Posted on 08/15/2015 6:00:34 AM PDT by BobL
In what is becoming an even stranger election season by the day, Donald Trump is now showing strong leads in states that Republicans have been losing in recently. Specifically he's showing leads of 10 to 20 points in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, states that had been left for dead by GOP leaders. Even Pennsylvania and Virginia, two former GOP states that the party has been struggling in recently, show 10 point edges for Mr. Trump. But most surprisingly, a state that was considered long-gone, New Jersey, shows Trump with a small lead, although it's still within the margin of error. No one in the political world expected to see the Democrat Party having to spend a dime in New Jersey these days, but now the state is a toss-up, at best, for Mr. Biden.
Back in August of last year, Trump visited Michigan and it occurred to him and his staff that Michigan could be won again for the GOP, if the right strategy were applied. Publically, the campaign strategy is to simply appeal to the concerns that the majority of voters have, which are jobs first, border security second, while staying out of trouble on other issues, like abortion and gun control (Michigan has a very active gun lobby and hunting tradition, for example). For jobs, Mr. Trump's obvious appeal is to make sure that trade agreements work in favor of the United States, rather than serving as a clandestine form of foreign aid, designed to industrialize other countries, at the expense of the United States. A lower key part of his campaign, but probably the most important, is his plan to use all of the powers of the Oval Office, and taking a cue from the outgoing president, some powers that he doesn't have, to rid the country of the regulations that strangle industry in the United States. As Mr. Trump has often stated, we can have clean water and clean air, and still have factories safe to work in - but it must be done in cost-effective manner, so if keeping a large factory in the United States means one (hypothetical) additional cancer case per hundred thousand people living downwind, or raising ocean levels by a nanometer or two, perhaps that is a reasonable price to pay for a plant that employs two thousand workers.
But privately, our sources have told us that a big part of their strategy, one which they vehemently denied when asked, is to appeal to white Americans (Michigan is nearly 80% white), as the Democrat Party has drifted so far left on issues like gun control and gay marriage, that this vote is now available for the taking. The strategy of targeting the white vote had been considered almost a decade ago by the GOP leadership but a combination of factors led to its rejection. Back then, the GOP was contending with a black candidate, Barak Obama, so the charge of racism could amount from the tiniest infraction. Furthermore, the GOP was coming off of a well-funded and well-coordinated attempt to secure the Hispanic vote, by promising amnesty to tens of millions of people in the United States illegally. In fact, the GOP had gone even further, by hiring an expert on Hispanic affairs, who was more than qualified for the job by having taken Spanish for 2 years in high school. Furthermore, the Hispanic population was growing very fast, and had already exceeded the black population. Although Hispanics do not vote in percentages as high as whites (or blacks), they will eventually become the Number 2 voting block, exceeding the black vote. So the strategy was set by the GOP bosses for 2016, simply put: there would be no discussion of immigration (illegal or otherwise) in that Primary campaign, as it only turns off Hispanic voters, according to their focus groups. If the Republican Party is to be around in 30 years, it will only be possible if they earn the votes of millions of Hispanics. Prior to the start of the 2016 campaign season, all Republicans were asked to agree with this strategy, and all did agree (this is true, by the way) - but Mr. Trump, not being a candidate at the time was not asked, and very likely would not have agreed to any conditions on his candidacy.
But instead Trump and his team looked at the short term. They saw a country that was quickly 'transforming' itself from a top-tier, first world, country, to a has-been, third world, country, like Argentina. And while being a strong party in 30 years may well be a laudable goal, losing election after election trying to pander to Hispanics (while the base sits at home, not voting) may not be such a good short term strategy. The Trump campaign looked at perhaps the most ignored national election in US history, the 2014 election, and they found one thing that GOP leaders had somehow 'missed', which was that the Hispanic vote, unlike the black vote, is not monolithic, not by a long shot. Yes, it is more Democrat than the white vote, but if a Republican can do well with white voters, then all that is necessary with Hispanics is to split their vote 50-50 with the Democrats, or at least come close. And this is precisely what happened in Texas, and other southern states, in 2014. People may forget, but 2014 was supposed to be the year that Texas turned purple, with Wendy Davis at the top of the ticket, leading the charge, and being helped by the non-Hispanic white population being down to 45% statewide. As it was, that did not happen. Rather the Republicans won every statewide race by about 20 points, in other words, by a landslide. The Democrats never had a chance. The Republicans won these landslides because of two things: First, they put their natural base, the white voters, first in line - which means they addressed the concerns that the white voters have, with secure borders and immigration being the top concerns in Texas. This resulted in Republicans winning 75 to 80 percent of the white vote, which was almost enough on its own to secure statewide victory. But second, by using this strategy, the Republicans also appealed to conservative Hispanics, and wound up with between 40 and 45 percent of the Hispanic vote - the existence of these conservative Hispanic voters, for some reason, never seemed to show up in 'focus groups' arranged by Republican pollsters, which is why Republican advisers are convinced they don't exist (perhaps they only do their focus groups in California or New York, where Hispanics vote much more Democrat). It seems that many Hispanics also are not too hot on open borders, gay marriage, gun control, or even high taxes. Black voters were considered out of reach and although Republican values address many of the concerns of black voters, the Republicans were not going to compromise any of their core values to try to pluck off what would amount to only a few of them - that strategy has been tried over and over in the past, and proven to fail every time.
So in the end, Mr. Trump's team simply could not see a reason why this strategy could not be expanded to a lot more states that have either been voting Democrat in recent elections, or trending that way, and they have been applying this strategy - take care of the concerns of the base voters first, then reach out to non-traditional GOP voters (no different than Reagan in 1980). And considering that Mr. Trump is now looking at the possibility of securing over 350 Electoral Votes (270 needed to win), even top GOP leaders would have to admit (privately), that his strategy was brilliant.
