Trump vs. Hillary: the unpopularity contest
Much has been written about the fact that the 2016 election is shaping up as an unpopularity contest rather than the more ordinary popularity contest. That is, the candidate who has managed to offend a bit less is likely to be the winner.
But the fact that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have in common their record-setting unfavorables for party frontrunners obscures the very great differences in how such unpopular people got where they are. One of the most curious things about this election year is that we have two such people, but the paths by which the two parties have come to choose them are nearly the opposite.
Odd, isn’t it?
Hillary Clinton has had a fifteen-year record of political service, not to mention eight previous years as First Lady. She was a two-term senator who quit in her second term in order to become Secretary of State for four years. Whatever you think of her actual accomplishments while serving in those roles—as well as the character traits that have made her a highly distrusted figure—hers is the sort of political resume that looks good on paper, the sort of thing that speaks of experience and would ordinarily be called “presidential.”
Hillary gave Obama a good run for his money in 2008 during the primaries, and everyone knew she’d try again this time as an elder stateswoman. She was “next in line,” which was one reason she had no or few real challengers in 2016; Sanders is only doing relatively well now because he’s the only non-Hillary alternative in the Democratic game, not because he was really thought of as a credible candidate initially. Another reason Clinton had no serious challengers may have to do with the thinness of the Democratic bench. But for whatever reason, this year was expected to be a Hillary Democratic coronation, and only the extent of the hatred of her has made it less than that.
Nevertheless, Clinton is on her way to becoming the nominee (unless she’s indicted, which I still do not think will happen) because she is seen as politically experienced, is next in line, and has had little or no significant competition. Even a very disliked person can do relatively well under such circumstances.
In contrast, Donald Trump has had no political experience in office whatsoever. Nada. Zippo. Zilch. Not only was he not next in line, but the Republican Party didn’t even seem to be aware that he was in line at all.
And challengers? He had at least 16 of them if I remember correctly, many of whom were highly qualified, experienced, and personable.
And that latter fact is part of why Trump, despite his unpopularity, is now poised to become the Republican nominee—he had too many challengers who deserved serious attention and who ended up splitting the serious attention. The Republican primaries were also set up to favor a frontrunner, even if that frontrunner did not get majorities, so the porcess ended up favoring a candidate such as Trump who appealed to a significant and loyal minority and might even be hated and despised by the rest.
It didn’t matter if most GOP voters hated him as long as they were unable to unite behind anyone else. The unconventional Trump appealed to more people more consistently than any one of his challengers did. That went on for so long that his lead became insurmountable, and a momentum/bandwagon effect took over.
So now these two highly disliked people are almost certainly about to face off against each other in the general election in November. Nothing like it has ever been seen in American politics before. I’m not even sure anything like it has ever been seen in world politics before.
Interesting times, interesting times.
More like sad.
What completely blows my mind is that half of my fellow citizens appear ready to elect a woman who took money from foreign countries, people and corporations in exchange for official acts. Bribery. She’s a criminal! And it is not even a close question.
What is wrong with these people?
“Even a very disliked person can do relatively well under such circumstances..”
Think Nixon. Yup.
You ignore the primary driving force behind Trump, however.
Anger.
Trump is playing the Song of Hope And Change, but in the key of ‘R’.
His success is not tied to anything except for the fact that he plays to the overall anger with the establishment GOP with their endless compromises away from conservative and libertarian principles… No one else who had any success had that cache or played to it as well as Trump.
He is anti-GOP and he says EXACTLY what the LIVs on the Right want to hear.
Never have so many incompetent idiots had so much sway in a single election in US history.
Cornhead:
I think it’s really rather simple. They either (1) don’t think she did anything so very wrong (denial); or (2) think everyone does such things, so Hillary’s no different (cynicism); or (3) detest Trump even more; or (4) believe that in general a Democratic president would always be better than a Republican one, in terms of policies, SCOTUS appointments, etc.
Any of those, or any combination of those, will do.
IGotBupkis:
No, I’m not ignoring anger. I’ve written about it many many many times before in relation to Trump.
This post ignores ALL the reasons people like Trump. It is not about Trump or the reasons that “significant but loyal minority” stuck to him like glue. The reasons for that have been explored ad nauseam in other posts.
