Im-Politic: Why Virginia Really Revealed a Winning Trumpism-without-Trump Playbook

Tags

2016 election, 2017 election, 2020 election, 2021 election, 2022 election, 2024 election, battleground states, Donald Trump, Ed Gillespie, Glenn Youngkin, governor, Im-Politic, midterm elections, midterms 2022, Populism, Republicans, Virginia

Since the 2020 election results came in, I’ve been convinced that the biggest question hanging over the future of the Republican party – and one of the biggest hanging over American politics – was whether the GOP could foster what you could call Trump-ism without Trump that produced political winners.

That is, could Republicans find a strategies and candidates that (1) embraced the policies pursued by the former President capitalize on their popularity with a broad group of voters that includes conservatives, many independents and moderates, and growing numbers of African Americans and Hispanics, while rejecting the kinds of behavior that clearly turned or outright disgusted so many voters outside Trump loyalist ranks, but (2) conveyed enough of the anti-establishmentarianism and overall combativeness that appealed to the loyalists and inspired them to vote robustly?

Since this year’s Virginia governor’s race unexpectedly turned competitive this fall, it became clear that Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin was pursuing a Trump-ism without Trump strategy – to the point of successfully discouraging the former President from campaigning personally in the state for him. He also seemed likely to pass any personality tests required by gettable voters outside the Trump diehards’ ranks.

But I wasn’t convinced that he could generate the kind of diehard turnout he’d also need to carry an increasingly but still not entirely blue state like Virginia – and that could translate into Republican wins in other battleground states.

After looking at the details of Youngkin’s upset victory last night, I’m now pretty convinced that he accomplished exactly that goal. The evidence? His actual turnout numbers in the southwestern part of the state, whose largely rural and semi-rural counties aren’t especially populous, but whose voters gave Trump overwhelming triumphs both in 2016 and last year.

My methodology: I looked at the Youngkin vote last night, the Trump votes both last year and in 2016, and for losing Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie in 2017, for 22 counties west of the city of Roanoke (and including Roanoke County). My source: Politico.com‘s county-by-county tallies for the four years in question, found here, here, here, and here.

These elections of course aren’t strictly comparable – chiefly because presidential election turnout is usually greater than voting in state-wide and local races. The issues dominating each contest weren’t identical, either – because things change.

But what the numbers make emphatically clear is that this big slice of the Trump loyalist vote in Virginia decreased much less between last year’s presidential election and this year’s gubernatorial race than it did between the 2016 White House contest and the 2017 gubernatorial race. That is, Youngkin kept Trump base voters considerably more energized than Gillespie.

Specifically, between 2020 and 2021, the Republican vote in these counties fell by 11.05 percent. But between 2016 and 2017, it plunged by 40.85 percent. Also important, and potentially a sign of Trump fatigue: The former President won 6.21 percent fewer votes in these counties in 2020 than in 2016 – even though total Virginia turnout in 2020 was 12.60 percent higher than four years before.

Youngkin’s success by no means guarantees Republican victories anywhere in the upcoming mid-term elections, much less in the 2024 campaigns for the White House and Congress. Too much can happen between now and both of those “thens,” and regarding the next presidential race, there’s no telling who the Democratic nominee will be. Moreover, of Trump’s hot button issues, one understandably didn’t come up at all in the Virginia election (trade) and Youngkin pretty much ignored another (immigration). Finally, though the state’s gubernatorial race wasn’t generally expected to be even competitive, Youngkin didn’t exactly win in a landslide.

Not very surprisingly, Trump has rejected the idea that Virginia represents evidence of his expendability. In fact, he appears to be taking credit for the results. But if you look closely at his phrasing, his emphasis on the Make America Great Again movement rather than his own actions could signal a recognition that his lasting impact on American politics might wind up being much more ideological than personal.             

    

Advertisement

Im-Politic: The Case That the Virus and Not the Fraud Beat Trump

Tags

Anthony S. Fauci, battleground states, Biden, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Donald Trump, election 2020, Im-Politic, mask mandate, Politico, Tony Fabrizio, Wuhan virus

So Donald Trump legitimately lost last November’s presidential election and it was his handling of the CCP Virus pandemic that largely did him in. That’s an argument recently made by one of the former President’s own pollsters, and I take it seriously because the pollster was Tony Fabrizio.

I first became familiar with him in the late 1990s, when he and then partner John McLaughlin (another pollster who worked with the Trump campaign) published a groundbreaking analysis that first identified major opposition in the Republican base to pro-free trade positions and other longstanding GOP stances. In other words, he’s not your typical conservative Beltway mercenary who just hopped on the Trump bandwagon when it became convenient and is now jumping ship and frantically swimming back to establishment shores.

