Im-Politic: Trump-ism on the Brink

Tags

2016 election, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, David Duke, Donald Trump, Establishment Media, Im-Politic, John Kasich, Ku Kux Klan, Marco Rubio, racism, Republicans, Ted Cruz

On the eve of the Super Tuesday presidential primaries, which could make Republican front-runner Donald Trump that party’s presumptive nominee, Trump-fever is peaking throughout the country. At least until Wednesday morning. Whether he takes the crown, or the fall election, or not, no one should underestimate this development’s revolutionary impact and importance, given Trump’s apolitical background, out-there personality, and rule-smashing campaign. In fact, this Washington Post article from yesterday helpfully reminds us how long the (incestuous) national political and media establishments refused to take the Trump phenomenon seriously.

At the same time, it’s also crucial to keep in mind how little effect the Trump surge has had in two crucial respects.

First – and arguably foremost due to the rising odds of his ultimate success – Trump’s recent and impending triumphs haven’t seemed to have changed Trump much at all. Not that there’s been no progress at all since he declared his candidacy back in June. Most encouragingly, he’s steadily, if unevenly, been blaming foreign culprits like Mexico and China less for America’s problems, and fingering domestic special interests more.

Trump has also made more explicit the promise that previously was only implicit in his campaign of realigning U.S. politics ideologically. Early in his presidential run, he generally ignored or soft-pedaled both the social issues (like abortion) that have long strongly animated the Republican party’s social conservatives, and the tax, spending, and regulation issues that have excited GOP free market enthusiasts. Now, he’s openly praising pro-life movement villain Planned Parenthood, and making clear his belief that all Americans deserve decent health care, whether its government provided or not.

Yet Trump’s style generally remains as stupidly – largely because it is so unnecessary – abrasive as ever. Some examples cited over the weekend have now been exposed as off-target, and pathetically ignorant, examples of gotcha journalism. Read this Bloomberg column for a devastating tear-down of the “Mussolini” controversy propagated by no less than The New York Times, the BBC, and TIME – for starters.

But other charges are more valid. I think Trump has a point in this remark on the Today Show that “I disavowed [former Ku Kux Klan leader] David Duke all weekend long, on Facebook, on Twitter, and obviously, it is never enough.” He could have added that he had disavowed Duke at his Friday press conference unveiling Republican New Jersey governor and former presidential rival Chris Christie as a new supporter – not exactly a low-profile event.

But Trump’s disavowal was perfunctory at best. And his claims of ignorance about Duke – in the face of previous evidence – hardly inspire confidence, especially since Trump has no problems denouncing opponents and others who attract his ire. In fact, these claims raise major questions about his judgment and temperament precisely because it would have been so easy for him to respond by agreeing that Duke is a long-time racist and anti-Semite and then mocking him as an almost equally long-time nothing-burger politically. Further, if reporters and others kept bringing Duke up, Trump simply could have kept repeating this point. So although I think it’s nonsensical (at best) to portray Trump as a white supremacist, it’s far from nonsensical to insist that these kinds of political tests be passed much more effectively – the more so since he’s been at this presidential candidate thing for months now.

Similarly, it’s high time for Trump to give the nation some idea of his policy team. He’s promised for months to release a list of advisers on national security and foreign policy, but still hasn’t come through. (Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders has been slow in this regard, too. But at least he’s a long-time Member of the House and Senate.) Maybe Trump is worried about revealing how few well-known specialists are willing to help him out? Possibly. There’s no shortage, however, of less well-known specialists – who have the decided advantage of distance from the bipartisan policy failures of recent decades. Trump might be on the verge of taking the first of the two big steps he needs to take to become president. He needs to get on the stick. And this goes for domestic advisers as well.

The second feature of the political landscape that hasn’t changed significantly since Trump threw his hat in the ring – that intertwined political and media establishment is still overwhelmingly responding to Trump not by seriously addressing the legitimate economic grievances of his growing legions of supporters, but by doubling down on demon-ization. I’ve written extensively on the press’ dreadful performance – because it’s supposed to be reasonably objective, not flagrantly partisan and/or self-interested like politicians in an election fight.