This post is about the phenomenon of how two such people managed to be their parties’ nominees in the process sense, not why.
Neo
You are options are probably right but I still can’t imagine how people rationalize their decisions. From a logical view only (3) makes any sense. IOW, a rational person could believe on a policy basis Hillary is better for the country.
Cornhead, there’s a meme floating around among my lefty-left friends that says something to the effect of “What did Hillary do wrong?” “She sent an email.”
Seriously. This is the level to which the left is downplaying what she has done. You cannot get through to them that had ordinary people done a tiny fraction of what she has done regarding handling of classified material, bribery, etc, they would already be in jail.
And that is the subset of my lefty-left friends who are sufficiently centrist to consider voting for Hillary anyway. The rest are unreachable “Bernie or bust” minions.
Someone else first made this observation (was it here?), but the more I think about it the more I agree with it:
Clinton v. Trump is like the contest between the Alien vs. Predator: Both Characters have sky-high negatives and you don’t (can’t) “like” either one of them. However, if you are forced to choose one over the other in a A v. P showdown (as we ‘ll be forced to do in November) you know you’re going to choose the Predator every time: At least he’s anthropomorphic and he walks (indeed, he forcefully strides!) like a man. He even likes the great outdoors, travel and exotic locations to practice his favorite sport (big game hunting). The Alien is just that: utterly alien. The choice, though between two negatives, is easy.
Cornhead, I do not think political decisions are based on logic. I am hard pressed to understand how I am deeply conservative and my sisters are hard-core yellow dog Democrats. I would think that growing up in the same environment we would reach similar logical conclusions. I cannot have political discussions based on logic with them. The immediately blow up and start calling me fascist etc. I am sure most people have had this experience.
I favor neo’s reason #2 cynicism plus self interest. With my sisters, promises of support from the government seem highly important to them. They then rationalize this with cynicism.
The Trumpers who post here also show deep cynicism going into nihilism. A great example is Jurrasicon when he was posting here. Also, from the little I can get from the first few paragraphs of Artfldgr’s torrential posts that I can stomach is that Trump is OK because Ted Cruz is a terrible person.
Someone here had a quote about how cynicism and something else paved the way for tyrants to come to power and I wish I could find it because that is the scariest part of what is going on now.
“What is wrong with these people?” Cornhead
Ideological indoctrination. So much so that they are willing to sacrifice children upon their altar of political correctness. Can there be anything more evil than the sacrifice of children?
“This post is about the phenomenon of how two such people managed to be their parties’ nominees in the process sense, not why.” neo
I’m not sure that ‘how’, can truly be separated from ‘why’. Perhaps it’s as simple as a dumbed down electorate being constitutionally incapable of wise decisions will, regardless of the systemic process, choose disastrously.
It’s funny that anger and denial both came up in this thread. The five stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Why does it seem like everyone on all sides is going through a grieving process this election cycle?
Carl – I’ve seen the Alien Versus Predator analogy used before, in reference to the movie’s tagline: “Whoever Wins, We Lose”.
Geoffrey Britain:
Of course in the real world they aren’t separate. But posts can’t take in every single factor at once or they would be books. They must focus on certain aspects. I’ve written plenty of posts on the why; the focus of this post is the how.
Nick:
Because nearly everybody IS going through a grieving process this election cycle.
You should hear most of my liberal friends. They are not happy at all.
If you think about it, you can probably remember Rubio going through each of the stages of grief onstage.
neo,
OK. Since more than half of Americans are incapable of self-governance proven in 2008, 2012 and now in 2016… what process that includes that population can, in a democracy, possibly work?
If excluding that portion of the population from the franchise is both morally and pragmatically a non-starter, then establishing mandatory qualifications for the Presidential candidates would appear to be the only other effective angle from which to attempt reform. As arguably, ‘playing around the edges’ of primary reform will never prove to be sufficient.
If the quality of the voter cannot be improved, that leaves the quality of the candidates.
Accordingly, I suggest that veterans with military service that includes both promotion while serving and an honorable discharge be mandatory qualifications.
My rationale is that only someone who has volunteered to, if necessary, sacrifice their life for their country can truly be said to have established that they place their country before their own survival.
