The conservative base, responding to national pollsters, are a fickle bunch. Trump may rule the day today, but if history is any guide Trump will start slipping in the next month or so.
Credit NYDailyNews
There is no doubt that as of August 5, 2015 Trump dominates early polls for the Republican nomination. Conservatives tossing red meat to the masses often garner attention, but these supporters are supporting concepts not people. The person who embodies the concepts most desired at the moment will receive their temporary loyalty. A true base of support takes time to build and does not manifest itself in mini-surges six months before the Iowa Caucuses.
So let us go in the “way back machine” to 2011-2012.
2011-2012 can be characterized by the rise and fall of favorites of the conservative base with the persistence of the establishment Romney. Everyone believed that Romney had the inside track, he had the money and professional campaign to bring him through to the finish line. The conservative base looked for outlets, someone who could be the “anti-Romney.” With different conservatives emphasizing different messages each of the mid-weights enjoyed their day in the sun.
The anti-Romney changed repeatedly throughout 2011 and early 2012.
Bachmann was the first to sieze the sentiment starting around July 1 and running until August 11. Then she won the Iowa Straw Poll but it appeared she expended all of her resources on this event that was just for show. She never recovered after that. Some people blame her for killing the Iowa Straw Poll in 2015.
Next came Perry who surged ahead of Romney, and was the darling of the base from August 12 until October 3. Perry’s downfall? Debate performances where he supported mandatory HPV vaccinations, and where he defended a Texas plan to provide in-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants (and called other Republican heartless). It took a little while for the debate performances to diminish his poll numbers, but by early October the base was looking elsewhere.
Enter Cain. Cain was flashy and interesting, and held the base from October 3 until November 13. Cain’s spike in the polls was not as high as for Perry, Gingrich, or Santorum. Cain was the victim (of his own behavior) of a Politico hit piece on October 30, 2011 claiming he had settled multiple sexual harassment suits while CEO of the National Restaurant Association. Cain weathered the storm for a while, casting blame at Perry. Nonetheless, people started to believe the story (which appears to have been true) and Cain declined in the polls.
Around November 13 Gingrich started his upswing which lasted until early January when he performed poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire. He then resurged from January 18 until February 8 2012 as Gingrich won in South Carolina and made a major showing in Florida only to be beat handily by Romney the first week of February. The conservative base did not view him as a capable anti-Romney and left for the last ship still standing (other than Paul, who has a persistent love-hate relationship with the conservative base).
Santorum had his day at the very end. From February 9 until February 28 Santorum was the only viable game in town for the anti-Romney crowd. He did not have the money, message, or organization to pull it out at that point and the rest is history, (although Santorum thinks this meant he actually had a real shot at being the nominee, a problem that plagues us to this day).
The story of 2011-2012 is that each of the major candidates filled the role of “anti-Romney” for the conservative base. None consolidated this vote early (Perry probably had the best chance) and so the slow but steady organized establishment candidate won.
2012 is the only modern media example for us to look at. 2008 essentially had three candidates, but it was McCain’s turn. 2004 was a reelection campaign. 2000 was largely between Bush and McCain neither of which were overly conservative.
Back to 2015-2016.
Look at the RCP chart for July 5, 2015. It appears Trump is running away with the nomination. The truth is Bush is in the exact same role as Romney was in 2011. Trump is experiencing an early spike from a fickle and angry Republican base. This same base supported Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, then Gingrich, then Santorum in 2011-2012. They feel strongly about who they are currently supporting, but in a few months that preference is likely to be ancient history. The conservative base does NOT want Bush. Trump is the flashiest “anti-Bush” out there. The thrill of Trump will soon diminish as he flails in a debate, or undermines a core conservative principle on the campaign trail, or when the base learns of all of Trump’s flip-flopping, and liberal history.
The question then becomes: Who is poised to grab the momentum from the fickle base as the new anti-Bush?
42 comments
The big attraction is that Trump isn’t a politician. It is also the Big Difference. All of the political pundits cannot figure it out, especially the Republicans. It’s beyond LOL funny that none of them ‘get’ it. They leave millions of Republican votes off the table and seek the Big Tent voters. It’s a losing proposition. Too bad they will not allow themselves to actually fight for Republican principles(American way of life). The Republican spineless wonders don’t appeal to anyone.
This is funny.
