WSJ: Peggy Noonan -- "America Is So In Play" and the molecules are moving

This article in today's WSJ by Peggy Noonan opens up clearly what
I have been thinking that the American people are saying to the
American political class in reaction to Mr. Trump's lead and that is --

You're Fired !





http://www.wsj.com/articles/america-is-so-in-play-1440715262

 

I didn't read the article because I either had to subscribe to the WSJ or sign in. I am not about to buy a subscription just to read the article. To be honest I haven't taken Trump seriously. Even today I still do not know whether I should or not. Trump is strong to a certain segment of the GOP that is for certain, especially to some on this forum. I suppose in a way he is like Hillary, both provoke a person either to love him/her or to hate him/her. There is really no in-between.

I would say so far the other 16 candidate field really do not know how to react to Trump. He has them bamboozled. Then too Trump has hogged all the media attention and the other 16 haven't been able to get any exposure. Trump knows how to use the media for his own advantage. Trump eats it up being in the spotlight and the center of attention and he doesn't care if it is for good reasons or bad. Trump is one savvy guy.

But will it last? That is the question isn't it. Will Trump tire of this, will the people tire of Trump 24/7? I don't know. As for taking him serious, I will wait at least until after the CNN debate on 16 September and probably after the CNBC debate on 28 October. I think his persona will begin to wear on people by then. If not, then it will be time to take him serious.

 

.

I read it an hour or so ago. It was linked on DrudgeReport. When I tried to go back to it again I
got blocked like you did. Sorry on that. It's a pretty good article. I guess you only get one
free play off of DrudgeReport.

I agree, the question is one of staying power now. If he is still in the lead after Jan 1 then I think
he could go all the way. The CNN and CNBC debates will definitely be interesting.

.

 

By PEGGY NOONAN : America Is So In Play
Aug. 27, 2015 6:41 p.m.


So, more thoughts on Donald Trump’s candidacy, because I can’t stop being fascinated.

You know the latest numbers. Quinnipiac University’s poll this week has Mr. Trump at a hefty 28% nationally, up from 20% in July. Public Policy Polling has Mr. Trump leading all Republicans in New Hampshire with 35%. A Monmouth University poll has him at 30% in South Carolina, followed 15 points later by Ben Carson.

Here are some things I think are happening.


One is the deepening estrangement between the elites and the non-elites in America. This is the area in which Trumpism flourishes. We’ll talk about that deeper in.

Second, Mr. Trump’s support is not limited to Republicans, not by any means.

Third, the traditional mediating or guiding institutions within the Republican universe—its establishment, respected voices in conservative media, sober-minded state party officials—have little to no impact on Mr. Trump’s rise. Some say voices of authority should stand up to oppose him, which will lower his standing. But Republican powers don’t have that kind of juice anymore. Mr. Trump’s supporters aren’t just bucking a party, they’re bucking everything around, within and connected to it.

Since Mr. Trump announced, I’ve worked or traveled in, among other places, Southern California, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, New Jersey and New York’s Long Island. In all places I just talked to people. My biggest sense is that political professionals are going to have to rethink “the base,” reimagine it when they see it in their minds.

I’ve written before about an acquaintance—late 60s, northern Georgia, lives on Social Security, voted Obama in ’08, not partisan, watches Fox News, hates Wall Street and “the GOP establishment.” She continues to be so ardent for Mr. Trump that she not only watched his speech in Mobile, Ala., on live TV, she watched while excitedly texting with family members—middle-class, white, independent-minded—who were in the audience cheering. Is that “the Republican base”? I guess maybe it is, because she texted me Wednesday, saying: “I registered to vote today! I am a Republican now!!!” I asked if she’d ever been one before. Reply: “No, never!!!”

Something is going on, some tectonic plates are moving in interesting ways. My friend Cesar works the deli counter at my neighborhood grocery store. He is Dominican, an immigrant, early 50s, and listens most mornings to a local Hispanic radio station, La Mega, on 97.9 FM. Their morning show is the popular “El Vacilón de la Mañana,” and after the first GOP debate, Cesar told me, they opened the lines to call-ins, asking listeners (mostly Puerto Rican, Dominican, Mexican) for their impressions. More than half called in to say they were for Mr. Trump. Their praise, Cesar told me a few weeks ago, dumbfounded the hosts. I later spoke to one of them, who identified himself as D.J. New Era. He backed Cesar’s story. “We were very surprised,” at the Trump support, he said. Why? “It’s a Latin-based market!”

