Why Trump Might Win by Robert Reich

[VivaRevolution]

Why Trump might win

Tribune Content Agency
Robert Reich 6 hrs ago



Drones are not all bad – but what if Isis starts using them?


A Washington Post/ABC News poll released Sunday finds Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in a virtual tie, with Trump leading Clinton 46 percent to 44 percent among registered voters. That's an 11 percent swing against Clinton since March.

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, also released Sunday, shows Clinton at 46 percent to Trump's 43 percent. In April, Clinton had led 50 percent to 39 percent.

Polls taken this far ahead of an election don't tell us much. But in this case, they do raise a serious question.

Since he cinched the Republican nomination earlier this month, Trump has been the object of even more unfavorable press than he was before -- about his treatment of women, his propensity to lie, his bizarre policy proposals.


Before this came months of news coverage of his bigotry, megalomania, narcissism, xenophobia, refusals to condemn violence at his rallies, refusals to distance himself from white supremacists, and more lies.

So how can Trump be pulling even with Clinton?

Throughout the Republican primaries, pundits and pollsters repeatedly told us he'd peaked, that his most recent outrageous statement was his downfall, that he was viewed as so unlikeable he didn't stand a chance of getting the nomination.

But in my travels around the country I've found many who support him precisely because of the qualities he's being criticized for having.

A Latina-American from Laredo, Texas, tells me she and most of her friends are for Trump because he wants to keep Mexicans out. She thinks too many Mexicans have come here illegally, making it harder for those here legally.

A union member from Pittsburgh says he's for Trump because he'll be tough on American companies shipping jobs abroad, tough with the Chinese, tough with Muslims.

A small businessman in Cincinnati tells me he's for Trump because "Trump's not a politician. He'll give them hell in Washington."

Political analysts have underestimated Trump from the jump because they've been looking through the rearview mirror of politics as it used to be. Trump's rise suggests a new kind of politics. You might call it anti-politics.

The old politics pitted right against left, with presidential aspirants moving toward the center once they cinched the nomination. Anti-politics pits Washington insiders, corporate executives, bankers and media moguls against a growing number of people who think the game is rigged against them. There's no center, only hostility and suspicion.

Americans who feel like they're being screwed are attracted to an authoritarian bully -- a strongman who will kick ass. The former reality TV star who repeatedly told contestants they were "fired!" appears tough and confrontational enough to take on powerful vested interests.

That most Americans don't particularly like Trump is irrelevant. As one Midwesterner told me a few weeks ago, "He may be a jerk, but he's our jerk."

By the same token, in this era of anti-politics, any candidate who appears to be part of the political establishment is at a strong disadvantage. This may be Hillary Clinton's biggest handicap.

The old politics featured carefully crafted speeches and policy proposals calculated to appeal to particular constituencies. In this sense, Clinton's proposals and speeches are almost flawless.

But in the new era of anti-politics Americans are skeptical of well-crafted speeches and detailed policy proposals. They prefer authenticity. They want their candidates unscripted and unfiltered.

A mid-level executive in Salt Lake City told me he didn't agree with Trump on everything but supported him because "the guy is the real thing. He says what he believes, and you know where he stands."

In the old politics, political parties, labor unions, business groups and the press mediated between individual candidates and the public -- explaining a candidate's positions, endorsing candidates, organizing and mobilizing voters.

In this era of anti-politics, it's possible for anyone with enough ego, money and audacity -- in other words, Donald Trump -- to do it all himself: declaring himself a candidate; communicating with and mobilizing voters directly through Twitter and other social media; and getting free advertising in mainstream media by being outrageous, politically incorrect and snide. Official endorsements are irrelevant.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/why-trump-might-win/ar-BBtpz02

__________________________________________________________________________________

Spot on analysis. 100% agree.

This is what makes Hillary Clinton a weak candidate as well. In elections past, my criticisms of Clinton wouldn't hold. In this new paradigm of politics, if Trump wins this election, it will be the DNC's failure to recognize that the winds have changed.

 

[Space]

People want either Trump or Bernie; there's no place for Hillary at the table!

 

[Devout Pessimist]

It becomes more amusing as the months go by watching the media get desperate and double down on their anti-Trump rhetoric. I was watching the lefty fascists riot in Albuquerque on CNN tonight and I could not even count the number of times I heard the words Trump is racist, sexist, hateful, divisive and he is the one who should be blamed for the fascist riots. (The media apologists for these leftists riots is sickening, but that is for another thread).

