For some time, I’ve been assuring people of what I regard as a verity: Yes, Donald Trump is leading in polls. But you can dominate a poll with 20 percent support when there are 16 or 17 candidates. When it gets down to two or three candidates, 20 percent isn’t so great. And surely, surely, surely 20 percent is Trump’s ceiling.
That 20-percent assumption would seem consistent, for instance, with this bit of data that George Will cited in his Sunday column headlined “Trump’s immigration plan could spell doom for the GOP:”
A substantial majority of Americans — majorities in all states — and, in some polls, a narrow majority of Republicans favor a path for illegal immigrants not just to legal status but to citizenship. Less than 20 percent of Americans favor comprehensive deportation….
Yep. Makes all the sense in the world, except for this:
The 2016 Donald Trump phenomenon is not going away.
The New York real estate mogul holds a commanding lead in a poll released Tuesday of likely S.C. GOP presidential primary voters.
Trump received 30 percent support — doubling the second-place contender, retired surgeon Ben Carson, according to the poll from Monmouth University in New Jersey.
They are followed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 9 percent, former executive Carly Fiorina at 6 percent, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio at 6 percent and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas at 5 percent.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina each received 4 percent. The two had been vying for second place in spring polls….
Thirty percent. With 30 percent, Trump could still be in the running in a three-way race, much less with 17.
So, the question is: Has South Carolina gone mad? Was the fit of irrationality that led to Newt Gingrich winning the 2012 primary here more than a one-time thing?
This is a question with national implications. Already some of the gloss has worn off the reputation that the SC GOP had been earning for a generation, the one that has enabled Republican leaders to boast,: “We pick presidents (or at least, eventual nominees).”
Some in the national media have practically written off South Carolina as worth covering, based on that one slip…
Something like this latest poll showing Trump at 30 percent is not likely to restore our rep as a state that knows how to pick ’em…
Related Posts
It aint’ just SC. Trump’s numbers are similar in New Hampshire and Iowa. Again, it’s not really surprising, since there is so much anger from conservatives at status quo from current Republican officials.
It’s not a big mystery. You suppress the Tea Party, you wave it off, you get a Trump. The GOP consultants and everyone in DC are like the Bobs in Office Space. Sure, here’s a few platitudes to court the voters. The Bobs float the idea of a profit-sharing plan, which Peter brushes off, but they take it as confirmation.
The establishment offers a few trinkets, get brushed off, and think they’ve found the shiny thing to win over the base when they’re ignoring the really crappy work environment.
Trump is the equivalent of flipping the apple cart and shifting the Overton window on issues that the so many people have been told for years that “The Science Is Settled” and “You Should Just Move On” and “Also Keep Donating, What Are You, A Racist?!”
It’s not a big mystery.
You make it sound like leaders are WRONG to “wave off” the Tea Party or Trump. But isn’t that what sensible people should do with things that don’t make sense?
You say it’s “not a big mystery.” Things that don’t make good sense always tend to be something of a mystery to me. I have a lot of trouble taking in the idea that grown men and women would make decisions based on the kinds of impulses that Trump appeals to…
And the reason I have trouble with that is that I refuse to be a total cynic. I refuse to write off the human race, or even the SC portion of it.
Unlike certain prominent Democrats in our state, who take it for granted that their home state lacks good sense. When I reacted to this poll on Twitter by wondering whether SC had gone mad, here are some of the responses I got:
Unlike them, you see, I don’t think voting Republican makes you certifiable. Or at least, it didn’t until recently…
Scratch that last. I still don’t.
It must be a real drag to be a Democrat in South Carolina — living in a constant condition of disgust with your state…
“You make it sound like leaders are WRONG to “wave off” the Tea Party or Trump. But isn’t that what sensible people should do with things that don’t make sense?”
No. You don’t wave it off. Not in politics, if you want to change minds and persuade people. You meet their ideas head-on and address their points. You acknowledge when your opponent has a fair point. Simply ignoring and sneering at people isn’t productive. (I’m not saying you do this.)
In any event, the Tea Party isn’t Trump, but it’s related. The Tea Party was originally something that came into existence because of frustration with the status quo, and Trump is tapping into that to a certain extent. There are a lot of people out there who see all politicians (Democrats and Republicans) as simply self-interested people who don’t really care what the voters want. These aren’t dumb people. They’re cynical, but they didn’t just become cynical overnight. The conditions in politics for years have made people cynical.