“He’s the man,” Cesar said of Mr. Trump. This week I went by and Cesar told me that after Mr. Trump threw Univision’s well-known anchor and immigration activist, Jorge Ramos, out of an Iowa news conference on Tuesday evening, the “El Vacilón” hosts again threw open the phone lines the following morning and were again surprised that the majority of callers backed not Mr. Ramos but Mr. Trump. Cesar, who I should probably note sees me, I sense, as a very nice establishment person who needs to get with the new reality, was delighted.

I said: Cesar, you’re supposed to be offended by Trump, he said Mexico is sending over criminals, he has been unfriendly, you’re an immigrant. Cesar shook his head: No, you have it wrong. Immigrants, he said, don’t like illegal immigration, and they’re with Mr. Trump on anchor babies. “They are coming in from other countries to give birth to take advantage of the system. We are saying that! When you come to this country, you pledge loyalty to the country that opened the doors to help you.”

He added, “We don’t bloc vote anymore.” The idea of a “Latin vote” is “disparate,” which he said generally translates as nonsense, but which he means as “bull----.”

He finished, on the subject of Jorge Ramos: “The elite have different notions from the grass-roots working people.”

OK. Old style: Jorge Ramos speaks for Hispanic America. New style: Jorge Ramos speaks for Jorge Ramos. Old style: If I’ve lost Walter Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America. New style: How touching that an American president once thought if you lost a newsman you’d lost a country.

It is noted that a poll this week said Hispanics are very much not for Donald Trump. Gallup had 65% with an unfavorable view of him, and only 14% favorable. Mr. Trump and Mr. Ramos actually got into that, when Mr. Ramos finally questioned him after being allowed back into the news conference. Mr. Trump countered with a recent Nevada poll that has him with a state lead of 28%—and he scored even higher with Nevada’s Hispanics, who gave him 31% support.

I will throw in here that almost wherever I’ve been this summer, I kept meeting immigrants who are or have grown conservative—more men than women, but women too.

America is so in play.

And: “the base” isn’t the limited, clichéd thing it once was, it’s becoming a big, broad jumble that few understand.

On the subject of elites, I spoke to Scott Miller, co-founder of the Sawyer Millerpolitical-consulting firm, who is now a corporate consultant. He worked on the Ross Perot campaign in 1992 and knows something about outside challenges. He views the key political fact of our time as this: “Over 80% of the American people, across the board, believe an elite group of political incumbents, plus big business, big media, big banks, big unions and big special interests—the whole Washington political class—have rigged the system for the wealthy and connected.” It is “a remarkable moment,” he said. More than half of the American people believe “something has changed, our democracy is not like it used to be, people feel they no longer have a voice.”

Mr. Miller added: “People who work for a living are thinking this thing is broken, and that economic inequality is the result of the elite rigging the system for themselves. We’re seeing something big.”

Support for Mr. Trump is not, he said, limited to the GOP base: “The molecules are in motion.” I asked what he meant. He said bars of support are not solid, things are in motion as molecules are “before combustion, or before a branch breaks.”

I end with this. An odd thing, in my observation, is that deep down the elite themselves also think the game is rigged. They don’t disagree, and they don’t like what they see—corruption, shallowness and selfishness in the systems all around them. Their odd anguish is that they have no faith the American people can—or will—do anything to turn it around. They see the American voter as distracted, poorly educated, subject to emotional and personality-driven political adventures. They sometimes refer to “Jaywalking,” the old Jay Leno“Tonight Show” staple in which he walked outside the studio and asked the man on the street about history. What caused the American Civil War? Um, Hitler? When did it take place, roughly? Uh, 1958?

Both sides, the elites and the non-elites, sense that things are stuck.

The people hate the elites, which is not new, and very American. The elites have no faith in the people, which, actually, is new. Everything is stasis. Then Donald Trump comes, like a rock thrown through a showroom window, and the molecules start to move.