Though they have cut down on the Hitler comparisons, the mainstream media has been spewing the same anti-Trump shit for months now, do they really think Trump supporters are now going to start listening to their hyperbole?

It also does not help the anti-Trump cause when people know millions of dollars have been spent on trying to stop Trump.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Trump won't win. The demographics are too heavily stacked against him. But it will be closer than a lot of people thought. Hilary will win, but she won't walk through Trump. He'll take her to the fifth round.

Clinton 30 - 27

 

[VivaRevolution]

Trump won't win. The demographics are too heavily stacked against him. But it will be closer than a lot of people thought. Hilary will win, but she won't walk through Trump. He'll take her to the fifth round.

Clinton 30 - 27

That sounds to me like old political thinking, that is rejecting the idea of anti-politics.

 

[HankScorpio]

Trump won't win. The demographics are too heavily stacked against him. But it will be closer than a lot of people thought. Hilary will win, but she won't walk through Trump. He'll take her to the fifth round.

Clinton 30 - 27

If it goes to the fifth, it's 50-45.

Trump by KO 1st.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Trump won't win. The demographics are too heavily stacked against him. But it will be closer than a lot of people thought. Hilary will win, but she won't walk through Trump. He'll take her to the fifth round.

Clinton 30 - 27

Actually given the demographics she should be expected to walk through him. She isn't doing well in the polls given the Bernie factor and the fact that right wing CT radicalized propaganda has smeared her name. But soon it will be known that Hillary is what most Americans want and stands for.

Clinton TKO's Trump in the 2nd round.

 

[trident]

Actually given the demographics she should be expected to walk through him. She isn't doing well in the polls given the Bernie factor and the fact that right wing CT radicalized propaganda has smeared her name. But soon it will be known that Hillary is what most Americans want and stands for.

Clinton TKO's Trump in the 2nd round.

Clinton has done a fine job smearing her own name and she has a long history of being a poitical "say anything" to get elected. So she comes a cross as a phony because she is.

Trump is the archetype of a con-job. He is a con-man. "Con" is short for confidence and Trump has always been at the front of this game. He is a phony, too, but a much more appealing one.

Personally, I think Clinton will have a hard time with Trump in the general.

Its tough times in America and people are going to choose the asshole to stear the ship. Its what it comes down to. Basically giving the keys to least drunk among us, regardless of how much of a dbag he is.

I honestly don't know who would be worse for the country. Probably going to vote for Gary Johnson if these above two clowns are in the finals.

 

[Octavian]

Clinton has done a fine job smearing her own name and she has a long history of being a poitical "say anything" to get elected. So she comes a cross as a phony because she is.

Or maybe she's just not a smooth talking politician looking to cut your ignorant throat. Care to elaborate on how she's personally smeared her own name? And please spare the faux "scandals" that have been almost entirely made up by right media or the GOP.

One spot I'll grant you leeway is her flip flop on TPP... Then again Bernies ridiculousness has forced her hand on that one and frankly that's just how democratic politics works.

 

[trident]

Or maybe she's just not a smooth talking politician looking to cut your ignorant throat. Care to elaborate on how she's personally smeared her own name? And please spare the faux "scandals" that have been almost entirely made up by right media or the GOP.

One spot I'll grant you leeway is her flip flop on TPP... Then again Bernies ridiculousness has forced her hand on that one and frankly that's just how democratic politics works.

Oh, name calling. That's to be expected.

This is just a neat little example of Hillary's "consistency":



She committed a crime when she c/p'ed confidential information through her private server.

I agree Benghazi is bullshit, but her insistence to taking out Qadafi, which was her op, was completely negligent and has caused a shit storm in the middle of a shit storm.

Thanks for granting me leeway on the TPP. Of course she supports it; her husband and her pushed through NAFTA totally fucking over the labor class in this country and ruining economies through out our hemisphere. Of course she's for it. I don't understand how Bernie is being ridiculous here.

Her pandering to black Americans makes me fucking ill espcially considering her long history being tough on "crime", I mean incarcerating black Americans.

I seriously don't understand what qualifies her for high office in any kind of moral or functional way.

But call me ignorant, oh righteous warrior, as you support one of the most insidious political families in recent times.

 

[kpt018]

He's right but one thing missing from his analysis here (but he certainly has mentioned it other times) is that folks are basically being fooled into thinking Trump is anti-establishment. The dude is a billionaire trust fund baby that supports all the same crazy shit that the GOP does and now he's getting fund raising from a lot of the same sources any other GOP candidate would have to tap into.