Hillary is highly qualified and Trump is a foul mouthed buffoon, loathsome and despised. Says who? The people with the pens.
The pen is mightier than the sword. Says who? Mostly the lucky survivors.
Nick: Touché, except one still must choose! Do you choose the Alien or the Predator? I don’t claim any original insight here – the analogy originated with someone else – but I do think the analogy is helpful, at least for anyone who appreciates campy sci-fi and can keep a sense of humor during these “interesting times”.
Kyndyll G wrote “You cannot get through to them that had ordinary people done a tiny fraction of what she has done regarding handling of classified material, bribery, etc, they would already be in jail.”
Yes! I have found this to be the case. People who support her DO NOT CARE, even it you show them incidents where it happened, that other people go to jail for endangering secret documents. They don’t care! I had one rabid supporter actually tell me that she has not been arrested and in this country we treat everyone as innocent until proven guilty. He denied that it is legimiate to draw a reasonable inference from published data and base one’s vote on it becuase “she hasn’t been conviected of anything.”
I don’t like Trump either. But MAN. Vote for her??? Not gonna happen.
Geoffrey Britain, 3:43 pm — “Since more than half of Americans are incapable of self-governance proven in 2008, 2012 and now in 2016… what process that includes that population can, in a democracy, possibly work?”
Face it, evidently none. I’m pretty sure that Sir Geoffrey, as well as many/most of our readers, is familiar with John Adams’ well-known declaration: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Geoffrey Britain, 3:43 pm — “If the quality of the voter cannot be improved, that leaves the quality of the candidates. Accordingly, I suggest that veterans with military service that includes both promotion while serving and an honorable discharge be mandatory qualifications.”
I do approve — and I am *not* a military service veteran.
GB:
Essentially you are paraphrasing Heinlein, Starship Troopers. Pretty much excludes the physically disabled, why stop there? The Spartans left infants deemed “marginal” or defective exposed to the elements to die. No thank you.
M J R Says:
I do approve – and I am *not* a military service veteran.
I do not approve — and I am a military service veteran. The military has plenty of assholes in it, just like the rest of society. If you fetishize military service, you will attract corruption from that quarter.
The people are going to get the government they deserve, good and hard. Because let’s not pretend: this wasn’t some act of God; a certain number of people are affirmatively choosing these candidates.
When you are surrounded by fools, one must expect folly. Maybe if things get really, really bad the people will learn a lesson.
OM,
Yes, I am borrowing from Heinlein. But I’m unclear on where you go from there.
Matt_SE,
Yes, that is the flaw in my proposal. Which leaves us with an irreparable system, as an immoral and irreligious* people can only behave as their nature dictates.
* by ‘irreligious’, I mean a mentality which recognizes no higher moral standard than their own personal calculus.
OM,
After pondering it a bit more, you’re apparently objecting to the unfair exclusion of others such as the physically disabled. That proposal, as obviously flawed as it is, nevertheless attempts to identify those candidates who place country before personnal survival. Certainly a physically disabled person could fit that criteria, unfortunately their disability precludes their being able to conclusively demonstrate it.
Then you imply that my proposal logically extends to eugenics. Since I never implied that an inability to serve in the military equated to an unfitness to live, to even exist, your accusation is just another slander. What is it with you? Is it just personal animus? If so, fine but dislike is not justification for slander.
M J R Says:
“I do approve – and I am *not* a military service veteran.”
Matt_SE, 10:45 pm — “I do not approve – and I am a military service veteran. The military has plenty of assholes in it, just like the rest of society. If you fetishize military service, you will attract corruption from that quarter.”
Yowch!
Believe it or not, I do *not* approve of fetishizing military service [ smile ].
I *do* approve of Sir Geoffrey’s suggestion, if not necessarily as to the particular, then certainly as to the spirit. As a protection of sorts, I want my president to be at least minimally qualified. Evidencing devotion to country, as characterized by serving in the military, is one quick-n-easy way to weed out jerks — some but not all jerks, as I do agree with you that “the military has plenty of assholes in it.”
Can we say that GB’s proposed condition can serve as one of a list of possible conditions for averting manifestations of jerkhood, conceding that none of them will be a sufficient condition for weeding out manifestations of jerkhood?