But even a cynic with the lowest expectations of politicians should be dumbfounded by the failure of Trump’s major Republican rivals to budge much from their long-time records on his core immigration and trade issues – at least not credibly. Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Texas Senator Ted Cruz are both running as immigration hard-liners. But the former was an original sponsor of the “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill, and though the latter voted against it, he also attempted to attach a legalization amendment to it (which he has since called a “poison pill” gambit designed to kill the legislation.) During this campaign, Cruz has become a critic of the H-1B visa program that technology companies in particular have used as a means of lowering wages in their industry. But previously, he backed not only increasing their numbers but quintupling them. Rubio’s pre-2016 H1B position has been comparably bad .

As for Ohio Governor John Kasich, his main immigration strategy has been (Jeb Bush-like) depicting Trump as a “divider” and belittling the complaints of American workers who have lost either jobs or wages to legal and illegal immigrants.

When it comes to trade, both Cruz and Rubio voted in the Senate for the fast-track authority successfully sought by President Obama last year to grease the Congressional skids for a Pacific Rim trade deal (TPP) based on the current, offshoring-friendly model. (Cruz then switched his vote once it became clear that the legislation was a done deal.) In 2013, the Texas Republican opposed a measure that would have expanded use of the federal government’s Buy American regulations and increased Washington’s mandated purchases of U.S.-made products.

Rubio’s votes have been more numerous and worse, including approval of the disastrous, deficit-boosting U.S.-Korea free trade agreement, and opposition to sanctioning China for predatory currency policies along with that Buy American expansion. Reports that the Florida Republican is now backing away from his TPP enthusiasm merit the skepticism warranted by death-bed conversions in general.

Although Kasich has vaguely complained about predatory trade practices by America’s competitors, he’s on board with TPP, too. The Ohio Republican hasn’t served in Congress since 2000, but his overall mixed trade vote record got steadily more supportive of offshoring-friendly trade policies – including a vote in favor of the crucial decision to admit China into the World Trade Organization in his final year.

(Yes, I’m omitting Dr. Ben Carson’s views because his campaign has been driven so deep into long-shot territory.)

So seven months after Trump debuted so rancorously on the American presidential stage, the nation’s politics keep getting ever angrier, and the heat clearly is being generated on both sides of the elite-electorate divide.

Advertisement

Im-Politic: The Presidential Polls Keep Getting Weirder

Tags

2016 election, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Congress, Democrats, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Im-Politic, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, polls, Republicans, Ted Cruz

It’s getting to be a pattern during this presidential campaign. I promise myself that I’ll lay off writing about the polls, in part because it’s still so early in the process, but largely because they’re sending such confused messages. And then right afterwards, a new poll comes out that’s so (apparently) confused that it just begs to be written about. Here’s what I mean.

Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal and NBC News made headlines with their latest joint survey of the Democratic and Republican presidential races. When it came to the GOP, the media coverage understandably emphasized the main horse race finding that Ben Carson had forged ahead of Donald Trump to become the front-runner for the nomination among respondents who stated they would vote in a Republican presidential primary. Trump had held the lead since July. (Actually, two other surveys this week – here and here – showed Trump still out in front, but for some reason, they attracted little attention.)

The Journal-NBC poll’s “internals” were highly encouraging for Carson as well. For example, the prominent neuro-surgeon also cemented his position as the leading second presidential choice of Republican voters, and in fact widened his lead in this respect over Trump. In addition, Carson was way ahead of the field in terms of his acceptability. Only 18 percent of the declared Republican voters stated that they “could not see” supporting Carson. That level not only tied for his best showing since the pollsters began asking the question about him in March. It was far ahead of the next best “unacceptability” rating – Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s 32 percent – which was, strangely, up from March’s 26 percent.

Trump’s unacceptability was, with former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina’s, tied for third, with 37 percent – just behind Texas Senator Ted Cruz’ 34 percent. But Trump’s unacceptability ratings were more than twice as good as March’s 74 percent, while Fiorina’s were somewhat worse and Cruz’ were only slightly better. The least acceptable Republican candidate, incidentally, was South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. Reflecting his exceptionally poor overall polling, fully 68 percent of Republican voters said they couldn’t conceive of backing him. And as for former front-runner (or presumed front-runner) Jeb Bush? The former Florida Governor’s 52 percent unacceptable rating represented its first rise over the 50 percent level since March.

Other results were stranger still. When asked to name which candidate they considered likeliest to win the GOP nomination regardless of their own personal preferences, Trump came in at Number One, at 36 percent. Carson was considered second likeliest, at 25 percent, followed by Bush at 11 percent (even though he was first choice of only eight percent). Only two other hopefuls, Rubio at nine percent and Cruz at six percent, topped the one percent figure.