Barry Obama is the most Republican president since Ron Reagan?
According to Wall Street execs satisfaction stats.
Consider the possibility, that you have been played my firends.
I see your points and indeed have also pointed to the 2012 cycle as an example of the past regarding the wax and waning of Republican candidates during the typical primary process. I have though a growing suspicion that something different, something we may have not seen before is underway here. The circumstances surrounding 2012 and 2016 are distinctly different, the damage to the Republican brand resulting in a base support level hovering at 30%, a recent voter mandate to the Republican Party to carry out specific legislative actions that has been completely ignored, a perception that the party is actively enabling a left wing progressive administration in furthering the weaking of the US Constitution, the inability to deal honestly with the problem of immgration and border control and the establishment party members all too transparent focus on statist crony mandates and inputs to the detriment of main street American families.
This well may have the makings of a “perfect storm” for an outsider candidate like Donald Trump. If you look at a candidate like Rand Paul, who out of the gate had much verbal support and made an early attempt to fill this space while also attempting to retain a toe hold in Speaker McConnell’s establishment power clique, an instructive clue to the state of a large segment of 2016’s Republican electorate thinking may be foretold. From consideration of a position of real contention he has all but dissapeared from the primary scene, the same might be said for the likes of a Marco Rubio. Finally, I am personally and intriguingly beginning to see examples of something I have not seen since the late 1970’s and that is Democratic friends disgusted with the Obama years and with no appetite for it’s continuation under Hillary Clinton openly considering the possibility of voting for a presidential candidate like Donald Trump. Be VERY clear here I am NOT comparing Reagan to Trump, but rather the circumstances that lead to working class traditional democrats largely in the south and midwest to become the phenomena then referred to as Reagan Democrats. I think one thing is a given, that the RNC is at a loss at to what is really going on here and the media political talking heads and self important beltway pundints are equally clueless. Trump’s candidacy may be around a lot longer then many are currently ferverntly maintaining given Republican hubris and an inexplicable tendency to dismiss and ignore it’s own base. The future is very uncertain from my viewpoint.
You are right that this is something else. Usually the base of the Republican Party has demanded more conservative voices and more purity. Now a section of them are rallying behind a big government liberal who has never made any pretense of ever being conservative.
Lawrence,
I agree:
“I have though a growing suspicion that something different, something we may have not seen before is underway here.” I think this is part of the reason we have seen polling weakness among the anti-Bush candidates listed in my other article today, specifically Cruz, Paul, and Rubio. The base is fed up. I do feel they won’t settle on Trump. Trump comes in with baggage that will slowly be aired, and he will start saying things that will otherwise anger people who currently support him.
Yes, the base is fed up! When will our party acknowledge that and address it? Or will they continue to ignore the people, the voters?
Don’t count Trump out. The difference between this election and prior elections you are comparing him with is that people don’t trust Congress anymore. The Tea Party candidates elected last time are not doing what they said they were going to do. They’ve joined the fold and nothing gets done. In other words, people are sick of politicians. Trump is a breath of fresh air. He does not speak politically correctly because he is not a politician. He is matching donations with his own money so he won’t be beholden to any special interest groups (a first). He is a smart business man and just what we need in my opinion. I hope he goes all the way. If any of the others running on either side get in, nothing will change. We might have a chance of taking our country back if Trump gets in.
Thank you for your candor. According to Trump supporters, even the Tea Party is too “Establishment” to support.
Who is the Tea Party candidate other than Cruz? People aren’t supporting Trump because he’s conservative. You just don’t get it. Keep reading here, and maybe you will.
I do get it. I’m just trying to figure out why anybody who was crowing about not having conservative enough candidates and is now supporting Trump is worth listening to.
Hi Paul….The Donald is enjoying his extended 15 minutes. It will be fun when candidates actually present his or her case with details on well defined issues. Assuming that actually happens, then we can enjoy the process. Oh, and your article is very well done!
Stephen – here is a question for you. When do legitimate nationalist concerns end and when does xenophobia begin?
Anti-immigrant rhetoric is nativist, and claims that immigrants hurt the economy are false. Claims that Mexican culture is inferior to “our culture” (and thus a mixing of the two makes our culture impure) is very thinly disguised bigotry. I’m all for better enforcement of our existing laws, and everyone agrees that the immigration system is broken. But mass deportation is not a serious solution, and blaming Mexicans (or the Chinese or “Hmongs”) for economic or safety-related issues is the epitome of pandering to xenophobic fears.
