The Bushwhacking of Trump

National Review Online ^ | December 18, 2016 | John Fund

[drop 50 and fire for effect]

The new president owes nothing to the ‘Bush Barnacles’

The media have paid much attention to how Donald Trump broke through to blue-collar voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and captured the presidency. Trump is certainly assembling what might prove to be a new GOP coalition. But one shouldn’t forget that Trump’s temperament cost him upscale Republican voters in key suburbs. To solidify his reelection chances, he will have to overcome their doubts with policy successes that assuage their concerns about his rough edges.

Trump won an impressive victory, carrying 31 out of 50 states. But in several of them — including key states such as Georgia, Arizona, and Texas — he won a smaller percentage of the vote than Mitt Romney did. Indeed, nationally, Trump won 46.2 percent of votes cast, whereas Romney won 47.2 percent. In the 37 states considered “non-swing” or uncompetitive this year, Hillary Clinton’s margin of victory was greater than Barack Obama’s in 2012.

Much of Trump’s weakness with upscale, suburban Republicans can be traced to the hostility of the Bush family. They viewed Trump’s primary victory as a hostile takeover of the party they had long dominated — a Bush was on the national GOP ticket for president or vice president in every election between 1980 and 2008 save for one (1996). With his attacks on the Iraq War, his humiliation of Jeb Bush in the GOP primaries, and his characterization of George W. Bush’s presidency as “weak,” Trump clearly alienated the Bush base. Texas’s seventh congressional district, the wealthy Houston enclave that elected George H. W. Bush to Congress in 1966 and that has remained in GOP hands ever since, saw a stunning reversal in its voting patterns. In 2012, Mitt Romney carried the seventh district with 61 percent of the two-party vote. In 2016, Hillary Clinton actually beat Donald Trump in the district by 51 percent to 49 percent.

A big reason was clearly the hostility of the Bushes to Trump. George W. Bush made it known that he left the presidential line blank on his ballot. His father, former president George H. W. Bush, was “outed” as a Never Trumper by a member of the Kennedy clan, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, in October. She posted a photo of her and the former president on Facebook with the caption: “The President told me he’s voting for Hillary!!” She followed up in an interview with Politico by saying: “That’s what he said.”

The Bushes were obviously not alone in their antipathy toward Trump. Republicans who had served top roles in both Bush administrations signed an open letter in mid October declaring that Trump in their view was not qualified for office. The former Bush officials included Christine Todd Whitman, who ran George W. Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency, and Mary Peters, who headed his Transportation Department. They warned that Trump fails to exemplify the traits the Republican party holds dear.

Nor was theirs the only letter from former Bush officials. In August, a group of GOP national-security experts warned that Trump “would be the most reckless president in American history.”

Those signing the letter included former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden; former director of national intelligence and deputy secretary of state John Negroponte; and two Homeland Security secretaries under Bush, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff. They were joined by Robert Zoellick, a former U.S. trade representative and deputy secretary of state.

Conspicuous by their absence from the letter were former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger, Condoleezza Rice and James Baker.

Trump didn’t wait long to blast the letter, denouncing the signatories in a statement. In part, it read:

"The names on this letter are the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place. They are nothing more than the failed Washington elite looking to hold on to their power, and it’s time they are held accountable for their actions.

These insiders — along with Hillary Clinton — are the owners of the disastrous decisions to invade Iraq, allow Americans to die at Benghazi, and they are the ones who allowed the rise of ISIS. Yet despite these failures, they think they are entitled to use their favor trading to land taxpayer-funded government contracts and speaking fees."

It’s clear that the gulf between the “Bushies” and the “Trumpsters” isn’t likely to be bridged anytime soon. That is a good thing. Any other Republican president-elect would have been under enormous pressure to bring in former Bush officials to staff cabinet agencies with safe, don’t-rock-the-boat appointees. “I call them Bush Barnacles,” top Trump strategist Steve Bannon told me earlier this year. Instead, Trump owes next than nothing to the Bushes and has selected only one of George W. Bush’s former cabinet officials to head a department: Elaine Chao at Transportation, who also was the most conservative member of the cabinet during George W. Bush’s two terms.

