The New Nationalism in America: How conservatism is changing in the Trump era https://t.co/ytTqhBYbTx via @continetti pic.twitter.com/GtJZRFZkCi— Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) February 24, 2017
Of all the ways Donald Trump has shocked the political system, one of the most significant is how he wins primary after primary with one of the smallest campaign budgets.More.
He still doesn’t have a super PAC. He skimped on ground organization and field offices. Most important, he spent less on television advertising — typically the single biggest expenditure for a campaign — than any other major candidate, according to an analysis by SMG Delta, a firm that tracks television advertising.
But Mr. Trump is hardly absent from the airwaves. Like all candidates, he benefits from what is known as earned media: news and commentary about his campaign on television, in newspapers and magazines, and on social media. Earned media typically dwarfs paid media in a campaign. The big difference between Mr. Trump and other candidates is that he is far better than any other candidate — maybe than any candidate ever — at earning media.
No one knows this better than mediaQuant, a firm that tracks media coverage of each candidate and computes a dollar value based on advertising rates. The mentions are weighted by the reach of the media source, meaning how many people were likely to see it. The calculation also includes traditional media of all types, print, broadcast or otherwise, as well as online-only sources like Facebook, Twitter or Reddit.
Its numbers are not quite an apples-to-apples comparison to paid advertising. But they do make one thing clear: Mr. Trump is not just a little better at earning media. He is way better than any of the other candidates.
Mr. Trump earned $400 million worth of free media last month, about what John McCain spent on his entire 2008 presidential campaign. Paul Senatori, mediaQuant’s chief analytics officer, says that Mr. Trump “has no weakness in any of the media segments” — in other words, he is strong in every type of earned media, from television to Twitter.
Over the course of the campaign, he has earned close to $2 billion worth of media attention, about twice the all-in price of the most expensive presidential campaigns in history...
Trade is an issue that polarizes Americans by socio-economic status. To the professional class, which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials and Democratic powerbrokers, what they call “free trade” is something so obviously good and noble it doesn’t require explanation or inquiry or even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree on this, and no amount of facts can move them from their Econ 101 dream.Plus, here's Frank's book, Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?
To the remaining 80 or 90% of America [not populated by Trump supporters], trade means something very different [than economic decimation]. There’s a video going around on the internet these days that shows a room full of workers at a Carrier air conditioning plant in Indiana being told by an officer of the company that the factory is being moved to Monterrey, Mexico, and that they’re all going to lose their jobs.
As I watched it, I thought of all the arguments over trade that we’ve had in this country since the early 1990s, all the sweet words from our economists about the scientifically proven benevolence of free trade, all the ways in which our newspapers mock people who say that treaties like the North American Free Trade Agreement allow companies to move jobs to Mexico.
Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what it looks like. The Carrier executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about the need to “stay competitive” and “the extremely price-sensitive marketplace”. A worker shouts “Fuck you!” at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can “share” his “information”. His information about all of them losing their jobs.
* * *
Now, I have no special reason to doubt the suspicion that Donald Trump is a racist. Either he is one, or (as the comedian John Oliver puts it) he is pretending to be one, which amounts to the same thing.
But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate with racist Google searches, but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair, with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington’s free-market consensus have brought the rest of America.
It is worth noting that Trump is making a point of assailing that Indiana air conditioning company from the video in his speeches. What this suggests is that he’s telling a tale as much about economic outrage as it is tale of racism on the march. Many of Trump’s followers are bigots, no doubt, but many more are probably excited by the prospect of a president who seems to mean it when he denounces our trade agreements and promises to bring the hammer down on the CEO that fired you and wrecked your town, unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Here is the most salient supporting fact: when people talk to white, working-class Trump supporters, instead of simply imagining what they might say, they find that what most concerns these people is the economy and their place in it. I am referring to a study just published by Working America, a political-action auxiliary of the AFL-CIO, which interviewed some 1,600 white working-class voters in the suburbs of Cleveland and Pittsburgh in December and January.
Support for Donald Trump, the group found, ran strong among these people, even among self-identified Democrats, but not because they are all pining for a racist in the White House. Their favorite aspect of Trump was his “attitude”, the blunt and forthright way he talks. As far as issues are concerned, “immigration” placed third among the matters such voters care about, far behind their number one concern: “good jobs / the economy”.
“People are much more frightened than they are bigoted,” is how the findings were described to me by Karen Nussbaum, the executive director of Working America. The survey “confirmed what we heard all the time: people are fed up, people are hurting, they are very distressed about the fact that their kids don’t have a future” and that “there still hasn’t been a recovery from the recession, that every family still suffers from it in one way or another.”
Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor Council in Fort Wayne, puts it even more bluntly when I asked him about working-class Trump fans. “These people aren’t racist, not any more than anybody else is,” he says of Trump supporters he knows. “When Trump talks about trade, we think about the Clinton administration, first with Nafta and then with [Permanent Normal Trade Relations] China, and here in Northeast Indiana, we hemorrhaged jobs.”
“They look at that, and here’s Trump talking about trade, in a ham-handed way, but at least he’s representing emotionally. We’ve had all the political establishment standing behind every trade deal, and we endorsed some of these people, and then we’ve had to fight them to get them to represent us.”
Now, let us stop and smell the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties – chose long ago to turn its back on these people’s concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a “creative class” that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn’t need to listen to them any longer.
What Lewandowski and Nussbaum are saying, then, should be obvious to anyone who’s dipped a toe outside the prosperous enclaves on the two coasts. Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll. As Trump says, “we have rebuilt China and yet our country is falling apart. Our infrastructure is falling apart … Our airports are, like, Third World.”
Trump’s words articulate the populist backlash against liberalism that has been building slowly for decades and may very well occupy the White House itself, whereupon the entire world will be required to take seriously its demented ideas.
Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trumpism is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed.
Ten seconds before the Nevada caucuses officially closed at 9 p.m., an excited crowd of several hundred Donald Trump supporters counted down in a ballroom at Treasure Island.Actually, Cruz is collapsing, big time. I expect he'll be getting calls to quit the race soon, especially next week, if his slide continues on Super Tuesday.
As the clock struck 9, CNN called the election for Trump, sending the crowd into choruses of wild applause, whistles and chants of “Trump, Trump, Trump” that echoed throughout the room where Trump’s caucus watch party was being held.
The win comes as no surprise: Expectations were particularly high for Trump over the past few days. Polling in the state — scarce and uncertain as it was — placed Trump with a wide lead over Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Fresh off a first-place victory in South Carolina, Trump carried that momentum over into Nevada, holding two packed rallies Monday and Tuesday in Las Vegas and Sparks.
A solid victory in Nevada is expected to propel Trump solidly forward to next week, when 11 states hold their nominating contests on Super Tuesday. The Nevada win is Trump’s third first-place win in a row, following New Hampshire and South Carolina. (The only state he hasn’t won was Iowa, the first nominating contest, which Cruz carried.)
Nevada was long projected to be Rubio’s firewall, but instead he left the state in second place.
Trump won 46 percent of the vote. Rubio placed second at 24 percent and Cruz was in third at 21 percent. Ben Carson garnered 5 percent of the vote, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich is at 4 percent.
“A couple of months ago, we weren’t expected to win this one, you know that, right?” Trump told the crowd through whistles and cheers Tuesday night. “Of course, if you listened to the pundits we weren't expected to win too much, and now we're winning, winning, winning.”
The question now for Rubio and Cruz in the coming days is what, if anything, can knock Trump off his game...
Ted Cruz was running a very close third in the Nevada caucuses on Tuesday night when he gave his concession speech, but that didn't stop him from declaring the Republican presidential primary a two-campaign race.And at Memeorandum.
For Cruz, it's down to him and Donald Trump...
After his solid, broadly based victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina, Donald Trump now holds a commanding position in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.More.
But Trump still faces two “known unknowns,” to borrow the memorable phrase from former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, an architect of the Iraq War that Trump now excoriates. One is whether Trump has a ceiling of support. The second is whether, even if he does, any of his remaining rivals can unify enough of the voters resistant to him to beat him.
So far the evidence suggests the answers are: maybe, and not yet. Indeed over the first three contests, Trump’s two principal remaining opponents have shown mirror-image weaknesses. Texas Senator Ted Cruz has assembled a coalition of support that is too narrow; Florida Senator Marco Rubio is building a coalition that is too shallow.
As in his New Hampshire win earlier this month, Trump’s support in South Carolina transcended many of the usual fissures in Republican politics, according to exit poll results posted by CNN. The one big exception remained education: In each of the first three contests, including the Iowa caucus, Trump has not run as well among voters with a college degree as with those lacking advanced education. But because those white-collar voters have fragmented among many choices, none of Trump’s rivals is consolidating enough of them to overcome the New Yorker’s dominant position among voters without a college degree. The simple equation that Trump has consolidated blue-collar Republicans while the party’s white collar wing remains divided remains the most powerful dynamic in the race, even as Trump has failed to exceed 35 percent of the vote in any of the initial contests.