OM — in Heinlein’s conception, the government had to take EVERYBODY who volunteered. If a blind, deaf, wheelchair-bound person volunteered, they would find him a job counting the hairs on a caterpillar by touch, but they WOULD take him (or her).
I don’t think most Reps “hate” Trump, even those who strongly think Trump would be a terrible choice and a terrible President. Most Reps, pro-and anti-Trump, are more anti-PC, and have seen Obama and Dems destroy America.
The disaster of Obama’s destruction of the prior (7?) guardrails* is part of the how of Trump was unguarded against.
Frum* writes well about how bad a person/ candidate Trump is, and yet of his supporters (unmentioned but similar to Hillary’s): “all of them knew, by the time they made their decisions, that Trump lied all the time, about everything. They knew that Trump was ignorant, and coarse, and boastful, and cruel. They knew he habitually sympathized with dictators and kleptocrats–and that his instinct when confronted with criticism of himself was to attack, vilify, and suppress. They knew his disrespect for women, the disabled, and ethnic and religious minorities. They knew that he wished to unravel NATO and other U.S.-led alliances, and that he speculated aloud about partial default on American financial obligations. None of that dissuaded or deterred them.”
Trump himself will deny each of these criticisms, and claim to not identify with them — and who is Frum or anybody to challenge Trump’s Identity?
A big part of how Reps selected Trump is that his supporters see that Trump is almost immune to the usual, PC criticisms. When Reps criticize Trump, they are almost indistinguishable from the PC-police. Plus of course it’s obvious in most cases that the criticism is overboard.
Without identifying the public Big Issue of excess illegal immigration combined with Muslim refugees that include some terrorists, the particular “why”, let’s rephrase it. Trump was the LOUDEST Rep voice against an unpopular gov’t policy that most other Rep candidates were tolerating or even encouraging, or promising to fix with promises not expected to be kept.
I actually believe Pres. Trump will build the wall, but it won’t solve the problem; yet if he doesn’t, it won’t be a huge surprise (altho a small disappointment).
PC-oppression is growing in America, and Trump is the most anti-PC candidate in his life & style, and inconsistently in his rhetoric.
One other important point about the Rep party and ideas — there are a LOT of pro-life folk who have been driven out of the Democratic Party, like church going Catholics. Big-gov’t, protectionist, workfare supporting – safety net wanting, anti-corporate welfare / anti-elite, anti-political but pro-life. These voters are not Conservatives, except for being pro-life, pro-Christian, and quite tolerant; but there is no popular politician with these positions. Trump might be close (might be lying, who knows? I don’t think he does…), all others are clearly not fully pro-life supporters of big gov’t. (I’m pro-life, small-gov’t.)
Many of this large number of party-orphan voters have been supporting Trump.
There are far more voters who are “r” republican looking for a populist leader than “C” Conservative voters, interested in some intellectual.
BTW, why not look again at Germany’s choice in the 30s — national socialists or commies? It’s annoying to see in the demonization of Hitler that non-Jewish “German life in Nazi Germany” before and thru the war was a heck of lot better than “Russian life in the USSR”. Knowing what I know now, if I had to choose how to live thru that time, I’d have chosen to live under Hitler rather than Stalin (being also non-Jewish).
And Hillary plus the Dems are much closer to Stalin than Trump plus Reps is close to Hitler.
The failure of Conservatives to point out that Hitler was leftist, a National Socialist quite a bit like Stalin, is perhaps the deepest rotten worm of untruth poisoning political understanding in the West.
*http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-seven-broken-guardrails-of-democracy/484829/
“Knowing what I know now, if I had to choose how to live thru that time, I’d have chosen to live under Hitler rather than Stalin (being also non-Jewish).”
Two terrible choices to be sure . . .
I’m still speechless at this comment. Was going to criticize it, because on face value it’s horrifying, but realize I may not understand what you’re saying.
I remain completely baffled, still, by everyone who seems to think that the choice between Hillary and Trump is a choice between gulags on one hand and a dictatorship on the other, and they are STILL OK WITH VOTING FOR ONE OR THE OTHER. Because there’s “nothing that can be done”.