According to an election post-mortem from Fabrizio that was leaked to the news website Politico, Trump lost in 2020 five of the ten battleground states he won in 2016 (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) largely because the virus was by a wide margin the single most important voter concern, because Americans decidedly rejected the Trump campaign’s argument that economic revival counted for more, and because they disapproved of his pandemic policies.

In the five battleground states that flipped against Trump, fully 42 percent of voters according to the exit polls identified the virus as “the most important issue.” “The economy” did come in second, but garnered only 28 percent support. Another major Trump emphasis, law enforcement, barely moved the needle on this question, with only three percent agreement. Moreover, when explicitly asked to rate the importance of virus mitigation versus economic revival, 60 percent in these flip states chose the former. And by a 48 percent to 39 percent, these voters rated candidate Biden as likelier to deal with the virus best.

More confirmation of the CCP Virus’ major role: In these flip states, respondents backed mask-wearing mandates by a huge 75 percent to 25 percent margin, and they approved of the job being done by Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, by a nearly as big 72 percent to 28 percent.

And these virus-related gaps exerted a considerable effect on actual voting behavior. Mr. Biden carried flip state voters who prioritized handling the pandemic by three-to-one.

The CCP Virus clearly wasn’t the only reason for the election verdict. And as I’ve written, in my view, the mass mail-in voting last fall created a system “veritably begging to be abused.” But given the closeness of the flip state votes, disparities this wide on any single issue can generate make-or-break impacts all by themselves.

And although as known by any regular RealityChek reader, I don’t consider Trump’s virus policies to have been distinctively ineffective by any stretch (although the messaging was often off-key), I never joined the Cult of Fauci, and I’ve found President Biden’s pre- and post-inauguration virus statements and policies to be monumentally unimpressive (see, e.g., here) , Fabrizio has marshaled evidence that Trump and his supporters shouldn’t ignore. It’s not that America’s CCP Virus history is likely to repeat itself exactly. It’s because many of the leadership do’s and don’ts it’s exposed are likely applicable to a wide range of potential future crises.

Im-Politic: Most of the Flip Vote Stayed with Trump

Tags

Barack Obama, battleground states, election 2016, election 2020, forgotten Americans, Im-Politic, Joe Biden, Populism, racism, Trump, Trump flip voters, xenophobia

Since I haven’t yet come across any reason to suppose that the Election 2020 exit polls are any more accurate than most of the surveys throughout the campaign, and especially during the general election, worthwhile post-mortems are going to be really difficult to produce.

One exception: It’s clear what happened with the hundreds of counties across the country that voted twice for Barack Obama for President, and then flipped for Donald Trump in 2016. I’ve written repeatedly (most recently here) that these mainly lower-income counties are especially important because they clearly contain lots of Trump voters who couldn’t possibly be the racists who are so often viewed as the majority of the President’s base.

Moreover, they not only look like a representative sample of voters who bought Mr. Trump’s promise that he would champion their economic interests. They also look like voters who made a smart bet in this regard, as the majority of these counties saw their annual pay grow faster under Trump pre-CCP Virus than during the most comparable Obama administration time frame.

And how did they vote earlier this month? Recounts and challenges could change some of the numbers we have already, but as of this writing, an overwhelming majority of these so-called “forgotten Americans” stuck with the President a second time around. So did nearly all of those whose economic fortunes – at least by that wage measure – improved faster under Mr. Trump than under his predecessor.

First the overall numbers. In 2016, 194 counties for which the aforementioned wage data are available from the Labor Department supported the Trump candidacy after voting Obama in 2008 and 2012. Three other counties for which no such data have been kept followed this pattern.

Of the 194, 173 (89.17 percent) stuck with the President this time around, along with two of the data-less counties. Just as important, of the 194, 116 (59.79 percent) saw faster pay growth under Mr. Trump than under Obama, and 102 of them (87.93 percent) pulled the lever for the President in 2020. To me, that adds up to a pretty powerful case that a great deal of the President’s appeal stemmed from his economic populist pitch.

These outcomes can’t possibly be either-or. That is, just because a flip county prospered more under Mr. Trump than under Obama doesn’t necessarily mean that this performance was foremost in every voter’s mind. And it can’t be assumed that counties that have supported the President despite worse relative economic performance were filled with racists and xenophobes and other deplorables.

Nonetheless, a strong relationship between greater prosperity for these flip counties and their support for the President held up well through Election 2020.

Of course, the presidential vote this time around was awfully close, especially in the six key battleground states where the talleys seem certain to decide the final outcome: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Yet it doesn’t seem that the Trump flippers relatively few flops back to his Democratic opponent made much of a difference in any of these states.

Of the total 49 Trump flip counties in these states, only five flopped back last week. Moreover, the 49 were highly concentrated – 23 in Wisconsin alone, and 12 in Michigan. Arizona had none and Pennsylvania only three. Interestingly, two of the Wisconsin flippers supported Biden in 2020, as did two of their Pennsylvania counterparts. But even given the closeness of the statewide totals, their populations appear too small to have made a difference.