...two factors could conspire to give Trump the nomination.
First, his challengers continue to find reasons to remain in the race, and the longer the field remains crowded, the harder it is for any one of them to attract more voters than Trump in a given state. In fact, one of Rubio’s main arguments is that “the longer this goes on, the worse it’s going to be,” and therefore he is the candidate who can unify the party. A Bush aide said he dropped out in part to help the party unite behind an alternative.
Trump himself mocked pundits for saying his opponents’ votes combined could defeat him if some of them drop out.
“These geniuses,” he said, his voice dripping with sarcasm. “They don’t understand that as people drop out, I’m going to get a lot of those votes also. You don’t just add them together.”
Second, polls show an increasing number of Republicans have become comfortable with Trump leading the party’s ticket in the November general election. In the Fox poll, 74% of Republicans said they would be at least somewhat satisfied with Trump as president. That number was far smaller (43%) among all voters.
To beat back Trump, Cruz, who won the Iowa caucuses, will need to pick up wins in a slew of Southern state primaries held March 1, and hope other contenders drop out. But the Texas senator ultimately will have to persuade more voters to embrace his pure form of conservatism and reject Trump as a phony, a case he has been trying to make for weeks.
“If you are conservative, this is where you belong,” Cruz told supporters Saturday. “Because only one strong conservative is in a position to win this race.”
Rubio, who may have been helped by his endorsement this week from South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, has a different challenge. The Florida senator will have to begin winning states and hope that a majority of Republicans decide they want a more mainstream candidate, despite polls showing voters are looking to back those who have not served in government.
Rubio did well among GOP primary voters who said they wanted to vote for the best general election candidate, but only about 15% of South Carolina voters said that was a priority.
“If it is God’s will that we should win this election,” Rubio said Saturday night, “then history will say, on this night in South Carolina, we took the first step forward to the beginning of a new American century.”
In his emotional seven-minute farewell to a Republican Party that elevated his father and brother to the White House, there were two words that a choked-up Jeb Bush could not bring himself to utter: “Donald Trump.”Keep reading.
Mr. Bush, the former governor of Florida, had been soundly rejected by an electorate he no longer recognized, hobbling his campaign and leaving him little choice but to withdraw from the presidential race.
“The people of Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina have spoken,” Mr. Bush said, holding back tears. “And I really respect their decision.”
It was a stunning turn for the man who a year ago embodied all the qualities that his party’s elders imagined Republican voters wanted in a president: civility, experience, pedigree and tolerance.
They were wrong.
The party of Prescott Bush, George Bush and George W. Bush is, for the moment, the party of Donald J. Trump.
For the past year, party leaders who had pleaded with Mr. Bush to run and armed his campaign with a record-shattering war chest of $100 million had consoled themselves with assurances that Mr. Trump’s popularity in the polls would never translate into victory at the ballot box.
Mr. Trump, it turned out, knew their voters better than they did.
Mr. Trump’s commanding back-to-back primary wins in two disparate regions of the country have forcefully shaken the Republican firmament out of a prolonged state of self-denial.
“It’s an enormous moment,” said Steve Schmidt, a top Republican strategist on John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008 and George W Bush’s in 2004. Unless further rivals immediately quit the race, “it’s very difficult to see how he is stopped on his way to the nomination.”
There’s no question that the main story coming out of the South Carolina primary is another big win for Donald Trump. His double-digit margin over his nearest competitors was very much along the lines of his impressive victory in New Hampshire and looked to have won him all of the state’s delegates. Trump proved that nothing he could say — whether it was repeating far-left talking points about George W. Bush, endorsing the ObamaCare personal mandate or opposing entitlement reform — could alienate his supporters. With one third of GOP primary voters solidly in his pocket, it’s possible to argue that he has a clear path to the Republican nomination so long as he is facing two or more competitors in the remaining states, especially once most of the contests become winner-take-all affairs.More.
But if Trump is the big winner in South Carolina, Ted Cruz is the big loser....
Cruz’s assumption was that once other candidates that appealed to social conservatives like Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum dropped out, he could count on a united evangelical vote. But what Trump showed us in South Carolina is that there is no such thing as a united bloc of religious conservatives. Or even of Tea Party voters that should, in theory, also be flocking to Cruz. What’s killing Cruz is that a lot of people who ought not to be voting for someone with Trump’s record are doing so. Cruz is right that he is the principled conservative that represents the beliefs of these voters. But they are still voting for Trump.
