Im-Politic: What that Alabama Senate Race Really Means

Tags

2004 presidential election, 2008 presidential election, 2012 presidential election, African Americans, Alabama, Barack Obama, Christine O'Donnell, Doug Jones, establishment Republicans, evangelicals, exit polls, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Im-Politic, independents, Jeb Bush, John McCain, Luther Strange, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, Mo Brooks, moderates, off-year elections, Populism, presidential elections, Republicans, Roy Moore, Senate, Steve Bannon, suburbanites, Todd Akin, Trump, Virginia

Last week’s Alabama Senate race results remain worth studying carefully for two main reasons. First, the bizarro and self-destructive intra-Republican politics that handed victory to a Democrat in this deeply red state keep playing out. And second, reading the tea leaves correctly will be critical to figuring out whether, as is widely claimed, the triumph of former federal prosecutor Doug Jones does indeed herald the demise of the currently Trump-influenced brand of the Republican Party.

My overall conclusion: The fate of Trump-ism post-Alabama is still very much up in the air for most of the same reasons that its fate was up in the air pre-Alabama. Because as suggested above, the President and his main allies and surrogates have done such a lousy job of turning a reasonably coherent populist 2016 presidential campaign message into even a minimally coherent governing program.

And from this overall conclusion flow two follow-on conclusions: First, the conventional wisdom surrounding the Republican defeat in Alabama seems considerably off-base. The totality of the polling data shows that it can be mainly blamed on the deep personal and policy flaws of candidate Roy S. Moore rather than on any serious weakening of Trump-ism in the state. That’s lucky both for the President and for Republicans smart enough to recognize that the party’s continued viability depends on abandoning the orthodox conservative agenda still championed by its Washington/establishment wing but so roundly rejected by the voters.

Second, and much more troubling for Mr. Trump and his supporters: In the Alabama intra-party politicking, they showed no greater ability to get their messaging act – and competence – act together than they have in the national political and policy arenas as a whole. And the most glaring sign of this continuing confusion was the decision of the President and initially of his putative ideological guru, Steven K. Bannon to endorse Moore.

The by-now-standard interpretation of Alabama is that a closely related combination of anti-Moore and anti-Trump sentiments pushed black voter turnout in the state way up, turned off many moderate or independent white suburbanites who had gone for the president in 2016, and tipped the election to Jones. Moreover, these Alabama trends supposedly mirrored developments in the November Virginia gubernatorial race in particular, where a Democrat also prevailed – and look like a promising formula for a Democratic comeback in next year’s off-year Congressional races big enough to flip the House or Senate or both, and for regaining the White House in 2020.

But even without the Moore factor, these claims overlook big differences between Alabama and Virginia. Principally, the latter is steadily becoming reliably Democratic, as voters from more liberal areas of the country have flocked to the Old Dominion’s Washington, D.C. suburbs, attracted by government and government-related jobs. In fact, it’s voted blue in the last three presidential contests after staying in the GOP column every year since 1964.

With the Moore factor, the Alabama conventional wisdom looks even weaker, at least if you take the exit polls seriously. (Unless otherwise indicated, the following soundings come from the official exit polls for Alabama from the 2004, 2008, and 2012 presidential general elections, for the 2016 Republican primary in the state, and for last week’s Senate election.)

It’s true that black turnout was impressive – especially for an off-year election. At 29 percent, it even exceeded the African-American vote in 2012 (a presidential year, when all turnout tends to rise, and when black Americans obviously found Barack Obama a more compelling choice than 2016 nominee Hillary Clinton). It’s also true that because President Trump is reviled in the black community (with approval ratings in the mid-single digits), his endorsement of Moore prompted many Alabama African-Americans to “send him a message.” At the same time, in the 2004 presidential race (the last pre-Obama campaign), Republican president George W. Bush attracted only six percent of their vote (with somewhat lower – 25 percent – turnout). So it’s quite possible that whatever image problems Alabama blacks have with Republicans started well before the Trump era.

There’s also considerable polling evidence for the view that overlapping blocs of moderates, independents, and suburbanites, which gave Trump such noteworthy support in 2016, displayed some buyer’s remorse last week. For example, Moore did win the burbs – but only by a 51 percent to 47 percent margin. That’s much smaller than Mitt Romney’s 66 percent to 33 percent performance. And although there were no Alabama exit polls conducted for the 2016 presidential election, the primary polls report Trump winning fully half of Republican suburbanites – more than twice the share garnered by the next most successful GOP candidate (in a large field), Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

What about the self-described political moderates? In 2012, 52 percent supported Romney – much more than Moore’s 25 percent. Moore’s appeal to these voters also looks paltry compared with Trump’s last year. The president was backed by 40 percent of these voters – many more than supported the runner-up in this category, Florida Senator Marco Rubio.

And the same picture is created by self-described independent voters. Fully three quarters pulled a Romney lever in 2012 – three times the share won by Moore. (The 2016 exit poll lacked any data on this question.)

Yet I find more compelling the evidence that Alabama is sui generis. For starters, although by 53 percent to 42 percent, the state’s voters said that the sexual misconduct allegations against Moore were not “an important factor” in their vote, by 60 percent to 35 percent, they described them as “a factor.”

Let’s drill down a little further. Jones won 49.9 percent of the total vote, and slightly more Alabama voters (51 percent) expressed a favorable opinion of him. Moore won 48.4 percent of the total, but 56 percent of the state’s voters viewed him unfavorably. In addition, whereas 65 percent of Jones’ supporters favored him “strongly,” that was the case for only 41 percent of Moore supporters.

These Moore favorable ratings indicate that he suffered from a distinct enthusiasm gap among his core evangelical backers, and several exit poll indicators support this supposition. Evangelical turnout was slightly lower in 2017 (44 percent of the electorate) than in 2012 or 2008 (47 percent). Moreover, although Moore captured 81 percent of this vote, that share was down from Romney’s 90 percent in 2012, Senator John McCain’s 92 percent in 2008, and George W. Bush’s 88 percent.

And although the size of the 2016 primary field makes comparisons with last year difficult, evangelicals made up 77 percent of the Republican vote (a little lower than last week), and 43 percent went for Trump – nearly twice as many (22 percent) as those who voted for Cruz, the next best performer.