A stronger argument can be made for the floppers’ importance in three states that were not as close as expected. Iowa, for example, was long thought to be up for grabs despite the handy margin it gave candidate Trump four years ago. It’s arguable that his repeat performance in 2020 stemmed in part from the decision of all 27 Trump flip counties to remain in the Republican column.

Minnesota was considered a Trump possibility this year, since Mr. Trump came within five percentage points of victory in this traditional Democratic stronghold. But President Trump actually lost some ground this month, and the decision of four of the state’s 19 Trump flippers to support Joe Biden clearly didn’t help.

Finally, New Hampshire looked like another possible Trump pickup. But two of its three flip counties (including Coos, for which there’s no economic data), opted for Biden.

All told, the numbers represented by these shifts were pretty small, too. But they could have reflected changes in sentiment elsewhere in these states that accounted for the somewhat surprising outcomes. A similar argument can be made for the six high-profile battlegrounds, but in my view the number of floppers returning to the Democratic camp was so small that it’s much weaker.

Again, some or even many of these results could change in the near future. But if they don’t, then no doubt many of the Americans who agree with President Trump that they’d been forgotten before are hoping that they’re remembered better over the next four years.

Im-Politic: My (Hopefully Wrong) Election Prediction

Tags

battleground states, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, election 2016, election 2020, Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden, Im-Politic, Joe Biden, masks, Nancy Pelosi, political ads, polls, shy Trump vote, suburban women, suburbs, Trump, Wuhan virus

One big reason I’m not a betting person is that I hate a major difference between what I want to happen and what I think will happen. And that’s exactly the case with this year’s presidential election. In other words, although as I explained in a recent post and then amplified in a recent magazine article, I voted for President Trump (and by no means reluctantly), I’m convinced that his time in the White House is just about up.

Not that I’m certain of this outcome. To repeat a conclusion I’ve made to friends, family, and others in various circumstances, I completely accept the idea that the race has tightened substantially in Mr. Trump’s favor in recent months, and especially in toto in the six most discussed swing or battleground states (Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). But today, as throughout the fall campaign, I’d rather be in Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s shoes.

In fact, I’m sticking with this position even though I’ve become somewhat more impressed with claims of a “shy Trump vote” – i.e., the notion that many Trump voters reached by pollsters don’t reveal their true preferences for various reasons or, similarly, that the same pollsters simply aren’t reaching a significant number of Trump supporters. My main reason? In an era of spreading Cancel Culture at the workplace and elsewhere, it’s entirely plausible that many Trump supporters fear expressing their actual preferences to strangers.

But to me, the most telling poll results stem precisely from those six battlegrounds, however increasingly close the race may be. And that’s because, even though the President carried them all in 2016 (generally by slim margins), and even though he’s the incumbent, they’re now thought to be up for grabs at all. In other words, even though Mr. Trump is now a known quantity (or because he’s a known quantity), and has had nearly a full term of presidential abilities to extend favors to these states, they’re still a heavy lift for him.

I sense, moreover, as just suggested, that his troubles in these “flyover America” regions stem from a political malady that he’s never been able to overcome – and perhaps has never wanted to overcome or dispel: Trump Fatigue Syndrome. I fully accept his insistence (and that of many supporters) that his tweets and other verbal brickbats have built and maintained a large and intensely loyal base (indeed, big enough to elect him President once). I also agree that his combative instincts have enabled him to survive ruthless opponents who, astoundingly, have even filled his own administration and other levels of the federal bureaucracy since his inauguration.

At the same time, it’s hardly a stretch to suppose that even a significant slice of Trump-world is anxious for a return of some semblance of normality to American politics, and that four more years of the President are sure to mean four more years of (partly needless) tumult. Most revealingly, even the President seems to accept this analysis. Why else would he be pleading (only half-jokingly) for the suburban women supposedly most offended by his style to “like him,” and defensively making that argument that his roughness has been the key to his survival? (I can’t find a link, but heard it when listening to one of his rally speeches yesterday.)

And what’s especially frustrating for a Trump supporter like myself: He could have been just as forceful and cutting a champion of his “forgotten Americans” constituencies, and just as much of a scornful scourge of the elites, with a just a little more subtlety and a little more selectivity in his targets.

Some appreciation of nuance, in fact, would have been particularly helpful in dealing with the CCP Virus. In between the kind of fear-mongering and consequent shutdown enthusiasm dominating press coverage and the rhetoric of Never Trumpers across the political spectrum, and the pollyannish optimism and mockery of modest mitigation measures like even limited mask wearing that was too often expressed by the President, could always be found a vast store of effective and actually constructive messaging strategies.

