Trump vs. Walker

Chris Cillizza’s article on Walker’s dropping out of the race is entitled “How Donald Trump Destroyed Scott Walker’s Presidential Chances.”

I’m no Trump fan, to say the least. But I beg to differ. I think Trump’s huge popularity and aggressive tone didn’t help, but I think it’s Walker who “destroyed” Walker’s presidential chances. I believe that even if Trump had never been in the race, other candidates would have overshadowed Walker because of that mild-mannered “blandness” factor of his that worried me from the start. Trump’s presence may have (in fact, did) emphasize it because the contrast was great, but the contrast was already present without Trump and I believe it would have always proved fatal.

Cillizza himself seems to somewhat agree:

Walker, despite his relative prime position on the stage — a vestige of the national polling bump he got after that speech at the Iowa event way back in February — seemed diminished when standing among his rivals for the nomination. And it wasn’t just Trump whose persona towered over Walker; Bush, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie all just seemed — and I know this is a loaded word –more presidential than Walker. In the second debate last week, Walker spoke for the shortest period of time of any candidate on the stage; his campaign complained about the lack of speaking time but part of running for president is being able to butt your way into conversations and making moments. He did neither.

Nice guys often finish last—or in Walker’s case, close to last. That’s not Trump’s fault.

The primary fight is a difficult test that candidates must meet and master in order to compete in the general. Sometimes good people fall by the wayside; actually, they often do. It takes toughness to win, among other things. That’s why Walker was a paradox; he’s shown such tremendous toughness in real life, but somehow in his persona and his rhetoric during the primary campaign he couldn’t make us believe it. And that, more than anything else, is why he’s gone. It’s not just being mild-mannered, either, that did him in; Carson is mild-mannered, but to me he also seems tough, and Walker did not.

As I said, a paradox.

Earlier today, commenter “T” wrote:

IMO this is the (inadvertent) purpose of the Trump campaign. Perry and Walker are out (both of whom had enviable track records). The next will perhaps be Graham, Santorum, Pataki and Jindal.

Fiorina, Carson and Cruz continue to improve. This test of their mettle in the primary system will, I hope, temper them for the real campaign against Clinton or Biden. Trump is forcing the issue and causing opponents to make their mistakes now. What doesn’t “kill” them in the primary makes them stronger in the general election.

Now, the only question is: Can any one of them eventually turn the tables on Trump himself to jump from second, third or fourth place to first place in the polls?

My response is that they don’t have to “turn the tables” on Trump, not exactly. From what I’ve seen, most or at least much of Trump’s support will remain firmly wedded to Trump. The race for Fiorina, Carson, Cruz, and Rubio (I see those four as having the best chance at this point) is against each other, not against Trump.

Trump will be Trump, and he will get his support and probably keep it. He may (accent on the “may”) not get much more support over time, though. His chances of victory in the primaries depend on keeping as many candidates running as possible (in fact, since he’s got so much money, maybe he should donate to his opponents’ campaigns just to keep them in the race).

Their real chance to win is for one of them to emerge above the others, and for more and more candidates to drop out. If one (or even two) candidates can corner the un-Trump vote, that’s the way to win.

Comments

Trump vs. Walker — 28 Comments

Cornhead on September 22, 2015 at 2:27 pm said:

And Carly will attack Hillary.

If I was on Carly’s official team, I would advise her to blast Hillary for her tweet that reduced by billions the market cap of pharma and biotech companies yesterday.

The path to the nomination is by attacking Hillary and not each other.
M J R on September 22, 2015 at 2:34 pm said:

Ya just lost me, Ms. Fiorina — for good, I’m afraid:

— — — — — — — — —

Politics

Fiorina: Carson must apologize, Islam most “enlightened” faith

September 22, 2015 Dmitri Voltova

Carly ordered Ben Carson to apologize about the “Muslim” issue and highlighted her belief that the Islamic Civilization of the 800-1500 era was the most “enlightened,” reiterating a theme she brought up in a post 9/11 letter to HP staff, prior to laying them all off.

“When people get to know me, they tend to support me,” she told Fallon. “That’s what you see in the polls.”

