Is Trump a blip?
Kevin Drum argues that he is:
One of the key questions raised by Donald Trump’s 2016 victory has been whether he represents a new turn in American politics or merely a blip who will be quickly forgotten if he loses in 2020. Over the past four years I’ve spent a lot of time reviewing the evidence about this, and the conclusion I’ve come to is pretty simple: Trump is a blip.
Let’s back up a bit. For a very long time Democrats have believed that demographics were on their side. Republicans are acutely dependent on white voters, and every election cycle the share of white voters declines by a percent or two. Since voters of color largely support Democrats, this would someday make it all but impossible for Republicans to win the presidency.
But when would that day come? The Census Bureau projects that white voters won’t lose their absolute majority until 2044, but the Republican day of reckoning will come long before that. In fact, my take is that it’s already happened. It came in 2008, and ever since then it’s been close to hopeless for a Republican to win the presidency. This makes Donald Trump not a harbinger of things to come, but a final, feral howl of white reactionary politics as a ticket to the White House. He eked out one last victory for the Fox News set not because racism was broadly on the rise, but because of a string of remarkable happenstances: Russian interference; a backlash against eight years of a Black man as president; a woman as his opponent; a last-minute FBI letter; and an unexpected blurp in the Electoral College that placed him in the Oval Office even though he lost the popular vote by millions of votes.
. . . Trump obviously depends on the support of conservative white voters, but even among this group he’ll have a hard time winning because there are simply too many conservative white people who have become disgusted by Trump’s obviously racist appeals.
. . . In the same way that 2016 featured a white backlash against a Black man in the White House, 2020 is almost certain to feature a white backlash against an open racist in the White House. . . .
I agree with Kevin that Trump’s explicit use of racist messages may have reduced his support among decent people who would otherwise vote Republican. But this suggests only that Trump’s overtly racist appeals may be counterproductive in a country that is slowly becoming more diverse and tolerant. It does not show that the post-Eisenhower Republican electoral coalition of plutocratic economic conservatives and social conservatives will no longer be competitive if Republicans use less overtly racist messaging, especially given the tilt in the electoral college and the Senate in favor of conservative, rural voters. Remember that Trump appeared to be highly competitive heading into the 2020 election until the COVID epidemic hit, notwithstanding his overt racism. It is primarily Trump’s gross mismanagement of the epidemic that has endangered his presidency, not his racism.
I also agree the country is likely to become more progressive and tolerant over time. The real question is how quickly this will occur, and how the Republican party reacts. Will the Republican donor class accept some moderation on economic issues? Will Republican media elites and primary voters allow the party to triangulate towards the center? (Here is a pessimistic take by Drutman.) Or can Republicans remain competitive by putting a bit of “compassionate conservative” lipstick on their plutocratic, intolerant pig? Questions like these will determine how much of a blip Trump turns out to be. And of course, all this assumes we remain a functioning democracy long enough to find out.
If it was a blip it was caused by voter suppression. And this year’s suppression is shaping up to be much worse.
Yes, the demographics will eventually end this GOP party on the Federal level. In terms of the states, it will take a lot longer.
Hi Eric.
Several things going on here.
1. The anything but trunp or Clinton vote which soared to a record high in 2016 nationally and even though more voters turned out in 2016 than in 2012.The vote went to Libertarians, Communist, the Greens, and write-ins in place of either trump or Clinton. Historically Michigan Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania voted Repub for the first time since 1988 and 1990. This is what gave the election to trump.
2. The EC no long represents by populace due the 1929 Reapportionment Act locking in the number of Congressional Representatives. Repeal the act or make the House proportional by using Wyoming as the smallest population to have a representative and add representatives as needed in the other states. California would gain 13 more Congressional Reps and Electoral votes.
3. trump represents the lowest of the low, those who would deny themselves just to prevent a minority or someone else in another region to have help. Healthcare is a good example of such. Dems may never get their support and must work around them to maintain a majority. States like Michigan gerrymander their state and congressional districts using these people. They will always be there.
Run, per your second point, the 2016 results were pretty much spot on for EC votes versus the population of states that the two candidates won. The split was very close to 56/44 for each. Yes, you could scale everything up based on Wyoming if you want to but that isn’t changing a solid win like Trump’s of 2016 as most other states would have an upside proportionally in line with California. Take it to the extreme of every person having one EC vote and Trump’s win is proportionally almost identical. Trump did not win because of some low chance distribution of small population states. He got some close wins in places, but it wasn’t that his states leveraged the representation any higher than Clinton’s did.
eric:
1. The EC is not representing by state population today. If it did so, California would have 13 more congressional representatives and 13 more EC votes.