*******************

 

Sorry, but I won't give Rupert Murdock money so I can read the musings of a former Reagan speechwriter.

 

I won't pay Murdoch either.

I haven't take Trump seriously, althought I've thoroughly enjoyed the way the talk radio right has rushed to fawn over him!

And I really enjoyed watching him thoroughly humiliate Roger Ailes.

Trump's ego trip won't last. His only chance of being the GOP candidate is to sweep the SEC primary on March 1st, which would split the GOP wide open.

That's about as long term, as I would factor Trump. I seriously doubt that we will last till the New Hampshire primary.

He's this years's novelty act in the campaign silly season.

He's Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich all rolled up into one egotistical bundle. I doubt that most people could even come up with a complete list of the other GOP candidates at this point.

 

I find all of this interesting. I think what this shows is that there is a lot of Republicans very dissatisfied with the leadership of McConnell and Boehner and their ilk. I would think most are sort of ideologues who are willing to be in the minority in congress and never win the white house as long as they send a statement.

I have been there back in 1964 when I backed Goldwater to the hilt. A lot of others were telling me to support someone who could win, Goldwater couldn't. I paid them no never mind and you know how LBJ trounced him in the general.

- - - Updated - - -

I find all of this interesting. I think what this shows is that there is a lot of Republicans very dissatisfied with the leadership of McConnell and Boehner and their ilk. I would think most are sort of ideologues who are willing to be in the minority in congress and never win the white house as long as they send a statement.

I have been there back in 1964 when I backed Goldwater to the hilt. A lot of others were telling me to support someone who could win, Goldwater couldn't. I paid them no never mind and you know how LBJ trounced him in the general.

 

You're getting the point. I do think that's where Donald Trump is going to take the Repulican party, especially if his the novelty of his "candidacy" lasts for a few more months.

And even when Trump drops out, Ted Cruz will be there trying to step in and capture the anti establishment zeitgeist.

And Hillary Clinton will be the next President.

 

Well put, an interesting analysis, but I gave you the thumbs up because of your name. One of the best bands of all time and will be fur immer

 

The entrance of Trump has made this nomination process like no other. Usually one can look back through history and find some references to what is going on to get an idea where everything is headed. I figured people would have started to get tired of Trump's bombastic ways by now, but it seems he has picked up support. I also think Trump supporters support him because he is Trump and not for his political beliefs or philosophy if he even has one. He is one heck of a snake oil salesman. What happens in the general remains to be seen. Trump does charisma which is what attracts supporters more than what he says, what he stands for or believes in if he believes in anything else besides Trump.

Interesting, now a general election between Trump and Hillary would be just that. I doubt if in the history of our presidential elections if that takes place where the two parties would have nominated two candidate with higher unfavorability ratings among the general populace and independents in particular. 51% of the electorate view Hillary unfavorable and 61% of independents view her in the same bad light. On Trump 54% of the electorate at large view him unfavorably, but he does a lot better among independents as only 48% of them view him unfavorably. 30% of Republicans also view Trump unfavorably while only 11% of democrats view Hillary unfavorable.

The thing with Trump is a month ago 40% of Republicans viewed him unfavorably and 60% of independents had that same unfavorable view. How he is improving here I am still trying to figure that out.

 

. . . and the molecules start to move. You say the "molecules are moving". Does that mean Trump is the catalyst? Hopefully those molecules solidify, and don't wind up as nothing but hot air. I have heard better metaphors, but it is ok.

 

Danke ! Ja Wohl !

Here's a little anti-establishment mood music for ya. In all it's enigmatic splendor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOnSh3QlpbQ

.

 

These poll numbers are largely meaningless at this point.

I think that Trump's supporters fall into two distinct categories. One, the talk radio right, which falls for charletans with alarming frequency. They're the same guys who cheered for Sarah Palin and Herman Cain. This is the audience that Trump is playing too, with his dog whistles to bigotry and his overall bombast. His other group are the political curiosity seekers who always surface at this point in the nominatiing process. They too, are drawn to carnival barkers. But they split once the process gets more serious. Half of them get serious about whom they are ultimately going to vote for. The other don't vote. Dig deep into Trump's poll numbers and you will find a substantial part of his supporters don't actually vote.''