Trump did nearly as well when those Republican voters were asked which candidate stood the best chance of defeating a Democratic rival (who was not named) in the general election. Thirty-two percent liked his odds of victory, versus 25 percent for Carson and 12 for Rubio. All of the other candidates were in the single digits.

We can also learn a lot about the electorate by looking at the characteristics they say see most prominently in the various candidates – though the Journal-NBC survey only examines Trump, Bush, and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

For Trump, he scores best among voters overall for “being effective and getting things done.” Nearly half (48 percent) of all voters surveyed agreed that this phrase applied to the real estate magnate, and fully 72 percent of Republicans viewed him as “can do.” Oddly, although Bush is running based largely on his record as a big-state governor, the voters don’t seem unduly impressed. Only 25 percent of all voters and only 38 percent of GOP respondents gave him high marks for effectiveness. Bush fared better on the experience front – 43 percent of all voters said he had the background and knowledge for the job, and 57 percent of Republicans agreed.

Trump’s biggest seeming weakness, according to the survey? Only 14 percent of all voters believed he has “the right temperament” to be president, and only 24 percent of Republican voters agreed. Bush scored worst in the survey for sharing his positions with the nation. Only 21 percent of all voters and 34 percent of Republican voters credited him with performing well in this respect.

And what about Clinton? The former Secretary of State, New York Senator, and First Lady rated highest for experience, with 42 percent of all voters and 74 percent of Democrats declaring themselves impressed with her on this ground. Among all voters, then, she scored a bit higher than Bush and nearly twice as high as Trump per this metric. Not surprisingly, given the persistent questions surrounding her handling of classified materials and the activities of the Clinton Foundation, Clinton scored worst on “being honest and straightforward.”

The Journal-NBC survey is also chock full of data on subjects not directly related to the presidential race.

To me, these two findings stood out. First, even though the nation’s chattering classes believe that the unruliness of Republicans in the House of Representatives has been nearly disastrous for the party’s brand, the overall public is evenly split on which party they want to see controlling the Congress after the upcoming elections.

Second, although the national political conventional wisdom has long held that Americans hate Congress overall but like their own representatives, fully 57 percent of all voters told the pollsters that it’s time to give a new person a chance in their House district. Only 35 percent believed that their representative deserved reelection. Moreover, this has been a majority or strong plurality position going back to 1992. That sure puts the great recent success rate of Congressional incumbents in a striking new light.

One methodological note: The margin of error for both the Democratic and Republican primary voters in this Journal-NBC survey is plus-or-minus 4.90 percent – which seems awfully high. What else can you say at this point but “Hang on”?

Im-Politic: Why CNBC’s Bias isn’t Simply Partisan

Tags

bailouts, Ben Carson, Bernie Sanders, Black Lives Matter, boardroom liberalism, capitalism, Clinton Democrats, CNBC, crony capitalism, Democrats, Donald Trump, free markets, globalization, Im-Politic, Immigration, Larry Kudlow, media, media bias, Noam Scheiber, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, Tea Party, Trade, Wall Street

Many of those nice enough to comment on my post yesterday on CNBC’s awful presidential debate performance have attributed the often abusive questions posed by the moderators as evidence of liberal/Democratic media bias. And that’s what some of the Republican candidates charged as well. My response? I wish the fundamental problem was that obvious – and therefore that correctable, at least in theory.

Instead, what the network’s evident mindset represents is the much more insidious development of a national political class homogeneous enough to share fundamental values, assumptions, and positions (with all too superficial variations) and powerful enough to ignore and, when necessary, keep out of the governing system against-the-grain views.

Part of this analysis reflects my own experience as a frequent CNBC viewer – and not only as background noise during the workday. I think the network’s coverage of finance, business, and economic headline developments is acceptable, and it at least mentions major breaking news in other spheres. Yes, I could watch Bloomberg, or Fox Business. But as my father used to say, we’re all creatures of habit, and my sampling of the newer competition has not yet persuaded me to change the channel permanently. Nor have I yet found any other continuous sources of reasonably serious hard news.

