![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
calimacHere's an astute analysis of Trump's personality. It turns out that his phobia about germs is key to understanding him. I tend towards skepticism of deep psyche analyses by bystanders, but this one hangs together.
The only problem is that it's titled "Why I Still Believe Donald Trump Will Never Be President," but it demonstrates nothing of the sort. Its arguments are two: first, that Trump's poll standings are artificial. The author repeatedly compares Trump to Wile E. Coyote running off the edge of a cliff and hanging suspended in the air: eventually he's going to notice where he is and fall. The problem is that, if this analogy applied to Trump, he would have fallen already. There's been more than enough opportunity.
Actually, Trump's poll standings are not a function of his strength, but of everyone else's weakness. The previous candidate he most resembles is Pat Buchanan in 1996. Buchanan had poll ratings not far below what Trump's are now. The difference was that he faced a strong opponent: Trump's are all weak. The real mystery of this primary is not Trump's lead: it's why the Republican establishment hasn't pulled together behind one candidate as it usually does. The Republican establishment being a hierarchical thing, that candidate is usually the runner-up from the previous contested primary season. This year that'd be Rick Santorum. Whatever happened to him?
The article's second argument is that "there are simply not enough struggling, resentful, xenophobic white people in the US to constitute a national majority sufficient to win a presidential election." The flaw in that reasoning is that, if Trump wins the nomination, he won't need merely that category. Unless the party splits over him, and I wouldn't count on it doing so, other Republicans will have nowhere else to go. Trump has high negatives, yes, but so does Clinton (if she's the Democratic nominee), and she doesn't have the enthusiasm of her party's base. Enthusiasm is what means turnout, and - as the difference between 2008 and 2010 amply shows - between two strong bases, it's turnout that wins elections.
Combine that with the prospect of a sluggish economy, and in a straight fight between Clinton and Trump, it'd be a wonder if Trump didn't win. The best hope is for something else to happen: if Trump is cheated out of the nomination and goes independent (which, I'm sure, would lead to a re-run of 1992, with Trump restricted to his base), or if Bloomberg jumps in (he might take more votes from Trump than from a Democrat). Or maybe if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination (which would at least energize the base, a la Jeremy Corbyn). Any of those would at least put the balls in the air.
Never say that a strong candidate can't win.
The only problem is that it's titled "Why I Still Believe Donald Trump Will Never Be President," but it demonstrates nothing of the sort. Its arguments are two: first, that Trump's poll standings are artificial. The author repeatedly compares Trump to Wile E. Coyote running off the edge of a cliff and hanging suspended in the air: eventually he's going to notice where he is and fall. The problem is that, if this analogy applied to Trump, he would have fallen already. There's been more than enough opportunity.
Actually, Trump's poll standings are not a function of his strength, but of everyone else's weakness. The previous candidate he most resembles is Pat Buchanan in 1996. Buchanan had poll ratings not far below what Trump's are now. The difference was that he faced a strong opponent: Trump's are all weak. The real mystery of this primary is not Trump's lead: it's why the Republican establishment hasn't pulled together behind one candidate as it usually does. The Republican establishment being a hierarchical thing, that candidate is usually the runner-up from the previous contested primary season. This year that'd be Rick Santorum. Whatever happened to him?
The article's second argument is that "there are simply not enough struggling, resentful, xenophobic white people in the US to constitute a national majority sufficient to win a presidential election." The flaw in that reasoning is that, if Trump wins the nomination, he won't need merely that category. Unless the party splits over him, and I wouldn't count on it doing so, other Republicans will have nowhere else to go. Trump has high negatives, yes, but so does Clinton (if she's the Democratic nominee), and she doesn't have the enthusiasm of her party's base. Enthusiasm is what means turnout, and - as the difference between 2008 and 2010 amply shows - between two strong bases, it's turnout that wins elections.
Combine that with the prospect of a sluggish economy, and in a straight fight between Clinton and Trump, it'd be a wonder if Trump didn't win. The best hope is for something else to happen: if Trump is cheated out of the nomination and goes independent (which, I'm sure, would lead to a re-run of 1992, with Trump restricted to his base), or if Bloomberg jumps in (he might take more votes from Trump than from a Democrat). Or maybe if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination (which would at least energize the base, a la Jeremy Corbyn). Any of those would at least put the balls in the air.
Never say that a strong candidate can't win.