I know you don’t agree with them on this issue, but Will Folks and Doug Ross are two examples of smart people who are cynical about politicians. Frankly, I can’t say that I blame them that much. I’m no Trump supporter because I know a thoughtful person when I see one (and he ain’t).
However, I can certainly see why a brash, hard-talking, coarse, not putting up with crap, calling other politicians “morons” kind of candidate can have an appeal to people who see all politicians in their current incarnation as essentially the enemy. There’s a lot of frustration and resentment out there.
I kind of feel like this is the end scene of Ghostbusters, where Gozer tells them to “Choose the form of the destructor” and Ray thinks of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man. Trump is the destructor.
But here’s the thing: If you are frustrated with and alienated from politicians, it makes sense to gravitate toward someone who is BETTER than politicians. It does not make sense to gravitate toward someone who is WORSE, by almost any measure. Take the very WORST characteristics of politicians, such as lying through your teeth to tell people what they want to hear, and Trump exhibits them to an extent that leaves most politicos in the shade.
I mean, come on, I’m deeply alienated from the status quo in politics. The status quo is the parties and their attendant interest groups, and I rail constantly at the false choices that they offer. I go on and on and on about this stuff.
But I’d take just about any party hack you can name ahead of Trump, who by any measure would certainly make things worse…
Jimmy Carter is an example of someone a rational person might turn to out of frustration with conventional politics. He came across as better and more honest than what we were used to, and a majority of voters gravitated to him for those reasons in 1976. Then, the political establishment chewed him up and spit him out, and watching him fail, the public turned against him.
But the impulse that elected him in the first place was a positive one; it was about the electorate reaching for something better in the wake of Vietnam and Watergate.
The support for Trump seems to arise out of some atavistic, self-harming impulse to make things worse in America…
Oh, and Trump ain’t the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man, either…
As Ray said,”I tried to think of the most harmless thing. Something I loved from my childhood. Something that could never, ever possibly destroy us…”
“Nice thinkin’, Ray.”
This from Time makes many of the same points.
Honestly, I’m shocked that he’s shocked, and I’m not being a wise-acre about that.
Frank Luntz should already know this. He’s a professional pollster, focus-group guy, and consultant. It’s his freakin’ job to know this stuff. But somehow, he was not aware at the level of discontent brewing at the GOP establishment? That’s just incompetence, plain and simple.
This is another example of how the political class is utterly out of touch with what is going on outside of DC. You would think that well-paid consultants would know the very basic overall mood of the nation. It’s not hard to do. Heck, I do it simply by reading lots of different blogs and interacting with commenters. It doesn’t even cost money.
But no…somehow Mr. Bigtime Frank Luntz is so surprised that his legs are shaking as the earth reels before him when he discovers that the grassroots people really despise the establishment. This is news to Mr. Luntz. Nice work, dum-dum.
Channelling the Bobs again, “What would you say it is you do here, Mr. Luntz?”
He has people skills.
This is just another glimpse at an age-old American phenomenon, the dark appeal of anti-intellectualism.
One of the things these folks are mad as hell at, I suspect, is journalists who write such lines as “The Donald devotees sang a contrapuntal tune, simultaneously a dirge to national decline and an ode to Trump.”
It’s not rational, and I’m not going to pretend it is. It’s visceral. And because I don’t feel it in MY viscera, I can’t understand it.
Speaking of “mad as hell.” I never understood what Howard Beale was about, with his “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this any more.” The movie — which I didn’t think was nearly as brilliant as most the critics seemed to believe it was — never made clear to me what “this” was.
I’m hoping at least some of Trump’s support in the polls is due to name recognition among folks who are likely to vote, but aren’t as yet very actively engaged in researching all the candidates and following the news. Another part of the support could be due to the cable news analog of the Search Engine Manipulation Effect, i.e., people tending to pick the person who is getting the most news coverage.
I know some folks who like Donald Trump, but with all due respect to them, I sincerely pray that things will not reach the point where I look down at a ballot and have to choose between Trump and Clinton.
Trump first followed by Ben Carson. Ha!
So many people are used to sound bytes and yelling duets rather than actual debate. They don’t believe science; they don’t know any history. They are going to go for someone who reflects their entrenched attitudes and beliefs. Trump is a comfort to them because he says what they want to hear, and like the Lone Ranger and Superman he assures them that he is going to take care of it. After all, did Superman ever produce an exact plan for rescuing Lois, or did he just assure folks that he would deal with the bad guys? His followers don’t want to hear specific plans or any caveats; they just want to get back “their America” where everyone looks, thinks, and prays just like them.