This doesn’t seem to be the case, as Rush Limbaugh and others have been very critical of Fiorina.

http://prntly.com/blog/2015/09/22/fiorina-carson-must-apologize-islam-most-enlightened-faith/
Wooly Bully on September 22, 2015 at 2:38 pm said:

Trump’s support is wide but an inch deep. Many of this supporters are not “low-information voters (LIV)”, as some have said, but “low-information nonvoters (LIN)”. They will tell a pollster over the phone that they like Trump, but they won’t show up to vote for him, especially not in primaries. The primaries are ruled by activists and people who are strong supporters of specific candidates, which is what Trump lacks. Once the primaries start, Trumpmania will be over.
Mike M on September 22, 2015 at 2:38 pm said:

Walker went wobbly at the wrong time. When he should have been shouting and raising his fist about Obama, or Hillary, or Kerry, or even Trump, he decided to fade into the background. That was a horrible political decision. He had the momentum and he stopped for a lunch break.

Napoleon was right about taking Vienna. You’d better. Or you are toast.

He is toast.

I’d say too bad because he was my first choice. But we need winners and not losers. He used to be a winner, but this is the highest stakes and he knew he couldn’t do it.

The only person worse than Trump would be any Democrat anywhere anytime. They are all sons and daughters of the Mordor – Orcs totally degraded and morally wicked. Let us never forget they literally dissect babies for breakfast. They pushed for the absolute right to do this in Congress this very day. The child-sacrificing worshipers of Baal himself were not one bit morally different from every political democrat there is, and there are no exceptions. These people are rotten to the core.

Voting for Trump instead of one of these incarnated demons from hell is like voting for the guy who ran against Hitler. he might not be great. But he’s not Hitler.
Eric on September 22, 2015 at 2:47 pm said:

Neo: “If one (or even two) candidates can corner the un-Trump vote, that’s the way to win.”

Then watch for Trump to shift gears.
T on September 22, 2015 at 2:52 pm said:

Neo,

This post makes an excellent point; that the competition is between the non-Trumps. If any single candidate coalesces most of the interest now spread between the 15 contenders, they should leave Trump in the dust. Trump has the support he has. It is, perhaps, unlikely to diminish, but how likely is it that he will grow his ~30 percent into 51-plus percent?
Oldflyer on September 22, 2015 at 2:52 pm said:

I am sorry to read the revelations of Fironina’s statement about Ben Carson and the Muslims–if it is an accurate quote, in context.

She may be right that historically the Islamic world was the more enlightened during a particular segment of the so-called middle ages. The period between the fall of Rome, and the Renaissance was clearly not a high point of western civilization. Of course, I am not sure whether it was the Islamic influence, or the capture of intellectual capital from ancient civilizations in Egypt, Greece, and parts of eastern Europe that deserves the credit that she bestows. More knowledgeable folk than I would have to address that. Still, it is neither wise, nor necessary, to try to make that point at this time. The focus should be on the Islamic world as it has evolved today today viz a viz the the Juedo-Christian influenced world.

Beyond that, to attack Carson at this time for a statement that is arguably right on, is very bad political judgement. Carson rightly pointed out that Islam does not support the values on which this country was founded; and which we hope to retain if we have the will. I admire him for sticking to his principles, and admonish any GOP candidate from piling on with the Democrat leaning media.

Still, I think it is very premature to write her off for one statement. In a campaign that is as bizarre as this one has already proven to be, mistakes will be made by all.
Oldflyer on September 22, 2015 at 2:57 pm said:

Wooly Bully posted while I typed. I agree whole heartedly.
Eric on September 22, 2015 at 3:05 pm said:

Wooly Bully, Oldflyer,

I wouldn’t bank on that.
T on September 22, 2015 at 3:16 pm said:

Oldflyer,

“The period between the fall of Rome, and the Renaissance was clearly not a high point of western civilization.”

As an ex-pat medievalist, I take exception to that statement. The Middle Ages is popularly seen this way (“getting medieval . . .”) but that has little to do with historical fact and mostly to do with contemporary ignorance of the era.

Just some examples:

The repelling of the Moors from Spain and later from eastern Europe;

The standardization of writing and communication by Charlemagne (called the Carolingian Renaissance);

The rebirth of cities which had foundered after the fall of Rome;

The rise of monumental architecture and a mass-production method of building;

The rise of animal husbandry.

And I have yet to even mention philosophy and theology (Anselm of Canterbury, Johannes Duns Scotus. Alcuin of York, Thomas a Becket, etc.).

In fact the much beloved “Renaissance” could arguably never have occurred without the fundamental evolution of the Middle Ages.
T on September 22, 2015 at 3:20 pm said:

Oh, and lest I Forget, The first universities (oldest is the University of Bologna, founded 1088).
Cornflour on September 22, 2015 at 3:33 pm said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEkUyUiNtlk

That’s a link to a YouTube video of Carly Fiorina’s “Tonight Show” remarks about the possibility of a Muslim president. She did not assert that the Islamic Caliphate was the most enlightened civilization. In fact, she said nothing even remotely like that.

