does a President Trump lead to evisceration of conservatives? Where are his legions of Congressional Trumpists?
I’d speculate that half or more of Trump “supporters” would like to see him checked by Congress if he gets elected. Republican’s could easily impeach and remove him from office if need be.
Don’t let your revulsion with Trump, the man, result in Hillary, the administration.
This is missing an underlying problem: fielding elected officials is not like building a baseball team. It’s not enough to acquire a bunch of promising prospects, groom them in the minors, and then call them up.
And the difference is because in the end, the voters choose, not the GOP strategists.
In fact, I’m sure that most of the GOP strategists do have a plan in the back of their minds. But what happens if/when the voters reject that plan?
The easy response is to say those strategists should come up with a better plan. But predicting and then planning for the future wills of millions of people is next to impossible – even in the private sector. As this cycle has shown in spades, the people don’t always react in predictable ways.
The underlying dilemma does not lie in the leadership but in the incredibly divergent wishes of the people who actually get to call the shots, i.e. the voters. There’s really nothing anyone in a leadership position can do to unify a group of millions who themselves can’t come close to agreeing on what they want.
Ah, that is your error. NeverTrump is no such thing.
Well, we’re certainly in agreement on that. And that’s why forfeiting a national election doesn’t seem like a smart strategy.
Okay, what is it?
I think this bears repeating.
And it’s not just a problem for the Republican party. In my opinion, it’s one for the nation as a whole.
Great admission. Hillary appreciates it, I’m sure. After all, she’s not all that bad, is she?
Oh are we playing that game? Again?
I’m confused here. Who’s the “they” here? The GOP actually wanted Hillary? The elites only or all of them?
It not what they can do now. It what they didn’t do. They did not listen.
Wow, how do you square that circle? Really. How does one come to that statement in this modern world?
This is very odd. Why wouldn’t the #NeverHillary folks “reserve their worst disdain for “#NeverTrumpers? Where have you seen this disdain for neutrals that exceeds their disdain for #NeverTrumpers? I haven’t seen this. Can you give me something to go on here?
Not me. I’m not the one doesn’t have an answer.
Boring and repetitive. This has been answered numerous times including by me. I suggest you use the search function.
I should search for an answer to defend your charge?
Nope. I’ll just accept your concession that NeverTrump is a strategy designed to defeat Trump.
First, to clarify: I was treating #NeverTrump as neutrals. Now I realize from your comment that that is not quite accurate. Some are neutral, others are actively trying to bring Trump down and persuade people not to vote for him, and some are explicit Hillary voters. On the whole, I think their reach is limited, so their effect is most similar to neutrality. But I will need to think further on the extent to which my statement may or may not hold up.
Regarding examples of disdain for neutrals exceeding disdain for Hillary voters: I would like to provide them, but unfortunately I am working from a tablet right now and don’t have good search capabilities. The large number of Trump threads on Ricochet makes it harder to search. That said, I have seen plenty of such statements — on Ricochet, on Twitter, on Fox — and stand by the statement (and invite those with better search to help me out here).
All that said, I would expect #NeverHillary to reserve their worst disdain for, you know, Hillary and her voters. When they attack people who have said they won’t vote for her, but also not for Trump, they do no help for their cause — and quite possibly some damage.
I agree with the earlier part of the comment that a lot of the ad hominems against Trump and (more importantly) Trumpkins have been unwarranted and counterproductive.
However, I think an occasional, judicially-used “But at least he fights!” is appropriate.