I saw Donald Trump up close in Sparks Nevada, but began that trip by watching the 3rd Republican debate a hotel room upstairs from the Trump event.
I got some clarity that the Republican candidates fall into 3 groups.
Group One are the present and former officeholders who entered the campaign as establishment candidates. They believe that Obama is doing a bad job because he is deeply misguided. Maybe it is because he is a socialist, or a liberal, or a progressive or simply a Democrat, but bottom line they think he has bad principles. The candidates are experienced pros, present or former officeholders who understand that governing is complex, but they have the experience and track records showing they do it well: Pataki, Graham, Kasich, and Bush. They got early money because donors understand those same realities, that governing involves compromise, dealing with constitutional realities like a 60 vote Senate, powerful interest groups in opposition, getting bipartisan support, and the grim reality that spending requires revenue, which is the nice word for taxes. Their message is a difficult one. I attended a public meeting for Lindsey Graham in a conference room with 14 seats, 6 of which were filled by clerical employees of the law firm hosting the public event.
They sound earnest when they talk, but they look worn out and frustrated. Look at Jeb's body language. Arms hanging down, face looking drawn, shoulders hunched.
And the voters hate it. The candidates have about 5-8% of the vote combined.
Group Two is the big group. These candidates also think Obama is bad, a misguided socialist. They have a simple prescription in the short term: obstruct Obama. The longer term solution is to elect one of them who as president immediacy reverses course and repeals Obamacare, ends Dodd Frank, stops environmental regulation, reduces the safety net, increases the military, steps closer to Israel, and lowers taxes. They have a sunny view of the result: a much bigger military combined with lower taxes will mean economic growth which will mean more jobs and more revenue, thus balancing the budget and paying down the debt.
Their tone is angry, and it fits their personalities, Christie's in your face bluntness, Rand Paul's libertarian absolutism, Cruz's certitude, Rubio's verbal eloquence, Fiorini's icy anger. After all, government in general and especially government under Obama is malevolent. They are at war with it. The crowds like it and they divide up about 65% of the vote.
Group Three is Donald Trump. He is different from the others in a significant way that has not been particularly noted by public or pundits. Trump is not arguing that Obama is bad, with malevolent intent. He says Obama is weak, a pushover, the author of bad deals. Trump is not arguing good versus bad, he is arguing strong versus weak. We have bad deals with Mexico (immigration and trade), bad deals with Japan and China (trade), bad deals with Iran (nuclear deal), bad deals with Russia (Syria).
Trump's tone is sunny and optimistic. He has a happy message. America's problems all get down to one simple one: America's politicians are indebted to their donors and they are weak, ineffectual people. And the solution is at hand: vote for someone who knows how to negotiate strong deals, someone who will use the negotiating power of American wealth and markets to demand that Mexico build the wall, that Japan and China change their trade policy, that Iran improve the nuclear deal and that Putin will fear America's firmness and unpredictability.
The big outlier is Trump, but not because he is a narcissistic blowhard. Rather it is because he is the one Republican candidate who sees the campaign for president not on ideological grounds, but rather on grounds of skill and cunning. And as Trump says of himself: I'm good at this.
Below, scenes from the Nugget Casino in Sparks Nevada
I got some clarity that the Republican candidates fall into 3 groups.
Group One are the present and former officeholders who entered the campaign as establishment candidates. They believe that Obama is doing a bad job because he is deeply misguided. Maybe it is because he is a socialist, or a liberal, or a progressive or simply a Democrat, but bottom line they think he has bad principles. The candidates are experienced pros, present or former officeholders who understand that governing is complex, but they have the experience and track records showing they do it well: Pataki, Graham, Kasich, and Bush. They got early money because donors understand those same realities, that governing involves compromise, dealing with constitutional realities like a 60 vote Senate, powerful interest groups in opposition, getting bipartisan support, and the grim reality that spending requires revenue, which is the nice word for taxes. Their message is a difficult one. I attended a public meeting for Lindsey Graham in a conference room with 14 seats, 6 of which were filled by clerical employees of the law firm hosting the public event.
They sound earnest when they talk, but they look worn out and frustrated. Look at Jeb's body language. Arms hanging down, face looking drawn, shoulders hunched.
And the voters hate it. The candidates have about 5-8% of the vote combined.
Group Two is the big group. These candidates also think Obama is bad, a misguided socialist. They have a simple prescription in the short term: obstruct Obama. The longer term solution is to elect one of them who as president immediacy reverses course and repeals Obamacare, ends Dodd Frank, stops environmental regulation, reduces the safety net, increases the military, steps closer to Israel, and lowers taxes. They have a sunny view of the result: a much bigger military combined with lower taxes will mean economic growth which will mean more jobs and more revenue, thus balancing the budget and paying down the debt.
Their tone is angry, and it fits their personalities, Christie's in your face bluntness, Rand Paul's libertarian absolutism, Cruz's certitude, Rubio's verbal eloquence, Fiorini's icy anger. After all, government in general and especially government under Obama is malevolent. They are at war with it. The crowds like it and they divide up about 65% of the vote.
Group Three is Donald Trump. He is different from the others in a significant way that has not been particularly noted by public or pundits. Trump is not arguing that Obama is bad, with malevolent intent. He says Obama is weak, a pushover, the author of bad deals. Trump is not arguing good versus bad, he is arguing strong versus weak. We have bad deals with Mexico (immigration and trade), bad deals with Japan and China (trade), bad deals with Iran (nuclear deal), bad deals with Russia (Syria).
Trump's tone is sunny and optimistic. He has a happy message. America's problems all get down to one simple one: America's politicians are indebted to their donors and they are weak, ineffectual people. And the solution is at hand: vote for someone who knows how to negotiate strong deals, someone who will use the negotiating power of American wealth and markets to demand that Mexico build the wall, that Japan and China change their trade policy, that Iran improve the nuclear deal and that Putin will fear America's firmness and unpredictability.
The big outlier is Trump, but not because he is a narcissistic blowhard. Rather it is because he is the one Republican candidate who sees the campaign for president not on ideological grounds, but rather on grounds of skill and cunning. And as Trump says of himself: I'm good at this.
Below, scenes from the Nugget Casino in Sparks Nevada
No comments:
Post a Comment