Among the signs that Moore dismay was evident among other voting blocs? He lost parents with children by 56 percent to 42 percent, and mothers with children by a much wider 66 percent to 32 percent. But although losing women overall by 57 percent to 41 percent, Moore won white women by 63 percent to 34 percent.

As for the impact on the President himself? Clearly negative. Mr. Trump remains significantly more popular in Alabama (48 percent approve of his performance as president) than nationwide (just under 38 percent approval according to the RealClearPolitics.com average of the latest soundings). But he won the state by a 62.9 percent to 34.6 percent margin over Clinton, so that’s a huge drop off.

Yet although the president’s nationwide ratings are quite low compared with those of his most recent predecessors at this point in their terms, it’s nothing unusual for them to take a dive after a year in office. Further, 51 percent of Alabama voters told the exit pollsters that Mr. Trump was “not a factor” in their decisions. In fact, the president’s approval ratings among Alabamians are higher than those of the Republican (43 percent) and Democratic (47 percent) parties overall. They’re also higher than those of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky (46 percent), whose support of incumbent fill-in Alabama GOP Senator Luther Strange (appointed to replace now Attorney General Jeff Sessions) was deeply resented by many Republicans in the state.

All the same, as the end of his first year in office approaches, the President obviously is less popular than at the start of his term, and it’s easy to see why from simply considering the ideologically scrambled squabbling among Republicans that marked the process of choosing their Alabama Senate nominee. Given his party’s painful experiences with fringe-y candidates in previous campaigns – like Todd Akin of Missouri and Christine O’Donnell of Delaware – it was understandable that McConnell and the rest of the party’s establishment wanted someone far safer to run against Moore. But Strange lacked any ability to connect with the populism and broader voter anger that remains white hot throughout Alabama and nationwide. Even less explicable, a third candidate in the Republican Senate primary – Congressman Mo Brooks – appeared to have combined populist fire with a record that raised no Moore-like questions whatever. Why was McConnell so uninterested in him?

Much more mysteriously, why did Bannon opt for Moore over Brooks – who shared all of his economic nationalist and small-government impulses? His choice is all the more baffling given his acknowledgment last week that “Judge Moore has never been, really, an economics guy. If Mo Brooks had been running here, immigration and trade would’ve been at the top of the agenda — and bringing jobs back to Alabama.” And how come Bannon with all his contacts in the state couldn’t uncover the information about Moore’s sexual past that was reported by Washington Post journalists in the state on temporary assignment? The White House, of course, flunked this basic test, too. 

The president’s endorsement of Strange makes some sense, however, at least according to narrow political criteria. He supported McConnell’s choice because, as I’ve written, he believes he needs to maintain the backing of the Republican Party’s Washington-Congressional wing to survive any possible impeachment proceedings. In other words, at least some of the blame for the contradictions that have been hampering Mr. Trump on both substance and politicking lies with the Democrats. But of course, the president and his aides have given their opponents plenty of Russia-gate ammunition. And whoever or whatever is mainly at fault, the chief problem created by this bind is a powerful one. For the Republican establishment’s agenda remains as unpopular this year as it was last – which is largely why the Obamacare repeals have failed and why the Republican tax bill remains so unpopular with the public.

In other words, the kind of chaos (and yes, I’ve deliberately used former 2016 GOP presidential hopeful Jeb Bush’s description of the Trump campaign and personality) on display in this Alabama scrum surely reminded voters there about everything that’s always made them uneasy about the president. Although ready to roll the dice with him as a candidate, it’s easy to see why they find his presidency far more troubling – and why these doubts could easily spread further nation-wide, and take deeper root, unless Mr. Trump finds a way to squelch them.

Advertisement

Im-Politic: The Day After, Part I

Tags

2016 election, Bernie Sanders, Cheap Labor Lobby, conservatism, Democrats, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Im-Politic, Immigration, Jeb Bush, Mainstream Media, Marco Rubio, Obama, offshoring lobby, Open Borders, Paul Ryan, Populism, Republicans, Ross Perot, Ted Cruz, Trade

How did I go wrong on analyzing President-elect Donald Trump’s rise during this epochal presidential campaign? Let me count the ways.

My first post on this populist phenom expressed full confidence that he would never win the Republican presidential nomination – or even “come close.” Although I didn’t explicitly say it, I viewed the idea that he could win the White House as positively ludicrous.

After several of his insult barrages and other verbal bombshells, I was all but certain that his campaign was finished.

I had no doubt that, as with third party presidential candidate and fellow tycoon Ross Perot in 1992, his unwillingness to take advice – especially of the critical kind – would cripple his candidacy. Similarly, I believed that he would run his presidential operation the same way that many successful business leaders engage in politics – incompetently.

So I guess I’m qualified to be a Mainstream Media pundit! But seriously, since I got at least some things right – like translating Trump-ish into language that the chattering class should have been able to grasp – I’m not totally sheepish about serving up a first batch of thoughts about what all Americans either are chewing over or should be in the weeks ahead.

>For all the teeth-gnashing about the ugliness of the presidential campaign, and for all the responsibility for it that Trump deserves, imagine what the race for the White House would have been like without him. The Republicans would have nominated either a tool of the Cheap Labor and Offshoring Lobbies like former Florida Governor Jeb Bush or Florida Senator Marco Rubio, or a social conservative extremist like Texas Senator Ted Cruz. And none of them would have felt major pressure to pay attention to the Republican base’s anger about mass immigration, job- and growth-killing trade deals, or the income stagnation they fostered.

On the Democratic side, this kind of conventional Republican nominee may well have enabled Hillary Clinton to win that party’s crown without many nods to the populist positions taken by her chief rival, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders – including on trade policy, along with Wall Street reform.

What a clueless – and maybe dangerously clueless – campaign that would have been! In particular, with no political safety valve, the continuing buildup of working- and middle-class rage that both major-party standard-bearers would have kept blithely ignoring could have exploded much more powerfully.

>The Trump victory could be a milestone in not only American politics, but policy. Yet the potential may never become performance unless this most successful outsider in U.S. history meets a staffing challenge that has hung over his campaign since his strength starting being apparent. Specifically, where is he going to find the populist policy specialists and academics and business types and politicians to fill the hundreds of key cabinet and sub-cabinet posts where presidential ambitions can just as easily die a lingering death as produce real, on-the-ground change?

