According to a new Chicago Tribune poll Illinois Republicans, like Republicans elsewhere in the country, have lost their ever-loving minds. But it’s close:
Republican Donald Trump leads his three rivals in Illinois’ presidential primary, according to a new Chicago Tribune poll that shows many of the fissures affecting the GOP nationally have come to the Midwest.
The survey, conducted Wednesday through Sunday, also found Trump holds his advantage despite having the highest unfavorable rating of any of the Republican contenders ahead of next Tuesday’s election.
Overall, Trump had the support of 32 percent, followed by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz with 22 percent, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio with 21 percent and Ohio Gov. John Kasich with 18 percent. An additional 7 percent were undecided. The poll of 600 registered voters likely to cast a ballot in the Republican primary has an error margin of 4.1 percentage points.
7% undecided suggests a Trump victory but maybe the millions that are being spent here on a “stop Trump” campaign will have some effect. I don’t have nearly so much of a problem. Next Tuesday I’ll be voting for Bernie Sanders.
Trump closes weak. It’ll be interesting to see whether that continues to be the case. I do think the attacks – and Trump’s own appalling dick-measuring performance – is having an effect. It’ll still be hard to stop him, but it’s great fun watching Republicans essentially write Hillary’s attack ads for her. She could just run Mitt Romney’s attack. It’s an embarrassment of riches, and the real oppo hasn’t even begun.
Bernie’s done for. He’s a one-issue guy whose own campaign is disproving his central thesis that Wall Street dominates politics. Ask Jeb! how much Wall Street did for him. Or Kasich. Or Rubio.
“Kasich is viewed most favorably among the candidates . . .”
I was listening to Rush last week, and someone manning the Kasich phone bank in Virginia called in and said just about everyone she talked with really likes Kasich and would like him to win, but they also believe that Trump is the most electable in the general. Rush basically said this is a very odd year, he thinks any of the Republicans left could beat the Democrat, but the Trump phenomena is unprecedented. Certainly interesting.
The Guardian committed journalism and interviewed actual Trump supporters:
“Barack Obama talked about hope and change, but I believe he failed to deliver on his promises. His record with drone strikes and prosecutions of whistleblowers are especially troubling (not to mention he didn’t follow-through with prosecutions of those who caused the financial crisis).
“As far as Obamacare goes, I’m not buying it, because it seems ignorant to throw money at a problem and hope it will get better. I’m glad more people are covered, but the plans aren’t worth shit, as many of them don’t kick in until you spend thousands on a co-pay. No thanks.
“Bernie is a breath of fresh air, but I’m not sure he can beat Hillary. In a match between Bernie and Donald, I’d vote for the former. In a match between Hillary and Donald, I’d vote for the latter. It isn’t a vote for Trump, but rather a vote against the political establishment (which must be removed from office at any cost – even if it means electing a reality TV star for president). The stakes are too high. Hillary cannot win or the oligarchy will continue unabated.
“And please don’t publish my name, it would ruin the whole “progressive†image (and my girlfriend might kill me).
“I bet a lot of pragmatic sorts are in the same boat …”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/03/secret-donald-trump-voters-speak-out?CMP=share_btn_fb
PD:
People backing Trump are fools – they have no idea what he stands for. Neither does he. He’s a classic psychopath – narcissistic, aggressive, glib, indifferent to honesty, charming at some level, charismatic, with impressive instincts for weakness in others. Trump didn’t destroy Jeb because of issues, he destroyed Jeb because he smelled Jeb’s weakness.
Trump’s only belief is in Trump. People vote for him in the belief that he’ll do something. . . but neither they nor he has any clear idea what. It’s the equivalent of playing Russian roulette because you want “Change.” The “Party of Ideas” is down to, “How about a führer?”
This to me is the really fascinating (and sadly gratifying) revelation: that the GOP has no genuine beliefs. They stand for nothing. They long-since stopped being anything but a tool for the 1% to exploit racial and cultural divisions for cash. Now, finally, decades late, the nitwits who form the “base” have figured out they’ve been used. In another couple of decades they may figure out they’ve been brainwashed. The Republican party is a mechanism for the greedy to exploit the stupid.