Collectively, they have represented a test of the kind of leadership deserving of political support, and have amounted to acknowledging squarely the difficulties of formulating effective pandemic policies and vigorously supporting targeted counter-measures while staving off the panic that Mr. Trump has (rightly) stated he wanted to prevent. Just as important: The President could have conveyed to the public the admittedly inconvenient but bedrock truth that forces of nature like highly contagious viruses can long resist the powers even of today’s technologically advanced societies. But this was a test that Mr. Trump flunked.

Speaking of forces of nature, the weather across the country today isn’t likely to help reelect the President, either. It looks to be bright and sunny nearly everywhere, with moderate temperatures. Those conditions figure to translate, all else equal, into high turnout, which tends to favor Democrats (even given the astronomical levels of early in-person and mail-in and ballot box voting).

Mr. Trump also faces an opponent who hasn’t been nearly as easy a mark for him as was Hillary Clinton in 2016. Biden’s lack of hard edges unmistakably helps here. But so, too, has his performance in the two presidential debates. As I’ve argued, they’ve belied Trumpist charges of mental and physical frailty. Even better for the former Vice President – he’s also held up more than well enough on the campaign trail. Sure, he’s given himself plenty of rest. But Biden’s increased pace of activity in the last two weeks or so should be enough to fend off a critical mass of doubts among undecided voters about his capacity to serve.

In addition, the Democratic nominee has clearly benefited from the Mainstream Media’s decision to suppress news about the possibly whopping corruption of the entire Biden family. However outrageous I or anyone else considers this cover-up, it’s had the undeniable effect of keeping from huge swathes of the electorate weeks worth of just about the worst news any political candidate could fear.

The Trump campaign might have partly filled this gap, and offset other vulnerabilities, with better advertising. But throughout this election year, most of the Trump ads I’ve seen have been as professional and reassuring as those cable spots for Chia Pets or Sham-Wow – complete with hucksterish voice-overs. Moreover, where on earth are high impact graphics like clips of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi childishly ripping up copies of the President’s last State of the Union address? The videos recently aired at Trump rallies highlighting Biden’s dangerously clueless statements and policy record on China have been very effective. But boy, are they coming late in the day.

Also possibly revealing on the ad front – I see a lot of anti-Trump and pro-Biden ads on conservative-friendly and even transparently pro-Trump shows on Fox News. That’s clearly a sign of playing offense. According to this report, however, the Trump campaign hasn’t taken the fight to hostile territory like CNN and MSNBC to nearly this extent.

I’m not by any means arguing that “It’s over” for President Trump – much less than it has been for weeks. I’m convinced that he’ll be helped by an enthusiasm gap. I take seriously the reports of strong new voter registrations by Republicans, particularly in the key states, along with the evidence that minorities aren’t turning out for Democrats in places like south Florida. Nor, as mentioned earlier, is my faith in the polls remotely complete. But toting up the President’s relative strengths and weaknesses still places him in my underdog category. And unless Election 2016 repeats itself almost exactly, that ‘s no place for a winning political candidate to be.

Im-Politic: Final Grades on the Final Debate

Tags

battleground states, climate change, crime, crime bills, election 2020, energy, fossil fuels, fracking, green energy, Im-Politic, Joe Biden, marijuana, narcotics, natural gas, oil, presidential debates, progressives, racism, systemic racism, Trump

I got something massively wrong about the second (and final) presidential debate of 2020. I thought that my frantic live-tweeting covered every important aspect of the Thursday night event. Upon reading the transcript, I realized there was lots more to say.

Let’s start with the 30,000-foot picture. There’s no question that President Trump performed more effectively than in the first debate. Even his most uncritical admirers, like Fox News talker Sean Hannity, have conceded as much (Check out the video of his post-debate show, in which he acknowledges that long-time Republican political operative Ari Fleischer was right in faulting Mr. Trump’s first debate performance as too overheated.)

But there are plenty of questions left unanswered about the second debate’s impact on the Presidential race. For the record, I’m sticking with the assessment I offered after the first debate: Given his lead even in most battleground state polls, because the Trump campaign and other Trumpers (including Hannity) had set the bar so low for “Sleepy Joe,” all Biden needed to do was show up and not screw up massively in order to win.

Those battleground polls have tightened somewhat, Biden’s perfectly fine first debate performance raised the bar for the second debate, and I’m far from thinking that the race is over. But I’d still rather be in Biden’s shoes than in Mr. Trump’s. And time keeps running out for the President. All the same, it’s important to remember that we haven’t seen any major post-debate nationwide or battleground polls come out yet, so there’s simply no hard evidence to go on at this point.

The time-is-not-the-President’s-friend point, though, brings up my first new debate-related point: Mr. Trump’s improved performance alone (whether he “won” or not either on points or according to the public), indicates that he erred in rejecting the Commission on Presidential Debate’s offer to hold the second debate virtually, due ostensibly to CCP Virus-related reasons.