Because of ignorance Trump can most definitely win.

 

[panamaican]

@kpt018 is wrong on this. One of the earliest Trump criticisms was that he was actually a liberal in disguise. Now he's a pro-establishment candidate in disguise.

Trump is anti-establishment. That doesn't change just because someone is rich. He's anti-establishment because he's not part of the established political hierarchy, not because he's part of the business world. For years, the liberals would point to any rich business person who wanted higher taxes and tell us that those rich people understood. They didn't say "Look, he's rich therefore he's pumping establishment rhetoric!!!" Why not? Because it matched their rhetoric.

Trump will do well because the people who most vociferously oppose him refuse to believe that he could be genuine. They flat out refuse to consider that his positions are genuine, even if they don't agree with those positions. Yet they insist that Americans take career politicians as genuine. It's a tone deafness from the people who claim to have a pulse on America.

The article is right. Trump's not winning because of ignorance. He's winning because people are tired of packaged candidates. And the saddest thing is that the media and the anti-Trumpites no longer understand what a real person looks like when running for office. They're looking for the most scripted package and praising that instead of really looking deeper.

I'm not saying Trump will win. It's far too early to make that claim. But it's also becoming increasingly obvious why people have kept being wrong on him.

 

[kpt018]

@kpt018 is wrong on this. One of the earliest Trump criticisms was that he was actually a liberal in disguise. Now he's a pro-establishment candidate in disguise.

Trump is anti-establishment. That doesn't change just because someone is rich. He's anti-establishment because he's not part of the established political hierarchy, not because he's part of the business world. For years, the liberals would point to any rich business person who wanted higher taxes and tell us that those rich people understood. They didn't say "Look, he's rich therefore he's pumping establishment rhetoric!!!" Why not? Because it matched their rhetoric.

Depends on how we define what is the establishment. If you want to say that he is anti-political establishment I would agree (although I have doubts about that going forward). But if we are referring to "the man" he is a rich guy that has establishment positions on taxes and the economy.

And the criticism that he was a liberal in disguise mostly came from conservative political opponents. Real liberals look at his views and aren't so easily fooled!

 

[Jack V Savage]

Reich is out to lunch on this one. Trying to explain Trump's success so far without reference to racism is like trying to explain planetary movements without mentioning gravity. And the intellectual decline of the GOP and general discrediting (generally inappropriately) of major information-providing institutions are the other major factors here.

Good piece from the NYT on the "authenticity" bullshit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/upshot/hillary-clintons-authenticity-problem-and-ours.html

And Frankfort's original piece "On Bullshit" also provides some needed insight:

http://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf

 

[panamaican]

Depends on how we define what is the establishment. If you want to say that he is anti-political establishment I would agree (although I have doubts about that going forward). But if we are referring to "the man" he is a rich guy that has establishment positions on taxes and the economy.

And the criticism that he was a liberal in disguise mostly came from conservative political opponents. Real liberals look at his views and aren't so easily fooled!

I don't think America has a problem with "the man". Minorities might and the poor might but most of America is comprised of white people who aren't in povertyand, for them, "the man" is someone they aspire to be or already know.

You're right on where those different criticisms came from. But the consistency is that all of the criticisms were based on claiming that Trump's positions were really the positions of some secret plan to trick Americans. For that to be true, liberals would have looked at Trump and said "He's basically parroting our positions but not properly." And the establishment people would have said "we support him because we think he agrees with us."

But every group Trump is accused of secretly being apart of has openly rejected his positions and rhetoric. No one wants to claim him. I think it's indicative of a problem in the news makers (left and right). They no longer understand what a genuine person looks like and so when presented with an off the cuff product they assume that it must be an act. Meanwhile, regular Americans who don't deal with scripted interactions regularly see Trump as genuinely positive or genuinely negative.

So long as the media and newsmakers refuse to acknowledge the genuineness of the man, they're going to keep writing articles about why Trump is doing well without ever understanding it.

 

[kpt018]

I don't think America has a problem with "the man". Minorities might and the poor might but most of America is comprised of white people who aren't in povertyand, for them, "the man" is someone they aspire to be or already know.

I completely disagree. Just look to movements like Occupy Wallstreet, fight against income inequality or the platforms of Democratic candidates. It's fair to say that conservatives want to give "the man" more power. Bernie's success is primarily based on fighting against "the man".