The institutions needed to nurture and train such cadres simply haven’t existed. Or they’ve been way too small (i.e., modestly funded) to produce the needed numbers and possibly the needed quality. After his first White House victory, President Obama dismayed many of his followers by appointing to key economic positions in particular the kinds of Wall Street-friendly Clintonians that he had raked over the coals during that campaign (including Hillary Clinton, his rival for the Democratic nomination that year). His response? As I recall at the time (and I’m still looking for a link), something to the effect “What choice do I have?”

Although Mr. Obama never intended to bring the substantive break with the past that his successor has vowed, Mr. Trump could find himself in the same position, and his administration could drift steadily, and even imperceptibly towards a more conventional, and indeed donor-class-friendly, form of conservatism.

>Finally, for today, the Trump triumph places the Republican party in its current form in just as much jeopardy as a narrow Trump loss.

Had Trump lost in a landslide, the GOP’s future would have been easy to predict: The Never-Trumpian Washington establishment would have loudly crowed, “I told you so,” and advanced an overpowering rationale for returning to its low-tax, small-government, free-trading, open-borders, global interventionist orthodoxy of recent decades.

But last night’s results could be the death knell of establishment Republicanism – at least as a viable political force. It’s entirely possible that this establishment’s corporate and similar funders could decide for the time being to keep afloat the think tanks, media outlets, lobbying shops, and political consultancies comprising the GOP/conservative establishment. Indeed, since Trump could flop disastrously, preserving this infrastructure in preparation for 2020 makes perfect sense.

But for the foreseeable future, this is Donald Trump’s Republican party (whether he has to staff his administration with lots of standard-issue Republicans or not). House Speaker Paul Ryan, who strongly opposes his own party’s president-elect on issues ranging from trade and immigration to entitlement reform to foreign policy, can talk all he wants about reestablishing party unity. But the key question surrounding such calls is always “Unity on whose terms?” Until Mr. Trump fails a major test of leadership (or even two or three), or until events beyond his control render him ineffective (like a weakening economy) he’ll be calling the shots.  

And however lavishly financed the party’s establishment may remain, this election has made painfully obvious that its grassroots are shrunken and browned out. Since one of the prime takeaways of this election cycle is that voters ultimately count even more than money, it will become increasingly difficult even for the donors to treat the Washington Republicans as a true national political movement, as opposed to a self-appointed clique of supposed leaders with embarrassingly few followers.

So there’s of course a chance that the Ryan wing (emboldened by some truly desperate plutocrats) might at some point bolt and try to reclaim the Republican brand as its own or launch a third party. But these well-heeled dissidents will face the strongest of tides with the weakest of paddles – the more so given Ryan’s acknowledgment that Trump’s unexpectedly strong showing helped the GOP retain both houses of Congress. 

Tomorrow I’ll be offering some further initial thoughts. Until then, like so many others, I’ll go back to catching my breath!

Im-Politic: A Slobbering Media Love Affair…with Jeb

Tags

2016 election, Donald Trump, elites, Establishment Media, Gawker.com, Im-Politic, Immigration, J.K. Trotter, Jeb Bush, media bias, NBC News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, TIME, Trade, Washington Post

A major theme of RealityChek since its launch has been that, if America’s Big Media ever took seriously their one-time mandate to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable,” those days are long gone. Instead, establishment journalists collectively have clearly decided that their priority instead is coddling the nation’s political and business elites and protecting their privileged perches from the great unwashed. That’s when they aren’t crossing back and forth among those worlds.

So you can just imagine how (ruefully) pleased I’ve been these last few days to read through various media post-mortems of former Jeb Bush’s historically disastrous presidential campaign. In an ordinary campaign year, media types surely would have roasted the former odds-on Republican favorite as a monument to nepotism whose respectable turn as Florida governor was massively offset by his family connection with his widely reviled brother, the former president, by his reliance on George W. Bush’s neoconservative foreign policy advisors, and by the oceans of special interest money that were funding his White House run.

But of course, this isn’t an ordinary political year, and although Jeb Bush was not exactly adored by the mainstream press, he was often flatteringly contrasted with Donald Trump. This media anti-Christ’s capitol offense has been daring to blast away at the two of American elites’ most sacred cows – the job- and wage-killing mass immigration and offshoring-friendly trade policies that simultaneously enabled the establishment to claim cosmopolitan, noblesse oblige ideals even as it’s pocketed nearly all of the lavish benefits.

Now that Bush is toast politically (and both Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and establishment darling Marco Rubio, Republican Senator from Florida, are still running reasonably strong), the media has been freed to let its pro-Bush – and thinly disguised anti-Trump – biases hang out.

We should all be indebted to Gawker.com’s J.K. Trotter for compiling some of the most cringe-inducing. All are worth reading, but in case you’re pressed for time, here are a few lowlights, as well as examples I’ve found:

>From The New York Times‘ Ashley Parker: “[A]t the core, what made Jeb compelling to cover was that he was deeply, impossibly human.

“In a cycle where so many other candidates were able to toggle effortlessly between soaring speeches and masterful debate performances, between well-rehearsed outrage and manufactured indignation, Jeb almost seemed to think aloud in real time, and we got to watch him muddle and bumble through, just like any real person….

“Jeb was a flawed candidate, who ran a wildly imperfect campaign. But he struggled mightily and did it on his own terms, trying to talk about big, serious things. And for that, perhaps, he deserves a round of applause.”

>From the Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza: At January’s South Carolina Republican debate, Bush “made serious and nuanced points about immigration and foreign policy, and he demonstrated deep knowledge on almost every issue. …as he has throughout the campaign, Bush painted a picture of a complex world — from the Middle East to here at home. His answers to questions were larded with detail and complexity. On Trump’s call to ban Muslims from entering the country, for example, he was measured and thoughtful; ‘every time we send signals like this, we send a signal of weakness, not strength,’ Bush said.

“Jeb knows the world is complex. He knows that problems aren’t solved simply because you say so. He knows the work of governance is hard. ”

>From The Wall Street Journal‘s Beth Reinhard and Rebecca Ballhaus: “Mr. Bush’s departure also reflects the fading of a brand of Republican politics as a harder-edged conservatism comes into focus. His father advocated a ‘kinder, gentler nation,’ his brother described himself as a ‘compassionate conservative’ while Mr. Bush called for ‘the right to rise.’

“It was conservatism laced with the Bush family’s sense of noblesse oblige and old-fashioned patriotism, manifested in a focus on education policy, a desire to bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows and a strong military presence on the world stage.