Instead, Trump has largely turned to an eclectic mix of top business executives (Rex Tillerson at State, Wilbur Ross at Commerce), former generals (James Mattis at Defense and John Kelly at Homeland Security) and bureaucracy busters (Scott Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency and Jeff Sessions at Justice).

Trump will no doubt be careful to cement his support with the blue-collar voters who delivered him the election. In keeping with his promises to these supporters, he’ll probably aim to renegotiate trade deals without touching off trade wars, clear away barriers to job creation, and reassert American leadership overseas. For someone who needs to solidify his political standing for 2020, succeeding in those policies would represent the best possible political revenge against the Bushes and his many other critics.

[Alberta's Child]

That's a very good point.

The election of Donald Trump was a thorough public repudiation of both the Clintons and the Bushes.

[Phillyred]

The Bushes hated Reagan too. Then this same wing of the party couldn’t figure out how Reagan got all those democrats to vote for him. For decades they asked how they could regain those Reagan Democrats. They gave up and declared that we just needed to get the Hispaaaaaanics to love us. Well that didn’t work out for two election cycles. Then along comes a guy like Trump who had the blueprint on getting the Reagan Republicans back! And they fight him tooth and nail. Some refusing to even vote for him, some voting for Hillary. Amazing. The absolute ignorance of the Bush Republican wing.

[nathanbedford]

Trump won an impressive victory, carrying 31 out of 50 states. But in several of them — including key states such as Georgia, Arizona, and Texas — he won a smaller percentage of the vote than Mitt Romney did. Indeed, nationally, Trump won 46.2 percent of votes cast, whereas Romney won 47.2 percent. In the 37 states considered “non-swing” or uncompetitive this year, Hillary Clinton’s margin of victory was greater than Barack Obama’s in 2012.

These numbers suggest why Trump's victory in the electoral college was hardly a "landslide" as Trump's surrogates have been asserting. The numbers there say otherwise. That is not to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his victory, he won fair and square and he is about to be elected by the college of electors, and properly so.

But it is to say that sweeping assertions about Trump being the only Republican in the field who might have beat Hillary are not to be taken at face value.

The point of bringing this up is not to re-litigate the primary season, but it is to contest the often bruited assertion on these threads that those who supported other Republican candidates would have doomed the cause to defeat. The point of that? To win relief from the unremitting denigration of those who supported Ted Cruz or other Republicans during the primaries but dutifully switched to Trump upon his nomination.

[Jim Noble]

GA, AZ, and TX have been overrun by illegals and liberals escaping the hell they created in other states. That’s why Trump got a smaller % of votes. Poor analysis

But Trump lost New Hampshire because of Country Club Republicans, period, end of story.

No one was happier than I to see Trump win the nomination while dispensing with Bushies. The two Bush Presidents brought America nothing but grief and trouble, and Jeb would have been worst of the lot.

But the Bush voters are a not-insignificant sector of what used to be the Republican Party. Trump proved correct that he could blow them off and replace them with white Americans abandoned and despised by the Democrats, but they cost him NH - I didn't know about the Houston suburbs, but an analysis of suburban whites across the board would be interesting.

[gr8eman]

"“moderate” Republicans"

You mean liberals?

[Alberta's Child]

But it is to say that sweeping assertions about Trump being the only Republican in the field who might have beat Hillary are not to be taken at face value.

I don't think there was any other Republican in the field that could have beaten Hillary Clinton. This isn't a reflection on the capabilities of the candidates, but on the peculiarities of this campaign and on Trump's path to 270 electoral votes.

Pick a generic Republican candidate this year (Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz), and ask yourself two questions:

1. Would this candidate have won any states that Trump lost?

2. Would this candidate have lost any states that Trump won?

I sat down and went through this a few times, and I had a hard time convincing myself that the number of electoral votes the generic GOP candidate might have gained in #1 was enough to offset the likely loss of EVs in #2.

For example: I don't think there was a single candidate other than Trump who would have won Pennsylvania.

Interestingly, I think any of these generic GOP candidates would have outperformed Trump in the popular vote, only to lost anyway -- because they simply would have gotten bigger GOP margins in deep "red" states.