I haven’t been keeping score, but I must admit that — more than most candidates — Fiorina seems to attract a lot of bald-faced lies from people who claim to be conservatives. Now, whenever I read something that sounds a little suspect, I check for original sources.
Sharon W on September 22, 2015 at 3:33 pm said:

Oldflyer & T– The Muslim conquest was greatly aided by the plagues that gravely weakened the Roman empire. Only Spain & Portugal reconverted from Islam, that garnered all of its territory in under 100 years. Charles Martel’s victory at the Battle of Poitiers is considered by many historians as the primary turn of events that stopped the advance of Islam and thereby allowed for the flowering of western civilization.
parker on September 22, 2015 at 3:46 pm said:

I do not understand why Fiorina would debase herself by going on a late night show that caters to a demographic that will not support her in the primaries; nor do I understand why she would admonish Carson.
neo-neocon on September 22, 2015 at 3:53 pm said:

MJR, cornflour, parker, Oldflyer, et. al.:

Fiorina never said what she’s quoted as having said. Please see this.

Understand that more distortions and lies will be coming out. First for her, and then for each frontrunner in turn, and then for the eventual nominee. Be very very careful what you believe.
T on September 22, 2015 at 3:55 pm said:

PArker,

I do not understand why Fiorina would debase herself by going on a late night show that caters to a demographic that will not support her in the primaries; nor do I understand why she would admonish Carson.

IMO it is, at the very least “bearding the lion in his den.” She becomes a presence, a reality; no longer just an impersonal name to vote against.

It’s like having a liberal neighbor find out you are a conservative and responding with something like: “S/He’s conservative? But s/he’s so reasonable!” It intrudes on the liberal narrative. It’s the personal equivalent of re-framing the liberal narrative in a debate.

Don’t forget, conservative authors show up on liberal talk shows all the time when they have a book to peddle. Same difference.
neo-neocon on September 22, 2015 at 4:01 pm said:

MIke M:

By the way, “the guy who ran against Hitler” won. It was von Hindenburg:

In 1932, hoping to establish a clear government by majority rule, Hindenburg held two presidential elections. Hitler, among others, ran against him. A vote for Hindenburg was a vote to continue the German Republic, while a vote for Hitler was a vote against it. The Nazi party made the most clever use of propaganda, as well as the most extensive use of violence. Bloody street battles erupted between Communists and Nazis thugs, and many political figures were murdered.

In the first election, held on March 13, 1932, Hitler received 30 percent of the vote, losing badly to Hindenburg’s 49.6 percent. But because Hindenburg had just missed an absolute majority, a run-off election was scheduled a month later. On April 10, 1932, Hitler increased his share of the vote to 37 percent, but Hindenburg again won, this time with a decisive 53 percent. A clear majority of the voters had thus declared their preference for a democratic republic.

All to no avail, because the elderly von Hindenburg gave it away:

But at the lowest ebb of the Nazis’ fortunes, the backroom deal presented itself as the solution to all their problems. Deal-making, intrigues and double-crosses had been going on for years now. Schleicher, who had managed to make himself the last German Chancellor before Hitler, would eventually say: “I stayed in power only 57 days, and on each of those days I was betrayed 57 times.” It’s not worth tracking the ins and outs of all these schemes, but the one that got Hitler into power is worth noting.

Hitler’s unexpected savior was Franz von Papen, one of the former Chancellors, a remarkably incompetent man who owed his political career to a personal friendship with Hindenburg. He had been thrown out of power by the much more capable Schleicher, who personally replaced him. To get even, Papen approached Hitler and offered to become “co-chancellors,” if only Hitler would join him in a coalition to overthrow Schleicher. Hitler responded that only he could be the head of government, while Papen’s supporters could be given important cabinet positions. The two reached a tentative agreement to pursue such an alliance, even though secretly they were planning to double-cross each other.

Meanwhile Schleicher was failing spectacularly in his attempts to form a coalition government, so Hindenburg forced his resignation. But by now, Hindenburg was exhausted by all the intrigue and crisis, and the prospect of civil war had moved the steely field marshal to tears. As much as he hated to do so, he seemed resigned to offering Hitler a high government position. Many people were urging him to do so: the industrialists who were financing Hitler, the military whose connections Hitler had cultivated, even Hindenburg’s son, whom some historians believe the Nazis had blackmailed. The last straw came when an unfounded rumor swept through Berlin that Schleicher was about to attempt a military coup, arrest Hindenburg, and establish a military dictatorship. Alarmed, Hindenburg wasted no time offering Hitler the Chancellorship, thinking it was a last resort to save the Republic.