Of course ,the fact that the man has no sort of actual poltiical platform isn't going to hold up either.

 

Myself it is no so much the numbers in the polls as it is the trends I look for. A trend either up or down and continues for several months is a solid signal of what will happen in the future or continue to happen. Trump hasn't been around to have a trend line that means much. Hillary has. Her trend line in the favorable/unfavorable has went from 58% favorable/40% unfavorable in March of 2014 to 44% favorable/54% unfavorable among the total electorate as of 16 August 2015. It has been a slow march with the numbers only changing a point of two with each subsequent poll. Hillary's numbers really haven't changed among Republicans and Democrats. They have changed hugely among independents. She has a problem with independents, that is her Achilles Heel.

But to take advantage of that, the Republicans must nominate the right candidate. I do not think a Trump or Bush is that candidate. But as you state, it is way too early to tell and all this hoopla around Trump may not mean a thing come 1 March 2016 when the first official vote is cast in Iowa. But I use the polls to see the long term trends, not what the number say today, but it is the trend that is important.

 

I read the WSJ Opinion page every day. I just Google the titles of the articles I want to read and am able to pull them up that way. When that doesn't work, I do that under anonymous browsing and it allows me to read the article.

That said, I think this is the first think I've read of Peggy Noonan's that I think she's gotten right in a long time. Usually she is so far up the beltway she can only see the New York-Washington consensus. Looks like this time she actually left the Green Zone and find's herself shocked that the proles don't think the same way she does. Yes, I think America is "in play." Standard cut-taxes-smaller-government-stronger-defense conservationism has failed. Government has only gotten bigger and more intrusive no matter whether it was an R or D in the White House or running Congress. Demographically speaking, Republicans are one red state going purple away (Florida Texas ect...) from never winning the White House again. I personally don't think it's electorally possible for Republicans to win the White House in 2016, no matter who is the Democratic or Republican candidate.

So it might be time for a Hail Mary pass.

Trump has dumped the standard conservatism model for a new version: economic nationalism. No candidate has been allowed to voice it because it's diametrically opposed to donor interests in both parties, which are intensely globalist. It's possible that we may be at the very beginning of a new reordering of politics. Instead of conservatives/liberals we might end up with globalists/nationalists.

 

You have a good point. Globalist vs. Nationalist. It isn't like we haven't been warned. Perot told American what would happen if NAFTA and the WTO were approved. But he wasn't in the pockets of big money either. As for never winning the white house, I think it remains to be seen if Hillary can hold the Obama coalition together.

Remember when Reagan was in the White House there were several books written on the Republican electoral lock since they finally succeeded in obtaining a solid south. That lasted 4 years until Clinton. Now it was a novel idea of having two southerners on the ticket, but it worked and everyone forgot about the Republican electoral lock.

There has been changes since 2008 and 2012, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan looks to be in play this time around for the Republicans along with the normal 8 swing states. The Democrats are looking at Arizona and Georgia. I think it all boils down to whom the nominees are.

 

Well I think where I would disagree with you is that I think that now it matters less who the candidates are. American politics has gotten more tribal over the past few years at the same time that demographics that favor Republicans (white married voters) have shrunk. I've been hearing that Pennsylvania is going Republican for years. It's always just around the corner and I suspect it always will be.

 

Old Peggy is about as relevant as yesterday's snotty Kleenex. There was a time she was good. Very good. Like in the Reagan years. She lost it several years ago.

 

I have heard the doom and gloom about one or the other party becoming irrelevant for a long time. After Goldwaters defeat in 1964 it was assumed it would take decades for the Republicans to recover. Four years later Nixon was in the White House. In 1974 after Watergate, once again it was forecast the Republicans were going to be the minority party for years to come. Then you had the Republican electoral lock during Reagan and that lasted until Clinton.

I think in any given presidential election around 15-20% of the electorate can be swayed one way or the other. 80-85% are locked in with the Democrats having the edge in that 80-85% group. The Democrats do have a big electoral college advantage due to more bigger states being solid blue. But that too can be overcome. Romney lost Florida by less than a point and Ohio by less than 3. If the Republicans can win those two states and hold all the states Romney won that puts them at 253 electoral votes with swing states Virginia 13, New Hampshire 4, Iowa 6, Nevada 6, Colorado 9 left in play. Any combination of 17 out of those remaining would give the GOP the White House. But the key is winning Florida and Ohio. Without them, both of them, the Republicans are doomed.