“But Mr. Bush faced a GOP electorate angry at all things Washington, making ties to the establishment a vulnerability rather than a strength.”

>From TIME’s Philip Elliott and Zeke J. Miller: “At a time when experience was a vulnerability rather than a resume line, Bush insisted on running a policy-centric campaign. It was a year that saw bluster overtake substance, and Bush refused to shift. ‘In this campaign, I have stood my ground, refusing to bend to the political winds,’ he said before leaving the stage, tears visible in his eyes. His insistence on running his campaign his way proved his undoing. While rivals mastered clipped sound bites, he held forth on policy. When reporters tried to goad him into questions about politics, he defaulted to wonkdom. If a voter took the time to attend his town halls, he owed it to them to give a thoughtful answer.”

>From NBC News: “Bush ran for all the right reasons, according to NBC News. He told voters he had a ‘servant’s heart’ and, in private and public, his campaign always appeared motivated by duty rather than personal ambition right up to his final speech.”

It’s important to note that all these strongly opinionated views have come not from pundits – who are supposed to be opinionated in their work. They come from beat reporters and political analysts – who are not. The media’s increasingly open biases can only be signaling ever mounting levels of contempt for Main Street, and warning everyday Americans that trusting all the news they watch and read can be hazardous for their political and economic health.

Im-Politic: The Culture of Failure in Washington

Tags

2016 election, accountability, Beltway, campaign finance reform, D.C., Donald Trump, Ed O'Keefe, Im-Politic, IMF, International Monetary Fund, Jeb Bush, Katie Packer Gage, Marlene Ricketts, Mike Murphy, The Washington Post, Washington

I’ve always loved “Failing your way to the top” as a way to describe how the world of Washington’s intertwined political, policy, and media classes works. Not coincidentally, endless examples of handsomely rewarded incompetence no doubt feed Main Street USA’ strong belief that much of American life is rigged against it. So it’s more than fitting that the last three days alone have provided three more major instances of career Washingtonians getting major issues massively wrong – and surely in no danger of facing any adverse consequences.

The first comes from the Washington Post‘s new first cut at a post-mortem on former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s spectacular flame-out of a presidential campaign. Many lavishly paid political consultants and fund-raisers must deserve considerable blame, but no one’s been a bigger lightning rod for criticism than Mike Murphy. The veteran Republican operative directed Bush’s Right to Rise “Super-Pac” (political action committee), and therefore reportedly made many of the key tactical mistakes that ultimately doomed Bush.

Post reporter Ed O’Keefe’s account of the disaster is worth your while, so I won’t list all the revealing anecdotes here. But one that’s worth spotlighting is Murphy’s admission that he didn’t detect the huge “anti-establishment wave” that has been sweeping over the American electorate. In fairness to Murphy, this widespread anger probably doomed Bush’s candidacy from the start. At the same time, consultants like Murphy are paid the big bucks (reportedly $14 million) to know this – or figure it out – and develop responses that don’t repeatedly keep flopping – and laughably.

In fact, where’s this guy been for most of the last two years? Prowling the toney haunts of megabucks donors hungrily eyeing their wallets? (Actually, O’Keefe’s article indicates that’s exactly where he’s been.)

So on the one hand, it will be interesting to see how long it’s going to take Murphy to get his next contract. On the other, as one wag on Twitter cracked, given his reported payday, he may not need one. The more so since just a few years earlier, Murphy also cashed in big by steering eBay founder Meg Whitman’s $177 million campaign for governor of California to defeat at the hands of Jerry Brown.

Another long-time Beltway denizen who could well keep failing her way to the top is Katie Packer Gage. Her latest claim to fame is convincing the uber-wealthy Ricketts family, which founded finance giant TD Ameritrade and owns the Chicago Cubs baseball team, to spend $3 million to fund a Super-Pac she created to take down GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump.

Kudos to Packer Gage for raising these funds – especially since her previous major experience in national politics was advising 2012 Republican presidential loser Mitt Romney. Or maybe the Ricketts were simply chumps. Earlier this political cycle, Marlene Ricketts shelled out several million dollars to finance the (quickly) failed presidential run of Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker.

But I’m still not convinced that other likely Packer Gage prospects will wise up. Because like Murphy, she’s plugged into the Republican half of the Beltway Establishment, and will always get glowing references from colleagues in this anti-Meritocracy – for their careers also depend on their skill at covering up or, more commonly, spinning away abject failure.  

Our final example of certain-to-be-rewarded Washington incompetence comes from the supposedly apolitical world of the International Monetary Fund. Among the IMF’s functions is tracking major trends in the world economy, and to this end the Fund puts out a veritable torrent of studies and forecasts. Now I’d be the first person to acknowledge how tough it is to predict the courses of the U.S. economy, any other national economy, or the global economy. That’s largely why I shy away from predictions. But presumably, the legions of economists at the IMF have gotten their jobs because they’re good at what they do. I’ve certainly been a frequent user of their material.

But the latest annual report of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, which gives a U.S. Administration’s official take on the state of the American economy and where it’s heading, contained this startling chart, which will make me think twice about citing the IMF’s projections. It clearly shows that for at least four years, the Fund’s best economic brains have consistently – and whoppingly – overestimated global growth:

Which raises the questions: Have any of the Fund economists behind these blunders been cashiered? Are they likely to be? Have any such professional staff paid any price for any comparable goofs?

Again, no one should expect political consultants to win every election, or economists to possess perfectly clear crystal balls. But no successful system of anything can last without at least to levy major punishment for instances of major ineptitude. Wondering why Washington politics and policy have become so close to dysfunctional? The capital’s conspicuous accountability shortage is a great place to start.   

 

Im-Politic: 2016’s Real Trump Effect

Tags

2016 election, Chris Christie, CNBC, Donald Trump, economy, Fox Business, Fox News, Im-Politic, Immigration, Iowa Caucus, Jeb Bush, Jobs, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Obamacare, Rand Paul, Republican debates, Republicans, Ted Cruz, wages

I have no idea who’s going to win tonight’s Iowa presidential caucuses in either party, but I feel confident in making one prediction: If and when Republican front runner Donald Trump either drops out at some point on the primary trail, or gets denied the delegate count needed to win the nomination either before or during the convention, most serious talk in the Republican race about the economy’s biggest problems will come to an abrupt halt.