2. If each person was equal to 1 EC vote, Clinton would have won by 2+ million EC votes.
3. Go back and read my point 1 again which gives the reason why trump won. I have posted those numbers at AB, time and time again.
Run,
You cannot deal with alternative facts. No one can. Pretend we have an ignore button when eric speaks, your blood pressure will thank you.
Run, if each person had an EC vote, all of PA’s would have gone to Trump. All of CA’s to Clinton. All of NE’s to Trump. All of DE’s to Clinton. Get a calculator and add it up yourself. Our Presidential election is 51 different elections. You don’t like it, but that’s what it is. Likewise you probably are right about CA getting +13 but how many more would TX have had? FL? The 30 states Trump won had right about 56% of the population. Trump’s EC votes was right about 56. You can scale that all you want but the data point 44% doesn’t finish in front of 56% when you finish doing so. The popular vote matters, but in 51 different elections.
Eric:
I will concede that point. However, my original point “1” was this. “The anything but trunp or Clinton vote which soared to a record high in 2016 nationally and even though more voters turned out in 2016 than in 2012.The vote went to Libertarians, Communist, the Greens, and write-ins in place of either trump or Clinton. Historically Michigan Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania voted Repub for the first time since 1988 and 1990. This is what gave the election to trump.”
In 2017, I already covered your other questions here; Will the Reign of Witches Pass?
Is Kenosha, WI a blip?
Will angry, patriotic teen-agers with
assault rifles wandering the streets
of America, encouraged by police,
firing at crowds become ‘routine’?
New details are emerging Wednesday about Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old accused of shooting and killing two people in Kenosha, Wisconsin and wounding another. …
Will Kyle Rittenhouse be selected by Trump
to replace Justice Ginsburg before Election
Day, or will he wait a few months?
‘All New England’s electoral votes in 2016 went to Hillary Clinton.’
Not quite.
Clinton wins Maine, but Trump takes one electoral vote
via @bangordailynews – November 9, 2016
AUGUSTA, Maine — Donald Trump’s path to a historic upset win included an unprecedented turn in Maine. The Republican president-elect claimed one Electoral College vote, the first time the state has split its four Electoral College votes.
Democrat Hillary Clinton won the statewide vote and three Electoral College votes but lost handily to Trump in the more conservative, rural 2nd District. …
(Maine, and Nebraska, allow their electoral votes to be ‘apportioned’.)
‘The 30 states Trump won had right about 56% of the population.’
That’s an interesting way to look at the 2016 result,
given that overall, Clinton won the popular vote.
The same percentage applies to votes cast, it seems.
However, voter turn out was only around 25%.
Anyway, if PA, WI and MI had not flipped,
instead of 56% for Trump, it’d be 47%.
And that happened, ostensibly, because
of third-party spoilers.
Fred:
Traditionally since 1988 and 1992, WI, PA, and MI went Dem in presidential elections.
CROSS-POSTED FROM MY COMMENT TO KEVIN’S COLUMN YESTERDAY
Provide working-class voters with a robust, social-democratic alternative. How can liberals appeal to folks who are just normal conservatives?
Union Representative Elections
CROSS-POSTED FROM MY COMMENT TO KEVIN’S COLUMN YESTERDAY (something misfired the first time — probably had to do with my attempt to use “>” as a substitute for (b) — bold doesn’t seem to work anymore)
—Provide working-class voters with a robust, social-democratic alternative—
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html
“(Obama) would have won Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin each time even if Detroit, Cleveland and Milwaukee had been severed from their states and cast adrift into the Great Lakes.” IOW, didn’t need really Black votes.
But, Obama/Hillary never offered rural whites any “robust” economic program that they really needed.
—How can liberals appeal to folks who are just normal conservatives?—
‘Traditionally since 1988 and 1992, WI, PA,
and MI went Dem in presidential elections’
So much for tradition.
Over 100 ex-staff members for John McCain endorse Joe Biden
NY Times via @BostonGlobe – August 27
WASHINGTON — More than 100 former staff members for Sen. John McCain are supporting Joe Biden, a show of support across the political divide that they hope amplifies the “Country First” credo of the former Arizona senator.
That motto and “his frequent call on Americans to serve causes greater than our self-interest were not empty slogans like so much of our politics today,” the group of aides, most of them still Republicans, wrote in a joint statement, praising McCain and implicitly taking aim at President Donald Trump. “They were the creed by which he lived, and he urged us to do the same.”
The list of signatories includes a range of people — from chiefs of staff in McCain’s Senate office to junior aides on his campaigns — who worked for him over his 35 years in Congress and during two presidential bids.
Mark Salter, McCain’s longtime chief aide and speechwriter, helped organize the letter.
“We have different views of Joe Biden and the Democratic Party platform — most of us will disagree with a fair amount of it — but we all agree that getting Donald Trump out of office is clearly in the national interest,” Salter said.
