The State of the Race as September Comes to an End
Donald Trump: A lot of Trump critics are confident he will burn out. I'm not so sure. Sure, it's not that hard to picture scenarios where Trump trips up and can't recover: a series of statements akin to "Look at that face!" makes him unacceptable even to Republicans who agree with him on the issues, or running for office stops being fun for him and his interest wanes, or he finally goes to events like the one by Heritage Action in South Carolina and withers when he's in a format that requires policy details instead of applause lines. But Trump foes would be fools to count on this. Trump may have stopped gaining momentum inthe polls, but he's still the front-runner. Yes, there's some polling evidence that Trump supporters aren't the voters most likely to vote in a GOP caucus or primary . . . Trump supporters lag behind Republican primary voters in general in high-engagement voter categories. Trump also lags significantly in penetration of issue-driven voters. Conversely, he enjoys a significant concentration of support among unengaged voters. One might assume that these unengaged voters are attracted to Trump's brash style and talent for creating sound bites. . . . but some of those folks taking a newfound interest in politics because of Trump will get up off the couch, register as Republicans, and vote for him. (Speaking as a rabid Trump critic, this is an accomplishment.) Recall Fred Barnes's observation of the focus group of Trump supporters: "Their tie to him is almost mystical. He's a kind of political savior, someone who says what they think." Even if Trump never builds upon the 20-some percent he's getting in most polls right now, just holding that level of support would leave him with a big pile of delegates and maybe the ability to play kingmaker. Throw in the front-loading of primaries next year, and whoever is hot in February and March is probably going to be the nominee. We know Trump will have the money to run whatever positive messages he needs and to go negative on anyone he wishes. He's pretty much dominated the political discussion almost every week since mid-June. Even if Trump departs the race, Trump-ism will live on well past 2015. The modern conservative movement/Republican party is going to have a significant minority, if not a plurality, yearning for vehement opposition to illegal immigration, wariness of trade deals, the intermittent rhetorical denunciation of hedge-fund managers, and the insistence that most foreign-policy problems can be resolved by simply meeting with foreign leaders to "look 'em in the eye and say, 'Fellas, you've had your fun. Your fun is over.'" There will always be an appetite for someone who comes along and insists the solutions are easy. Ben Carson: The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza ranks Carson the sixth-most-likely person to win the GOP nomination, which seems really low. He observes, "Carson's recent comments about his wariness about electing a Muslim president further stoked concerns from establishment Republicans that he is simply not ready for prime time." Forget making and breaking candidates; so far this cycle, have we seen any indication that "establishment Republicans" can influence the rise or fall of candidates? Ben Carson raises money in bunches. He's got the indisputably impressive life accomplishments. He's got . . . Kanye West. You could see him cleaning up in Iowa or South Carolina. And you can't help but wonder that as race relations get worse, a broad swath of the public might yearn for a message like Carson's final statement in the first debate: CARSON: Well, I think the bully pulpit is a wonderful place to start healing that divide. You know, we have the purveyors of hatred who take every single incident between people of two races and try to make a race war out of it, and drive wedges into people. And this does not need to be done. What we need to think about instead -- you know, I was asked by an NPR reporter once, why don't I talk about race that often. I said it's because I'm a neurosurgeon. And she thought that was a strange response. And you say -- I said, you see, when I take someone to the operating room, I'm actually operating on the thing that makes them who they are. The skin doesn't make them who they are. The hair doesn't make them who they are. And it's time for us to move beyond that. (APPLAUSE) Because our strength as a nation comes in our unity. We are the United States of America, not the divided states. And those who want to divide us are trying to divide us, and we shouldn't let them do it. Carly Fiorina: She's undoubtedly rising; she was at 3.3. percent in the RealClearPolitics average on September 19. Now she's at 11.6 percent. If the race comes down to who the best communicator is, she may have the best shot. But I wonder how many Republicans have this nagging doubt that the Democrats would "Romney-ize" her over the layoffs . . . Marco Rubio: To hear Terry Sullivan, Marco Rubio's campaign manager tell it, they're perfectly comfortable where they are right now -- in the middle of the pack, not high enough to attract flak from the other candidates, not low enough to stir talk of a lost cause. "People don't stop running for president because they run out of ideas, or they run out of a desire to give speeches; they stop because they run out of money," Sullivan told Rich Lowry at our event last week. "When you're paying people for three months, it's not too bad; when you're paying them for twelve months, it's different . . . Everybody on our campaign has taken a pay cut from whatever job they had, myself included." Every expense over $500 has to be approved by Sullivan. With budgeting like that, Rubio won't be leaving the race anytime soon, and it's easy to imagine Republicans who aren't comfortable with the first-time candidates unifying behind Rubio. Jeb Bush: Hey, remember how Bush's super PAC started running $24 million in ads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina back in mid-September? There have only been two polls conducted in those