Trump may be hitting a ceiling at about one third of the vote. But that bloc is largely composed of the Tea Party and evangelicals that Cruz assumed would never stick with the frontrunner. If this pattern is repeated in the SEC states, Cruz will lose them. And once you get past that point in the calendar, the GOP race moves to northern, Midwestern and southern states where Cruz’s brand of conservatism has even less of a constituency. Trump may triumph there too, especially if Rubio is forced to compete with Kasich. But whatever happens in those states, the least likely outcome there would be victories for Cruz...
Donald Trump rode a week of insults directed at a popular pope and a GOP president to trounce his opponents in the South Carolina Republican presidential primary Saturday, the most convincing evidence to date that his establishment-smashing campaign is on track to win the nomination.Still more.
None of Trump's rivals came close to knocking him off Saturday, despite – or perhaps because of – his position at the center of one of the most polarizing campaign weeks in recent history.
“There’s nothing easy about running for president, I can tell you,” Trump told a cheering crowd in Spartanburg, S.C., late Saturday. "It’s tough. It’s nasty. It’s mean. It’s vicious. It’s beautiful. When you win, it’s beautiful, and we are going to start winning for our country.”
On the other end of the spectrum was the night's biggest casualty, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who quit the race after months of limping along in Trump's shadow and as the target of much of Trump's derision.
"I'm proud of the campaign we've run," Bush told supporters. "But the people of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina have spoken."
With about one-third of the ballots counted, Trump had about 33% of the vote. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, also running as a party agitator, was running just barely ahead of Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida for second place.
Many figures in the party elite have viewed Rubio as the last man standing between traditional GOP values and the restive forces that have come to upend them in the 2016 campaign. So far, however, he has not won a contest.
Trump's victory was sweeping. He won among veterans and nonveterans, moderates and conservatives, evangelicals and nonevangelicals, women and men, according to the results of the exit poll conducted by Edison Research for the Associated Press and the major television networks.
As he has throughout the campaign, Trump dominated the vote of Republicans without a college education and those with incomes below $100,000. College graduates were closely divided among backers of Trump, Cruz and Rubio. Those with incomes above $100,000 split their vote between Trump and Rubio, the exit poll indicated.
Almost the only significant demographic group that did not go for Trump were those who called themselves "very conservative," who sided with Cruz...
Our long national nightmare is over - #JebBush suspends presidential campaign. #SouthCarolina #SCPrimary #SouthCarolinaPrimary #GOPprimary— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) February 21, 2016
Washington (CNN) Donald Trump continued lighting into Ted Cruz Monday, calling him the most "dishonest person I've ever met in politics" and saying the Texas senator's win in Iowa should be disqualified.More.
"I've been in a business where you know, it's pretty sharp. You meet sharp people, I don't mean sharp like sharp, although they're that also. But you meet people that really go to the edge," Trump told a small crowd in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. "I've never met people like politicians, they are the most dishonest people I've ever met ... I think Jeb (Bush) is just Jeb. But this guy Ted Cruz is the most dishonest person I've ever met in politics."
He then complained that Cruz effectively stole the Iowa caucuses from him by having staff tell Ben Carson supporters that the retired neurosurgeon was dropping out of the race -- which was not true.
"He apologized to Carson after the event, he should have apologized to me," Trump said. "If Iowa had any guts, the people from the Republican Party, they should disqualify him from winning Iowa. I really mean it. Because what he did was a fraud."
Trump has repeatedly called Cruz a "liar" in recent weeks, but he amped up that message Monday, with just five days left before the South Carolina primary...
GREENVILLE, S.C. — In an election that Republicans have long seen as a chance to put forward new stars with a fresh and broadly appealing conservative vision, the GOP is instead at risk of tearing itself apart over its past as it heads into the thick of the primary season."Existential" is a strong word. Call me skeptical. "Rejuvenating" is more appropriate, and not a moment too soon.
A day after a debate marked by a series of personal, petty exchanges — and a day before former president George W. Bush was set to make a high-profile return to the national scene — Republicans were grappling with their core beliefs on a host of issues, as well as the image they were broadcasting to the country.
The infighting was ignited at the debate Saturday night by front-runner Donald Trump, who was unrelenting in his criticism of both how well the 43rd president kept America safe before and after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and of the hawkish Republican worldview in general.
The foreign policy fracas is only the latest row among 2016 candidates over many of the basic tenets that have guided Republican and conservative thinking since the Reagan years, from free trade to the extent to which the federal government should be involved in providing health care for its poorest citizens.
