Some say it's still early in the 2016 race. Others say The Donald just knows his Republican base.
Passing by the glistening 1,388-foot-tall Trump Tower in Chicago – the words "Trump Tower" are a Godzilla-like 2,891-square feet – I wondered if growing numbers of Americans are idiots.
I was exhibiting symptoms of Post Traumatic Trump Overload, including hypersensitivity to early Republican primary polling. Thank the Lord that Art Lupia and other thoughtful folks later talked me down from my holiday malaise.
I'd just had lunch with journalist friends from Politico and the local Fox station. We'd discussed a Los Angeles Times piece that suggested Donald Trump's high approval ratings are underestimated. Not overestimated. Underestimated! If true, would this not be further evidence that the body politic is unhinged?
"The first thing to realize is that it's early. Really, really early," says Lupia, a political scientist at the University of Michigan and former overseer of the American National Election Studies, (CQ, plural) seen generally as the gold standard of election studies.
Most Americans are still months from actually casting a vote, notes Lupia, author of the just-released "Uninformed: Why Voters Know So Little About Politics and What We Can Do About It." The blanket Trump coverage on cable news masks that reality: Most Americans are not paying attention to the early presidential campaign, even if we journalists are, with the predictably frenetic cable news networks leading the way.
Throw in the reality of his celebrity, his anti-establishment protest candidacy and the difficulty of polling in primary elections (we just don't know with much confidence who'll show up to vote), and well, you have the ingredients for confusion. So there's ample reason to be suspicious of a lot of what's playing out.
As for the gist of his book, he argues that there are two types of Americans when it comes to politics. Some realize they are ignorant about much of politics. Then there are those who are just delusional about what they think they know. But should that not still make one a bit queasy about Trump?
George Edwards III, a political scientist at Texas A&M University, says at least the Democratic side of the campaign is predictable: a disciplined front-runner who is avoiding being pushed too far left while still appealing to the party's substantial progressive wing. But the Republicans are deviating from a traditional pattern of picking an heir apparent. There is no heir apparent this time; no Bob Dole, John McCain or Mitt Romney. Then throw in the far right's disdain for the odious establishment. So, unlike Hillary Clinton, most everybody else, certainly those on the GOP side, are "happily advocating extreme positions on terrorism, immigration, environmental protection, taxation and other issues," says Edwards.
"We have many theories about but limited understanding of the Trump phenomenon," he continues. "We need to keep in mind that a third of the 25 to 30 percent of the public who tell pollsters they are Republicans is a small number, no more than about 10 percent of the public. That percentage is sufficient to succeed in Republican caucuses and primaries (if you get the vote out), but it does not necessarily represent broad public support."
"Trump is playing a card that goes well with the base," says Eric Uslaner, a political scientist at the University of Maryland who has studied attitudes toward Muslims and on political trust. "Under George W. Bush there was not a strong partisan division on attitudes toward Muslims. The partisan divide began to show in 2007, when Republicans were much more likely to have negative attitudes toward Muslims than were Democrats. The gap has now increased dramatically."
According to Uslaner, in 2010, independents who opposed the 9/11 mosque, a proposed 13-story Islamic Center in lower Manhattan, were much more likely to vote Republican. And tea party movement supporters were much more likely to vote rather than to abstain if they opposed the mosque. "In one estimation I did with my former Ph.D. student Kerem Ozan Kalkan, we found that opposition to the mosque was the single most important factor driving tea party supporter turnout," he says. "It is an issue of insecurity; tea party members feel threatened economically and culturally (by 'people not like us'). It is an easy link from insecurity to seeing Islam as a religion promoting violence."
"Muslims are the least popular ethnic/religious/racial group in the U.S other than atheists," Uslaner continues. "And more people know atheists than know Muslims. Especially if you live in a deep red state, you are less likely to know Muslims and thus less likely to evaluate them positively." He adds what initially seemed galling to some but is now rather transparent, namely, that "this is a perfect issue for Trump. It goes to the heart of his appeals: Make an extreme statement and push it."
John McGovern, a Chicago-based GOP consultant, points a finger at the press and media coverage that has "in general been (surprise!) disappointing." He contends that our description of an angry electorate has become cartoonish, "which of course allows them to explain away the Trump phenomenon."
"But on a deeper level, I think the media has lost touch with the American people, based on their reliance on elected officials, consultants, donors and other elites for the majority of their information and analysis," he says.
McGovern finds the electorate very pissed, even if not necessarily "in a hate-all-Muslims, fear-for-your-life way, but in a deeper, more existential way. People feel government doesn't work [he quickly points to a true legislative quagmire persisting in a seemingly dysfunctional Illinois legislature, where President Barack Obama once plied his trade as a state senator] and that politicians make promises but never deliver. And the overall state of the country – and the world – seems more desperate and dark."