Follow-up: We later asked GOP leaders why they didn’t consider Mr. Trump’s strategy and they told us, off the record of course, that they had quietly discussed the strategy with their major donors, and to a person they stated that labor costs were their biggest concern and anything that may put at risk the constant supply of low-cost labor was a non-starter for them.
Also, I wrote this up 6 weeks ago detailing why the GOP cannot stop Trump these days, a good read, in my opinion:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3310574/posts
SORRY EVERYONE!!! I should have put a dateline at the top of the posting.
October 16, 2016
There could be two ways to cut “labor costs.”
One is to keep nodding and winking at illegales, which Trump does not want. (Not sure what Trump’s view is on H1B, but that is a niche area.)
The other way is to cut the other overhead of running businesses which is currently squeezing them.
A Trump presidency, if Trump does not change attitudes based on the desires of the people (which would move him further rightward), looks to be a decidedly mixed bag, some liberal things, some conservative things. But it would shake up some liberal applecarts too. It would not be your ordinary politician.
Post the mod and ask for a headline edit
Agree, and I realize that I’m projecting a bit regarding Trump...but I figure given his business experience, he would at least consider their concerns.
Interesting read, lots of good information.
More paragraph breaks would make it less of a slog.
Perhaps you can add the following at the very beginning of this posting:
Dateline: October 16, 2016
Thank you.
Agree...just couldn’t find a way to do it cleanly.
Thanks...just did.
Jim Hoft @gatewaypundit 10m10 minutes ago MSNBC Goes After “Stump for Trump” Girls, Demands Name of Their Employers=> Ladies Respond (VIDEO) https://shar.es/1tzVE5 @gatewaypundit
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 17m17 minutes ago Queens, NY In the plane heading to Iowa State Fair. Will be great fun. Hopefully giving helicopter rides to some of the kids.
Thanks. Very interesting.
Please clarify: are these leads for Trump vs. fellow Republicans in primary races or leads vs. HRC in a prospective general election?
I wouldn't quite agree that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota "have been left for dead by GOP leaders." Michigan and Wisconsin currently have two-term GOP governors who have improved their states' economies since being in office.
Also, it wasn't exactly ancient history when Minnesota had a GOP governor (Pawlenty) and a GOP US Senator (Coleman) as well. In fact, Coleman would probably still be in office today had it not been for obvious 'Rat cheating in a vote recount in his race vs. Franken.
The more I think about, the more I get it, and have to ask all the Social Justice Warriors this question:
Why is it ok and good to appeal to black voters, women voters, Hispanic voters, GBLT voters, but racist to appeal to white voters?
Doesn't that remind you of Sesame Street's one of these things is not like the other?
Through no fault of my own, I was born a white male. And as I grew to manhood, I was attracted to females, not other males, I don't know why, I just was, and my heart had a place for this entity I called God, and I liked to worship and pray to Him, and was attracted to a Church, and believe in the redemption of Jesus. Is any of that wrong?
Well, silly me, of course it is! According to YOU!
I should CHECK MY PRIVILEGE at the door!
Funny how my privilege got me to where I am today, semi-employed when my position was cut to part time, how I've had to worry about the bills every month, and whether I could get this puny contract or another, month by month... Having to worry about if I bid too high, and is there anybody else out there with skills like mine who is willing to take less???
Why isn't my white, male, heterosexual, Christian, ableist privilege WORKING anymore?!
I guess now I become one of the massive numbers of the privileged who is DAMN well going to allow a politician to pander to my whiteness, just like others pander to all the other minorities in this country.
And I really, really hope it sucks to be you.
I’m still a Cruz supporter and will stay one until he wins or loses, but Trump is definitely showing the GOP elites that they know NOTHING about winning elections. In fact, they don’t have a clue. They have brought in all the former democrat strategy people who don’t know the American right, their core beliefs, their passions. Trump, being the businessman that he is and having the visionary outlook to understand people, has gone for the heart of things, POing the establishment, of course, but becoming the “savior” of the people. Of, course, we don’t know how he will run the country after he wins, if he does, and that is still an unknown. I hope his manifesto was not just a campaign ruse, and then we’ll have another democrat in form leader. That is my real concern. Is he serious and to be trusted?
LOL, I thought that was directed at me. In South Africa now, even through 80% black, they still have Affirmative Action for blacks. And with that, thousands of whites that had good jobs have been kicked out of them. Pretty amazing - they are protecting 80% of the population from 10% of the population...it never goes away.
Sorry for your situation, it’s despicable that it has to happen in this country.
Thanks, lot for thought here.
I understand “white voters” as a cultural, not racial, construct. The same for “black voters”.
Sorry, I meant to include that it was fictional (at least for now), and takes place in Oct. 2016, so it’s for the general election.
I agree that left-for-dead is somewhat of an exaggeration...but on the other hand, even winning governorships in those states hasn’t helped us in presidential elections. When the Dems fire up their base every 4 years we go flat. I suspect we’ll pay lip service to those states in 2016 (as things stand today), but not really expect to win any of them. What I’m trying to point out is that winning states that consist of 80% plus white, conservative, voters shouldn’t be that hard - but we manage to lose them on a regular basis when it comes to the top job.
“I understand “white voters” as a cultural, not racial, construct. The same for “black voters”.”
Thanks, and of course. Making racist appeals not only is unnecessary, it will drive whites the other way, me included. Addressing the needs of white voters is totally different.
I don’t think you’re fair or doing Trump any favors in associating his campaign with a “Southern Strategy”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.