Teflon Trump?

For most in the American political sphere being revealed in the press as having views that could be categorised as racist and misogynist tends to destroy any hope of holding any political office, and rightly so. A prepared statement whilst flanked by wife/husband and children is usually the precursor to withdrawal from any race. Years in the political and publicity-barren wilderness are only usually ended by a cathartic appearance on Oprah or Ellen, where a warts-and-all confession is normally followed by a revelation about the charity or cause that they’re now fronting. Tears from guest, hugs from host, applause from audience, are the heralds of forgiveness from the American public. And so the cycle begins again.

Not so Donald Trump, even when his wife Melania issues a public statement condemning his behaviour. For those of us that have followed his political campaign with astonishment and shock over the last sixteen months, the latest release of his remarks about women in 2005 should really not surprise us. Trump in many ways has been a phenomenon in this election process, proving that political know-how, intelligence, taste, justice, good judgement are not prerequisites to be a serious candidate for the most powerful office in the world. The press speculation that Trump may resign is seriously wide of the mark, especially as Trump’s campaign has always been driven by egotism and narcissism. In fact it may well give his campaign the positive momentum it so desperately needs. During the nomination campaign Trump steamrollered the opposition. His campaign took over the written press, was constantly talked about on television, and was the talk of social media. The overlong nomination process allowed Trump’s campaign to build up such a head of steam that it was unstoppable. Bush, Cruz, Rubio, all fell by the wayside as the Trump machine marched on.

Like Carter in 1976 and Reagan in 1980, Trump is running not just in opposition to Hillary Clinton but as an outsider to the Washington elite. Trump’s attraction for many of his followers is that he is a challenge to the political establishment in the nation’s capitol. While the powerbrokers are interested in a conservative status quo being maintained, Trump is seen by many of his supporters as a salvation-like figure that will bring change. Quite how a billionaire – who inherited his wealth and was exposed as not paying taxes for over a decade – can be seen neither a member of the establishment nor a representative of the man in the street is overwhelming. The Republican Party leadership’s rejection of him during the nomination process only succeeded in improving his standing among the 76% of Americans that disapprove of Congress.

But the current desertion of GOP senators and lawmakers from Trump as a result of his lewd remarks could actually strengthen his original position as an outsider. GOP leadership support has actually stifled Trump’s claim to be not one of them. Trump has shown in both the nomination and presidential campaigns that he is a master at preaching to the choir but fails to convince the congregation. His presidential campaign has stumbled in comparison to that of his nomination campaign because of his inability to transfer his attraction to Democrat voters. The problem for Trump was that he had created an echo chamber for his political rhetoric – rhetoric that has rarely progressed past xenophobic, sexist, self-centred utterances. The initial surge in support has declined, and this is due to a meandering presidential campaign that has very little substance to any message.

What’s fortunate for Trump is that he is only in a single figure deficit behind Clinton. Had he been in a bigger deficit he may have found himself deselected by the Republican leadership. Under Rule 9’s ‘or otherwise’ clause on nominations the Republican National Committee could remove Trump from the party nomination. But doing so could damage the Republican brand in a more lasting way than Trump ever could. Removal of a man with almost 45% national support could lose the GOP essential support among the working class voters that it will desperately need in 2020. Furthermore Trump could still run despite deselection and hand Clinton the presidency by splitting the Republican vote. And finally, Trump could end up suing the GOP if they withdraw their support under a vaguely written clause.

The biggest indicator to Trump’s continuing role as a presidential candidate is tonight’s presidential debate. Trump has already suggested he will bring up allegations of Bill Clinton’s misdemeanours in the televised debate. If Trump ‘wins’ this debate then the GOP will in all likelihood continue to support his candidacy. If he fails miserably and he trails Clinton by 10 points or more, then the RNC could decide to promote Trump’s Vice President candidate Mike Pence as their presidential nominee although that would add further weight to Trump’s claims of an establishment-led undemocratic conspiracy. Whatever the outcome tonight’s debate should provide some fireworks.