Trump reiterated threats to use tariffs on imported goods to punish corporations that leave the United States, while Ohio Gov. John Kasich defended his decision to accept an expansion of Medicaid in his state as a humane step in line with conservative goals.
The increasingly harsh discussions of these and other issues amount to an existential crisis within the Republican Party and reflect the growing influence of non-ideological, populist voters who have flocked in particular to Trump’s nationalist “Make America Great Again” message...
The "ego" in the headline doesn't actually refer to Trump's ego, for once. Rather, it refers to the voters' egos.Well, like I said earlier, Trump's comments didn't go over very well with me, although I doubt they're going to have much of an impact on his support. Frankly, who's to say voters are interested in relitigating the Iraq war? I just don't see it. There's so many more current issues facing the electorate, things to which Trump's campaign has nailed down perfectly.
I think Trump hurt himself badly tonight, enough to knock him out of his first-place standing in most states. Oh he won't completely disappear -- but 2nd Place Trump is not the same thing as Frontrunner Trump.
Trump damaged himself with his claim that Bush lied us into war in Iraq. Not botched the intelligence, not read too much into thin intelligence.
Most Republicans, I think, would agree that that.
No, Trump claimed that Bush deliberately lied us into war.
First, this is alarming because it once again demonstrates that Trump has a conspiratorial mind. It's not enough for the conspiracist to say someone was wrong -- no, they have unrealistically black/white minds, and if you made a bad call, you must have lied.
That conspiracism was always present in his claims about Obama's birth certificate. But that bit of fantasy was about Obama, someone the average Republican voter isn't exactly eager to man the battlements for.
This corker -- this Al Gore roar of quote -- is about George W. Bush, someone still looked upon with affection by most of the party.
Which brings us to the second problem.
If Donald Trump is right, and George W. Bush deliberately schemed with his neo-con advisers to "lie" us into a phony war with Iraq, what does that say about the average Republican voter who supported Bush from 1999, voted for him, defended him through the recount, cried with him on 9/11, agreed with him on Iraq, defended him from ceaseless liberal attacks on him during the war, defended him from Obama's never-expiring "Blame Bush" blame-shifting, etc.?
If Trump is right, then we're not just wrong to have supported him. If Trump's right, we're goddamned rubes and fools to have defended this Actual Hitler-Level Monster for going on 17 years now...
Code Pink is ecstatic with Trump's performance during last night's debate https://t.co/WaNv7QGLLh
— Sam Stein (@samsteinhp) February 14, 2016
“I watched the debate last night and LOVED IT — @medeabenjamin on Donald Trump. https://t.co/WaNv7QGLLh
— Sam Stein (@samsteinhp) February 14, 2016
Dennis Kucinich said he was heartened to hear Trump’s position on the Iraq War https://t.co/WaNv7QGLLh
— Sam Stein (@samsteinhp) February 14, 2016
So once again, Trump has gambled. Maybe his frankness will allow other Republicans to loosen up and admit their doubts about the Iraq war...
— Byron York (@ByronYork) February 14, 2016
GREENVILLE, S.C. — The Republican presidential candidates met in debate just hours after learning of the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Beyond that, the debate came at a time when the entire world economy has the jitters; when yet another attempt to bring peace to Syria is in tatters; and when the Republican establishment is more nervous than ever about the continued strength of Donald Trump. And with all of that going on, the most passionate exchange of the entire event was about … relitigating the Iraq War.I love Trump, but he's losing me here. And if you think back, earlier in the campaign he's said he oblititerate the terrorists and we'd win the war on terror, so he's not too consistent in his ideological positions.
It's not shocking that George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq would come up nearly 13 years after the fact; it pops up in Democratic debates these days, too. But the exchange between Trump and Jeb Bush over Iraq Saturday night wasn't just a passing reference. It was in some ways the debate Republicans mostly didn't have back in 2004, when Democrats were consumed with the war. And here in Greenville, as has happened elsewhere in this campaign, the candidate named Bush had a hard time dealing with the subject.
The back-and-forth started when moderator John Dickerson brought up a 2008 interview with CNN in which Trump said he was surprised that Democrats had not impeached George W. Bush over the war, and that it would be "a wonderful thing" if they had.
On stage Saturday, Trump would not repeat what he said about impeachment — there are apparently limits even for Trump. But he did not hesitate to talk about Iraq. "Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right?" Trump said. "We spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have it. Iran has taken over Iraq with the second-largest oil reserves in the world."
"George Bush made a mistake," Trump continued. "We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East."
And finally: "They lied," Trump said of the Bush administration. "They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction."