Right now, given Trump’s strong showings in the latest Iowa polls, and even better performances in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and other surveys, such speculation seems besides the point. But I can’t dismiss out of hand one possible result unfolding tonight: A Trump defeat, or relatively poor second-place showing, could – as many commentators have suggested – puncture the aura of invincibility that’s been created by a combination of his unexpectedly broad appeal and his brash personality. In other words, a disappointing showing tonight could turn this “winner” into a hype-dependent “loser” in the public eye.

And as I’ve written, even – or especially – if Trump survives Iowa in good shape, the Republican establishment he’s run against could start consolidating behind a single champion as the more “conventional” hopefuls drop out. This candidate might start winning near-majorities in the polls while Trump remains stuck in the 30s or at best low 40s.

If and when the campaign becomes Trump-less, most signs indicate that the Republican campaign will give the shortest possible shrift to the pocketbook issues that matter most to the public. The most compelling evidence so far? The last Republican debate, on October 28 in Iowa, was Trump-less (by his choice). And judging from the proceedings, you’d never know that the United States has spent more than six years crawling out of an historically deep recession at an historically slow rate, and that living standards for the typical family have been stagnating literally for decades.

Economic subjects weren’t completely ignored. But throughout the two-hour event, they were a clear afterthought. There were zero questions on jobs and wages, and when the Fox News panelists did touch on the economy, it was for two main purposes. They either wanted to draw the candidates out on philosophical questions, like the ideal size and role of government, that Trump’s rise in particular suggest have become marginal even to committed “movement” conservatives. Or they sought to plumb the candidates’ views on the Iowa-specific issue of ethanol subsidies.

Of course, immigration figured prominently that evening. But the candidates almost exclusively focused on its national security aspects, not its potential to either strengthen or weaken American growth or employment.

Exceptions to these patterns did pop up. Though the topics were completely ignored by the Fox interrogators, Governors Chris Christie and John Kasich touted their job growth records in New Jersey and Ohio, respectively, as did Jeb Bush for his years in the statehouse in Florida. Texas Senator Ted Cruz did promise to end welfare payments to illegal immigrants, while Florida Senator Marco Rubio mentioned the need to ensure that immigrant flows contain more skilled and educated newcomers ready to contribute economically upon their arrival, and fewer immigrants whose only entry qualifications were family connections to existing legal residents. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul used his closing statement to warn of the dangers of the national debt. And Cruz answered the single question about Obamacare in impressive detail – in the process calling it the nation’s “biggest job-killer.”

But that paragraph pretty well sums it up.

It’s entirely possible that the Fox panel neglected the economy because its members thought Iowa is prospering, and that therefore the issue hasn’t resonated. (Here’s why they’re wrong.) So maybe when the primaries move into states with more obvious troubles, this focus will shift – for all the networks. In principle, Fox might also have concluded that the Fox Business debate in Milwaukee in November covered the economy adequately (along with the October CNBC debate in Colorado, which wildly veered into numerous other areas as well).

It’s also revealing, however, that unlike Trump, few of the other Republican contenders consistently take the opportunity to pivot to economic issues when asked other questions. Perhaps they believe the economy has been superseded by terrorism and related national security issues? Could they be holding their economic fire for the general election? Are they convinced that the economy simply is no longer bad enough to harp on? That last possibility has me particularly intrigued, since it strikes me as so stunningly wrong. But by the same token, it could be just the latest evidence that the Republican party’s mainstream power brokers really are out of touch with the national mood.

Im-Politic: Why Trump’s Critics Need to Learn Trump-ish

Tags

2016 election, African Americans, anger, assimilation, border security, borders, Chuck Todd, Donald Trump, Fox News, George Will, Hillary Clinton, illegal immigrants, Im-Politic, immigrants, Immigration, ISIS, Islamophobia, Jeb Bush, Jobs, John Kasich, Latinos, Lindsey Graham, Megyn Kelly, middle class, Muslim ban, Muslims, NBC News, Obama, Paris attacks, political class, polls, presidential debates, racism, radical Islam, refugees, San Bernardino, sexism, sovereignty, terrorism, wages, xenophobia

Since the political class that routinely slams him is hermetically shielded from the struggles of Donald Trump’s middle class and working class supporters, it’s no surprise that the nation’s elite pols and pundits don’t speak a word of Trump-ish. Assuming, in the spirit of the holiday season, that at least some of the Republican front-runners’ assailants are actually interested in understanding the political earthquakes he’s set off and responding constructively, as opposed to buttressing their superiority complexes or stamping them out (frequently in response to special interest paymasters), here’s a handy two-lesson guide.

Special bonus: This post also goes far toward both interpreting the widely noted anger marking the nation’s politic today, and explaining why Trump’s bombshells keep boosting, not cratering, his poll numbers.

Lesson One: It’s been all too easy to condemn Trump’s various comments on immigration policy as xenophobic, racist, or both. Some have clearly been sloppy and/or impractical, which is why, as in the case of his deportation policy, or the original form of the Muslim ban (which didn’t distinguish between citizens and non-citizens), I’ve been critical.  (For the former, see, e.g., this post.  For the latter, I’ve expressed my views on Twitter on November 20 and December 7.)  There’s also no doubt that much opposition to current, permissive immigration policies stems from the kinds of fears about threats to “traditional American values” that have animated explicitly discriminatory anti-immigrant movements in the past.

Yet the standard denunciations of Trump’s positions ignore too many features of his pitch and his proposals to be convincing. For example, if Trump is a simple racist, or white supremacist, why does he never mention the supposed threats from East or South Asian immigrants? And if these groups really are often conspicuously singled out as “model minorities” even by many immigration policy critics, how can they reasonably be lumped into the racist category? Further, why does Trump’s immigration plan emphasize the harm done by low-skill and low-wage legal and (especially) illegal immigrants to the incomes and prospects of so many low-skill and low-wage black Americans?

Similar observations debunk the portrayal of Trump’s Muslim ban as simple, ignorant, irrational Islamophobia. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly (e.g. this post) , for many reasons, Islam presents special problems for American national security and international interests. Even President Obama has accused the so-called moderate majority of the world’s Muslims and their leaders of failing to resist the fanaticism of ISIS and Al Qaeda strongly enough. And although Muslims have by and large integrated peacefully and successfully into American life – certainly more so than in Europe – Western, evidence of pro-terrorist activity and sympathy is too compelling for comfort.