Romney gives Trump both barrels

Mitt Romney today unleashed a no-holds barred attack on Donald Trump’s attempt to win the Republican candidacy. Romney, GOP candidate in 2012 when he lost to Barack Obama, called Trump a ‘fraud’ and a ‘phoney’ in his address at the University of Utah, and urged Republican voters to get behind another candidate to represent the party in the 2016 race to the White House. In his scathing address Romney stated that Trump’s proposed foreign and domestic policies were threatening to the Republican Party and the country. The promises that he made on the campaign trail were, he said, ‘as worthless as a degree from Trump University.’ Romney warned that electing Trump as a presidential candidate was giving the keys of the White House to Hillary Clinton. “A person so untrustworthy and dishonest as Hillary Clinton must not become president” said Romney and that under Trump America would “cease to be the shining city on the hill.”
Romney’s attack, though surprising in its voracity, was not wholly unexpected. Since Trump’s victory in seven of the primary elections on Super Tuesday this week, a response from the GOP leadership was always on the cards. But as much as it is a stinging attack on the GOP candidate race leader, it is also a sign of the times of the poor leadership displayed by the Republican elites. As a result of mismanagement of the party, the Republicans are facing the prospect of having a presidential candidate that its leadership do not want. It is a damning statement of a party that is self-destructing in a very public way.
Should Trump win the race to be the GOP candidate then the Republican leadership have two options: to either back Trump wholeheartedly at least in public, or to support an independent candidate in the hope of squashing Trump’s chances at winning the general election. If the party leadership decide to back Trump then they have historical precedent: in 1960, just weeks before the national convention, former president Harry Truman spoke out against the prospect of John F Kennedy winning the Democratic candidacy. On July 2nd, 1960, Truman said to the press in Independence, Missouri “I would want to say to him [Kennedy] ‘Senator, are you quite sure that you are quite ready for the country, or that the country is ready for you in the role of president in 1961?’” By the end of the summer Truman was campaigning on behalf of Kennedy, announcing to the press that he changed his mind ‘when the Democratic National Convention decided to nominate him for President.’ However such a volte-face by the Republican elite seems unlikely in the case of Trump because of the severity of the Romney’s attack.
If the Republican Party elites decide to run a candidate against the party’s official candidate in the shape of Donald Trump, then they are almost certainly guaranteeing the election of Hillary Clinton. The second Republican candidate would almost certainly draw votes in a general election from the official candidate. It is possible but unlikely that the party would cut its nose off to spite its face. It is more likely that the party elites are hoping that the race will culminate in a brokered convention – one where no potential candidate has a majority of delegates after the party’s primaries and caucuses. This would allow bound delegates to free themselves from the primary results. Such circumstances are rare in the modern era – the last Republican brokered convention was in 1948 when Thomas Dewey won the nomination – but such a situation would allow the Republican elite to renegotiate with party delegates.
There are two problems with this: firstly, are the delegates likely to rebel against the party leadership and side with anti-establishment Trump? Secondly, should Trump lose the candidacy in such a way would it lead to him running as a third candidate. Again there is historical precedent, most recently when single-issue candidate, Texan billionaire Ross Perot ran in 1992. Perot damaged the Republican vote enough that a certain Bill Clinton won the general election. Would Trump do the same to the Republican candidate in 2016? It is certainly possible; he has the finance, and most definitely has the ego, but whether he could stand not being the centre of attention at least half the time is something entirely different. What would cause concern for the GOP leadership is that Trump is likely to take more votes from the Republican vote than Perot, and this could cause a lack of nationwide confidence in the GOP and consequentially a catastrophic side effect in the congressional and Senate elections.
There are Republican observers who suggest that the party needs Trump in the same way it needed Barry Goldwater in 1964. Goldwater’s momentous loss to Lyndon Johnson precipitated a reformed Republican Party that won the White House in 1968. Such a comparable potential loss under Trump would cleanse the party, observers say, and allow it to rebuild stronger, breaking free from some of its more restrictive policies and backers. What is certain is that Hillary Clinton today must have grabbed the popcorn and watched the show as Romney gave punch after punch to Trump. In beating up Trump Romney has also beaten up the Republican Party. The cracks that were beginning to show before Super Tuesday is now evident for all to see, and the Republican leadership have nobody but themselves to blame for this.

There may be trouble ahead…

When Hillary Clinton officially announced her intention to run for the White House on April 12^th last year, she was immediately proclaimed as the favourite to be the 45^th President of the United States. Through a YouTube video she stated ‘Everyday Americans need a champion. And I want to be that champion.’ The New York Times stated that her announcement ‘began what could be one of the least contested races, without an incumbent, for the Democratic presidential nomination in recent history.’[1] Such was the confidence in Clinton winning not only the candidacy but also the presidency. Such confidence though is being undermined by the rise of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

In July of last year Clinton stood at 58% in the polls for the Democratic candidacy with a lead of 42% over her rivals. In the race for the White House she polled an average of 49% compared to Mark Rubio’s 37.5%. The latest data suggests that despite still polling at 51.2% her lead has been whittled down to a mere 13% over Bernie Sanders. In addition her lead over Rubio has flip-flopped and he now leads by 2.2%. Furthermore her lead over Donald Trump – who was not amongst the polls at the time of announcement – has diminished from 19.6% in July last year to just 2.5%.[2] Where has it all gone wrong for Hillary? There are a number of factors that affected public opinion.