“I am a Democrat but will vote for Trump, because he is not bought and paid for by anyone. We the American people are tired of politicians owing favors to rich businessmen, bankers, oil companies and stock markets. It should be against the law to have lobbyists involved with government.”
Trump is also now being swept up by events. He started out anti-illegal immigration but mostly in favor of more legal immigration. Supporters didn’t notice or care about that at the start, they were just so pleased someone was finally addressing any of it. But now Trump is being forced by his supporters into a more restrictive position on H1Bs.
I’ve said for years that the almost total absence of immigration restrictionists in either party (especially at the Presidential level) was a sign of the lack of an open & free market in the US political scene. Now someone with enough media savvy & money & ambition has stumbled upon it. The fact that he’s got the personality of a professional wrestler?
Well, that’s a thing, isn’t it? According to Karl Rove’s super secret (until the intentional leaks) focus groups, even Trump supporters don’t really care for his persona that much, don’t seem him “presidential”, and don’t want their children to emulate him.
What that SHOULD tell them is that his positions on the couple of issues he has focused on has resonance.
But instead, the response by both parties has been to unify behind the need for even more immigration, despite the wishes of a clear majority of US citizens. So still not a free market in the realm of politics.
Note that Trump would be a non-factor in the election if a Kasich or Christie or Cruz had made the issue their own to begin with.
…
But nah, couldn’t possibly be about immigration, “free” trade, and the economic consequences thereof. It’s just that most white people are nothing but Nazis. Lucky for me that I get to be a Nazi now instead of a Klansman. I don’t own any white sheets!
Damnit, I hate writing with my phone. Grrrr.
“Note that Trump would be a non-factor in the election if a Kasich or Christie or Cruz had made the issue their own to begin with.”
Maybe. They also seem obsessed with PC and sticking it to liberals, or someone. Free trade is a bit different. Creative destruction has consequences. In the long run, it is probably mostly good, but not so much in the short run. You either have free trade, and just let those people adversely affected in the short term suffer, you can try to ameliorate those consequences, or do away with free trade. Conservatives have always clearly supported letting people suffer. If you can’t get a new job because yours got shipped to China, it is your own fault. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Democrats have generally supported trying to ameliorate the consequences, or just not have free trade.
Steve
Note that Trump would be a non-factor in the election if a Kasich or Christie or Cruz had made the issue their own to begin with.
But they didn’t because every GOP strategist was/is telling them that it’s very hard to win by appealing only to white people.
This I don’t understand–
Trump Steaks, Trump Chardonnay, Trump Rosé and Trump water will be served to guests at Trump’s presser 2nite in FL.
There’s no Trump Cabernet?
Michael’s spittle spewing comment is hilarious on its own. It’s Hillary to a tee, except she has no charisma and doesn’t bother with weakness, just jam it down people’s throats.
But this is even better, for it’s intended to be serious, and not just bizarre ranting:
“Conservatives have always clearly supported letting people suffer. If you can’t get a new job because yours got shipped to China, it is your own fault.”
Perhaps they realize that there are a tremendous number of beneficiaries in the consuming class, as well as losers in the working class. It’s time to have a serious national debate about this tension, given costs of shipping and capabilities of low wage countries, and not Steve’s simplistic shit slinging.
“Democrats have generally supported trying to ameliorate the consequences, or just not have free trade.”
I see. That’s why Clinton and Obama pushed “free trade deals.” Got it.
And they say Trump is in bizarro world.
I know you’re too dense to realize this Drew, but the guy Trump voters really hate is you.
“Perhaps they realize that there are a tremendous number of beneficiaries in the consuming class, as well as losers in the working class.”