And when I hear or see the letters, “CNBC,” my first reaction isn’t “Democrats.” Quite the opposite. Even with the blatantly partisan Larry Kudlow gone from daily programming, the network clearly is tailoring its material towards the investment community and the steadily shrinking pool of American retail investors – groups not known for progressive leanings. In fact, with the latter ever more skewed toward the upper income strata, it hasn’t been surprising to see CNBC broadcast more and more segments that openly celebrate the “lifestyles of the rich and famous.” That’s of course on top of the broader tendency of the business press to create and glorify the “Superstar CEO” – a practice that (amazingly? or not?) has survived the financial crisis and ensuing recession.

When it comes to policy – overwhelmingly economic policy, of course – CNBC is firmly in the free market camp. Minimal taxation and regulation are constantly touted, as are free trade agreements, un- or barely fettered immigration policies, and the supposedly iron, unchangeable, undeniable realities that make them necessities – the historically inevitable and beneficent globalization of business; the equally inexorable triumph of capitalism worldwide; and the resulting supreme imperative of participating in and growing foreign market opportunities. And when the focus is domestic, CNBC therefore places on a pedestal “business-friendly” states, which unlike their more neanderthal (usually Democratic governed) counterparts are supposedly wise enough to spare companies of nearly all the costs of public goods and services – and to discourage unions.

It’s true that much else that’s central to CNBC’s worldview isn’t very consistent with free markets. But institutions like activist central banking are accepted not so much as regulatory exceptions to a more liberal rule, but as fixtures without which the economic landscape would be unrecognizable, and therefore literally inconceivable. Similarly, although the bailouts of non-financial companies were positively scorned, the bailout of Wall Street was (a little sheepishly) accepted because, well, it beat global destruction.

These exceptions to free market norms have convinced many that CNBC is extolling not genuine market capitalism, but crony capitalism, in which the biggest, most politically connected businesses manipulate government to serve their own selfish purposes and especially to marginalize newer, less influential competitors or even prevent them from forming. I agree that the network isn’t inclined to assail this form of corruption. (Of course the pugnacious Rick Santelli is a prominent exception.) But another implicit assumption needs to be added here to flesh out the full CNBC worldview, and it concerns the ostensible virtues of what I’ve referred to as “boardroom liberalism.”

This is a school of thought identified by New York Times reporter Noam Scheiber, and he put it better than I ever could:

“It’s a worldview that’s steeped in social progressivism, in the values of tolerance and diversity. It takes as a given that government has a role to play in building infrastructure, regulating business, training workers, smoothing out the boom-bust cycles of the economy, providing for the poor and disadvantaged. But it is a view from on high—one that presumes a dominant role for large institutions like corporations and a wisdom on the part of elites. It believes that the world works best when these elites use their power magnanimously, not when they’re forced to share it. The picture of the boardroom liberal is a corporate CEO handing a refrigerator-sized check to the head of a charity at a celebrity golf tournament. All the better if they’re surrounded by minority children and struggling moms.”

Scheiber used the term to describe the outlook of President Obama, and obviously it holds for Clinton-style Democrats, too. Just as important, because the most powerful ideologies and worldviews can accommodate a fair amount of diversity, it’s easy to imagine a conservative version of “boardroom liberalism,” and in fact, between the two of them, they dominate the perspectives of the establishment politicians, senior bureaucrats, media figures, and so-called policy intellectuals that in turn dominate American politics and discussion thereof.

In my view, this is the perspective that reigns at CNBC, and throughout the establishment media. And although it’s surely closer to the Democratic Party mainstream than to the Republican rank and file, and reserves special contempt for the Tea Party faction (as well as religious conservatives), it doesn’t hold much affection for Bernie Sanders and the Occupy Wall Street crowd, either.  (History-induced guilt typically inspires more indulgence for Black Lives Matter.)

I’m sure it’s clear why an ideologically uniform press corps is as big a threat to a democracy worthy of the name as an ideologically uniform party system. But an even greater danger is posed when the same precepts unite those media and political worlds – along with their colleagues in think tank ranks and academia. Conventional wisdoms become completely ossified and the decision-making apparatus becomes almost impervious to fundamentally new ideas – even in times of crisis.

When powerful challengers from utterly alien universes do loom on the horizon (e.g., a Donald Trump or a Ben Carson, Tea Party-ers uninterested in politically convenient compromises), all the major occupational groups and ideological sects comprising this polyglot establishment rush to join forces against the invaders. And they employ all the (predominantly verbal) weapons they can muster, ranging from slanderous invective to loudly professed indifference to chortling condescension to outright ridicule. This counterattack, moreover, is conducted with unusual vehemence when the outsiders make perfectly clear that they have no use, much less respect, for the conventional wisdom-mongers.