Especially if Mr. Trump had by that time begun heeding the advice of supporters urging him to dial it down (which isn’t at all clear), he lost an opportunity to square off again against Biden in real time. And although there’s no adequate on-line substitute for the atmosphere and resulting pressures of in-person encounters, the President did lose a valuable opportunity to reassure voters unnerved – rightly or wrongly – by his first debate tactics.

Getting down to specific points, on Thursday night, two issues really do demand further discussion. First, I might have been mistaken in my tweeted view that the Biden comments on natural gas fracking and energy (and related climate change) policy wouldn’t be terribly important.

I did agree that the former Vice President did nothing to help himself in key energy states like Pennsylvania, where voters might worry that his various positions – and the prominence of staunch fossil fuels opponents in Democratic ranks now – would guarantee relatively rapid closures of the coal mines and gas and oil fields that created so much employment in their regions. But I stated that, because these subjects had been aired so thoroughly already, few energy voters’ minds would be changed.

What I clearly underestimated was the impact of an extended discussion of energy and climate subjects before a nation-wide audience. If I’d been right, why would the Trump campaign have almost immediately put out an ad spotlighting Biden’s assorted statements on these topics. And why would the Biden campaign have spent so much time trying to explain the Biden position?

Looking at the transcript helped me understand why energy- and climate-related anxieties in the energy states might have been elevated by the Biden debate remarks. For on the one hand, the Democratic challenger insisted that he was “ruling out” “banning fracking” and claimed that

“What I will do with fracking over time is make sure that we can capture the emissions from the fracking, capture the emissions from gas. We can do that and we can do that by investing money in doing it, but it’s a transition to that.”

And whereas previously, Biden had responded to a primary debate question about whether fossil fuels would have any place in his prospective administration by declaring “We would make sure it’s eliminated and no more subsidies for either one of those. Any fossil fuel,” on Thursday night, the former Vice President referred to transitioning from “the old oil industry”–presumably to some (undefined) new kind of oil industry.

Nonetheless, it would be reasonable for energy states residents to question these assurances of gradualness and transformation instead of elimination given Biden’s continued contention that “global warming is an existential threat to humanity,” that “we’re going to pass the point of no return within the next eight to ten years,” and that the energy sector in toto needs “to get to ultimately a complete zero emissions by 2025.” Last time I checked, that’s only five years from now.

Moreover, given the notable split within the Democratic party on climate change and energy issues between progressives and centrists, the Biden statements suggesting that major fossil fuel industries will survive during his administration in some form could depress turnout in their ranks for a candidate who clearly needs to stoke their enthusiasm.

The second set of issues I should have tweeted more about entails crime and race relations. I think Biden deserves a great deal of credit for calling “a mistake” his support for crime bills of the 1980s and 1990s that, in the words of moderator Kristen Welker “contributed to the incarceration of tens of thousands of young Black men who had small amounts of drugs in their possession, they are sons, they are brothers, they are fathers, they are uncles, whose families are still to this day, some of them suffering the consequences.”

He was also correct in pointing out that President Trump – who quite properly pointed to some noteworthy achievements of his administration on behalf of African Americans – took a sweepingly harsh line on crime himself in previous decades.

But two positions taken by Biden should disturb even supporters. First, his argument that “It took too long [during the Obama administration] to get it right. Took too long to get it right. I’ll be President of the United States, not Vice President of the United States,” clearly throws his former boss under the bus. In fact, he also implicitly blamed Obama for the failure to resolve the problem created by children living the United States born to illegal immigrant parents.

The second such position was Biden’s argument that “No one should be going to jail because they have a drug problem. They should be going to rehabilitation, not to jail.”

I personally can support this view when it comes to hard drugs. But marijuana? For whose use so many American blacks have been jailed – and so many more than white Americans? (I’m not a big fan of the American Civil Liberties Union these days, but the data in this study are tough to refute.) Mandatory (government-funded?) therapy for potheads? That could use some rethinking.

But like I said at the outset, I expressed views on many other debate-related subjects on my Twitter feed (@AlanTonelson). So there’s no substitute for following there, as well as checking in with RealityChek, for the most up-to-date thinking on the election — as well as everything else under the sun.

Im-Politic: Why China’s U.S. Election Interference is a Very Big Deal

Tags

battleground states, Center for Strategic and International Studies, China, Chinese Americans, collusion, Democrats, election 2020, elections, entertainment, Freedom House, Hollywood, Hoover Institution, Im-Politic, Mike Pence, multinational companies, Nancy Pelosi, National Basketball Association, NBA, Robert Draper, Robert O'Brien, social media, The New York Times Magazine, think tanks, Trump, Trump-Russia, Wall Street

It’s baaaaaaack! The Russia collusion thing, I mean. Only this time, with an important difference.