Should that be read as beneficiaries in the wealthy class and losers in the working class? LOL. Thanks for helping to make my point. And, I agree that there should be a serious conversation. However, you really need to acknowledge the starting points. Yours is the party that believes some are pulling the wagon, and everyone else is on the wagon getting pulled along. You guys need to acknowledge that there are losers with free trade and it isn’t always the fault of the worker if he/she can’t find new work, or that the new work may mean significant cuts in wages and loss of benefits. On the Democratic side you have some free traders, but then you also have them wanting to try to provide offsets. Health care, training, higher minimum wage, etc.
Slinging shit must have touched a nerve. It also happens to be mostly true, so deal with it.
Steve
On the Democratic side you have some free traders, but then you also have them wanting to try to provide offsets. Health care, training, higher minimum wage, etc.
And this has been working out so well, hasn’t it? Health care and higher minimum wage paid for by whom? Training for what?
” Health care and higher minimum wage paid for by whom? ”
Let’s see. We engage in free trade. One group clearly benefits, the investor and management class. Another group loses, the working class. Who should pay? Seems kind of obvious.
“Training for what?”
Whatever is here. Some of the losers in free trade will not switch well to other fields, but most can and are willing to work elsewhere. However, they likely need a few new skills. By this I don’t mean going off for a 4 year degree in whatever, just that a lot could be done with more guided training, perhaps at the community college level or similar. Again, you have the issue of funding, but that also seems pretty obvious.
Steve
Funny, looking up from the bottom all I see are Democrats telling me to fuck off and die since I’m obviously a Klansman/Nazi/white man.
The kindness of Democrats to the poor has to be the biggest myth in the history of America.
Let’s see. We engage in free trade. One group clearly benefits, the investor and management class. Another group loses, the working class. Who should pay? Seems kind of obvious.
What’s less obvious is how you get there. ACA hasn’t shifted the cost of healthcare to the investor/management class, and increased minimum wage largely gets cost shifted to people who eat at fast food restaurants and buy cheap goods- again, not the folks you think should be paying. And your answer to the last question seems to acknowledge the problem- that the displaced workers have no where to go.
“Perhaps they realize that there are a tremendous number of beneficiaries in the consuming class, as well as losers in the working class.”
I think there is an important distinction here. The Republican party has traditionally been the pro-business party. But businesses are not impacted by free trade uniformly, and being pro-business doesn’t necessarily mean favoring free trade.
The Democratic party has a longer, perhaps even uninterrupted history of support for free-trade, because it was more focused on the consumer (and some businesses like certain types of farming that favored free-trade). Pointing to Democratic policies and their effect on the working man is to identify a wedge issue between two of its identities, and so far consumer advocate has won.
OTOH, Trump is a businessman, who from what I can tell does not benefit at all from free-trade. He appears to be disturbing the Reagan-era, or perhaps Cold War, support for free-trade in the Republican Party, but he is largely able to do it from the perspective of business.
“ACA hasn’t shifted the cost of healthcare to the investor/management class”
The investor/management class i every good at protecting itself. Even now, the guy who is supposedly standing up for the working class, Trump, wants to eliminate the death tax. That said, the spending par to the ACA clearly goes to those at the lower end of the income ladder. So, if you lose your job, you many still be able to get health insurance. If you go from a good paying job to one in the service sector, say cooking burgers, you can get affordable insurance. On the funding side, the money comes from those who are broadly at the top, not as narrow as one might like. It will also be funded by the cadillac tax, again aimed at those with more income. As both Dave and Drew always point out, it is hard to raise taxes on the very wealthy. They control everything. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
As to the minimum wage, I will agree it is not a perfect fix, but what is? Yup, lower income people also eat burgers, but who is staying at the fancy hotels that are also employing minimum wage workers? How about the dishwashers at those upper level restaurants?
Where are the jobs? While we need more, we have also added a lot in the private sector over the last 7 years. Drew keeps telling us that more are coming back to the US. But, if we wish to add jobs that pay well, then people will need to have the skills that merit them. Realistically, we really are competing in a global market. If you outlaw companies from taking jobs overseas and then expect them to compete while paying higher wages, that has issues also. Our advantage has to be better productivity, and that means workers who do more than push a broom.