On the one hand, it’s comforting that a lively alternative media-verse has emerged in recent years – precisely in response to the power, intolerance, and resulting arrogance of the establishment. On the other hand, the establishment still seems firmly ensconced – in journalism and in both parties. Since it’s still early in the 2016 presidential cycle, this year finally being different can hardly be ruled out. But as Yogi Berra once said, “It gets late early out here.”

Im-Politic: Why Trump’s Debate Victory over CNBC Really Matters

Tags

2016 elections, Ben Carson, CNBC, diplomacy, Donald Trump, fast track, Im-Politic, multinational corporations, offshoring, presidential debates, Rand Paul, Republicans, Ted Cruz, Trade

No, this isn’t an endorsement, but the way Donald Trump handled the dispute over its planned presidential debate format between CNBC on the one hand, and several Republican candidates including him on the other, shows precisely why he could well transform U.S. trade policy – and possibly American foreign policy – dramatically for the better if elected.

Along with Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul, Trump protested CNBC’s original plans for two hours of actual debating time, plus up to 16 minutes of commercials, with no opening or closing statements by the contenders. The four protesting candidates wanted the event’s total time capped at two hours, and insisted that opening and closing statements be included in that total.

As these disagreements indicate, the gulf between CNBC and the four Republican hopefuls wasn’t terribly wide. But what’s important about this story is how and why these candidates – and especially Trump – prevailed even though the rest of the much more numerous Republican field apparently was fine with CNBC’s intentions.

Essentially, the four dissenters recognized that they had decisive leverage. (Their absence – especially Trump’s – could cost the cable network valuable ratings.) They threw around their weight. And they won. And when it comes to trade policy (and many other international challenges and opportunities facing the United States) that’s exactly what U.S. leaders from both parties have consistently failed to do for decades, even though the United States typically holds all the main cards.

This is especially true in trade policy, because the United States has long served as the market-of-last resort for a world full of major and minor trade powers alike that desperately depend on ever higher exports for adequate growth. But Washington’s failure to wield its relative power and leverage effectively arguably has undercut important American objectives in the national security sphere, too – for example, in persuading free-riding allies to bear a greater share of the West’s common defense burden.

I single Trump out because none of his three comrades in arms in this tussle has made trade policy a centerpiece of their campaigns. In fact, Texas Senator Ted Cruz and his Kentucky counterpart Rand Paul have been strong supporters of the substance of America’s current trade strategy, though both opposed (for procedural and political reasons) the recent (successful) attempt in Congress to award fast track negotiating authority to President Obama. Moreover, unlike Trump, neither Carson nor Cruz nor Paul has touted deal-making and bargaining as among their strongest suits. 

At the same time, Trump’s victory over CNBC underscores how incomplete his attacks on American trade diplomacy have been. For Washington has signed deficit-fueling and deals and reached similarly counterproductive trade policy decisions (like long coddling China’s currency manipulation) not mainly because U.S. officials can’t size up a situation accurately – a charge consistent with Trump’s claim that they’re incompetent and lack elementary street smarts.

Instead, they repeatedly fail at trade bargaining tables to advance and defend the interests of the American economy as a whole primarily because they haven’t considered that their job. They view themselves as agents of offshoring-happy multinational corporations, whose campaign contributions have ensured that their trade priorities prevail even when success comes at the expense of America’s productive sectors.

That’s why, as I keep arguing, Trump’s trade policy rhetoric should mainly demonize these U.S. corporate special interests, not foreign governments. (And why it’s encouraging that he’s shown signs of making this pivot.) At the same time, since the United States no longer dominates the world stage as in the early post-World War II decades, accurately assessing power balances and recognizing when compromises are needed has also become an important ingredient for diplomatic, and presidential, success.

So Trump should promise that he’s independent enough to be working for Main Street (because he doesn’t need that special interest money), that he’s tough enough to press clear advantages hard, and that he’s smart enough to “know when to fold ’em.” What other candidates can credibly make this combination of claims?

Im-Politic: Behind The Donald’s Staying Power

Tags

2016 elections, Ben Carson, Democrats, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Im-Politic, Immigration, Investors Business Daily, Monmouth University Poll, offshoring, Open Borders, Reagan Democrats, Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, Trade

OK, despite my best intentions, it’s back to writing on The Donald. Not that it’s all my fault. First of all, Trump totally dominated today’s news once again with his press conference announcing his agreement to report the eventual Republican presidential nominee. And the uproar his candidacy has triggered revolves around many of the major policy challenges facing the nation.