On top of charges that Moscow is monkeying around with November’s U.S. elections to ensure a Trump victory, and that the President and his aides are doing nothing to fend of this threat to the integrity of the nation’s politics, Democrats and their supporters are now dismissing claims administration about Chinese meddling as alarmism at best and diversionary at worst.

In the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, commenting on recent testimony from U.S. intelligence officials spotlighting both countries’ efforts, to “give some equivalence” of China and Russia on interference efforts “doesn’t really tell the story. 

She continued, “The Chinese, they said, prefer [presumptive Democratic nominee Joe] Biden — we don’t know that, but that’s what they’re saying, but they’re not really getting involved in the presidential election.” ,

The Mainstream Media, as is so often the case, echoed this Democratic talking point. According to The New York Times‘ Robert Draper (author most recently of a long piece in the paper’s magazine section on Mr. Trump’s supposed refusal to approve anti-Russia interference measures or take seriously such findings by the intelligence community ), China “is really not able to affect the integrity of our electoral system the way Russia can….”

And I use the term “Democratic talking point” for two main reasons. First, the Chinese unquestionably have recently gotten into the explicit election meddling game – though with some distinctive Chinese characteristics. Second, and much more important, China for decades has been massively influencing American politics more broadly in ways Russia can’t even dream about – mainly because so many major national American institutions have become so beholden to the Chinese government for so long thanks to the decades-long pre-Trump policy of promoting closer bilateral ties.

As for the narrower, more direct kind of election corrupting, you don’t need to take the word of President Trump’s national security adviser, Robert O’Brien that “China, like Russia and Iran, have engaged in cyberattacks and fishing and that sort of thing with respect to our election infrastructure and with respect to websites.”

Nor do you have to take the word of Vice President Mike Pence, who in 2018 cited a national intelligence assessment that found that China “ is targeting U.S. state and local governments and officials to exploit any divisions between federal and local levels on policy. It’s using wedge issues, like trade tariffs, to advance Beijing’s political influence.”

You can ignore Pence’s contention that that same year, a document circulated by Beijing stated that China must [quoting directly] “strike accurately and carefully, splitting apart different domestic groups” in the United States.

You can even write off China’s decision at the height of that fall’s Congressional election campaigns to take out a “four-page supplement in the Sunday Des Moines [Iowa] Register” that clearly was “intended to undermine farm-country support for President Donald Trump’s escalating trade war….”

Much harder to ignore, though: the claim made last year by a major Hoover Institution study that

“In American federal and state politics, China seeks to identify and cultivate rising politicians. Like many other countries, Chinese entities employ prominent lobbying and public relations firms and cooperate with influential civil society groups. These activities complement China’s long-standing support of visits to China by members of Congress and their staffs. In some rare instances Beijing has used private citizens and companies to exploit loopholes in US regulations that prohibit direct foreign contributions to elections.”

Don’t forget, moreover, findings that Chinese trolls are increasingly active on major social media platforms. According to a report from the research institute Freedom House:

“[C]hinese state-affiliated trolls are…apparently operating on [Twitter] in large numbers. In the hours and days after Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted in support of Hong Kong protesters in October 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported, nearly 170,000 tweets were directed at Morey by users who seemed to be based in China as part of a coordinated intimidation campaign. Meanwhile, there have been multiple suspected efforts by pro-Beijing trolls to manipulate the ranking of content on popular sources of information outside China, including Google’s search engine Reddit,and YouTube.”

The Hoover report also came up with especially disturbing findings about Beijing’s efforts to influence the views (and therefore the votes) of Chinese Americans, including exploiting the potential hostage status of their relatives in China. According to the Hoover researchers:

“Among the Chinese American community, China has long sought to influence—even silence—voices critical of the PRC or supportive of Taiwan by dispatching personnel to the United States to pressure these individuals and while also pressuring their relatives in China. Beijing also views Chinese Americans as members of a worldwide Chinese diaspora that presumes them to retain not only an interest in the welfare of China but also a loosely defined cultural, and even political, allegiance to the so-called Motherland.

In addition:

“In the American media, China has all but eliminated the plethora of independent Chinese-language media outlets that once served Chinese American communities. It has co-opted existing Chineselanguage outlets and established its own new outlets.”

Operations aimed at Chinese Americans are anything but trivial politically. As of 2018, they represented nearly 2.6 million eligible U.S. voters, and they belonged to an Asian-American super-category thats been the fastest growing racial and ethnic population of eligible voters in the country.

Most live in heavily Democratic states, like California, New York, and Massachusetts, but significant concentrations are also found in the battleground states where the many of the 2016 presidential election margins were razor thin, of which look up for grabs this year, like Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

As for the second, broader and indirect, Chinese meddling in American politics, recall these developments, many of which have been documented on RealityChek:

>U.S.-owned multinational companies, which have long profited at the expense of the domestic economy by offshoring production and jobs to China, have just as long carried Beijing’s water in American politics through their massive contributions to U.S. political campaigns. The same goes for Wall Street, which hasn’t sent many U.S. operations overseas, but which has long hungered for permission to do more business in the Chinese market.

