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
Is #nevertrump responsible for Trump’s impending crash and burn? I thought that this week’s story was that the biased media is to blame. Last week’s story was that the election was “rigged.” Next week it might be #nevertrump, or it might be space aliens. Who knows?
Many of the folks from the Greater Boston Tea Party that I know are also NeverTrump, but there are some exceptions. From what I’ve seen, there are regional differences on this and the Tea Party always had both constitutionalist and populist branches.
I never conceded as such and I refuse to play your game. This question has been answered multiple times and only someone engaging in bad faith would behave as you are.
Here is the problem with gauging Trump support. If you and I were to meet casually, and exchange in a few words about Trump, you might think I was a NeverTrumper. That is because I would quickly sense your opinion and I have learned to not engage people on contentious complicated issues in quick casual conversations. So many Reluctant Trumpers, like me, are going underground. They sense the hostility and aren’t that enthused about Trump to be his defender. In contrast, since the general culture is drenched in anti-Trump coverage NeverTrumpers are more open and perceive they are the majority.
I assure you, NeverTrumpers do not believe they represent a majority of anything.
I don’t doubt this, but it’s also not as there aren’t circles in which stating your intention not to vote for Trump brings on a chorus of “Stop enabling Hillary!”
There are loudmouths and wallflowers on both sides.
I know a couple of Trump voters, but only a couple. Most republicans of my acquaintance are either Johnson, Hillary, or just none of the above. Of course that’s anecdotal and I have no reason to think it’s a representative sample.
Agreed.
Really? You make a charge against my claim, refuse to back it up, ask me to search for your definition of the term in question, and then conclude that I’m the one acting in bad faith?
Apparently, there are different interpretations of the term. I’m supposed to go find the one that suits you? You can’t string together a few sentences to refute my statement? Yeah, I’d call that a de facto concession. But I’m not condemning that. It is wise to concede a point that cannot be defended.
Whatever else NeverTrump might be, it is clearly meant to express and broadcast disapproval of the candidate, which would, logically, decrease his vote count and increase the likelihood of defeat. One can argue that NeverTrump will not provide the margin of defeat (although one can never prove that), but the fact that the idea behind NeverTrump is to defeat Trump is difficult to refute.
You made a baseless charge that has been explained my numerous posters and comments on this very website in order to win a political point that just isn’t true. In the future I suggest you read the website to which you are subscribed before ascribing positions to fellow members that they don’t hold. It’s really not that hard.
There were reams of posts, columns, hours of airtime devoted entirely to unskewing polls – basically any way to wish into existence a Romney win that wasn’t going to happen. Just because we wish it weren’t so doesn’t mean it wasn’t so – anyone watching the polls and not trying to distort them into a win knew Romney was going to lose.
Romney lost: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa – all of which George W. Bush won. He got 206 electoral votes – we need 270 to win. Romney’s campaign was a disaster, even if it was less of one than McCain’s.
I didn’t mention Bill Kristol, but I’ll grant, outside his ardent desire for a no-hope independent candidate, he’s slightly less electorally suicidal than others.
So he disparaged those people he needed to persuade to drop Trump? Or he didn’t disparage Trump-leaning voters at all?
I’ve made this point before if you’re using the word “Trumpkins” (it’s like bumpkin!) or “Trumpalos” (fans of the Insane Clown Posse vote Trump!) yes, you’re disparaging voters. You even demonstrate this yourself by differentiating between “Trump-leaning voters” and “Hard-core Trumkins” yourself. Many, many commentators made no such distinctions in the primary.
I didn’t call Rubio’s supporters “Rubes” although it probably happened out there somewhere and I’m equally censorious of that kind of labelling across the board (I don’t even use Bushies or Clintonistas). I don’t use cuckservative either.
Labels like that are meant to be insulting and condescending and so of course are received negatively by your audience. If you’re working to persuade, which so many columnists and TV pundits were in the primaries, using them and insulting your audience is a terrible, terrible tactic.
Actually it happened here. Along with other terms such as “globalist” meant to imply that the commenter is unpatriotic. The bad faith wasn’t limited to one side.
And I bet it didn’t help and it’s not helping to persuade anyone described in such a way.
You’re right about that.
Sorry, but this is largely revisionist, as RCP polling data pretty clearly illustrates. Romney was within the margin of error in several polls, and, although a win would likely have been an “upset,” he had a shot, as the polling indicates.
Romney had problems exploiting Obamacare as an issue, and his team dropped the ball technologically. But his campaign was far from a disaster. Bush was not running against a sitting president with an exceptional campaign apparatus, so comparisons to the Bush campaign don’t really work. Romney received in excess of 60m votes (second to Bush) against a very popular and skilled politician, and we can only hope Trump comes close to Romney in the debates.