Steve
The number of those in either party who believe in free trade is vanishingly small. What they actually believe in is versions of managed trade which differ in who bears the costs and who gets the benefits.
For the last several decades there has been a consensus on trade between the two parties. What I think we’re learning is that the rank and file of both parties no longer support that consensus.
I have a problem with the word “merit” in this context. Merit has nothing to do with it but supply and demand do.
Supply is regulated by trade agreements. These agreements increase the supply of some goods and services available and constrain the supply of others. Over the period of the last several decades we have increased the supply of many goods coming into the country through our trade agreements while constraining the supply of services that people outside the country may provide within this one. We have also constrained the supply of some goods coming in, particularly those that involve intellectual property. What has happened is just what you’d expect: the real price of the goods of which the supply has increased coming in has gone down while the real prices of the goods and services that have been constrained from coming in are going up.
“The number of those in either party who believe in free trade is vanishingly small. What they actually believe in is versions of managed trade which differ in who bears the costs and who gets the benefits.”
Sure, but then you probably know that libertarians argue that trade is beneficial even when it is not free. Even when one side trades unfairly while the other side plays by the rules. And, from the POV of our investor/management class (need a better name for this) it surely is. They are making out very well. From the POV of the working class, it hasn’t been that great. Cheaper pants at WalMart, but no job or one flipping burgers instead.
The way I am thinking about is that for many years, the working class has been voting against its own interests. Now, some have decided that having a decent job is probably more important than culture war issues or eliminating the estate tax. True, as you note above, for some people unlimited gun rights are still much more important, but some people are realizing that doesn’t put bread on the table.
Steve
FWIW, I found the Trump and Sanders official statements on H1B visas interesting:
“We must substantially increase prevailing wages that employers pay temporary guest workers . . . [and] ensure that if there is a true labor shortage, employers must offer higher, not lower wages.”
“Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas.”
The first is from Sanders, and I excerpted a reference to legislation he has sponsored. Sanders also wants to give visa-holders the opportunity to change employers, which I don’t see Trump proposing, but I think requiring job-mobility is similar to requiring higher wages.
Has anyone reassured Dr. Taylor that Sanders only won Michigan because the state is 95% white and shares a border with Vermont?
I would but I’m banned.
Dr. Taylor is very knowledgeable about Latin American studies, but since he rarely posts on that topic, I rarely read him.
Democratic voters = Black voters + (interested white voters) + (white voters without a stake in the outcome)
Clinton voters = Black voters + (interested white voters)
I agree, PD. Taylor’s proprietary ‘it’s this way cuz it is’ analysis framework has proven highly useful this election cycle.
Ben,
You got banned from OTB? I didn’t think that was possible.
Steve,
“Conservatives have always clearly supported letting people suffer. If you can’t get a new job because yours got shipped to China, it is your own fault. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Democrats have generally supported trying to ameliorate the consequences, or just not have free trade.”
With respect to that last sentence I think there is a difference between words and action. Democrats (talking in general terms here) do talk the talk about ameliorating consequences, but their practical efforts have not amounted to much. It hasn’t helped that Democrats are split on key questions like the utility of so-called “free trade” pacts, but more than that Democrats long supported policies which make the problem worse, particularly with their pro-immigration stances.
Meanwhile, the elites in the party continue to sell the snake oil of college education and dumb shit like “green jobs” and “infrastructure spending” as practical solutions to the underlying problem. And, as Ice pithily put it, Democrats only seem to care about the proper kind of poor people who conform to certain expectations of how poor people should think. It also doesn’t help when invariably wealthy Democrats lecture the so-called working class about “voting against their own interests” while wondering why they are so interested in guns.
No, I think the record of the Democratic party is pretty clear, at least the majority of the party that is, and will be, firmly in the Clinton camp.