Even more interesting and revealing, though, have been two new polls that speak volumes about Trump’s electoral appeal and impact on presidential politics during this electoral cycle.

The first appeared in Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) and examined the crucial question of whether Trump can attract among working- and middle-class Americans the kind of support enjoyed by former President Ronald Reagan so consistently. In fact, this question is so important that the fact that’s it’s even being asked matters more at this early stage in the campaign than any data that can be found to answer it.

Mr. Reagan drove liberals and Democrats absolutely bonkers in the 1980s by winning huge numbers of such voters – including union members – even though his economic program of lower taxes, less regulation, and reduced non-defense spending supposedly served only the interests of that era’s One Percent. Explanations ranged from claims that these Main Street Americans were simply beguiled by the former president’s personality and communications skills; to gripes that they were (not so) closet racists and jingos; to more astute observations that their more traditional attitudes on social and national security issues were increasingly out of synch with a Democratic party that had moved considerably leftward.

That last point is especially important today, especially if you add in the growing economic insecurity and anxieties of this huge voting bloc, and its outrage at the offshoring-friendly trade policies and Open Borders-friendly immigration measures that it feels deserve much blame. So it’s easy to see why at least in principle such voters would be attracted to Trump. But is this true in fact? The IBD poll is hardly conclusive evidence, but it’s awfully suggestive.

According to IBS and its survey partner, the TIPP unit of the market research firm TechnoMetrica, Trump out-polled Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton among the strong majorities of Americans unhappy with the state of the economy and the federal government’s responses. Clinton, whose party has historically claimed to champion “the common man,” did much better with respondents who were satisfied with the state of the nation.

Just to focus on one set of results, 46 percent of IBD-TIPP respondents believe the country remains in recession, 52 percent see no improvement in the economy, and 62 percent consider Washington’s economic policies as ineffective. Among Trump supporters, the above totals were 64 percent, 79 percent, and 90 percent. The precise numbers for the Clinton supporters aren’t provided, but the chart accompanying the IBD write-up makes clear that their views of the economy and related federal policies are much sunnier.

I’m not sure I’d go quite as far as this IBD author’s interpretation: “Democrats constantly claim to be the champions of struggling, middle-class families. But as the presidential campaigns get underway, it appears as though real-estate mogul turned reality TV star Donald Trump is the one capturing their hearts and minds.” But these signs of apparent political role reversal are highly suggestive.

The second poll was more of a standard horse-race survey, and showed that Trump has extended his lead among Republican voters over most of their party’s field in the last few weeks. That’s in-line with other polls’ recent results. But several findings of this Monmouth (NJ) University sounding really jumped out at me. The first two involved surgeon Ben Carson. It’s clear that Trump’s companion on the fringe of conventional politics has dramatically boosted his standing. But the Monmouth poll shows that it stunningly zoomed up from five percent in August to 18 percent this month so far. Trump’s backing increased from 26 percent to 30 percent. The other fascinating Carson-related takeaway is that he’s the only Republican contender who beat Trump head-to-head – by a convincing 55 percent to 36 percent. No other GOP hopeful even came close.

But the Monmouth poll also underscores how completely Trump has dominated news coverage of the Republican race. The evidence? When asked how favorably or unfavorably they viewed the field (a question that differs significantly from one asking about voting intentions), 42 percent of respondents said they had no opinion whatever of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (considered at one point a highly promising candidate), 43 percent chose this answer for businesswoman Carly Fiorina (widely thought to have been the winner of the “second-tier” Republican debate held last month), 59 percent had no opinion of Ohio Governor John Kasich, and 26 percent said the same about Carson. It seems reasonable to suppose that “no opinion” is another way of saying “haven’t heard much” – even though the race is being heavily covered in the national media.

Only 12 percent were this noncommittal when it came to Trump. The second-best performance on this score (20 percent) was turned in by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who until recently had been regarded as the single likeliest winner of the Republican presidential nomination.

It’s entirely possible that, at some point, one of Trump’s rivals will become the Next Big Thing in American politics, though time is running short for all with the possible exception of Carson. It seems much less possible that any Republicans currently in the real mix (except for Carson, again, and conceivably Kasich) can claim the bipartisan, crossover potential that Trump has so far displayed.

