Actually, lots of them, but I’m thinking of one in particular here: Now that he’s the presumptive nominee for the Republican party in the upcoming presidential election, he has to figure out whether to pivot.
During the early stages of the primaries, a presidential candidate’s opponents aren’t yet anyone from the other party, they have to first winnow out the others in their own party. Since they are from the same ideological background (i.e., Party), it’s often difficult for them to differentiate themselves, so they take ideological positions that make themselves appear more “party-loyal,” and position all the others in their party in some way differently from them, and presumably less “authentic” party loyalists. The people they have to convince are generally the most ideologically-driven (imagine how strongly you would have to feel about a political party to start working to get your party elected months, sometimes years, before the election!) These are the people who are the most enthusiastic and energized, and often, the most distant (politically) from the opposite party. True party loyalists.
At the same time they have to keep in the forefront of their strategy that they can’t annoy the big money donors in the party, as that’s where the cash for the “real” race (after the nomination is locked down at the Party convention) is going to come from. It’s a bit of a tightrope to walk.
So commonly, a candidate will position themselves wherever they think they are likely to get the most support, both financially and from the party loyalists. This frequently means taking the strongest position on policy issues. As the Republican party is anti-abortion and pro-gun (they would characterize it as being “pro-life and pro-Second Amendment,” but that’s another topic), there is virtually no chance of getting the Republican party nomination unless the candidate appears totally (almost rabidly) supportive of those positions. And in fairness, the same is true on the Democrat side; the easiest way to lose support in the Democratic primary process is to appear anti-labor or anti-union. Or pick your favorite platform plank.
Anyhow, this leads to a problem. Once the primary is over and the nomination is locked down, he (or she) now needs to appeal to a broader demographic (the general population of the country), so they commonly pivot to a softer position and downplay their previous, more-radical (or fringe) positions. If they’re good (and they usually are if they’ve gotten this far), they won’t appear to completely abandon their earlier positions, just file the edges off of them to appear more centrist.
Back to Trump’s problem. He went after the most fringe, most radical arm of the Republican party loyalists early on. “Mexico is sending us drug dealers and rapists.” “I’m going to build a 20-foot wall all along the Mexican/US border. And I’m going to get Mexico to pay for it.” “We need to ban all Muslims from entering this country until we figure this thing out.” And on and on. Some simple critical thinking skills would tell you that none of these options are viable for any number of reasons, but critical thinking skills seem to be in short supply during the primary season. They did however appeal to a particular (and highly vocal) subset of the Republican loyalists. (I’ve written previously that I think part of his popularity is due to a perception of the rank-and-file republicans that their party leaders reneged on promises made.)
Trump’s challenge as he goes into the general race is to try to position himself to appeal to the largest possible group; that’s the only way to get himself elected. Right now his overall disapproval rating makes him virtually unelectable. There’s even talk of a substantial Republican group willing to vote for Clinton. (In fairness there’s some Bernie loyalists who would consider Trump over Clinton, but the size of that group is under some debate.)
So he seems to have two choices: either abandon his more radical positions and appear more “presidential,” or double down on his rhetoric. Either way he goes, there be dragons. If he abandons his oft-stated positions his current gaggle of rabid supporters will likely bail on him as just another cynical, lying politician. The very reason that many are supporting him now is because he says he’s not just another cynical, lying politician; he’s “authentic.” He “says it like it is.” (This assumes “it is” means you’re a living in a racist, misogynistic world, I guess.) He’s been able to keep doing what he’s doing up until now largely (IMHO) because he’s been funding his own candidacy and hasn’t take money from big-money donors (other than himself, of course), or so he says. If he had needed anyone else’s cash I suspect no one would have given him any money as long as he stuck to his ridiculous rhetoric. But I heard the other day that he doesn’t plan on continuing to foot the bill, so presumably if/when he gets the nomination he’ll have to go looking for bucks.
If he doesn’t pivot but continues to what he’s been doing (basically, spew vitriol) because it’s working so well for him, it’s hard to see how he can get elected. Personally, I don’t think there’s enough people who are angry or disgusted enough to vote the anger ballot, even if he were the ideal person (a big “if”). His negative numbers are “yuge, just YUGE!” which gives me some hope.
Maybe he’s betting that there’s more anger against government in the general population and he can tap into that. It is out there; no question of that. The big question is whether or not The Donald is the answer. I think a fair number of people are willing to overlook or ignore Trump’s more outrageous antics because, for them, the alternatives are less palatable. I have a good friend who is pretty conservative (actually, more libertarian than Republican), who maintained in conversation with Cathy and me the other day that Trump hasn’t really said anything racially hateful. I find it baffling how he could say that; frankly I think the issue for him is that he absolutely refuses to consider voting for Clinton and Trump appears to be shaping up to be the only alternative. So he’s struggling for reasons to support Trump.
So whether he Pivots or Stays the Course, Trump has a problem. Neither option looks viable. This November, I hope the country is smart enough to give him the shellacking at the polls that he’s so richly earned.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer.
Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.
Trump has a problem
During the early stages of the primaries, a presidential candidate’s opponents aren’t yet anyone from the other party, they have to first winnow out the others in their own party. Since they are from the same ideological background (i.e., Party), it’s often difficult for them to differentiate themselves, so they take ideological positions that make themselves appear more “party-loyal,” and position all the others in their party in some way differently from them, and presumably less “authentic” party loyalists. The people they have to convince are generally the most ideologically-driven (imagine how strongly you would have to feel about a political party to start working to get your party elected months, sometimes years, before the election!) These are the people who are the most enthusiastic and energized, and often, the most distant (politically) from the opposite party. True party loyalists.
At the same time they have to keep in the forefront of their strategy that they can’t annoy the big money donors in the party, as that’s where the cash for the “real” race (after the nomination is locked down at the Party convention) is going to come from. It’s a bit of a tightrope to walk.
So commonly, a candidate will position themselves wherever they think they are likely to get the most support, both financially and from the party loyalists. This frequently means taking the strongest position on policy issues. As the Republican party is anti-abortion and pro-gun (they would characterize it as being “pro-life and pro-Second Amendment,” but that’s another topic), there is virtually no chance of getting the Republican party nomination unless the candidate appears totally (almost rabidly) supportive of those positions. And in fairness, the same is true on the Democrat side; the easiest way to lose support in the Democratic primary process is to appear anti-labor or anti-union. Or pick your favorite platform plank.
Anyhow, this leads to a problem. Once the primary is over and the nomination is locked down, he (or she) now needs to appeal to a broader demographic (the general population of the country), so they commonly pivot to a softer position and downplay their previous, more-radical (or fringe) positions. If they’re good (and they usually are if they’ve gotten this far), they won’t appear to completely abandon their earlier positions, just file the edges off of them to appear more centrist.
Back to Trump’s problem. He went after the most fringe, most radical arm of the Republican party loyalists early on. “Mexico is sending us drug dealers and rapists.” “I’m going to build a 20-foot wall all along the Mexican/US border. And I’m going to get Mexico to pay for it.” “We need to ban all Muslims from entering this country until we figure this thing out.” And on and on. Some simple critical thinking skills would tell you that none of these options are viable for any number of reasons, but critical thinking skills seem to be in short supply during the primary season. They did however appeal to a particular (and highly vocal) subset of the Republican loyalists. (I’ve written previously that I think part of his popularity is due to a perception of the rank-and-file republicans that their party leaders reneged on promises made.)
Trump’s challenge as he goes into the general race is to try to position himself to appeal to the largest possible group; that’s the only way to get himself elected. Right now his overall disapproval rating makes him virtually unelectable. There’s even talk of a substantial Republican group willing to vote for Clinton. (In fairness there’s some Bernie loyalists who would consider Trump over Clinton, but the size of that group is under some debate.)
So he seems to have two choices: either abandon his more radical positions and appear more “presidential,” or double down on his rhetoric. Either way he goes, there be dragons. If he abandons his oft-stated positions his current gaggle of rabid supporters will likely bail on him as just another cynical, lying politician. The very reason that many are supporting him now is because he says he’s not just another cynical, lying politician; he’s “authentic.” He “says it like it is.” (This assumes “it is” means you’re a living in a racist, misogynistic world, I guess.) He’s been able to keep doing what he’s doing up until now largely (IMHO) because he’s been funding his own candidacy and hasn’t take money from big-money donors (other than himself, of course), or so he says. If he had needed anyone else’s cash I suspect no one would have given him any money as long as he stuck to his ridiculous rhetoric. But I heard the other day that he doesn’t plan on continuing to foot the bill, so presumably if/when he gets the nomination he’ll have to go looking for bucks.
If he doesn’t pivot but continues to what he’s been doing (basically, spew vitriol) because it’s working so well for him, it’s hard to see how he can get elected. Personally, I don’t think there’s enough people who are angry or disgusted enough to vote the anger ballot, even if he were the ideal person (a big “if”). His negative numbers are “yuge, just YUGE!” which gives me some hope.
Maybe he’s betting that there’s more anger against government in the general population and he can tap into that. It is out there; no question of that. The big question is whether or not The Donald is the answer. I think a fair number of people are willing to overlook or ignore Trump’s more outrageous antics because, for them, the alternatives are less palatable. I have a good friend who is pretty conservative (actually, more libertarian than Republican), who maintained in conversation with Cathy and me the other day that Trump hasn’t really said anything racially hateful. I find it baffling how he could say that; frankly I think the issue for him is that he absolutely refuses to consider voting for Clinton and Trump appears to be shaping up to be the only alternative. So he’s struggling for reasons to support Trump.
So whether he Pivots or Stays the Course, Trump has a problem. Neither option looks viable. This November, I hope the country is smart enough to give him the shellacking at the polls that he’s so richly earned.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer. Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.