You can replace Trump with Hillary or Sanders in the above paragraph with the same meaning.
Sanders says “Medicare for everyone” but has he laid out how it will be paid for? Has he laid out what would happen to the insurance industry in such a case? Do they just fold up shop and fire the millions of workers who work for them or provide services to them?
Has he laid out what would happen to the insurance industry in such a case?
-Doug
This, in a nutshell, illustrates why we are so very, very far apart on issues like health care. WHAT DAMN DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHAT HAPPENS TO THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY!!!!!! It’s completely, utterly irrelevant. What’s important is the health of the American people. That is at odds with the whole profit motive of the insurance industry.
The insurance industry has provided MILLIONS of Americans (the majority from birth to age 65) access to healthcare that they would not be able to afford without pooling the risk across large groups of people. How much do you pay for your insurance per month? If you or your family had a major health issue, would you be able to cover the entire cost without your insurance?
We can disagree on the profit aspect of private insurance but to say that ridding the country of the entire industry would not have a massive impact on the economy is just plain stupid.
All you care about is that someone else pays more for your access to the health coverage you want. Why should I pay more for the same thing just because I make more money? I know, “Because I can”.
How about this – all of you who despise the insurance companies get together and form a co-operative health insurance non-profit. Surely there are millions of you who could form a risk pool large enough. What’s stopping you? If it’s such a noble cause that doesn’t require any rules or concerns over costs, it should be a no brainer, right? Everyone who works for the co-op can get the same salary, from the head down to the guy who sweeps the floors. Everyone who wants to join will be charged the same price. There will be no copays, no deductibles, no lifetime maximums. Whatever treatment you and your doctor decide on you can have. Every bill that a provider submits will be paid without question or concern about fraud, waste, or abuse. Members can go to any doctor, anywhere without regard to the fees charged because someone else in the co-op will be covering the cost.
It’s so simple, why wait for the our ultra-efficient and benevolent government to do it.
… to say that ridding the country of the entire industry would not have a massive impact on the economy is just plain stupid.
-Doug
And you are just plain rude. Can’t we have a civil conversation without name calling. I get that you worship the Ayn Rand world view. I personally find her writings offensive. So let’s just stick to the facts and heartfelt opinions. Here’s how I think the economy would be affected and you can feel free to point out what’s wrong. But don’t call me stupid.
Health care workers and perhaps a few support folks would continue to have jobs. The only thing that would be missing are the legions of people trying their best to deny claims along with the overpaid CEOs and other executives who do little but draw a paycheck. The tradeoff would be huge savings to the millions of people who are uninsured or underinsured when they need healthcare services. That substantial savings would be pumped back into the economy and more than make up for the lost executive compensation and stock dividends.
Besides, there would probably still be a niche market for certain health insurance needs. Supplemental insurance is available now to seniors to augment Medicare. Given the fact that other wealthy countries insure all their people shows that it won’t bring about mass starvation.
Your reply demonstrates you have no idea of what you are talking about.
Explain what would happen to just one local company, Blue Cross Blue Shield, if your pie in the sky idea came true. Would it lay off workers? Would the companies that provide services to it lose revenues? Would the various charities and public events that the company supports be impacted?
What percentage of the claims you have entered in your lifetime have been denied by the state healthcare system?
Your jealousy of people who have more money than you clouds your thinking beyond reason.
As an avid reader of comic books in the Silver Age, I know Superman. And you, Mr. Trump are no Superman…
No, he isn’t. He merely claims to be. People are fooled by the big “S” he’s painted on his chest.
Donald Trump, “phenomenon”
The Donald Trump phenomenon really is pretty predictable. He’s basically a Rush Limbaugh clone running for president. If you’ve ever heard that bombastic blowhard over the years you have to marvel at how people could possibly ever listen to him let alone believe anything he has to say. He gets facts wrong constantly. He insults everyone, even dead people. (I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s ranting about Jimmy Carter now). It’s kind of like gravity. You don’t understand how it works. But you marvel at how effectively it functions to attract things. And you just accept it and move on. And that is Rush Limbaugh and his protégé Donald Trump. You can’t possibly understand their appeal so you just accept it.