Im-Politic: Rating the Journalists at the Front-runners’ Republican Debate

Tags

bankruptcy, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Chris Wallace, debate, Donald Trump, Fox News, Im-Politic, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, journalism, Marco Rubio, Megyn Kelly, Mike Huckabee, religion, Republicans, Scott Walker, Silicon Valley

Since Donald Trump still almost certainly won’t be the Republicans’ presidential nominee this year, my reactions to the first GOP presidential debates need to deal with the 16 other candidates, too. But since Trump is still The Story of Campaign 2016 so far, I need to start off by correcting a mistake in yesterday’s post on his performance. I was slightly inaccurate in my description of his response in the front-runners’ debate to Fox News’ Megyn Kelly’s charge that he’s often insulted women.

Then I’ll segue into an examination of how well or poorly she and her colleagues organized and conducted the session – because the press’ performance clearly will have powerful effects on the presidential race itself.

I wrote yesterday that, rather than trashing Kelly personally, Trump should have focused on framing her question as typifying the superficial “gotcha” mentality that’s dominated mainstream journalism for so long and thus helped degrade American politics. (And of course, Trump should have made this observation “in sorrow, not in anger.”)

But Trump actually did try to Go Serious. As the transcript shows, after his Rosie O’Donnell crack, he insisted that “I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either. This country is in big trouble. We don’t win anymore. We lose to China. We lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody.” The trouble is, immediately afterwards, and especially the following day, he was back in Tabloid Land.

Nonetheless, overall, Kelly and her Fox colleagues did a pretty good – and “fair and balanced” – job at the front-runners event. The initial questions for all the candidates zeroed in on conspicuous weak spots in their records – from neurosurgeon Ben Carson’s unfamiliarity with foreign policy, to former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s dynasty and “W” problems, to New Jersey’s economic woes under Governor Chris Christie, to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s extreme pro-life abortion stance, to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee’s challenge in broadening his appeal beyond Christian conservative ranks.

My main criticism on this score is that the subjects of these questions were somewhat too conspicuous. That is, each candidate had obviously heard all of them before, and had had plenty of time to rehearse answers. Moreover, some really obvious follow-ups were neglected throughout the debate. For example, why didn’t any of the panelists point out to Bush that the impressive numbers racked up by his state’s economy during his tenure stemmed largely from a housing bubble that burst disastrously just as he was leaving office?

In addition, Fox’s Chris Wallace once again demonstrated how pitifully little political reporters know about business and finance. As Wallace saw it, a handful of bankruptcies declared by Trump’s businesses over the last 25 years cast doubt on the candidate’s qualifications “to run the nation’s business.” Wallace obviously doesn’t know that failure is such a common aspect of doing business that, as one analyst has noted (and in connection with this Wallace question) it’s “a background term to every contract.  It’s an embedded option.  Lenders price for it.”

Perhaps more important, Wallace is obviously clueless about the essential role bankruptcy plays in producing success. A good businessman or woman uses it the way any intelligent person uses the mistakes that all of us make – as a learning opportunity. Indeed, the most celebrated part of U.S. economy (rightly or wrongly), Silicon Valley, has begun to celebrate failure as an essential ingredient of eventual success.

Finally, I was troubled by the Fox journalists’ decision to pose this viewer question: “I want to know if any of them have received a word from God on what they should do and take care of first.”

I know that subjects like this are of intense interest to many Republican voters in particulara. But you don’t have to oppose injecting religion into political and public policy matters to recognize that this query was bound to unleash a torrent of the most vapid homilies imaginable, notably Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s declaration that “I believe God has blessed our country. This country has been extraordinarily blessed. And we have honored that blessing. And that’s why God has continued to bless us” and Ohio Governor John Kasich’s “I do believe in miracles.”

The only saving grace (no pun intended!) in this segment of the debate was Walker’s statement that “I know that God doesn’t call me to do a specific thing, God hasn’t given me a list, a Ten Commandments, if you will, of things to act on the first day. What God calls us to do is follow his will.”

Here’s hoping that the rest of the 2016 field shows similar restraint in declaring themselves or their agenda or their party to be the Almighty’s anointed messengers – with all the ugly insinuations about their opponents that logically follow, whether they’re intended or not.

Next on RealityChek: a discussion of those Republican candidates not named Donald Trump, including the participants in the undercard.