>These same big businesses continually and surreptitiously inject their views into American political debates by heavily financing leading think tanks – which garb their special interest agendas in the raiment of objective scholarship. By the way, at least one of these think tanks, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has taken Chinese government money, too.

>Hollywood and the rest of the U.S. entertainment industry has become so determined to brown nose China in search of profits that it’s made nearly routine rewriting and censoring material deemed offensive to China. And in case you haven’t noticed, show biz figures haven’t exactly been reluctant to weigh in on U.S. political issues lately. And yes, that includes the stars of the National Basketball Association, who have taken a leading role in what’s become known as the Black Lives Matter movement, but who have remained conspicuously silent about the lives of inhabitants of the vast China market that’s one of their biggest and most promising cash cows.

However indirect this Chinese involvement in American politics is, its effects clearly dwarf total Russian efforts – and by orders of magnitude. Nor is there any reason to believe that Moscow is closing the gap. In fact, China’s advantage here is so great that it makes a case for a useful rule-of-thumb:  Whenever you find out about someone complaining about Russia’s election interference but brushing off China’s, you can be sure that they’re not really angry about interference as such. They’re just angry about interference they don’t like.`      

Im-Politic: Another Body Blow for the Trump-as-Phony-Populist Claim

Tags

2016 election, 2020 election, Barack Obama, battleground states, counties, growth, Im-Politic, inflation-adjusted growth, Trump

Back in September, I published a piece challenging claims that President Trump is a phony populist by analyzing government data indicating that a key portion of his 2016 supporters – Americans who had twice voted for his White House predecessor, Barack Obama, before defecting to Trump World – had overall seen highly impressive gains in their annual paychecks under his administration. The evidence came from Commerce Department figures reporting on annual salary trends in the 196 counties that have voted Obama-Obama-Trump in 2008, 2012, and 2016.

Recently, Commerce issued a new set of statistics permitting the issue to be examined according to another gauge – economic growth adjusted for inflation. These numbers reveal a decided Trump payoff for these voters as well and could signal that the President will retain the loyalty of most such flippers during this year’s election.

These new Commerce statistics would be noteworthy alone because they represent the federal government’s first survey of growth on the county level. But they also make clear that, at least through the first two years of Mr. Trump’s presidency, the economies of the “Trump flip counties” on the whole grew faster than they did during the final two years of the Obama administration.

As with my analysis of the county-level salary figures, this examination of the growth figures looks at the periods of the previous and current presidency closest to each other in the current business cycle. Just as I focused on private sector workers in my salary analysis, I focus on the private sector in this growth analysis (because the growth of government, which mainly reflects politicians’ decisions, sheds little light on the health of the economy as a whole).

One difference – whereas the salary analysis looked at figures in pre-inflation dollars (mainly because price-adjusted data weren’t available), these growth numbers all take inflation into account. That matters in part because the “real” figures are the growth numbers that are most closely followed by students of the entire national economy.

According to the Commerce results, total inflation-adjusted growth was greater in the final two Obama years than during the first two Trump years in 84 of the 196 flip counties – or 42.86 percent. The Trump years, however, were better growth wise during these periods for 57.14 percent of these counties.

Another important finding: During the final two Obama years, 27 of these counties saw their economies shrink in after-inflation terms in both of those years. But this plight was suffered by only 14 of the flip counties during the Trump years.

The results were much more even in terms of flip counties whose economies contracted when adjusting for prices during just one of the two final Obama years or just one of the two first Trump years. Eighty-six of the counties experienced economic contraction during one of the two final Obama years while 87 percent of the counties recorded such setbacks during one of the two first Trump years.

The Commerce growth data also suggest that some progress in reducing inequality was made in the flip counties during the first two Trump years – and possibly more than during the last two Obama years.

Specifically, in 2015, 56 of the flip counties outgrew the national private sector average of 3.3 percent in real terms, while two matched this rate.

In 2016, 82 outgrew the national private sector average and two tied it – but that national average had fallen by more than half (to 1.6 percent).

In 2017 – the first Trump year – only 49 percent of the counties grew faster than the national private sector average and two were tied. But that national average had bounced back up to 2.6 percent.

And in 2018, although the private sector’s national growth rate quickened again – to 3.2 percent adjusted for inflation – the number of Trump flip counties topping that performance jumped to 78, with six matching the national average.

The political implications of these findings become obvious – and obviously positive for the President – upon seeing how heavily the Trump flip counties are concentrated in likely 2020 battleground states and how many “winner” flip counties are found there.

Fully 47 of the 196 total flip counties are located in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio – states carried by Mr. Trump in 2016 and that are considered crucial to this year’s outcome.

