Trump poll numbers are steady

     "Those who disapprove of Trump do so on the basis of style and substance, not scandal."

                  Tom Cook, Cook Political Report, April 5, 2019

Donald Trump's poll numbers didn't move this week.

He didn't get a "total EXONERATION!" bump up. He didn't get a fall. The Cook Political Report consultancy reported the same thing that is widespread across polling organizations who looked at public opinion this week.  Cook found a Trump approval rating of about 43% with disapproval of 53%.

Real Clear Politics averaged eight polls and shows the following graph, and approval rating: 43% approve of Trump, 53% disapprove.  (Their polling includes one consistent outlier polling company, Rasmussen, which showed a 49-49 tie. Rasmussen is always, consistently   a pro-Republican skewed firm.)

Source: Real Clear Politics

        

No change in opinion on Trump. 

This result does not surprise me. Indeed, it confirms one of the themes of this blog, that Trump has a brand, a persona, and that some people like it and have adopted him as their political hero-advocate, and some people don't.  Whether or not Trump was too cosy with Russian spies, or whether he cheats extravagantly on his taxes or his wives or his vendors or his charity simply don't matter because the Trump archetype character is the Bad Boy rule-changer.

Trump cheating confirms what people already know and like or dislike. Him being found "not indictable" is exactly what people already know and like/dislike about him, that he skates close to the line, being as dismissive of rules as possible. 

Trump's critics on the media have not wavered, and have moved to Round Two: the Southern District of NY and the NY State investigations, plus House Committee investigations.  

Click: Video mashup mocks mainstream media

Trump's supporters need not fully endorse Trump behavior. Bad is, after all, bad, but Trump's enemies are their enemies, and social media is reveling in circulating material that appears to humiliate the common enemy: MSNBC, CNN, NBC. CBS, academics, pundits, experts, intellectuals, liberals, and Democrats.

News people are mocked for saying Trump is finished, the walls are closing in, Trump is done. They are made to look silly and repetitive and Trump supporters love it.

Trump-the-Bad-Boy rule-breaker hates who they hate. 

 So the battle lines are drawn.

Nice Guys Finish Second

Trump grabs P., and still gets elected president. 

Biden gets condemned for overly aggressive glad handing. 

It is unfair, but it makes sense.

Republicans want someone strong. Democrats want someone "woke."  Sexual aggressiveness is judged as good for Trump. It is judged as bad for Democrats.

Posiiton of strength 

Trump’s brand is Bad Boy, the big, macho, domineering alpha male rule-breaker, the guy who breaks norms and doesn’t get pushed around by the politically correct feminists. As the Bad Boy disrupter, his behavior toward women confirms his masculine power: adultery, three wives, walking into dressing rooms, grabbing P.

The Access Hollywood tape was a bit too far even for his friends, but it wasn’t disqualifying, not for Trump. It was another iteration of the B. S. D. persona Trump wanted to project. (Big Swinging Dick, a big Wall Street dealmaker, per Michael Lewis’ Liar’s Poker.)

Meanwhile, Biden is guilty of a fraction of what Trump is accused of, but for Democrats the laying on of hands is considered bad, not good. It is disqualifying, not qualifying.  It breaks the Democratic brand. Democrats are insisting their candidate be either a woman or Mr. Nice Guy, the evolved and woke man who understands and respects the evolving norms regarding gender relations. Democrats have staked their claim on political correctness.

Trump’s supporters like it when he is the willful Bad Boy; Democrats insist on a Nice Guy. That is the difference.

Readers who happen to have watched “Felicity," the WB Network 4 year series back about 1998-02 will understand the risks for Democrats. The show wasn't about politics, but it was about brands and choices of the kind voters are making now. It is instructive.

Chooses strong, not "nice."

The show involved a love triangle between Felicity, played by Keri Russell, the beautiful college student at a NYU look-alike college.  She wavered back and forth between Bad Boy, Ben, a tall and ruggedly good looking guy who kept getting into alcohol and gambling and other alpha male trouble, and Mr. Nice Guy, Noel, the earnest, sweet, steady, loyal one, the respectful one, also very good looking, but cute and softer.  