I would agree the Romney campaign was a disaster, even though it’s also true that he had a shot. The type of campaign he ran, compared to the GOP electorate this primary season & the new themes of the GOP, suggests that he was either blind to the real dangers he was supposed to protect his country & his party from or that he thought it was unnecessary to make them into political problems.
Had Mr. Romney talked seriously & repeatedly about the sorts of things that make people vote for Mr. Trump now, he would have won. Had he at least thought there was a lot to what Mr. Santorum was saying & tried to make more of it himself, he might have won.
The GOP did not deserve to win in 2012. It does not deserve to win now, either. It will only deserve to win when it starts to talk to the electorate outside of political campaigns, when it dedicates itself to persuading a majority of American voters that conservatism has a political institution & a dedication to the public good.
That requires efforts at institution building. The collapse of this campaign of Mr. Romney’s shows again & again how little people who run the party care about building institutions that would function outside of the campaign season to persuade people to vote GOP & show them why that’s a good idea over the long-term, not hoping on an ad or a clever electioneering guess or a good debate performance.
Jamie-
I’ve explained my statement. You’ve failed to refute it. Nothing more need be said.
It has been refuted numerous times on this very website. You have either not read Ricochet in the last 6 months or you are acting in bad faith. Which one?
I think there’s some confusion on the point. I’ve always taken it to mean that I will never support Donald Trump’s candidacy, which is substantially different than that I will do everything in my power to stop Donald Trump from winning.
You’re looking at general election polling which is a good indicator of probable overall winner but disregarding the history of the polls: open up the polling average tab from the “0.7%” average to all polls. You see much more blue than red.
Also look at the state polls. For example “must win” Ohio: average 2.9 spread for Obama, Obama won by 3. Closest Romney got was .8 in October.
How about Virginia: average .8 because of wildly divergent polls between Republican-leaning pollsters like Rasumussen and Fox News and then everyone else going for Obama – Obama won by 3.9.
Florida is the weirdest state battleground poll because Romney was winning the whole way to crash, hard, in the actual results.
I don’t have time to dig up old posts and columns but you should remember the “why this poll is skewed” poll analyses from 2012. They were everywhere, talking about overrepresented samples, concentrations in certain districts. Any way we could cast a poll as biased against Romney we did.
Neither. I don’t read every post. You may believe I’ve been “prefuted” somewhere else, but this conversation is happening real-time; and I’m not about to search through literally hundreds of comments in numerous posts to try to find something that you can’t even describe to me. If there is a good refutation and you can’t state it then that part of the discussion is concluded.
So for the sake of other members who are undoubtedly bored with our little exchange, I’d suggest that you stopped hurling baseless accusations at me and move on.
From day one, my reason for NOT wanting Trump as the Republican Presidential nominee was my gut intuition that if I thought of Trump as an unserious blowhard doosh, then many other voters must feel the same way, and therefore many voters would never vote for an unserious blowhard doosh, and Trump would lose a general Presidential election…by a wide margin.
I am not a never Trumper, I will vote for Trump, but Trump was the worst selection the Republican Primary voters could have made, and it’s very deflating to know Hillary Clinton will be our next President when she was so eminently beatable, all we really needed to do was NOT nominate Trump.
We live in very strange times.
I can, I choose not to play your boring pedantic game. The baseless accusation is yours – you described what I believe and what I want. Physician heal thyself.
Fair point. Deciding not to support Trump is an unquestionably valid position, and does not necessarily imply anything beyond that (i.e. “everything in my power to stop…”). One might even categorize that position as “Never Trump” as a rhetorical short-hand, for convenience. I’m not referring to that. “NeverTrump” is a rhetorical vehicle designed for making a political proclamation (not merely holding a personal conviction), and is, as such, meant to influence other voters — to persuade them of the merits of such a view. While “NeverTrump” is a perfectly legitimate tool of political discourse, I’m saying that it should be recognized for what it is: a tool for persuading others to adopt your view.
I hear you brother, as I suspect the majority of those planning to cast ballots for Trump this fall do as well.
Okay.
I lost you about halfway through there. Of course I’d like to persuade others to adopt my position, which is that no one should vote for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Why on earth shouldn’t I?
I am every bit as much NeverHillary in this sense as I am NeverTrump.
Note:
Fixed!Great Scott! What happened with the formatting?
Artsy. I like it.
I didn’t say you shouldn’t try to persuade others. Shout it from the rooftops.
“NeverHillary” means “Don’t vote for Hillary!”
“NeverTrump” means “Don’t vote for Trump!”
And that was the point I was making about NeverTrump being a strategy designed to defeat Trump.
The fact that you feel that you are neutralizing “NeverTrump” by also proclaiming “NeverHillary” doesn’t change my assertion one whit. My point never had anything to do with your comprehensive position or actions (nor for those of any particular NeverTrumper).
Does that sound reasonable?