So obviously, there’s much more to the Trump pitch and platform than mindless hating. In the case of immigration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America that’s overwhelmingly economically motivated, it’s the concern that business and other elite economic interests have so successfully and so long focused Washington on satisfying its appetite for cheap labor that the needs of native-born workers and their families, as well as the fundamental security imperative of maintaining control over national borders, have been completely neglected. Therefore, Trump’s pronouncements – including his call for a wall – are best seen as demands that American leaders prioritize their own citizens and legal residents in policymaking, and for restoration of border security arrangements essential for concepts like “nationhood” and “sovereignty” and “security” to have practical meaning.

In other words, when Trump and his supporters complain about Mexican or Latino immigrants, whether legal and particularly illegal, the candidate in particular, and arguably most often his supporters, are complaining not about newcomers with different skin colors or about foreigners as such. They’re complaining about immigrants who are serving exactly the same purpose as the picket-crossing scabs that historically have aroused heated – and sometimes violent – reactions from elements of the American labor movement: increasing the labor supply to further weaken workers’ bargaining power.

Of course, there’s another, non-economic reason for focusing on Hispanic immigrants that has nothing to do with racism or bigotry – though you don’t hear this point from Trump himself. It’s that worry about assimilation and American values referenced above. In turn, it springs from (a) both those groups’ distinctive insistence on concessions to bilingualism in daily life (when was the last time you heard about demands for Chinese language instructions on ballots, or Vietnamese announcements on subway P.A. systems?); and (b) from the eagerness many politicians show to accommodate them. The latter is in sharp contrast to official America’s handling of earlier immigration waves, when the overriding intent was to Americanize newcomers as soon and as completely as possible – and when demands for special treatment were far less common.

Similar non-bigoted messages are being sent by Trump’s Muslim ban and related opposition to admitting large numbers of refugees from Middle East war zones. Assimilation is clearly on the minds of his supporters. But security is an even bigger issue for both the candidate and his backers. Especially in the wake of the November Paris attacks and the ensuing San Bernardino shootings, many Republican and even some Democratic party leaders have understandably felt compelled to call out an Obama administration that has, in the face of all common sense, kept insisting that those fleeing areas of chaos could be adequately vetted – and that with equal stubbornness has demonized such prudence as prejudiced, callous, a propaganda windfall for ISIS, and un-American.

Lesson Two: This one, concerning Trump’s insulting comments towards fellow presidential hopefuls, journalists, and other individual critics (whether they’ve been truly critical or not) should be much easier to understand – though perhaps more difficult for the targets to take to heart. In a perfect world, or even close, office-seekers, anyone in public life, or anyone in public, shouldn’t call others “stupid,” or “losers” as Trump has, and it’s even worse to disparage people because of their looks or use sexist slurs against women.

But this is not only a world that is far from perfect. It is a world – and country – in which the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential enjoy privilege that is almost unimaginable unless you know or have seen it personally. Far too often, to a degree not known in America for decades, their position has come at the expense of fellow citizens so remote financially, culturally, and even geographically from them that the latter might as well as invisible. And even more infuriating, the occupants of America’s commanding heights seem to stay securely in place – and even more securely in place – no matter what failures and even catastrophes they inflict on the country. Increasing signs of nepotism and even dynasticism foul the picture further.

In other words, there’s no shortage of reasons for many Americans to refer to their current leaders, their wannabe leaders, and all their varied courtiers without the level of courtesy to which we’ve become accustomed. Indeed, there is every reason for a big bloc of the electorate to view them as outright crooks, incompetents, or some combination of the two. And when Trump treats them as such, a strong case can be made that, even though he’s coarsening public discourse, he’s also sending the Beltway crowd and its fans and funders across the country messages about millions of their countrymen that they urgently need to hear and understand. For example, Trump backers

>are completely unimpressed with monuments to unearned status like former Florida Governor (and presidential relative) Jeb Bush, and former Senator and Secretary of State (and First Lady) Hillary Clinton;

>view failed or failing presidential rivals like Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Ohio Governor John Kasich as shills for the corporate cheap labor lobby and its mass immigration plans, not as courageous champions of more inclusive conservatism;

>and wonder who decreed pundits like George Will and news anchors like NBC’s Chuck Todd or Fox’s Megyn Kelly to be arbiters of political, social, and cultural acceptability.

In other words, Trump’s supporters believe that spotlighting the disastrous records, wrongheaded positions, or hollow reputations of many individual American leaders and media notables is vastly more important than protecting their delicate sensibilities. In turn, the specificity of this harsh treatment reveals something important about much of the anger pervading American politics today. It’s not simply aimed at abstractions like “politics as usual” or “Washington dysfunction” or “the system” or even “corruption.” That’s because in addition to being almost uselessly vague, these terms conveniently permit practically any individual or even any particular category of individuals involved in public life to assume that the problem lies elsewhere.

Instead, today’s anger is directed at specific individuals and groups who large numbers of voters blame for the country’s assorted predicaments, and who Trump supporters read and see routinely belittle their frustrations and therefore condemn their chosen spokesmen as know-nothings, clowns, bigots, and even incipient fascists.

Trump’s blast at Kelly right after the first Republican presidential debate in Cleveland in August was especially revealing. Even I first described it as needlessly personal and petty. But looking back, it’s also clear why so many Trump acolytes and (then) undecideds seemed to ignore it and its seeming implications about Trump’s personality and judgment.

For in the actual debate, they heard Kelly pose what they surely viewed as a second-order “gotcha” question – about Trump’s previous insults of women. And they also heard an answer from the candidate that immediately pivoted to some of their top priorities. “I don’t frankly have time,” Trump responded, “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.”

And the more political rivals and other establishmentarians harrumphed or inveighed about Trump’s crudeness, the more backers and sympathizers viewed Kelly not mainly as a bullied female, but as another out-of-touch media celebrity and even an elitist hired gun, and the more they scorned Trump’s critics as selfish plutocrats more concerned with protecting one of their own than dealing seriously with pocketbook and other core issues.

Therefore, as with his populist policy stances, Trump’s language and its appeal are confronting his establishment opponents with a fundamental choice if they want to keep these approaches out of American politics. They can try to learn Trump-ish, and respond constructively to the legitimate economic and non-economic concerns fueling it. Or they can remain self-righteously ignorant, and continue vilifying him and his backers. Since the insults directly threaten not just the elites’ prestige but their lucrative perches, I feel pretty confident that they’ll choose the latter. What’s anyone’s guess is how long, and even whether, they can keep succeeding.