The Felicity character eventually chose Ben. Sure, he fathered a child with someone else, and he dropped out of school, and was untrustworthy,  but he was the alpha guy. He was willful and strong.

The Nice Guy finished second. 

If Biden can get pushed around and shamed by Warren and Gellibrand and NY Times op-ed writers, and that is exactly what is happening, think how easily he will get pushed around by China and Russia and a Republican senate. That is the silent message being delivered right now.

Biden is being shamed for not being "woke" enough. Either way is bad for him, and the very discussion positions him as weak. He is the guy in trouble, sweating under the bright lights, the guy being judged and trying to make amends, saying he will be better.  

The strong role would be to be the guy pointing the finger of accusation or the judge making the decision. Biden is the one saying "I'm woke! Really, I'm woke."  It looks weak.

Why Democrats Lose

A 30-Second video.

There are important differences to sort out.

Progressive, liberal, neo-liberal.

Medicare for All vs. Single Payer vs. Preserve existing group plans.

It is a woman's turn, 

a black person's turn,

a white guy's turn, 

a gay guy's turn, 

a young person's turn, 

Bernie's turn.

A lesson on Democratic politics. Watch for 30 seconds.

Click: It is easy to lose focus.

Democrats and MeToo: Live by the Sword

Click: Rolling Stone

Zero Tolerance.

Believe the accuser.

Democrats have staked out new political, moral, and legal ground. Intention doesn't matter. What matters is how some action is perceived.

The trump card: "I am offended!"

Joe Biden is an old school politician. He is a toucher. He practices retail politics in the tradition of glad handing and kissing babies. People working a room shake hands, and press the flesh.  Our language embeds what happens. An old school politician demonstrates empathy by affectionate elimination of social distance.

Social distance is cultural and contextual. There is a distance one stands from one another on sidewalks in suburban areas, and a much closer distance one stands when in a crowded elevator or rush hour subway car.

I personally experienced a version of old school urban politics, and I cited it frequently in my reports on the 2016 Republican primary.  Chris Christie does retail politics up close. We did selfies together, closer than in the photo here. When he shook my hand he looked me full in the face, with his nose perhaps five inches from mine. HIs right hand was in my right hand, his left hand was on my left shoulder. It was a bit like slow dancing.

Hello, cousin. Christie was making body language communication of embracement. He was governor, a big shot, but we were peers here in the embrace. I was family.

Chris Christie, I said, knew how to do retail politics.

Joe Biden is a toucher. It was thought a huge political asset. Now it may destroy his campaign.

Joe Biden is being accused of making two women uncomfortable, in a display of sexual invasion.

Joe Biden explained it his way:  "In my many years on the campaign trail and in public life, I have offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection support and comfort. And not once--never--did I believe I acted inappropriately. If it is suggested I did so, I will listen respectfully. But it was never my intention."

That may not be good enough. Indeed, one of his accusers, Lucy Flores, says it isn't even relevant.

Flores said it was an assault of a man against a woman. "Frankly, my point was never about his intentions, and they shouldn't be about his intentions. It should be about the woman on the receiving end of that behavior."  "I want him to acknowledge it was wrong," she said.

This is huge. It has consequences, and Democrats are jumping aboard the Flores train. 

Democrats created a new standard. Believe the accusers. What matters is her sense of offense. If a woman felt the man invaded her personal privacy and autonomy, for example in this instance when perceived as a "slow kiss on the back of the head" it was an assault, a political tort. She was offended so he was wrong.

Some Democrats have some misgivings about the piling onto of Al Franken, but they jumped on the chance to double down during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings so that is the new Democratic orthodoxy: Zero tolerance, believe the accuser, the woman's perception is the one that counts, and discomfort equals assault. 

Democratic activists hoping to eliminate the centrist Biden threat may welcome this development. However, the issue is bigger. Democrats are changing the relevant legal and cultural standards in relations of men and women--indeed the law and culture in general.