Both Sanders and Trump are seen as being something different to the status quo. Despite Biden’s recent swipe on Twitter at Sanders by declaring that the United States does not need socialism, public opinion is low when concerned with both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. In a recent Gallup poll 47% of US citizens disapprove of Obama’s performance as president, and 80% feel that Congress is not effective.[3] Clinton’s declaration in the latest Democratic debate that she wanted to protect and build on Obama’s Affordable Healthcare legacy should be seen as an attempt to win over the coalition that Obama built to gain office. However, in doing so Clinton has aligned herself with an administration that is believed to be underperforming. Sanders, further left in the political spectrum than Clinton, is seen by non-Democrats as independent of Obama. Furthermore, to left wing Democrats Sanders’ egalitarian policies are seen as closer to Obama’s promises on the 2008 election trail than those of Clinton’s.

 

"We need a more progressive tax code — not confiscatory policy. Not socialism. A tax code." -VP Biden #wef16

— VP Biden (Archived) (@VP44) January 20, 2016

The same consequences are caused by the ascension of Trump. His firebrand tactics have alienated candidacy rivals and depicted himself as an outsider to Washington circles. His criticism of Obama and Clinton, Congress, and the inability of a Republican Congress to get things done with a Democratic president, has been favourably met with the US electorate. He has managed to portray Clinton’s policies as a continuation of Obama’s, and therefore firmly associated Clinton with the Obama administration. Crucially then, Clinton’s support has deteriorated because she has failed to identify with the public as being unconnected to Obama.

It also appears that where there’s a Clinton there’s some form of political controversy. Bill Clinton’s second term was dogged by the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment proceedings. The combination of scandal and a Republican dominated Congress led to his final term being ultimately a confrontational lame-duck presidency. Hillary is threatening to be no different. Since before her announcement she has been plagued by issues regarding security breaches through personal emails while Secretary of State. At her time of her announcement to run for the White House campaign manager John D Podesta assured potential donors that the issue would fade away.[4] Such optimism has been misplaced. At the time of writing – nine months after Podesta’s reassurance – the issue has still yet to be settled causing Clinton embarrassment. This, combined with the House investigation into the Benghazi attack, has meant that Clinton has unwittingly provided ammunition for her rivals.

 

What next for Hillary? In all likelihood she will claim the first victory in the race for the Democratic candidacy at the Iowa Caucus on February 1^st. However the winning margin will not be in the region of the 30% lead that she had in November. In stark contrast to that advantage the latest poll by CNN suggests that Sanders has an 8% lead among Iowan Democrats.[5] A small victory for Clinton will not be enough to give her campaign momentum, but may be enough to burst the Sanders bubble. She is unlikely to win the New Hampshire primary eight days later where Sanders has a strong advantage. By then the additional emails from the State Department should also have been released for scrutiny which could further harm her campaign; until the legality of her actions is finalised it is impossible to tell.

What the Clinton campaign can take some comfort from is that her endorsements by Democrats in office are at a record high compared to other non-incumbent Democrat candidates from the last thirty years. Studies have shown that endorsements have been the greatest influence on state primaries and caucuses.[6] Hillary’s lead is extremely large and Sanders will not be able to convince the part elites to change their support. Consequentially the next month ahead may be rocky for Clinton, but by the road to the White House will be considerably smoother by Super Tuesday on March 1^st.

[1] Amy Chozick, ‘Hillary Clinton Announces 2016 Presidential Bid’, The New York Times, April 12, 2015

[2] All poll data from RealClear Politics (www.realclearpolitics.com)

[3] Poll data from www.gallup.com (Obama rating is from Jan 11-17 2016, Congress data is dated as Jan 610 2016)

[4] Amy Chozick, ‘Hillary Clinton Announces 2016 Presidential Bid’,

[5] CNN/ORC Poll, January 15-20^th, 2016 found at http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/iowa-poll-full-results-cnn-orc/index.html

[6] Aaron Bycoffe, ‘The Endorsement Primary’, FiveThirtyEight, (found at http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/)