[ilgipper]

I’m thinking the guy who won Ohio handily, as well as Florida. Pennsylvania, Michigan and freaking Wisconsin does not need the advice or support of those who could do not.

They are stuck in a different era before the American people were collectively made aware of the damage the political class has had on their lives.

[KavMan]

Stupid GOPe almost cost us the Election!

It was blue Collar Democrats that saved our ass!

[drop 50 and fire for effect]

Ain’t gonna be no Bush Counterattack in 2020.

The Bush family will not, but if Trump has a major policy failure, the establishment will mount a serious primary challenge.

[drop 50 and fire for effect]

Given the narrowness of his victory, he should not take one single vote for granted.

The point of the article is to ensure a united party in 2020, he needs significant policy successes and clear evidence that the swamp is indeed draining.

Mr. Trump does not appear to me to be a man who makes unnecessary assumptions, nor will take any vote for granted. His thank you tour is evidence to me that he understands this.

[MNJohnnie]

GA, AZ, and TX

The GOP Senators got significantly higher vote totals then Trump. Don't try to down play how much damage the Never Trumpers did with the rank and file GOP voters. They did suppress the GOP turn out for Trump.

[MNJohnnie]

The GOP Senators got significantly higher vote totals then Trump. Don’t try to down play how much damage the Never Trumpers did with the rank and file GOP voters. They did suppress the GOP turn out for Trump.

[MNJohnnie]

Don’t get to blame Trump for the childish temper-tantrum the Nevers Trumpers threw. They put their egos in front of the good of the Country and did manage to cost Trump quite a few votes in FL, GA and else where.

We will forgive the Never Trumpers for their idiocy but we are not going to let them forget, or re-write history to cover up the damage they did.

[drop 50 and fire for effect]

I agree in part and disagree in part with your comments.

Trump’s claim to a “landslide” is thin, given that he was 2nd in the popular vote and had several narrow wins. However, Trump has little choice but to go out and assert that he won a mandate in a landslide and has a mandate. He did win well over half the states (so it is not pure fantasy) and he based his election on implementing real change. He needs to maintain momentum to overcome opposition to his agenda, language is a crucial tool in this effort.

The recent successful (in policy terms) presidents- Reagan, Clinton, Obama all used their win, regardless of size (Clinton won roughly only 43%) to generate a perception of a mandate and win policy victories. I believe that Trump will create the perception of a mandate to overcome both potential GOP establishment and Dem opposition.

While Trump was not my first choice (I backed Cruz) his pure outsider status gives him a unique opportunity that Cruz or other candidates would not have had.

[Psalm 144]

Ain’t gonna be no Bush Counterattack in 2020.

Ain’t 3% of us who will EVER vote for a Bush again under ANY circumstances.

They’d get more votes running O.J. Simpson.

##############

‘P’ for Perv, George Perv Bush, is the next target.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/george-p-bush/george-p-bush-stalking-758409

Neoconia delenda est.

[Nifster]

Looking at the georgia Vote is a fools errand. So what if Trump got fewer votes than Romney he won the state by eight pounts

[uncbob]

For example: I don't think there was a single candidate other than Trump who would have won Pennsylvania.

100% correct

Overjoyed to see my state of PA back on the right track

Almost cried election eve when I saw PA was going for Trump

Worth staying up to 1:30 for this 80 year old

[Psalm 144]

Just my hunch, but I always believed Barbara Bush was the Valerie Jarret for HW, W and Jeb. She has that ‘bossy’ demeanor.

###########

Agreed. She is the momma spider in the center of the web.

[Alberta's Child]

I’m still not sure Trump even has any intention of running in 2020 at this point. Even if his presidency is a huge success, there’s a part of me that wonders if he might step aside for Mike Pence to run at the top of the ticket in 2020.

[Psalm 144]

I have commented before that W would probably have been happier flying planes, riding a horse on his ranch and enjoying a private life, but ‘Barbara’s family business’ was a duty.

##############

I wish he would put on his smock and get back in the studio and paint. Clearly a student when he started he has an ability to capture something from his subjects. There is definitely some talent there to develop, and it seemed to make him genuinely happy. I think he is the most honest and sincere of the clan, and alone of all of them, I wish him well.