Typically the intention of the actor is central. Mishaps happen, and what is important is whether the actor had malicious or innocent mindset. A driver who has an unintended mishap had an "accident," and it is not treated as criminal destruction. We jostle someone else, realize it, say, "Oops, clumsy me, sorry" and the breach is resolved. Under the new rule, "oops, clumsy me, sorry" is not a defense. There is no safe harbor of action, intention, or time.

Offense is the trump card.

The Kavanaugh backlash showed that the new standard frightens many people, appearing unaccountable and lacking due process. Democrats uneasy with this are too intimidated to object.

It is a dangerous, self-destructive decision. It firms up the Republican hold on male voters, and it will include not just men but also women married to men, a group Hillary lost decisively in 2016. Democrats can console themselves thinking that those married women are foolish co-conspirators in the power of patriarchy, and they will wise up, but there is something deeper involved--the notion of justice.

Intent does matter. Deep-set Judeo-Christian values affirm that humans have moral choices, and take moral responsibility for their intentions, but not every outcome, because accidents happen.

Democrats who side with Lucy Flores and Democrats may be causing voters to consider Trump--for all his faults--a safer defender of liberty and justice than they do Flores and the Democrats who back her.

Greg Walden Retirement Talk

Greg Walden. Short timer?

Heads up. This may be Greg Walden's final term.

I have been saying it for over a year now: Congressman Greg Walden is likely to pack it in.

Democrats and Republicans will be jockeying for the open seat in 2020.

Talk of Greg Walden retirement is now seeping out into the mainstream political commentary media, most recently today's Daily Kos, which made reference to a Politico speculation, that maybe Oregon's Greg Walden would not run for re-election in 2020.  

Oregon media hasn't noticed it yet.  Newsrooms have thinned out, but they will catch up. The signs are building.

Status, power, and misery. 

Daily Kos, today

This blog has been observing repeatedly that Walden's heart has not been in this.

To review:

 1. His skill as a fundraiser and legislator elevated him to leadership in the GOP. He had both status and power. He was Chair of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee at a time when his committee handled two of the most important issues in America, health care and the ACA repeal, plus telecommunications including net neutrality.

2. "Mr. Chairman." Having achieved status and power in the majority party, it was glorious to have the big office, staff, and influence and association with the most important issues and players in American government.  Lobbyists came to him, paying tribute. The money poured in, both for his own campaigns and for him to re-distribute to others in the GOP caucus. It had to feel great. 

3. Now he isn't. The House now has a Democratic majority. Now he addresses someone else as Mr. Chairman. He moved offices.

4. Being Chairman and in Leadership was actually miserable for him, because it put him in constant conflict with himself. Walden is actually a "moderate" by GOP standards, but there 
are powerful voices within the Republican caucus--and Trump's--pushing policies that 
Walden must accommodate.  Walden isn't stupid or ideologically cruel. He realizes his
constituents actually benefited enormously from the ACA, but he helped lead a party with a policy objective of reversing those benefits.  It was made harder by the fact that the GOP caucus is so deeply divided that two GOP speakers have resigned in frustration. He isn't herding cats. He was also herding lemmings.

5. Walden had to parrot the "GOP company line" which turned him into a dissembler, and then a fugitive in his own District.. He had told District audiences with apparent sincerely that he supported expanded Medicaid for the working poor in his District and that he would preserve healthcare access to people with pre-existing conditions. He had to stop having public meetings in his District. 

My prediction throughout 2018: Walden would leave the congress after this term. 

Free at last. Free at last.

A key indicator: Walden broke ranks.

On January 5 this blog described an important new development, one ignored by Southern Oregon media. Walden was one of seven Republicans to vote to end the shutdown. This was a huge "tell."

Walden got his conscience back.


.

Now what?  He could just stay where he is. 

Being Ranking Member of Energy and Commerce is not all bad: there is some status and the lobbyists still call to pay tribute. And since his responsibilities now are to obstruct, not create, he has more freedom to be himself. He can raise lots of money and once again flood the District with billboards and TV. The seat still has a strong Republican lean.

