Jay Cost:
In a three-part series on the Trump phenomenon, Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics argues that Donald Trump is the avatar of working-class anxieties within the Republican party. As he sees it, Trump is potentially “a more credible Santorum/Huckabee candidate.” That’s why poll after poll shows, “he draws his strength from the same sorts of downscale, less-educated voters with loose ties to the Republican Party.”
Writing at Politico, Tucker Carlson seems to think the balance of power is shifting decisively toward the Trump coalition because of the hubris of the party leadership. On immigration, he argues, “If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it’s hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don’t go to public school. You don’t take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It’s all good.” However, the great mass of the GOP sees something different, and love Trump.
But politics rarely takes on as straightforward a form as Carlson describes. Consider, for instance, the anxiety over Trump that Dan McLaughlin of RedState notes among “regular Republicans.” According to McLaughlin, these are reasonably informed, middle- or upper-middle class voters who reliably vote Republican, do not draw a living from politics, still see the GOP as representing mainstream conservatism, and care deeply about electability and national stewardship. Trump scares the bejesus out of them. I myself have noted this anxiety among my friends and neighbors, none of whom lives in an “affluent ZIP code,” most of whom are college educated, and none of whom is all that worried about Hondurans taking their jobs.
As Trende notes, party coalitions are big, unwieldy, and ever-changing. To this it might be added that the rule of party competition is winner-take-all; ours is not a system of proportional representation. Thirty percent of the vote might equal 30 percent of the parliamentary seats in a European country, but at the Republican convention in Cleveland this summer, if you fall one delegate short of a majority, you get nothing.
So a question worth asking is: Just how large is Trump’s base coalition? Is it bigger than the mass of “regular Republicans” about whom McLaughlin writes? Here are some relevant facts about Mitt Romney general election coalition from 2012:
-66 percent made at least $50,000 per year.
-32 percent made at least $100,000 per year.
-77 percent had at least some college education.
-48 percent had at least a college degree.
-72 percent were married
-53 percent attended church at least weekly
-59 percent thought abortion should generally be illegal
It looks to me like the “regular Republicans”—whom I often conceive of as the married, churchgoing middle class—constituted the majority of the Romney coalition in 2012. It is worth pointing out that they were probably a larger share of the 2012 primary electorate, as people higher up on the socioeconomic scale tend to be more likely to vote in low-turnout contests like primaries.
In other words, Trump’s base alone is not large enough to win a majority of the Republican electorate. Sure, he might win the Iowa caucus tonight, but that is because a non-Trump majority is scattered across half a dozen other candidates. He will have to pull in a not-insubstantial portion of the regular Republican vote to win the nomination once the field condenses.
And therein lies the great task of anti-Trump conservatives, those of us who believe that Trump is a liberal and a demagogue who manifestly lacks the temperament and discipline to be president of the United States. The leaders of this coalition must persuade those regular Republicans not to switch to Trump as the field consolidates.
The recent poll of Iowa from the Des Moines Register—widely considered a very good survey of the Hawkeye State—suggests that this is doable. The poll found that 60 percent of Iowa Republicans were bothered by Trump’s aggressive use of eminent domain, and 56 percent were bothered by his previous support of abortion (and in fact this latter number might be understated, for the pollster used the leftist phrase “late-term abortion” rather than “partial-birth abortion,” which has more salience among conservatives).
I’d take it a step further. All the candidates, whether R or D, have feet of clay. Within the respective bases of both parties, there is a lack of confidence in their choice of candidates. If there was a line for “none of the above”, it would outpoll all of the declared candidates.
Look for Jeb to get preesure to drop out and support Rubio if he doesn’t do at least second.in new Hampshire.
@Pete: They both love ILLEGALS, it makes sense.
@Pete: Jeb has too much money–opm–to drop out anytime soon though his meager 5-7% will eventually go to Rubio.
Watch The Donald go after Rubio—-IMO his politics of mean has peaked..
Three man race to the finish–Rubio gains as also rans bail and he wins the nom and The Presidency.
…possibly by Bernie Sanders. The guy can really communicate.
So can Marco Rubio. As communicators, at least, I think these two have the rest of the field totally outclassed. It would be interesting to see them face off in a substantive philosophical debate, without the posturing and distractions of anyone else.
@Greg: Exactly WHAT they are communicating is the issue, however. Not how pretty they make their ideals sound. Socialism doesn’t work, so Sanders has no real chance.
