Hi there, again. I had an epiphany. I want to share my epiphany with yinz.
Like most of you I initially thought Donald Trump's first faux pas, on The Great Wall of America and on Senator John McCain would stillborn his bizarre reach for the presidency. When those faux pas didn't kill his candidacy however I changed, quicker than some, maybe most, I looked at the size and enthusiasm of Trump's crowds and concluded that he had touched on some nerves in the American electorate, and I could feel his appeal although it didn't appeal to me, I thought I had some understanding of it. There was sometimes a kernel of truth in Trump's shouted proposals, and more so in his criticisms of the other Republican candidates. He had a sixth sense for others' weakest points. He flat out said "I will do, blah-blah-blah," whatever it was, and that was a breathtaking Leap over nuance and details like the separation of powers and all those inconvenient details. He was a "doer" not a "trier." But I admitted I had no overarching Theory of Trump.
Then I had an epiphany. I had it on January 25 and I wrote that I now had a Theory of Trump, that it was the Theory of Obama I had had in 2006 when Senator Obama asked me to write up a Theory of how Obama Could Win the White House. I wrote the senator that the 2008 election would be mostly about someone who was not on the ballot, that someone was George W. Bush. I wrote that the American electorate "corrects" its political decisions, that after eight years of the obfuscating, comfortable, boring, successful Eisenhower the electorate was in the mood for a dynamic change and so, incredibly narrowly, rejected Ike's veep, Richard M. Nixon for the young, dynamic John F. Kennedy. In 2008, I wrote to Senator Obama, the electorate would want a corrective from all the drama of harshness and war and would want a "no drama" president.
I learned the lessons of that 2006 memo well, although I learned them late, not until January 25, and I wrote then, in an opinion piece for the New York Times that now the Trump phenomenon made perfect sense to me, that the American electorate would correct for No Drama Obama and go for the instantiation of Drama, Donald J. Trump.
The first full paragraph above were actually my thoughts. The next two paragraphs were obviously not mine, they are the Theory of Trump advanced by Obama's former key political advisor and longtime political operative, David Axelrod.
There is much to like in David Axelrod's theory, much that is true but this, his concluding paragraph, is not to like and is not true:
It’s far too early to picture the iconic Trump logo affixed to the White House portico. But as the most ardent and conspicuous counterpoint to the man in the White House today, the irrepressible Mr. Trump already has defied all expectations. So, in the parlance of one of his signature businesses, “Who wants to bet?”
Like most of you I initially thought Donald Trump's first faux pas, on The Great Wall of America and on Senator John McCain would stillborn his bizarre reach for the presidency. When those faux pas didn't kill his candidacy however I changed, quicker than some, maybe most, I looked at the size and enthusiasm of Trump's crowds and concluded that he had touched on some nerves in the American electorate, and I could feel his appeal although it didn't appeal to me, I thought I had some understanding of it. There was sometimes a kernel of truth in Trump's shouted proposals, and more so in his criticisms of the other Republican candidates. He had a sixth sense for others' weakest points. He flat out said "I will do, blah-blah-blah," whatever it was, and that was a breathtaking Leap over nuance and details like the separation of powers and all those inconvenient details. He was a "doer" not a "trier." But I admitted I had no overarching Theory of Trump.
Then I had an epiphany. I had it on January 25 and I wrote that I now had a Theory of Trump, that it was the Theory of Obama I had had in 2006 when Senator Obama asked me to write up a Theory of how Obama Could Win the White House. I wrote the senator that the 2008 election would be mostly about someone who was not on the ballot, that someone was George W. Bush. I wrote that the American electorate "corrects" its political decisions, that after eight years of the obfuscating, comfortable, boring, successful Eisenhower the electorate was in the mood for a dynamic change and so, incredibly narrowly, rejected Ike's veep, Richard M. Nixon for the young, dynamic John F. Kennedy. In 2008, I wrote to Senator Obama, the electorate would want a corrective from all the drama of harshness and war and would want a "no drama" president.
I learned the lessons of that 2006 memo well, although I learned them late, not until January 25, and I wrote then, in an opinion piece for the New York Times that now the Trump phenomenon made perfect sense to me, that the American electorate would correct for No Drama Obama and go for the instantiation of Drama, Donald J. Trump.
The first full paragraph above were actually my thoughts. The next two paragraphs were obviously not mine, they are the Theory of Trump advanced by Obama's former key political advisor and longtime political operative, David Axelrod.
There is much to like in David Axelrod's theory, much that is true but this, his concluding paragraph, is not to like and is not true:
It’s far too early to picture the iconic Trump logo affixed to the White House portico. But as the most ardent and conspicuous counterpoint to the man in the White House today, the irrepressible Mr. Trump already has defied all expectations. So, in the parlance of one of his signature businesses, “Who wants to bet?”
ME! HOW MUCH DO YOU WANT TO BET?
Donald Trump is not going to win the presidency, he is not even going to win the Republican nomination for president. And I will put my money where my keyboard is. I have argued that Trump is "contained" within the wacko wing of the Republican Party at about 30%-35%. And I submit that the first test of the theories of Trump, in Iowa, made my bet look a pretty good one. And I predict that New Hampshire will make it look even better.
We can sometimes learn too well the lessons of history. Politics has moved at truly breathtaking speed since 2006. There wasn't much of a Tea Party then if there was a Tea Party at all. Ted Cruz was still a low level Texas state official, not yet even a senator. The Great Recession had not occurred and the notion had not occurred to anyone. The government had not been shut down. Obamacare was merely a glimmer in the president-wannabe's eye. And Donald Trump was evicting a widow from her home to make way for his parking lot.
If the Drama of smash-mouth political rhetoric was the Change the Wackos wanted in 2016, they had Chris Christie. If "Hell, No!"was the explanation they had Mr. Hell No himself in the aforementioned Ted Cruz. They didn't have to go full Adolph Hitler, 1933.
If the Drama of smash-mouth political rhetoric was the Change the Wackos wanted in 2016, they had Chris Christie. If "Hell, No!"was the explanation they had Mr. Hell No himself in the aforementioned Ted Cruz. They didn't have to go full Adolph Hitler, 1933.
Why have 30%-35% of Republican primary voters gone for Trump? Because he was Trump. America has never seen a candidate like him, the take-no-prisoners rhetoric, the Can Do strong man image, the sixth sense for opponents' greatest vulnerability. It is Trumpism that accounts for that 30%-35%, not Change, not a return to Drama. He was, he is, sui generis.
But he lost Iowa, and not because of Ted Cruz' dirty tricks, he lost because of his own erratic behavior and rhetoric and he is falling in New Hampshire. Just tonight in the last debate before Tuesday's primary, Donald Trump was BOOED when he snapped at Jeb Bush "to be quiet." I predicted, at just about this hour last night, that Trump would lose New Hampshire too, to Marco Rubio. That was a bold prediction, maybe too bold, maybe rash, but I am sticking with it and the poll averages have shrunk Trump's lead in New Hampshire just today. He is still 14 points up on Rubio. I predict Rubio will win. If I am wrong, I will not be as wrong as David Axelrod was wrong when he wrote that with his then Towering standing in the polls: in Iowa, in New Hampshire, in the entire nation, "Mr. Trump already has defied all expectations." That was true on January 25 but Trump crashed to defeat seven days later, on February 1, in Iowa. He cannot "run the table" to the nomination now; the table in Iowa already has been cleared and no one, not even David Axelrod, I suspect, thinks that a Trump win in New Hampshire would start a run of the rest of the table to the nomination. T'AINT GONNA HAPPEN.
Good night.