But I am guessing this is his final term. 

Walden has options. There is a better life available to him, and time to pursue it. 

He is a superb fundraiser. Smooth. Pleasant. Comfortable with corporate money men. Not too ideologically rigid. Knowledgeable about how Congress works. Respected by his colleagues. He could be so happy as a lobbyist, perhaps for the drug industry, or better yet for the broadcast industry. 

He would not have Freedom Caucus crazies to accommodate. No looking constituents in the eye and telling them that Republican and Trump efforts to repeal protections for pre-existing conditions really, actually, means keeping protections for pre-existing conditions. Walden knows better, and that kind of dishonest verbal footwork has got to be miserable for him. 

Politico, today

Greg Walden doesn't consult with me about his retirement plans, but I hear about him from others. He is happier now, they tell me. And he should be.

But my guess is that he doesn't like the demotion from "Mr. Chairman" and there is such very green grass available to him if he leaves the Congress. Been there. Done that.

I expect him to finish out this term and move on. The fact that he is now on a watch list for resignation by the national media means that others are waking up to this.

"Impossible" candidate Pete Buttigieg

Possibly Democrats want to sell "normalcy." Normalcy is pushing Reset on Trump. There is a big choice of "normal" Democratic candidates.

Click: The surprise factor.

But maybe someone could catch fire and come out of nowhere. 

From "out of nowhere" is a thing.  

Susan Boyle was a frumpy 47 year old contestant on Britain's Got Talent. And then she started to sing. The fact that she was startlingly talented, coming from a completely unexpected package, meant she got noticed. Frumpy awkwardness was part of her schtick.

People on social media sent links.  You won't believe this, they said. Amazing, they said. You have to see this, they said.

Pow!

Donald Trump did not come out of nowhere. He was a celebrity, a TV and tabloid star as of September 2015, with a reputation as a decisive executive bully, and he had an act people wanted to see. I was in Rochester, New Hampshire, on a warm summer evening in when the campaign was brand new, and 3,000 people overwhelmed the high school parking lots eager to catch the act. 

It was a show, and it was free.  Trump was an event. Trump started with that. Trump had an audience and he worked it, honed his message, learned what worked, and got himself elected president. 

That is the normal way. Start with a national profile, most typically from political office. Become a known brand.

Pete Buttigieg

Pete Buttigieg starts with nothing. Readers of this blog know his name, probably, but most Americans do not. Eventually about half of Americans will vote, in a primary, but they aren't all that interested. There is only so much mental shelf-space, and Buttigieg is not a brand.

Pete Buttigieg is doing what Jimmy Carter did in 1976: surprising people, meeting them in small groups. It can be done in Iowa and New Hampshire because the environment is small enough and the activists few enough that retail politics happens. Buttigieg can stand in a room and talk, and even at 25 and 50 at a time it makes a difference.

He gets a buzz. 

Of course, he is impossible.  Let's start with a certain, undeniable premise. There is no way on heaven or earth that Democrats are going to nominate a 37 year old gay small-city mayor, with an unpronounceable last name, to be their nominee. 

But here's what is happening: people are startled. People who are mentally "shopping" for the right candidate--and that is most people, because there are so many choices-- find themselves impressed, against their own better judgement. He is impossible--and yet, listen to him. 

Part of his appeal is that he presses "Reset." He is not part of the Hillary, Bernie trench warfare. He was a non-combattant, just a mayor, not a senator choosing sides. He articulates with body language what candidates in their 60s and 70s say with words: it is about the future. 

The future is a powerful message. Democratic activists believe it. It is an article of faith that a climate crisis is impending, but it is not fully here now. It is for Pete Buttigieg's generation to deal with. So let him get to it.

Trump talks about returning to past greatness. Buttigieg represents the future. It's a nice contrast.

What does Buttigieg do that surprises people? He articulates the Democratic message, sounding serenely self confident, sounding comfortable with being midwestern and Christian, comfortable with being himself. He sounds like he had heard every nasty snipe and criticism, and was inured to them.

He is secure in the face of enemies. It is a tone he projects.