states since then, so it's too early to see if they've had an effect. But if there isn't some pop in those numbers for Bush, it might be time to hit the panic button. It's near-impossible to imagine Jeb Bush dropping out before votes start getting cast, but if he's stumbling along in single digits in January . . . how long will he stay in the race? Everybody at this level and down is husbanding resources and hoping to get a boost out of either Iowa or New Hampshire. The buzz is that Rand Paul is being pressured to drop out and focus on running for reelection to the Senate. Ted Cruz: Is the Cruz strategy really to be warm and fuzzy to Trump, positioning himself if Trump stumbles or withdraws? If you were on Team Cruz, wouldn't you want to start formulating a plan just in case Trump doesn't withdraw? Cruz has the money to stick around a long time; it's just not clear that he's got a plan to transfer Trump's supporters to himself without Trump's approval. John Kasich: Obviously getting some traction in New Hampshire, but he seems like the antithesis of what a lot of conservatives want to see in their nominee this year. Chris Christie: Most people thought he had a good debate, but we haven't seen much pop in his poll numbers. It appears that in to move the numbers in the current media environment, you need more than just a "good debate," you need "a moment" -- either a speech or exchange that people gush about the next day. Lindsey Graham is in a similar situation. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum: Both of these guys keep hanging around, obviously operating on a shoestring, hoping that Iowa will fall in love with them again and catapult them to the first tier. The only Republican who won a contested Iowa caucus twice was Bob Dole (1988, 1996). Bobby Jindal: Yes, yes, he's lower than pi in just about every poll. He's pretty clearly focusing on Iowa and hoping for the best. Still, he's the candidate who simultaneously can't stand GOP leadership in Washington ("It appears that even though voters gave Republicans control of the Senate in 2014, Harry Reid is still running the Senate."); the current front-runner ("Donald Trump is a madman who must be stopped."); and President Obama ("The president told the pope that, in America, people must be free to live out their faith without fear of intimidation. That's the opposite of reality in America today.") Maybe there's a sweet spot in between there. NBC News: Hey, It's Time to Trim the GOP Field Urgh. Though the debate will be on NBC partner CNBC, Chuck Todd, NBC's political director and the moderator of Meet the Press, is taking part in establishing the debate set up and criteria. And Todd has publicly expressed skepticism about the need to include 10 or 11 candidates, the numbers featured in the first two debates. "Let's just say the goal is to create a threshold that candidates have to meet to qualify for the stage rather than committing to putting 10 candidates on the stage. And I don't think we should commit to more than 10-candidate debates. You have to be viable. So now we're in debate three it's time to show viability and only the viable ones survive," Todd said during an interview on ESPN radio last week. First, why are we learning, or at least getting hints, about the debate criteria from ESPN radio? Second, can you think of a better rallying cry for the guys left off stage -- presumably Jindal, Santorum, Pataki, Graham, and maybe Rand Paul or Mike Huckabee -- than for them to be left out by NBC News? "The liberal media, the parent company of MSNBC, has decided my voice shouldn't be heard . . ." Third, in an era where campaigns are fueled by the fundraising surges that come from televised "moments" -- and in a cycle where the RNC set strict rules on how many debates could occur, thus limiting the opportunity for these "moments" -- why would the RNC accept NBC News' effectively knocking four or five guys off the stage? Fourth, Fox News and CNN enjoyed monster ratings for having both debates. Why would CNBC want to limit what's likely to be the most-watched program in their history? Where's the Conservative Alternative to Kevin McCarthy? Allahpundit observes that somehow conservatives both inside and outside the House still don't have a preferred alternative to Kevin McCarthy to be the next Speaker: Which brings us to an important question that's being overlooked in the chaos of Boehner's resignation: Why do House conservatives need extra time to organize? Why don't they already have their own candidate lined up? Rumors that Boehner might resign or be ousted have been circulating for at least 18 months now. Boehner himself acknowledged last week that he was prepared to quit last year before Cantor was upset in his primary. The threat from Mark Meadows and his supporters to depose Boehner this fall if he caved on defunding Planned Parenthood and the debt ceiling has been percolating for months. And yet, somehow, House conservatives seem to have been caught off-guard. Jeb Hensarling, whose name always comes up when conservatives start talking about their wish list for leadership, has already said he won't run. Jim Jordan said repeatedly earlier this year that he doesn't want to be Speaker. "What we need is real leadership," conservatives liked to say about Boehner. Okay, here's our big opportunity. Where is it? Go into any comments section and after a while, somebody will shout, "Trey Gowdy!" -- even though Gowdy has said many times over that he doesn't want the job. This makes me suspect that a lot of people who fumed about how terrible John Boehner was never bothered to start looking for a better option. ADDENDA: Andrew Breitbart, April 22, 2011, on Fox News: "Of course [Donald Trump's] not a conservative. He was for Nancy Pelosi before he was against Nancy Pelosi . . . Celebrity is everything in this country. If these guys don't learn how to play the media the way that Barack Obama played the media last election cycle, and the way Donald Trump is playing the media this cycle, we're probably going to get a celebrity candidate." | 
Comments
Post a Comment