Apparently 30% of South Carolina voters gravitate toward the most insulting person in the room, regardless of how utterly nonsensical any of his proposals are. The pundits can’t explain it. The explanations here really aren’t satisfying. This whole backlash against career politicians is only a very partial answer. As Brad points out there are plenty of people who could appeal to that element of the electorate who don’t flagrantly insult people. So rather than try to find answers it’s best just to drop the apple and watch gravity work.
It is probably a safe bet that the same percentage on the other side like Bernie Sanders who is the polar opposite of Trump. A confirmed socialist and a confirmed capitalist and neither one hold their tongue about any issue they are passionate about. One has been in the private sector all his life and the other has been in the public sector most if not all of his life. One believes in giving everything to everyone and the other believes one should earn what one gets.
It is not outside the realm of possibility that they end up as the nominees for their respective parties. Don’t laugh, Jesse Ventura was elected as governor of Minnesota and Arnold Swartzenegger governor of California – twice. When it comes to the voters, never discount their penchant to not do the obvious.
Bart, I suppose one could say that neither Sanders nor Trump “hold their tongue about any issue they are passionate about.” The difference, though, is that Sanders doesn’t mock, insult, or bully individuals …and neither is Sanders obsessed with himself nor does he engage in the kind of self-adulation that Trump does. One could completely disagree with Sanders’ politics and still come to the conclusion that fundamentally, he’s a mensch while Trump is, well, a jerk.
But I do agree with you that “one believes in giving everything to everyone and the other believes one should earn what one gets,” though we probably have completely opposite ideas of which one is which. (For example, people who work hard, full-time, at actual jobs should earn more than a poverty wage, and CEO’s should actually earn—as they do in other developed market economies—-an income appropriate to their importance to the enterprise and not insanely out of whack )
“For example, people who work hard, full-time, at actual jobs should earn more than a poverty wage, ”
And what should those who don’t work hard or full time earn? I’ll accept a higher minimum wage in return for fewer entitlements. Will you?
I’ll bite: I wouldn’t take the deal because a) I doubt that raising the minimum wage is a good idea, and b) a civilized society has to have a safety net, because, Doug, some people simply are not capable of competing and thriving in our society.
Of course, a Social Darwinist would say, let them starve to death before they reproduce. I would not.
A logical person would say that those who can work should work. By providing MORE than a safety net (which I am not opposed to), the incentive to work or improve one’s skills is reduced.
What does “MORE than a safety net” look like?
Food, housing, medical care for people who are capable of working but do not. Any assistance that isn’t temporary in nature for able bodied people. It should be a safety net not a recliner.
Phillip,
Good, honest, and well stated reply. My point was not to isolate but to illustrate the fact that both are passionate about their positions and as for earning what one works for, as you are well aware, Trump may have been born with a “golden spoon” but he did expand on what he inherited. Whether one agrees with his tactics or not, he did not sit back and do nothing.
Both have hit a nerve with the voters and quite honestly, both have started dialogues that for the most part have been relegated to the “back burner” for all too long. It is time for an honest and open discussion about the issues both Sanders and Trump are addressing. Not with vitriol, demagoguery, and the usual name calling but with sensible and respectful dialogues between reasonable people who actually are interested in solving as many of our problems as possible, not exacerbate them for personal gain, financially or politically.
From my perspective, I see a backlash against the chaos in Washington and the inequity in our economic and social situations that also include racial issues. When we don’t have clarity in our leadership and the issues of the day are presented with a biased point of view from both sides, it is no wonder there is a high percentage of voters who no longer seek to understand the issues or their root causes but will dismiss common sense and react to raw emotion.
I don’t have the answers, all I have is a strong sense of fair play for all, not just for the few on either side.
This is the first time since JFK that I do not have an inclination to vote for any of the candidates running for the presidency. Not one has demonstrated strong leadership abilities and if anything, the baggage carried around by the apparent heirs to the throne could fill the baggage terminal at any major airport to overflowing.
If there’s none you find better, there’s bound to be one less bad. That’s the one to vote for. Not voting allows the worst to win.
Have ya’ll seen Friedman’s opinion piece this AM? What do you think?
Professional observer that I am, I’m picking up on indications that Karen would like us to take a look at Tom Friedman’s latest column. 🙂
After decrying the way the Chinese and Russians are burning assets, he wrote:
I like the way he describes the difference between us and Japan. Anyone from anywhere can become an American, but as Friedman notes parenthetically, “try to become a Japanese”… You can’t.