He contrasts with Trump physically, looking physically small and boyish, but he comes across as comfortable standing up to Trump. It clicks into a familiar trope. We like the formulas: Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl. The hare and the tortoise. And this one: Big bully meets brave young warrior. Goliath meets David.

He is impossible, of course. Get real. 

That impossibility is what gives him the potential of going viral and coming out of nowhere. 

A robust Democratic majority

It may not be possible.

Democrats may be doomed to be the party of frustration, not the party of progress and change.

There is a split within the American left. There is frustration over unresolved problems in America ignored by the comfortable elites of both parties.  Matthew Taibbi wrote about it. Click Here.  It is real. I saw it during my political travel last cycle, when I predicted a Trump victory. Trump channelled populism.

I recommend people stop here and read the Taibbi article.

Gallup and other polls show deep dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, which persisted during Bush, Obama, and continues. It is bi-partisan, which is why there is opportunity for both left populism and right populism--and centrism as well.  Hillary Clinton represented left centrism and she won slightly over half the votes.

That is why there is a split in the Democratic voter base.

Wrong Track: Dissatisfied America. 

There may not be a route to what the Democratic activist base wants: a progressive Democratic president and a robust Democratic majority to carry out a progressive agenda.

Democrats on the left think Bernie Sanders should have won and would have won had he been nominated. They won't be pushovers this time. They want a populist left nominee who embraces populist economics--tax the rich, Medicare for All, $15 minimum wage--and one who recognizes the identity elements of the party and who embraces the resentments of the frustrated activist constituencies: The MeToo feminists, Black Lives Matter blacks, Latino immigration activists,The LGBTQ community. 

Such a candidate may emerge. Possibly it will be Sanders, but he is old and male and white, and many think shopworn.  There is such a candidate, an unavailable one: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She gets media attention in part because she pulls together that mix. AOC is the telegenic, sassy template and avatar.

An AOC-compliant candidate might win the Democratic nomination general election, given the potential of Trump-fatigue and his unique strengths and weaknesses. Trump has a unique set of enemies. But an AOC-compliant Democratic Party will likely not lead to House and Senate wins in Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, Florida, Colorado, Georgia and Texas. Democrats can and have won senate races in those states, and recently. 

Democrats who say well, "we cannot actually expect to win Texas," are identifying the problem and conceding defeat. Beto is young and exciting. Many Democrats who donated to him expected something like AOC, and instead they got a moderate, and he doesn't actually hate the fossil fuel industry. 

Well of course, which is why he nearly won in Texas.

Senator Jon Tester, Montana

The ideal Democrat for the activist progressive is two contradictory things. They want to win in places like Texas AND they want an AOC-compliant politician. 

Choose one.

Democrats can win in those states: Bob Kerrey, Tom Dashiell, Heidi Heidkamp, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Gary Hart, Sam Zell, Lloyd Benston. 

Democrats who win in places like Montana sometimes look and sound like Jon Tester. Tester would likely have a hard time winning a congressional seat in Queens. He farms. He drives a tractor. He slaughters his own beef. He is OK with sounding like a moderate, a centrist. Indeed, it is an essential element of his brand.

A robust majority for Democrats in the House and Senate does not happen by electing 55 or 60 US senators who look and sound like Bernie Sanders and AOC. Vermont and Queens are wonderful, special places, but what is possible in Burlington and Queens is not necessarily possible in Des Moines. A robust Democratic majority will happen when voters in Montana and Missouri and Florida and other red and purple states turn out for a Democrat.  

Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia

Voters on the progressive left can scorn and define such people as Democrats in Name Only, and they are doing so, but it dooms the presidential candidate either to losing the general election, or winning it and discovering he or she has a deeply hostile Congress.

Such a Senate refuses to take action on the president's Supreme Court nominations. Frustration. And then voters turn off, because, after all, they elected Obama and all they got was Obamacare and a conservative Supreme Court.

A Democratic president needs a robust majority to carry out the mission that progressives want. Democrats may want AOC, but they need Joe Manchin, too.