There are many of us those who think that our immigration laws are worthy of enforcement.
Those who favor a rational and lawful immigration process hardly deserve to be branded “nativists.”
Those aren’t the people being called nativist. Trust me, they’re very easy to spot.
And if not, you are happy to point the finger and name call. Niiiiiice…….
Jeanine, I think I spot some menacing looking Hmongs that are clearly up to something suspicious. Go call ICE.
Outstanding pablum for the squishy establishment types! Wish you would spout this garbage to the Steinle’s, or the Durden’s, the Rosenberg’s, the Moreno’s, and the Sparks’, all families who have lost loved ones to them illegal aliens. I suppose they have not dealt with any economic or safety-related issues while managing the death of their family members, right?
Always interesting to see how squishes are more concerned about the rights of them illegal aliens than the enforcement of US law. That mentality is exactly why the base is ready to dethrone McConnell and Boener.
Dylann Roof is a South Carolinian. Are all people from South Carolina violent murderers as well?
Any large group of people, including people who use the Gasgden Flag as avatars, or have a last name that begins with “Sp”, are going to have good actors and bad actors. Using a few to denigrate the whole is prejudicial. When the group you’re prejudicing against is racial or ethnic in nature, it makes you a bigot.
Fact: Immigrants (including illegal immigrants) are less likely to commit violent crimes than mutli-generational Americans. But facts don’t wrap up all of society’s problems with a nice little bow and give the angry masses a largely voiceless scapegoat, now do they?
What is your solution for illegal immigrants in the U.S.? Deport them all? A few years ago, Donald Trump called that very solution wrong and “mean-spirited”.
Do they have a squishy establishment talking points website you utilize for putting forth such weak arguments? Fact: NO crime committed here in the US by an illegal alien is justifiable. Unless you have your head firmly implanted in that squishy establishment mindset, of course. When you can ignore the criminal behavior that directly affects the lives of American citizens (in an extremely destructive way, for the most part), it says a whole lot about where your head is implanted. You don’t need to provide us with more proof, my crazy, encased friend. For your enlightenment:
https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten
“(in an extremely destructive way, for the most part)” — Wrong. It is not “for the most part”, these incidents are not common, and they happen less as a group among immigrants than they do Americans. Your link proves that.
On the FBI’s top ten list there are:
— Five Americans
— Two (legal) Permanent Residents
— Two illegal aliens
— One Ukrainian mob boss
There are more Floridians on this list than illegal aliens from Mexico. Perhaps we need a wall around Florida instead?
Two illegal immigrants and two “legal” residents on the FBI’s top ten list is trivial to a squishy establishment type. I’m telling you, we don’t need anymore proof of where your head is implanted, my crazy, senseless friend. No worries, you keep on justifying lawlessness, I’ll keep on mocking you.
I know you think you’re mocking me. Two weeks ago, there was a whole troupe of white supremacists on Bearing Drift who were demanding action against illegal immigrants who also thought they were mocking me. I don’t mind being “mocked” for standing up against racism.
I never called their actions trivial. I don’t think the actions of two individuals means we should fear or hate an entire ethnicity. I am a conservative; I believe in personal responsibility.
Good to know nothing can break you from your delusions. Being a “conservative,” you should enjoy this link, then. Try not to get lost.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer
Do you really want to make this a contest of who can produce links? Let me know, cuz I got a dozen or so that you’ll never read lined up and ready to go.
The general consensus of economists is that the net impact on illegal immigration on the economy (including their “burden” on government”) is slightly positive, but not impactful enough to really make a strong argument either way.
That is a good one! Even if we take your comical premise at face value, having one American suffer at the hands of an illegal alien is the only point that needs to be made. Unfortunately, the number of Americans suffering is ever growing. What astounds me is that you as a “conservative” would side with the illegal aliens. For your enlightenment:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/07/26/illegal-immigrant-teen-rapes-murders-93-year-old-nebraska-woman/
You can’t both claim that we need to keep Mexicans out because they are dangers to society and also complain about being called a nativist.