So the elites, including the media, say that the economy is recovering, but many people just see stagnant job creation and wage growth. The things we buy cost more, but government continues to tax more. Two examples: stiff new property taxes forced by Mayor Rahm Emanuel in the budget-beleaguered city of Chicago and the new congressional spending bill, a pre-Christmas package of goodies that even includes several huge sums for defence matters that the Pentagon didn't request (such as $1 billion for a Maine-built Navy destroyer and $640 million for a ship in Mississippi the Coast Guard says it doesn't need).
The U.S. used to be a leader on the world stage, but we now seem diminished and ineffectual, says McGovern: "President Obama promised hope and change, but many feel he's rudderless and weak." Into this seeming void comes grandstanding Trump, who's "tapped into something both powerful and visceral," he says, even if he's not the most alluring of messengers.
There is, for sure, a lot to discuss about what's playing out with Trump, concedes political scientist Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College. "I wouldn't say it means Americans are idiots. Trump has run an effective campaign that has proven to be attractive to a lot of the non-college voters in the GOP. Let's see what happens, though, when people start paying closer attention, and Republican/conservative elites start criticizing him in volume."
There obviously remains much that is disheartening about our politics, with a vacationing Obama sharing some of the blame. Bowdoin College political scientist Andrew Rudalevige notes Obama's long-standing tendency "to assume that if people dissent from his policies it's only because he hasn't stated or sold them loudly or clearly enough."
That's a constant West Wing refrain. I've heard it in Georgetown restaurants from Obama aides. It came up recently in Obama's chat with columnists that suggested his belief in how sub-par communications (including his not watching cable news enough) help explain why Americans doubted his response to the Paris and San Bernardino terrorist tragedies.
It would thus appear that an aggressive White House outreach to non-traditional media outlets has not surmounted inherently challenging realities in our fragmented culture. He's reached out to a garage podcast, Facebook stars and, as Nyhan noted, will even surface in the passenger seat of a car driven by Jerry Seinfeld during an upcoming episode (already taped) of Jerry Seinfeld's "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee."
But, as far as the notion that Americans are not as stupid, mean or afraid as the media (including me) might suggest, GOP consultant John Feehery says that, yes, he's inclined to believe that they're not as stupid. Or that's what Feehery, a former top aide to then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, hopes to be the case. "Now I just need people to start voting so that can be either proven or disproven."
Unpacking Donald Trump's Lead and the Unhinged 2016 GOP Race
By James Warren
US News
Passing by the glistening 1,388-foot-tall Trump Tower in Chicago – the words "Trump Tower" are a Godzilla-like 2,891-square feet – I wondered if growing numbers of Americans are idiots.
I was exhibiting symptoms of Post Traumatic Trump Overload, including hypersensitivity to early Republican primary polling. Thank the Lord that Art Lupia and other thoughtful folks later talked me down from my holiday malaise.
I'd just had lunch with journalist friends from Politico and the local Fox station. We'd discussed a Los Angeles Times piece that suggested Donald Trump's high approval ratings are underestimated. Not overestimated. Underestimated! If true, would this not be further evidence that the body politic is unhinged?
"The first thing to realize is that it's early. Really, really early," says Lupia, a political scientist at the University of Michigan and former overseer of the American National Election Studies, (CQ, plural) seen generally as the gold standard of election studies.
Most Americans are still months from actually casting a vote, notes Lupia, author of the just-released "Uninformed: Why Voters Know So Little About Politics and What We Can Do About It." The blanket Trump coverage on cable news masks that reality: Most Americans are not paying attention to the early presidential campaign, even if we journalists are, with the predictably frenetic cable news networks leading the way.
Throw in the reality of his celebrity, his anti-establishment protest candidacy and the difficulty of polling in primary elections (we just don't know with much confidence who'll show up to vote), and well, you have the ingredients for confusion. So there's ample reason to be suspicious of a lot of what's playing out.
As for the gist of his book, he argues that there are two types of Americans when it comes to politics. Some realize they are ignorant about much of politics. Then there are those who are just delusional about what they think they know. But should that not still make one a bit queasy about Trump?
George Edwards III, a political scientist at Texas A&M University, says at least the Democratic side of the campaign is predictable: a disciplined front-runner who is avoiding being pushed too far left while still appealing to the party's substantial progressive wing. But the Republicans are deviating from a traditional pattern of picking an heir apparent. There is no heir apparent this time; no Bob Dole, John McCain or Mitt Romney. Then throw in the far right's disdain for the odious establishment. So, unlike Hillary Clinton, most everybody else, certainly those on the GOP side, are "happily advocating extreme positions on terrorism, immigration, environmental protection, taxation and other issues," says Edwards.