You're right on where those different criticisms came from. But the consistency is that all of the criticisms were based on claiming that Trump's positions were really the positions of some secret plan to trick Americans. For that to be true, liberals would have looked at Trump and said "He's basically parroting our positions but not properly." And the establishment people would have said "we support him because we think he agrees with us."

But every group Trump is accused of secretly being apart of has openly rejected his positions and rhetoric. No one wants to claim him. I think it's indicative of a problem in the news makers (left and right). They no longer understand what a genuine person looks like and so when presented with an off the cuff product they assume that it must be an act. Meanwhile, regular Americans who don't deal with scripted interactions regularly see Trump as genuinely positive or genuinely negative.

So long as the media and newsmakers refuse to acknowledge the genuineness of the man, they're going to keep writing articles about why Trump is doing well without ever understanding it.

Fair enough, I agree with this. The media has done a horrendous job of covering Trump and political pundits couldn't have been further off about his chances. Just about everyone got him wrong. Shit, add me to that category.

 

[panamaican]

I completely disagree. Just look to movements like Occupy Wallstreet, fight against income inequality or the platforms of Democratic candidates. It's fair to say that conservatives want to give "the man" more power. Bernie's success is primarily based on fighting against "the man".

Occupy Wall Street was lampooned and died on the vine. Bernie's not a success unless he lands the nomination. The platforms of Democratic candidates haven't actually resulted in much toppling of "the man". The rhetoric is solid, the follow through - not so much.

Even Hillary is claiming that she'll put her representation of "the man", Bill Clinton, back into some position of power. Other than Obama, the Dem's have rolled out cookie cutter versions of the man for 30 years. When you think about it, Hillary's pretty much "the man" in drag. She's been part of insider establishment for decades. She's eagerly suckling from the teat of corporate paymasters. And, unlike Trump, she and Bill did it to get rich. Bernie has kept some kind of everyman dignity but liberals aren't going to even give him the nomination.

So, if the GOP is clearly behind the man and the Dem's are behind him too but won't come out and say it then I don't think America, in general, has a problem with "the man".

 

[Jack V Savage]

Fair enough, I agree with this. The media has done a horrendous job of covering Trump and political pundits couldn't have been further off about his chances. Just about everyone got him wrong. Shit, add me to that category.

I don't think there's ever been any big mystery about why many conservatives have been reluctant to embrace him even though he's on their side policywise. They thought he was destructive to the brand--a likely loser in November and someone who could bring the GOP majority in the Senate and House down with him, as well as someone who could do long-lasting damage to the brand with some demographic groups that are growing in number. Now that he's the only option for oligarchic policy, the question becomes, "is the possibility of a short-term win if we rally behind him worth the potential long-term brand damage?"

I mean, not to discount the sincerity of the small number of elected officials and pundits who have conscience-based reasons for rejecting a bigoted demagogue. It's easy for me to say as someone who openly disdains the goals of the conservative movement, but this is a moment in American history when they are hearing the call of true heroism (putting concern for the nation and for a policy-based politics above their own political goals and in many cases their careers), and some (not many, but some) are answering it. I don't often agree with Frum and I despise Kristol and Charles Murray, but I can't help but feel some admiration. I would hope that if the same thing happened on the left--if someone like Sean Penn, Cornel West, Alan Grayson, or Michael Moore were to win the Democratic nomination--that liberals would stand up against it, even if it meant supporting the Republican candidate.

 

[kpt018]

Occupy Wall Street was lampooned and died on the vine. Bernie's not a success unless he lands the nomination. The platforms of Democratic candidates haven't actually resulted in much toppling of "the man". The rhetoric is solid, the follow through - not so much.

Even Hillary is claiming that she'll put her representation of "the man", Bill Clinton, back into some position of power. Other than Obama, the Dem's have rolled out cookie cutter versions of the man for 30 years. When you think about it, Hillary's pretty much "the man" in drag. She's been part of insider establishment for decades. She's eagerly suckling from the teat of corporate paymasters. And, unlike Trump, she and Bill did it to get rich. Bernie has kept some kind of everyman dignity but liberals aren't going to even give him the nomination.

So, if the GOP is clearly behind the man and the Dem's are behind him too but won't come out and say it then I don't think America, in general, has a problem with "the man".

But we are talking about the people, right? I think it's undeniable that those who lean left in this country are concerned about income inequality and power held by big businesses. My point was that it is a major part of the Democrat's platform because that represents the view of their constituents.

 

[UpaLoompa]

People want either Trump or Bernie; there's no place for Hillary at the table!

Given that about 3 million more people have voted for Hillary than Bernie, I don't know that we can say that.