Im-Politic: About Those “Serious” Presidential Candidates

Tags

2016 election, Arabs, Bashir Al-Assad, Chris Christie, Im-Politic, Iran, ISIS, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Middle East, Muslims, Obama, Qatar, Republicans, Saudi Araabia, Shiites, Sunnis, Syria, terrorism, Yemen

According to the nation’s mainstream political and media classes, this year’s Republican presidential hopefuls are divided into two main categories. One is comprised of the “serious” candidates who, whether you agree with them or not, clearly know the issues inside out thanks to their experience in government which has exposed them both to the complexities of America’s leading challenges and to the community of – mainstream of course – experts, many of them former policymakers themselves, who constantly fill them in on critical details and new findings. The other is comprised of the candidates who are manifestly non-serious – who can’t possibly know what they’re talking about because they lack both that governing experience and those connections with experts.

It’s a seductive typology – until you realize that all of their experience hasn’t prevented the supposedly serious candidates, and their galaxies of experts, from backing ideas that are completely whacko. Here’s just one prominent example: The belief that America has reliable allies in the Sunni Muslim world and that all that’s been preventing them from banding together into an effective anti-ISIS coalition is President Obama’s lack of resolve.

Propounders of this view have been Republican candidates Jeb Bush and Chris Christie – who the mainstream media has allowed to portray themselves as foreign policy authorities even though they’ve mainly been state governors with no direct background in the field. It’s also been a staple of Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich, who at least can boast of having legislative responsibilities in national security. All of which goes to show you that experience is no guarantee of knowledge and common sense, let alone wisdom.

None of these ostensible diplomatic geniuses seem to know that the Sunni Muslim governments preside over fragile and sometimes failing states that are simply too divided internally and peopled with deeply anti-Western, scapegoating-happy movements and populations to go all-in on any military campaigns in which the United States – the leading symbol of historic Western success (and Arab Muslim failure) – plays any meaningful role. Even more dangerous for Sunni Arab leaders’ survival would be joining with the West to wipe out a group that claims to seek the return of Islam’s glory caliphate days.

But that’s not the biggest obstacle to creating a regional alliance against ISIS. For among the leading anti-Western scapegoaters have been the Sunni Muslim governments themselves. As widely noted, it’s been a great way to divert their populations’ attentions from their own records of keeping their countries backward and oppressed – and in some cases poverty-stricken. In addition, the political and economic elites of countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are filled not only with ISIS sympathizers. They’re filled with leading ISIS funders. More broadly, as The Economist (not known for iconoclasm) has observed:

“among observers of the Muslim world, it’s a commonplace that Saudi Arabia’s religious establishment has used its wealth to propagate, globally, its own puritanical school of Sunni Islam, one that despises more elaborate forms of worship and their practitioners. A catchall term for this kind of Islam is Salafism, a school that stresses the life of Muhammad and his immediate successors and distrusts any thinking or practice that emerged later. Salafism can be politically quietist, and it has some peaceful adherents, but it can also be ultra-violent. It can provide soil in which terrorist weeds can flourish.”

Finally, the Sunni Arab leaders are anything but united behind American geopolitical aims (which are pretty confused themselves). For example, the top Syria priority of conservative Persian Gulf monarchies like Saudi Arabia isn’t defeating ISIS. It’s ousting dictator Bashir Al-Assad, a long-time ally of their arch-enemy Iran, the world’s leading Shiite Muslim power. Indeed, reports have multiplied that the Saudis have slacked off even their initial anti-ISIS military moves in Syria in order to concentrate more of their resources on countering Iranian influence in their southern neighbor, Yemen.

To be sure, the conventional wisdom isn’t always wrong, and experience doesn’t always produce disaster. But establishment Republican candidates’ infatuation with the fantasy of a powerful Middle Eastern anti-ISIS coalition just waiting to be created makes alarmingly clear that it often is and can. So does recalling that the major supporters of U.S. military intervention in Vietnam were considered “the best and the brightest,” and that almost no major economists predicted the last, almost catastrophic, financial crisis. By the same token, the unconventional wisdom and inexperience can’t guarantee success, or avert calamitous failure.

Instead, the real lesson here is that the word “serious” has been thrown around way too carelessly, and self-servingly, in this campaign season – especially considering the recent records of establishment politicians in both major political parties. Encouragingly, poll results so far are making clear that big portions of the public aren’t buying these labels. Is it too much to hope that the political and media classes might display comparable savvy? Are are these self-styled taste- and king-makers too conflicted?

Im-Politic: What the War on Trump is Really Telling Us

Tags

2016 election, Donald Trump, Gang of Eight, Im-Politic, Immigration, Jeb Bush, Jobs, John Kasich, Mainstream Media, Marco Rubio, offshoring, Republicans, Trade, Trans-Pacific Partnership, wages, white mortality

Let’s put it this way: If you gave me the power to create a politician with an ideal presidential personality, the product wouldn’t be an identical twin of Donald Trump. Don’t get me wrong: I’m fine with an in-your-face style generally speaking, and in politics in particular. In fact, given the abject failures of conventional politicians across the political spectrum combined with their continued sense of entitlement and arrogance, I think it’s great that Trump is blasting and ridiculing their pretensions of competence and claims to special degrees of respect.

At the same time, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly here at RealityChek, too many of Trump’s remarks have been thoughtless and gratuitously mean-spirited. Worse, with just a little premeditation and deftness, he could have made the same points about his critics in Democratic and Republican ranks, and in the Mainstream Media, with just as much force and far wider appeal. Ditto for more policy-oriented statements on issues ranging from Mexican immigrants to databases for Muslim Americans. (He’s walked back the latter, but clearly endorsed the idea in an off-the-cuff – and thoughtless – answer to a question.) This kind of carelessness is worrisome because it’s unnecessarily divisive at home, and can be dangerous in international affairs, where presidential language can make the difference between war and peace, and send dangerously confusing or completely misleading signals to allies and adversaries alike.

So clearly it’s time for Trump to up his game if he’s going to expand his following, and deserve the trust of enough Americans to win the Republican nomination and go on to the White House.