“So I am for a high wall, but with a very big gate — one that legally lets in energetic low-skilled workers and the high-I.Q. risk-takers who have made our economy the envy of the world — and for legislation that provides a pathway for the millions of illegal immigrants already here to gain legal status and eventually citizenship.”
Great. Super. Step one is “Build a wall”. Step two is “Provide a pathway”.
The “extremists in the G.O.P. House” he mentions are the ones who want to do step one before step two. Crazy, I know.
And the pathway shouldn’t be the Yellow Brick Road. And what do we do with those who refuse to get on the path? Nothing, right? Because even if you open up the pathway, there will be a significant percentage of those living in the shadows, not paying taxes, not buying car insurance, etc. who will choose to remain underground.
I believe we would do better by removing all incentives that entice people to enter or stay illegally… and punish SEVERELY those employers who pay them. No public schools, no college scholarships, no medical care, not a single tax dollar unless they are legally here. Open the gate as wide as you want… but if you’re here illegally, go back first and come in the right way.
Hey, the Yellow Brick Road was tough, man — the witch throwing fireballs, winged monkeys, a field full of narcotic poppies…
And I have formed my opinion having worked for more than a decade with many, many people who are here legally on H1B visas and have to jump through all sorts of government hoops to stay and try and get their green card. Talking with them about the process only helps solidify my already low opinion of the inefficiency in our government. The rules are ridiculous, the bureaucracy is built to keep lawyers and paper pushers employed. There are people who have been here for YEARS paying taxes, doing everything right and I ask them when they will get their green card and the answer is “I have no idea”. Why can’t it just be a simple process? Oh yeah, because it’s the government.
And because when you’re the government, everybody’s on your case and demanding that you do all of these 1,001 things to make sure that you’ve satisfied everybody before taking a simple step.
Because this is a representative democracy, and everybody gets a say. Somebody gripes, a rule is instituted to address the gripe, and pretty soon you have what we call red tape.
You don’t have this problem in a dictatorship, because the boss can just say, “Let’s do it this way, because that makes sense to me.”
Like, “Bring me Doug Ross’ head on a platter, because that makes sense to me.”
In a democracy, someone would say no, you have to fill out these forms first, and satisfy certain conditions, and exhaust all other avenues, etc….
And next thing you know, Doug Ross has lived a long and happy life, and NO ONE has lost his head…
Your understanding of government bureaucracy is completely wrong. It has nothing to do with individual people griping. Zero.
Again, I ask..if a pathway is offered and an illegal doesn’t choose it, what is the consequence? Nothing, right?
No public schools– no education for kids here not of their choosing, and for whom education is a pathway out of the state their parents find themselves in? What’s served by that? These are children, not criminals.
They don’t have any right to be in schools paid for by taxpayers. None.
“I believe we would do better by removing all incentives that entice people to enter or stay illegally…” Doug
You understand that there are countries where life is pretty much terrible and that for the most part that is not the case here. That is pretty much the incentive. You want to remove that? Water flows downhill. What will you do to even the slope. Make our country terrible too, or fix theirs? Cos short of that, you won’t remove the incentive.
No, they’re the ones who JUST want to do step one.
I have no idea how that query repeated so often.
No worries. Having teased you about it, I’ve now deleted all but the first one…
When I read the article I was surprised to see that Friedman had identified the very thing that has made me so uneasy about Trump’s current success. He is calling for forcible means for ending perceived problems….means that can only be used by suspending or ignoring both the laws of this country and the very system we use to create those laws. That people are apparently willing to (and possibly want to) condone his ideas scares me. I just keep telling myself that it’s early yet, and that better candidates will prevail.
“He is calling for forcible means for ending perceived problems…”
Like mandating health insurance and using the power of the Internal Revenue Service to enforce it? Like that?
That is SO minor compared to creating a police state in order to round up and deport 11 million people…
No, I mean like using police/troops to forcibly seize people and jail them until they can be dumped on the other side of the border. I see no indication that he’s thought about the legality of it, so I presume he’s not looking for congressional support, nor is he worried about anyone’s rights.
especially the rights of actual US citizens he wants to “deport.”
Correct.
What issue is there with the legality of deporting people here illegally? The anchor babies are welcome to stay with legal citizens. Or they can go back with their illegal parents and come back later. Anyone here illegally can be deported or leave of their own free will and get in line.