Coinciding with Trump’s renomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention on Thursday and the second anniversary of McCain’s death this week, the joint endorsement of Biden represents the latest effort from anti-Trump Republicans to lure conservatives and moderates away from the president.
Democrats used their convention last week to recall the friendship Biden and McCain forged and to highlight the support Biden enjoys from some former Republican lawmakers and national security officials. …
‘The 30 states Trump won had right about 56% of the population.’
By the way, this is a bogus analysis.
It assumes that you take all the votes cast in a state
and assign them to the candidate who won the majority.
Just because that is done for electoral votes doe not
mean it makes any sense for popular vote results.
Far from it.
Another way to put it, less bogus perhaps,
is that ‘if you win a majority of the states,
you are likely to win the election, regardless
of the popular vote.’ (Because of advantages
built into the electoral college system.)
Fred:
I thought of that argument also. I concluded it was not a good one to make as it comes into conflict with the EC. I believed the better argument was the “anybody but trump or Clinton” one as it is fraught with lies, misinformation, supposition, etc. I do not believe the popular vote is the answer either
There is also the ‘National Popular Vote Interstate Compact’, an interstate agreement to get around the Electoral College, in which
states agree to exercise their electoral votes on whoever
wins the national popular vote.
The agreement is out there, signed by 15 states so far,
and would go into effect whenever enough states
to reach 270 electoral votes sign on. There
remains a question as to constitutionality..
Did the Popular Vote Just Get a Win at the Supreme Court?
NY Times – July 6
… the so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, in which states accounting for at least 270 electoral votes would agree to award their electors to whichever presidential candidate received the most votes nationwide.
Fifteen states and the District of Columbia, with 196 electoral votes among them, have signed on, but their commitment will not take effect unless enough states join them to reach 270. …
Late stage decaying empire. Send in the clowns.
TV Ratings for Biden and Trump Signal an Increasingly Polarized Nation
NY Times – August 28
Americans who watched the political conventions on television opted for news networks with partisan fan bases to a degree unseen in recent years, another sign of an increasingly divided electorate as the nation hurtles toward the November election.
Fox News, whose prime time is a destination for conservatives, accounted for close to half — 45 percent — of the viewership of the Republican National Convention this week across the six major news networks, Nielsen said on Friday. In 2016, that figure was about 30 percent; in 2012, 36 percent.
MSNBC, whose prime time is popular with liberals, accounted for about 30 percent of Democratic National Convention viewership last week across the six networks — which also include ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC — up from roughly 18 percent in 2016 and 2012.
During the Republican convention, MSNBC lost about 70 percent of its average viewership from the Democratic conclave. Fox News’s average viewership more than tripled.
Television viewers’ turn to perceived safe spaces raises questions about the ability of political conventions — which reached a broader TV audience in the pre-internet era — to persuade undecided voters. And it underscores fears about a polarized information environment where Americans can receive little exposure to political ideas that run counter to their own.
“It speaks to the larger point that we are siloed in our media choices,” David Axelrod, the Democratic strategist and CNN political analyst, said in an interview. “We’re a polarized country, and that is reflected in the media choices we make. We have the opportunity to create virtual reality worlds that affirm our points of view.”
A nightly average of 21.6 million people watched the Democratic convention on live TV, compared with 19.4 million for the Republicans. The total television audience for both conventions fell roughly 25 percent from 2016, a sign of Americans’ increasing reliance on online outlets and streaming services to follow live events.
President Trump’s 70-minute acceptance speech on Thursday was seen by about 23.8 million live viewers, falling short of Joseph R. Biden’s remarks last week, which reached 24.6 million — a comparison likely to irritate the ratings-conscious president.
Neither candidate attracted the number of viewers who tuned in four years ago for Mr. Trump’s acceptance speech (32.2 million) or Hillary Clinton’s (29.8 million).
Because Nielsen excludes streaming views — which are difficult to credibly capture — its ratings reflect the habits of an older slice of the population that still watches traditional TV. Some political analysts argue that Nielsen ratings are an irrelevant indicator, given the role of social media and other online platforms in the country’s media ecosystem.
Still, Americans’ TV habits over the past two weeks offer a glimpse of a cross-section of likely voters.
Fox News’s dominance during the Republican convention was striking. Its audience on Thursday, for Mr. Trump’s climactic speech, was nearly 9.2 million, close to a prime-time record for the network. That was more viewers than watched ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC combined.
Though the channel’s most popular hosts support Mr. Trump, Fox News viewers heard some critical commentary about the president on Thursday.