Unfortunately, I have not complained about your silly label. Are you getting confused again? I only care about the American citizens that are being harmed by the illegal immigrant invasion that our big government is doing nothing about. Just how many “acts of love” are you willing to ignore? For your enlightenment:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/05/illegal-alien-on-probation-allegedly-rapes-beats-woman-with-hammer-during-home-invasion/
Glad to see you’re embracing bigotry. Oh, but I guess you think it’s justified due to this massive invasion of Mexicans across the border. Except that net migration from Mexico is around zero percent, and has been for the past five years.
But you should feel free to keep posting links about crimes committed by individual illegal immigrants. I support punishing the individuals responsible. I don’t support hating an entire race of people based on the actions of a small handful, because that’s really stupid and racist.
I’m embracing the American families that have had their lives torn apart by the flood of illegal aliens that our big government can’t seem to get a handle on. Too bad you can’t understand that. There is a cure for where your head resides. It even works for squishy establishment types! For your enlightenment:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/08/26/mainstream-media-ignore-americans-killed-by-illegal-alien-dreamers/
You should feel free to keep posting links about crimes committed by individual illegal immigrants. I support punishing the individuals responsible. I don’t support hating an entire race of people based on the actions of a small handful, because that’s really stupid and racist.
I’m glad you have them Carnac the Magnificent abilities to tell us which one of the 40 MILLION lawbreakers will or will not commit a rape, a murder or a DUI. The fact that you could trust a lawbreaker over your fellow citizens says a lot about your moral fiber. Just another symptom of where your head is, I suppose. There is a cure! For your enlightenment:
http://theafricanspear.com/2015/01/25/illegal-alien-kills-store-clerk/
What about my constantly citing data pointing to huge rates of welfare usage by SOME immigrants? Is that xenophobia?
No. That is an examination of the facts. It’s suggestions on what to do about it (whether said by you or others) that can lead to darker corners if discourse.
Wait a minute. If I examine the facts, and I say that empirical data indicates that 75% of the immigrants from Country A end up on some welfare program and 15% of immigrants from Country B end up on welfare, is it “xenophobia” to work to implement policies favoring immigrants from Country B?
You’re talking about implementing a quota system? We’ve had that before.
If those other cultures were working, why are they coming here? Why don’t they remain in their own country with their own wonderful cultures that are thriving?
Many of them do. But America is the land of opportunity. That’s why your ancestors came here. That’s why mine did, as well. More importantly, the “American culture” to the extent that it exists was shaped by those immigrants, and continues to be today. In fifty years, the American culture will be different, thanks to the influence of Hispanics, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, Indians, and yes, even Hmongs.
One HUGE difference, past immigrants wanted to assimilate and be Americans. Many of the recent immigrants don’t have that desire because the left and some Republicans have told them they need not do that. They’ve been told to keep their own, flawed, culture and not become apart of America.
BTW, my ancestors were Colonists. They formed the country. Just sayin’………
They all want to be Americans. That’s why they come here. Every generation of immigrants becomes more assimilated, and the culture around them becomes more assimilated to them as well. They incorporate their own flawed culture into our own flawed culture, as has been done for the last 240 years.
And if you don’t think our culture is flawed, all one needs to do is look around at all those who are intolerant to people who don’t look like they do.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/04/the-mindlessness-of-donald-trumpand-what
Paul, here’s a great article from Reason. It makes the case that Trump’s popularity is due precisely to his “non-political” roots, that he’s nothing like any politician. Thus, his unwillingness or inability to speak towards policy and governance is helping him, not hurting him. In truth, no one knows what he would do as President–and his supporters don’t particularly care. They like his “wheel and deal” rhetoric, and of course he panders to their xenophobic fears.
I say this to both agree with you that Trump’s popularity will not last, but disagree with you on the reason why. I think Trump has about reached his ceiling and will fade once the field is narrowed and more serious candidates rise to the top. However, one thing is abundantly clear: his supporters do not give a single lick about Trump’s lies and bombastic, his support for every liberal big government policy under the sun, his thousands of dollars donated to liberal Democrats, and is lack of any specific policy ideas.
The reason article was quite prescient.
I’m not sure we actually disagree on the cause of underlying popularity. People are looking for a vessel to display their angst and Trump is that vessel.
“his unwillingness or inability to speak towards policy and governance is helping him, not hurting him” I would add the words “for now”
His past policy positions, political donations, lack of basic etiquette, etc. will come back to bite him hard. This could happen as soon as tomorrow evening.