"We have many theories about but limited understanding of the Trump phenomenon," he continues. "We need to keep in mind that a third of the 25 to 30 percent of the public who tell pollsters they are Republicans is a small number, no more than about 10 percent of the public. That percentage is sufficient to succeed in Republican caucuses and primaries (if you get the vote out), but it does not necessarily represent broad public support."
"Trump is playing a card that goes well with the base," says Eric Uslaner, a political scientist at the University of Maryland who has studied attitudes toward Muslims and on political trust. "Under George W. Bush there was not a strong partisan division on attitudes toward Muslims. The partisan divide began to show in 2007, when Republicans were much more likely to have negative attitudes toward Muslims than were Democrats. The gap has now increased dramatically."
According to Uslaner, in 2010, independents who opposed the 9/11 mosque, a proposed 13-story Islamic Center in lower Manhattan, were much more likely to vote Republican. And tea party movement supporters were much more likely to vote rather than to abstain if they opposed the mosque. "In one estimation I did with my former Ph.D. student Kerem Ozan Kalkan, we found that opposition to the mosque was the single most important factor driving tea party supporter turnout," he says. "It is an issue of insecurity; tea party members feel threatened economically and culturally (by 'people not like us'). It is an easy link from insecurity to seeing Islam as a religion promoting violence."
"Muslims are the least popular ethnic/religious/racial group in the U.S other than atheists," Uslaner continues. "And more people know atheists than know Muslims. Especially if you live in a deep red state, you are less likely to know Muslims and thus less likely to evaluate them positively." He adds what initially seemed galling to some but is now rather transparent, namely, that "this is a perfect issue for Trump. It goes to the heart of his appeals: Make an extreme statement and push it."
John McGovern, a Chicago-based GOP consultant, points a finger at the press and media coverage that has "in general been (surprise!) disappointing." He contends that our description of an angry electorate has become cartoonish, "which of course allows them to explain away the Trump phenomenon."
"But on a deeper level, I think the media has lost touch with the American people, based on their reliance on elected officials, consultants, donors and other elites for the majority of their information and analysis," he says.
McGovern finds the electorate very pissed, even if not necessarily "in a hate-all-Muslims, fear-for-your-life way, but in a deeper, more existential way. People feel government doesn't work [he quickly points to a true legislative quagmire persisting in a seemingly dysfunctional Illinois legislature, where President Barack Obama once plied his trade as a state senator] and that politicians make promises but never deliver. And the overall state of the country – and the world – seems more desperate and dark."
So the elites, including the media, say that the economy is recovering, but many people just see stagnant job creation and wage growth. The things we buy cost more, but government continues to tax more. Two examples: stiff new property taxes forced by Mayor Rahm Emanuel in the budget-beleaguered city of Chicago and the new congressional spending bill, a pre-Christmas package of goodies that even includes several huge sums for defence matters that the Pentagon didn't request (such as $1 billion for a Maine-built Navy destroyer and $640 million for a ship in Mississippi the Coast Guard says it doesn't need).
The U.S. used to be a leader on the world stage, but we now seem diminished and ineffectual, says McGovern: "President Obama promised hope and change, but many feel he's rudderless and weak." Into this seeming void comes grandstanding Trump, who's "tapped into something both powerful and visceral," he says, even if he's not the most alluring of messengers.
There is, for sure, a lot to discuss about what's playing out with Trump, concedes political scientist Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College. "I wouldn't say it means Americans are idiots. Trump has run an effective campaign that has proven to be attractive to a lot of the non-college voters in the GOP. Let's see what happens, though, when people start paying closer attention, and Republican/conservative elites start criticizing him in volume."
There obviously remains much that is disheartening about our politics, with a vacationing Obama sharing some of the blame. Bowdoin College political scientist Andrew Rudalevige notes Obama's long-standing tendency "to assume that if people dissent from his policies it's only because he hasn't stated or sold them loudly or clearly enough."
That's a constant West Wing refrain. I've heard it in Georgetown restaurants from Obama aides. It came up recently in Obama's chat with columnists that suggested his belief in how sub-par communications (including his not watching cable news enough) help explain why Americans doubted his response to the Paris and San Bernardino terrorist tragedies.
It would thus appear that an aggressive White House outreach to non-traditional media outlets has not surmounted inherently challenging realities in our fragmented culture. He's reached out to a garage podcast, Facebook stars and, as Nyhan noted, will even surface in the passenger seat of a car driven by Jerry Seinfeld during an upcoming episode (already taped) of Jerry Seinfeld's "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee."
But, as far as the notion that Americans are not as stupid, mean or afraid as the media (including me) might suggest, GOP consultant John Feehery says that, yes, he's inclined to believe that they're not as stupid. Or that's what Feehery, a former top aide to then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, hopes to be the case. "Now I just need people to start voting so that can be either proven or disproven."
Comments
Post a Comment