In Michigan, the story for the President isn’t encouraging. Only three of its flip counties have grown faster during the first two Trump years than during the last two Obama years. But in Wisconsin and Ohio, growth under the President so far has been faster in 15 of 23 and eight of nine flip counties, respectively. (Only three of Pennsylvania’s counties, interestingly, are flippers – and two of them have grown faster so far during the Trump years.)

In addition, because he only narrowly lost Minnesota in 2016, Mr. Trump’s campaign is targeting the state this time around. With eleven of its 19 flip counties having grown faster under his presidency than during the final two years of his predecessor’s, the effort looks promising.

The new Commerce figures by no means guarantee victory for the President in November. As widely noted, his popularity is relatively low despite voters rating his economic performance highly, signaling that pocketbook issues may not override concerns about his personality, character, and other non-economic matters.

Also, the 2019 numbers won’t be out until after November, and they’re likely to weigh most heavily on the minds of voters who do prioritize the economy. In fact, fully 82 of the flip economies nationally experienced inflation-adjusted economic shrinkage in 2016 – which surely didn’t help Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Nonetheless, two major national data sets now point to the conclusion that voting for Mr. Trump in 2016 has been a good bet for the lion’s share of one-time Democrats who switched presidential allegiances that year. And they strongly suggest that, if his rivals hope to use the economy against him this year, they’ll need a more convincing claim than that the President is a phony populist.

Im-Politic: Why the First Presidential Debate Really Mattered

Tags

2016 election, Alicia Machado, battleground states, Donald Trump, Electoral College, Hillary Clinton, Im-Politic, Lester Holt, presidential debate

As I wrote last Tuesday, I was hoping to get the complete TV ratings for last Monday’s presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton before deciding how the results would impact the election. They’re apparently still not out, but I’ve found enough info in the news coverage to answer my biggest question, and conclude that the evening was a major setback for the Republican nominee – though not quite in the sense widely assumed.

The decision to delay stemmed from my feeling that knowing how long most viewers stuck with the contest could matter decisively in judging its effects. As per the conventional wisdom, it was clear to me that Clinton won the debate as a whole. But I also agreed that the Democratic standard-bearer was kept on the defensive for much of the first half hour by Trump. Since human attention spans are often short, I surmised that the more viewers who lost interest in the slugfest as it wore on, the fewer who saw those segments where Clinton skillfully baited Trump into protesting his personal failings way too much. Therefore, they would have missed those exchange in which he projected the childish, boorish bullying image that’s saddled him throughout the campaign – and understandably limited his appeal.

But at least according to the press coverage, most of the audience watched most of the full 98 minutes, and therefore saw Trump at his worst. Moreover, Trump’s insistence on sustaining his Twitter assault on former beauty queen Alicia Machado has amounted to doubling down on failure – for days. So the maverick businessman has indeed been bested – and the most reliable polls subsequently showed that strong majorities of Americans agreed.

The question still remains whether Trump’s hopes for the White House have been fatally damaged. My hunch: Quite possibly. But in my view, what’s just happened isn’t that Trump lost an opportunity to reassure and possibly win over some college-educated independent men and women and thereby overcome a narrow Clinton lead and widen his Electoral College path to the presidency. It’s that he’s squandered a chance to blow the race wide open.

After all, on the eve of the debate, Trump not only had drawn into a virtual tie in the national presidential polls. He was also displaying momentum or stabilizing the situation both in key traditional Republican strongholds where Clinton was making headway (like Georgia, North Carolina, and Arizona), and in states that changing demographics have been turning first from Republican red to genuinely purple and now possibly to Democratic blue (like Colorado and Nevada). Moreover, the Trump rebound had been widely – and rightly – attributed to a focus on issues like the economy and national security

So imagine the effect had Trump responded to Clinton’s renewed charges of misogyny with something like, “Madame Secretary, this is really so sad – but so revealing. This country faces so many problems and crises – no good jobs, lousy growth, terrible infrastructure, failing schools, rising crime, unprotected borders, terrorism. And you’ve just decided to waste the precious time we have tonight by diving into the gutter. I won’t dignify this sleaze-mongering with an answer. And I hope you’ll return to focusing on the issues Americans really care about.”

This kind of statement would certainly have passed the “presidential test” – with flying colors. I suspect it would have been absolutely electrifying. And of course Trump missed other opportunities like this during the debate – notably moderator Lester Holt’s evident belief that his involvement with birther-ism is the country’s worst race relations problem.

But it could well be that the above amounts to wishing that pigs had wings. There’s no doubt that even with only five weeks left till Election Day, both candidates will have many more chances to redefine themselves and the presidential race – due to their own efforts and to the wild cards that an unpredictable world could throw into the mix. But the longer Trump obsesses on tabloid-level vendettas, the longer his campaign will remain a hostage to fortune – and needlessly so.