But it’s time for Trump’s enemies in the media, which plays an especially important role in our democracy, and in the political arena to up their game, too. The former need to stop hysterically seizing on every intemperate – and even childish – statement made by Trump as a sign of utter disqualification for political office, much less a sign of incipient fascism. Ditto for their descriptions of his followers as racists and even proto-Nazis.

In fact, if they want the increasingly heated, angry tone of American politics these days dialed down, maybe they could shine their spotlight more brightly and more consistently on the economic losses suffered by too many middle class and working class American voters for decades, and on their devastating impact (which goes far beyond lower living standards to include family break-ups and other social pathologies, deteriorating health, and even greater mortality).

They could also take with some seriousness the fears of comparably large numbers of Americans about the nation’s vulnerability to terrorist attacks; about the wisdom of admitting much greater numbers of Middle Eastern refugees despite major misgivings about security screening procedures expressed by President Obama’s advisers; and about Mr. Obama’s adamant insistence that the situation is in fact under control, and that doubters are betraying the nation’s leading ideals.

Just looking at the economics of this campaign year, here’s one admittedly imperfect but revealing sign of the media’s skewed priorities. If you Google “Trump” and “Nazi,” you get 16.1 million results. If you Google “white mortality,” you get 17,000 results. That latter phrase refers to a recent study co-authored by the latest recipient of the Nobel prize for economics showing that mounting economic strains are literally killing larger and larger numbers of middle aged white Americans. And you wonder why Trump voters – who come frequently from those ranks – feel angry and ignored?

Politicians deserve more indulgence, since they’re under no professional obligations to be accurate or objective. But they can up their game in similar ways. If Republicans, in particular, are genuinely alarmed at the prospect of a Trump victory, maybe they could spend less time vilifying the front-runner and more time proposing policies that could respond to their needs.

Interestingly, a growing number of GOP presidential candidates are now registering opposition to amnesty-friendly, Open Borders-style immigration policies – even Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a member of the so-called Gang of Eight that tried to steer such legislation through Congress. Moreover, several have also – so far – turned their back on President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership, normally the kind of offshoring-focused trade agreement that they and their Big Business funders consistently demand.

Just as interestingly, however, the apparently converted don’t include either former Florida Governor Jeb Bush or current Ohio Governor John Kasich. Both keep touting the virtues of trade policies that are proven job-, wage-, and growth killers, and immigration policies with similar effects. And both have been among the loudest (and angriest) anti-Trump voices. Maybe if they stopped shilling for the intertwined offshoring and Cheap Labor lobbies, they might actually start eating into Trump’s lead. Or at least their poll numbers might break out of single digit-territory. But so far, it seems like they’re doubling down on demonizing Trump. Reportedly, there’s big money behind these escalating efforts. Maybe if they helicopter it on primary days, they could even buy a few voters.

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 GOP Debate Performance Really was That Bad

Tags

Bernie Sanders, CNBC, Donald Trump, economists, GOP, Im-Politic, Jeb Bush, Mainstream Media, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, political class, presidential debates, Republicans, special interests

As both a former journalist and an analyst who has worked closely with them, I’ve long shed any illusions about the smarts, the energy, or the integrity of the vast majority of this profession’s members, and especially those that work for national, Mainstream Media outlets. Nor do I have any more doubts about the mounting danger to American democracy’s health posed by the combination of Big Journalism’s immense influence, its near perfect isolation from the lives and concerns of Main Street Americans, its fierce protectiveness of self-serving elitist groupthink, and its almost complete lack of accountability.

And for all this cynicism, I am still slackjawed over the appalling conduct of the three CNBC moderators of last night’s Republican presidential debate in Colorado. (Here’s the full transcript, if you’re a masochist.)

Make no mistake. This complaint isn’t about “tough questions” – or coddling thin-skinned politicians. This is about an unforgivably imperious effort to decree virtually an entire major political party to be devoid of presidential candidates remotely fit for office, and its rank and file to be all but subhuman in intellect. More troubling – because largely unwitting – this course reflected less deliberate partisanship than an instinctive protectiveness of the current political class and its excessive status and privileges.

If you think I’m being too harsh, consider the following questions:

For (still?) front-running businessman Donald Trump: “Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?”

For Florida Senator Marco Rubio: “You’ve been a young man in a hurry ever since you won your first election in your 20s….Why not slow down, get a few more things done first or least finish what you start?”

For former Florida Governor Jeb Bush: “Ben Bernanke, who was appointed Fed chairman by your brother, recently wrote a book in which he said he no longer considers himself a Republican because the Republican Party has given in to know- nothingism.”

For former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee: “As a preacher as well as a politician, you know that presidents need the moral authority to bring the entire country together. The leading Republican candidate, when you look at the average of national polls right now, is Donald Trump. When you look at him, do you see someone with the moral authority to unite the country?”

And then there was this question (to Trump) – less obviously insulting, but just as revealing of the “pull up the drawbridge” mentality: “I talked to economic advisers who have served presidents of both parties. They said that you have as chance of cutting taxes that much without increasing the deficit as you would of flying away from that podium by flapping your arms.”

Let’s leave aside how a Trump (or Ben Carson, or Democrat Bernie Sanders, for that matter) presidency would kneecap the access to power responsible for the livelihoods not only of establishment journalists but of the policy world’s politically ambitious economists. Let’s also therefore leave aside that the vast majority of the economists that national journalists would consult with are driven not only by such career considerations, but by agendas that are either hopelessly partisan or determined by the special interests that fund them.

Let’s focus instead on the operative assumption that anyone can forecast to any useful extent the impact of tax rate changes on a $16-plus trillion economy with some 142 million (nonfarm) workers, nearly 93 million working age Americans outside the workforce, 123.2 million households, and nearly 7.5 million businesses. Yes, it’s widely believed that the economics profession boasts these powers. But simply articulating this premise, as opposed to accepting it mindlessly, reveals how looney it is, even when it comes to intellectually honest analysts.

The CNBC moderators actually did ask some serious and therefore necessary questions that exposed inconsistencies, factually dubious claims, and unreasonable assumptions in some of the candidates’ proposals. But follow-up was limited – and many issues ignored completely – because it was obviously imperative to leave sufficient time for mudslinging and incitement.

Ironically, CNBC was hoping that last night’s broadcast would attract big new audiences to its daytime finance and economics coverage. If there’s any justice, most of these new viewers turned off their sets vowing, “Never again.”