Besides, the “Great Communicator” was possibly the worst President ever allowed by the Democrats to pollute the White House.
I’m voting for someone to lead…make decisions, and stand by them…taking the responsibility and not blaming others. That’s their job, and that’s why W was a good president, though he wasn’t popular. Obama has been the abject failure most knew he’d be, propaganda or no.
Sanders talks a good…er…I mean “communicates” a good game (I actually like the guy), but the country’s been dragged to the far left for far too long. A bit of balance is in order.
And you would pretend to give Rubio accolades…because a) he won’t win the primary, and b) he can’t win the election.
Cruz or Trump. Trump can win (independents will vote for him). Cruz cannot. Cruz wouldn’t be able to beat Clinton, though that’s not going to be an issue:As I see all the Bernie bumper stickers popping up on the Subarus, I can see the Kool-Aid being handed out: Different flavor, same taste. Lefties will vote for anyone, apparently, as long as it’s in fashion.
Sidenote: Huckbee won Iowa in 2008, and Romney was tied with Santorum in 2012. Doesn’t mean a damn thing.
@Nathan Blue: Rubio can do much better with Indies and Dems than Trump—disliked by 60% of electorate.
@Nathan Blue, #6:
The word socialism doesn’t scare me. It describes a concept that is applicable to varying degrees, not some all-or-nothing proposition.
I believe creating effective social programs that enhance the welfare of the general public is part of the proper business of government. Social Security, Medicare, and publicly funded education are all entirely reasonable social programs that most people and the nation itself would be far worse off without. The wealthy may not directly benefit from them, but they weren’t designed for the direct benefit of the wealthy. They were purposely designed for the benefit of everyone else. To some degree they restrain or moderate the acquisition of unlimited wealth, which isn’t a totally unreasonable thing to want to do. As has been pointed out recently, the wealthiest 62 people on the planet collectively own more than the poorest one-half of the entire remaining population.
Sustainable social programs aren’t incompatible with a capitalist free-market system that allows some people to become enormously better off than others. You just have to strike a balance. You have to control the cost of social programs, and you have to collect the necessary taxes. You also have to balance defense costs against other needs.
@Rich Wheeler: Polls? Whichever poll supports whatever you already want to believe is usually the one cited.
“socialism”, in this regard, is used as a political platform to induce anger in the average person because they weren’t born rich, nor became an astronaut. This anger is used to gain support, until a much, much more lop-sided society of rich and poor becomes the norm.
The dem platform is paradoxical. Everyone is now “middle class”, yet we all need to perpetually be pissed we don’t have more. How much do you need?
Social Programs: yes, very needed. A constant “revolt” against the rich, all while building a new political class that just wants to be said rich people (Clinton, Obama, etc)? No.
Limited social programs work, but you are dodging the issue. How much?
The “caring for the poor” has become a psychosis. Charity is voluntary. Making it mandatory is…well…evil.
Ask the millions dead from the 20th century is “socialism” is just a little innocuous term.
@Nathan Blue, #10:
Are you suggesting that the right hasn’t been stirring up and exploiting anger over the past 7 years? Most of their political energy is based on encouraging and exploiting anger.
Millions are dead from tyranny, hatred, unnecessary wars, and other manifestations of human stupidity. Social insurance programs, Medicare, public education, and nutritional and housing assistance don’t kill people.
22 percent of all children in the United States live in families with income below the poverty level. To my mind, that’s a problem.
@Greg:
How so? Do you think the right is behind the “Black Lives Matter” movement that is based on a lie? Is it those on the right that are now demanding separate dorms on university campuses for black male students (while Dr. King who abhorred “separate but equal” policies is rolling over in his grave)? Is it white gangbangers killing black cops? Was it the right that started the “White Privilege” bullcrap meme?
That ” tyranny, hatred, unnecessary wars, and other manifestations of human stupidity” had a governmental philosophy directing it. It is called Socialism/Communist/Marxism, all failed philosophies as exhibited by the body count.
Medicare is unconstitutional. Education is NOT part of the Constitution’s assigned powers of the Federal government. Nutritional and housing assistance programs have a political philosophy on which they are based. And it ain’t democracy.
But you on the left never ask why. Remember how you touted that easy access abortions would reduce the number of children living in poverty? You want to point to the illness never once looking at the cause. Because if you truly looked at the cause, and were honest about it, you would see that those programs you tout had an adverse, not a positive, result.
You’re still an idiot.