This is America still, right? We’re the country that used to believe that fighting for what’s right was a good thing, and now we’re just going to go off the cliff with all the other lemmings? Well, not me.
No – the right answer to the Lenin/Caesar/Hitler/Stalin conundrum (even though I still maintain that those are overblown when compared to our situation) is to pick NONE OF THE ABOVE and join the resistance.
GB:
Slander? Ask you a question that causes you to think and it’s slander? Wow! I better be more careful. What questions and thoughts are allowed?
Oh, your suggestion regarding the franchise leads to more regulation and power to the central government.
My go-to analogy for this election is a choice between Caesar and Balsamic Vinaigrette.
Nick – lol 🙂
Raunch – Nick ++
Bill,
In a swing state, how does voting for “none of the above” not also directly assist in Hillary’s election?
And, how does voting for Trump in Nov., preclude if needed, future resistance to tyranny?
OM,
Falsely accusing me of supporting a path to eugenics IS slander, by any metric. Which, when called on it, you have now compounded by denial and attempted deflection.
My suggestion was NOT in regard to the franchise . I proposed mandatory qualifications to be a candidate for the Presidency.
Your bias is acting as blinders. Evidenced by your accusing me of advocating things that I never even implied, much less mentioned.
GB:
My apology that you were referring to presidential candidates after complaining about the electorate.
It is still a flawed proposal, no matter how you dress it up. Do I have to list all types of adults who put their lives at risk in service of community and country? Or even individuals who have been excluded from military service because their occupations are necessary in times of war (think hard – farmers, miners, steel workers, loggers, merchant marines – all very dangerous occupations). Yes that happened in WWII. They may not have been shot at but many die in those jobs.
In short you didn’t give your proposal much thought.
Good to learn you aren’t in favor of eugenics.
Nick:
Not to beat a dead thread but …
What about “Caesar-lite” Now with only half the tyrant?
“My go-to analogy for this election is a choice between Caesar and Balsamic Vinaigrette.”
Nick Says:
June 2nd, 2016 at 11:34 am
My go-to analogy for this election is a choice between Caesar and Balsamic Vinaigrette.
&&&&&&
A toss up ?
“In a swing state, how does voting for “none of the above” not also directly assist in Hillary’s election?”
By that logic, doesn’t it directly assist Trump as well?
Voting for C has an equal 0 benefit to A and B.
Bill:
A flaw in GB logic? OMG!
OM,
I’ve already admitted to the difficulties in the particulars, it is in finding a way to weed out the clearly unqualified, wherein the value lies.
Bill,
That’s only true if you are equally inclined to vote for either side.
That decision is best left to the individual voter.
I would note that the founders did not impose such criteria even so soon after the revolutionary war ended.
OM,
If it is best left to the individual voter… when you have an informed, moral and religious people, who in general have the common sense and maturity needed to make wise choices. Those days are, for the foreseeable future… as “gone with the wind” as the antebellum south.
ONLY white male property owners were originally allowed the voting franchise. Incrementally, all white males, then non-white males and finally women gained the franchise. Restricting the franchise to veterans has obvious flaws but historically, it has plenty of precedent.
Precedent? Not in this country, not even when the country was founded.
You would further empower the central government, to find those capable of wise choices. I don’t trust that process at all.
How do you propose to make such a change, by constitutional amendment? Your argument fails right there in practice. “Choose this (the Geoffrey reform) to become disenfranchised so that wiser people can rule over you, it’s for your own good! Trust us!”
OM,
Sorry, I misspoke. My suggestion does not seek to limited the franchise, it suggests a further mandatory qualification to seek the Presidency.
How would making former military service a mandatory qualification for being a candidate, “further empower the central government”?
I agree that there would be resistance to change as there always is and it might well prove insurmountable. That however does not invalidate the idea, it only brings into question the practicality of implementing it.
GB:
Look no further than McCain/Fiengold for an example of letting the central government set preconditions on political participation.
It took the Supreme Court to temper that monstrosity. The legislative branch and the judicial branch of the central government having to untangle basic First Ammendment issues. Neither branch, let alone the executive, are paragons of virtue or wisdom. Don’t give them another garrote to help the process.