On January 30, 1933, Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor. As Hitler historian Alan Bullock put it:

“Hitler came to office in 1933 as the result, not of any irresistible revolutionary or national movement sweeping him into power, nor even of a popular victory at the polls, but as part of a shoddy political deal with the ‘Old Gang’ whom he had been attacking for months… Hitler did not seize power; he was jobbed into office by a backstairs intrigue.”

There’s more. Please read the whole thing, if you’re not already familiar with it.
T on September 22, 2015 at 4:08 pm said:

“. . . the backroom deal presented itself as the solution to all their problems.”

But enough about the Obama administration already!
Jim Doherty on September 22, 2015 at 4:08 pm said:

Do not comment here much, mainly a lurker. But I am not worried about Trump. The pollsters predicted the repubs would win 9 senate seats right? That they would gain house seats ?

Nope.

They can hype polls for ratings and they do. No votes have been cast. When it comes down to it, many people might say they support Trump now, but when it comes time to vote, they want to be on the winning side. If Trump cant convince folks that he can win the general, he will lose, big. Sure he will get 25% in Iowa, then 20% in New Hampsire, then that will be that.
vanderleun on September 22, 2015 at 4:49 pm said:

All the birds of the air
fell a-sighing and a-sobbing,
when they heard the bell toll
for poor Cock Robin.
Mike M on September 22, 2015 at 4:54 pm said:

Thanks for the link Neo.

In my mind I substituted Bill Clinton, the Archdevil who forever changed the Democrat Poarty to an evil force in America and the World, for Hitler and it works if Obam becomes Hitler circa 1937.

All fascists are the same species, like finches. Different beaks shapes and different islands they live on is all.

Democrats (the thing that used to be no longer exists) are Fascist to a man, woman, and warlock. If they are not stomping on your neck exactly today it is only because they cannot exactly today. But as sure a h*ll they will do it tomorrow.

ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL of them.

No exceptions.

Period.
Cornflour on September 22, 2015 at 5:02 pm said:

Neo:

I wrote my comment above, and submitted it a few minutes before you published your post entitled “Hey, I’ve got an idea: how about telling the truth?”

Since we said pretty much the same thing, and even cited the same YouTube video, I obviously wouldn’t have commented here if you’d typed just a little bit faster.

There must be an aphorism that covers this situation. In any event, sorry for the redundant remarks.
Ymarsakar on September 22, 2015 at 7:25 pm said:

There is a line for it, great minds think alike.
Paul A'Barge on September 22, 2015 at 9:59 pm said:

…Chris Cillizza’s article on Walker’s dropping out of the race is entitled (sic)…

“titled”. Not “entitled”.
neo-neocon on September 22, 2015 at 10:07 pm said:

Paul A’Barge:

Actual, my usage is one of the meanings of the word. See this.
Matt_SE on September 22, 2015 at 10:58 pm said:

Trumpkins are fanatics…zealots. It’s not necessarily that they support Trump so much as they are emotionally invested in his success at this point.
It’s not about him, it’s about them.

He’ll keep 20% no matter what. The interesting part comes if one other candidate gets 40%.
Liberty Wolf on September 23, 2015 at 4:22 am said:

I liked Walker, he actually has a record of getting the job done against tremendous odds in Wisconsin. The demonstrations against his reforms were fierce, the left was out for blood. And, he survived a recall, as I remember. However, even with all that success I think he has a charisma deficit. Maybe he can pull it off in the future, he’s still quite young as far as presidential contenders go. I am disappointed as he was one of my favorites but this season is not for him apparently.

I agree Neo that Cruz, Fiorina, Carson and Rubio are the contenders – aside from Trump of course. I would hope at least one of them will rise ahead of the pack. I still think Cruz may come out ahead at some point in the future, but who knows what will happen. I do like them all, and time will tell.
Ymarsakar on September 23, 2015 at 9:34 am said:

I am disappointed as he was one of my favorites but this season is not for him apparently.

In a real democracy that wouldn’t be necessary, since your second tier vote would be automatically tallied and routed to your second favorite candidate.

In the current system, it’s as if the primary votes for Walker were never counted at all. Those votes may have gone elsewhere and boosted up a different candidate, but when Walker was “excised” for whatever reasons, that manipulates the power balance from on top. You, the voter, don’t get to choose how it gets tipped.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

Comments

Trump vs. Walker — 28 Comments

Leave a Reply