The anchor Chris Wallace called Mr. Trump’s speech “surprisingly flat” and “far too long.” Brit Hume, an analyst, said the president “seemed to miss the excitement that he generates in himself when he’s ad-libbing.” Even the pro-Trump host Laura Ingraham, after calling the president’s speech “incredible” and “electric,” conceded to viewers, “Some are saying it was a little too long.”
On MSNBC, three Trump critics — Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid and Nicolle Wallace — lambasted the president’s address and interrupted the convention for several fact-checking segments. The channel’s ratings for the Republican convention were among its lowest prime-time weeks of the year.
For the Democratic convention, the picture was sharply reversed.
MSNBC clocked its highest-rated prime-time week in the network’s 24-year history, with a 10 p.m. average of 5.7 million viewers. Fox News’s viewership fell far below its usual prime-time average.
“What we saw in the last presidential election was that Clinton supporters distributed their attention much more evenly among a broader range of outlets, and Trump supporters concentrated much more heavily on Fox News,” said Yochai Benkler, a co-director of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School.
“The fact you have such a high proportion of viewers of the Democratic convention on MSNBC does suggest, to some extent, a gravitation on the Democratic side toward a more partisan, viewpoint-reinforcing network,” Mr. Benkler said.
For Mr. Axelrod, an architect of Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns who helped oversee Democratic conventions in 2008 and 2012, the Nielsen trends speak to a wider development in the years since.
“We are more polarized than we were in 2012 and 2008,” he said. “The elasticity in the electorate is even less. It wasn’t great then; it’s even less now.”
Mr. Benkler wondered how many truly undecided voters had tuned into the conventions in the first place.
“It’s just a very, very small slice of the American public who have not yet made up its mind to go for Trump or not,” he said. “They aren’t going to be the news junkies that spend their time on 24-hour cable news channels.”
He said he was surprised to hear Fox News’s proportion of network viewership of Mr. Trump’s convention.
“Forty-five percent?” Mr. Benkler said. “I would have thought it would be even higher.”
The Princess vs. the Portrait in Trumpworld
NY Times – Maureen Dowd – August. 29
The first family serves up a malarkey buffet.
WASHINGTON — As long as the Trumps were hijacking the White House for their convention finale, they may as well have built a golden escalator from the Truman Balcony to the South Lawn.
That way, Ivanka could have made her power move with true Trumpian flair. In every other sense, she went for it. With her blond mane rippling, she was full-on MAGA, shoving the amped-up Don Jr. and fortissimo Kimberly Guilfoyle out of the way and positioning herself as the heir to her father’s political dynasty.
The night was so Borgia, it made sense to end it with opera. (Or they could have just played the “Succession” theme song.)
The old joke that if Trump became president, he’d slap his name on the White House almost came true during the egomania jubilee, when fireworks spelled out the name “Trump.”
Ivanka must realize now that she and Jared can never go back to their life as New York society darlings. So why not double down on Washington and lay the groundwork for a presidential run of her own?
Now that her father has turned the Republican Party into a political machine bearing her last name, she must feel entitled to jump into the driver’s seat when papa is done with it.
Her speech Thursday night was about him but it was also pointedly about “I.”
“Four years ago, I introduced to you a builder …” “Tonight, I stand before you …” “When Jared and I moved with our three young children to Washington, we didn’t exactly know what we were in for …” “I’ve seen in Washington, it’s easy for politicians to survive if they silence their convictions …” “I couldn’t believe so many politicians actually prefer to complain …” “I was shocked to see …” “I am more certain than ever before …” “I’ve been with my father …” “I sat with him in the Oval Office …” “I was with my father when …” “I promised that …” “I said that Americans needed …”
“Four years ago, I told you I would fight alongside my father, and four years later, here I am.’’
Yes, there she was, daddy’s little girl, on her imaginary escalator. The pungent aroma of the S.N.L. Ivanka perfume, “Complicit,” wafted across the lawn on the balmy night. All the dynamics that make Donald Trump’s administration, and the way he runs the country, so chaotic — the backbiting, the warring factions, the grifting, the neglect, the power grabs — were echoed in the family portrait on display this past week.
The most dramatic tableau Thursday night was not the president’s somniferous speech, but Ivanka’s scorching moment with the Day-Glo-garbed Melania.
After her speech, the first daughter strode past the first lady to greet her father. Melania, who had first smiled broadly at Ivanka, suddenly went stony.
The exchange was particularly loaded given the context: Melania’s former BFF and aide, Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, is beginning to dish on her new tell-all about the first lady, which includes accounts of conversations in which Melania mocks Ivanka.
It has been reported that Melania calls Ivanka “the princess” — Trump singled out his favorite child in his convention speech — and Ivanka has reportedly called Melania “the portrait.”
After many tugs of war, Melania has resigned herself to the fact that Jared and Ivanka run the White House. The basic view in the building is that Ivanka has wrestled Melania to a draw. …