 

If you're right and I'm wrong, and this is just one more election cycle that Republicans will have a chance to win, we'll know in less than a year and a half. But I'm willing to call it right now that the generic Democratic candidate will defeat the generic Republican candidate.

 

LOL, I'm not. I looked at the party affiliation/identification number for August. 31% of the electorate identify with the Democratic Party and there is another 14% which lean Democrats for 45%. On the Republican side is 27% for their base vote and another 16% leaning Republican for a total of 43%. That is pretty close, although those numbers are pretty dynamic and change constantly. That's 88% and that plays right into my earlier remark. The question is where do that last 12% go and in what states are they situated. Gallup is no help in determining the states.

I would say the largest chunk of that last 12% will vote their pocket book. So how is the economy doing in the summer of next year will be one of the biggest deciding factors. Also who is the nominee, a John Kasich on the ticket probably would deliver Ohio either as the presidential nominee or VP. Or could a Walker as either one deliver Wisconsin taking a solid 10 electoral votes away from the Democrats and putting them into the GOP column. Now that would throw the math off tremendously.

But what unknown events will take place between now and November that none of us can foresee that might effect the election one way or the other. Hillary has a lot of baggage and independents do not like her much, can the GOP pick a candidate that independents can relate to? I'll stick with the general election being a 50-50 proposition at this point in time. Will the public at large be tired of Democratic rule and Obama come next year like they were tired of Republican rule and Bush back in 2008 or will they want 4 more years of basically Obama like they did in 1988 electing the first Bush? Too much time left and too many unknown and too many questions that can't be answered at the present.

 

OK well good luck. And if not 2016 than 2020. Keep hope alive.

 

I will keep an eye on things, election predictions has been a hobby of mine for a very long time. Pitting Hillary Clinton against the Republican Field or a generic candidate Hillary would win today using the party affiliation/identification stats along with the favorable/unfavorable ratings for pure/true independents who do not lean.

Did you know Trump leads Clinton by one point in Michigan in a poll taken on 8-21. Not that I think Clinton will lose Michigan next November. But how does those 200,000 or more people who fled Detroit for somewhere else effect Michigan? Perhaps making Michigan a bit more purple than blue. How many former union members are mad at these auto makers going overseas because of NAFTA and other free trade deals Clinton and Obama signed? Nixon in 1972 and Reagan were big among the union folks even if all the heads of the unions were for Democrats.

Lots of unknowns and ifs. But it sure is fun to watch and speculate.

 

The Nationalist VS Globalist outcome is one of great news to me and one of great news to the general populace. Can the Republican Party reform itself among Nationalist lines? Hard to do when it sees the country in its particular "voting bloo" of evangelional christians. Hard, but not impossible. The Republicans would do well to remember Nixon/Reagan's policies of peace through strength, if Republicans can recapture that spirit then they can take the lead and properly reform themselves.

But know who can never reform themselves? The Democratic Party. Holding the 'Obama coalition' together? It's that coalition that will ensure the political demise of the Democrats. The coalition of young voters have been hurt with added fixed costs known as Crap Care. That coalition grows older, and the new young do not have any knowledge or ties. Propagandizing them will only be harder.

Then there's the #BLM Chaos into the political circus, which has done more damage and mayhem than Trump's entering the race. If #BLM agitates black voters, the Democrats will suffer losses in one of their "blocs". Of course, they won't vote Republican either. But they'll stay at home. Democrats have specialized in segregating voters, all the meanwhile accusing Republicans for that segregation.

However, they never took into account Trump's political savvy. Normally, when a candidate is charged by Democratic Propaganda lies, they go on the defensive. But Trump said clearly that the Latino-Americans are more than welcome, it was illegal criminals that he wanted to deal with. That resonated with Latino-Americans who want to assimilate with this country. He turned their propaganda against them.

If I were Trump, my next attack would be against big government funding. I'd love to tear Harry Reid a new one about George Soros, about how most of the millionaires donate to Democrats.

I would put it like this: "Openly, the Democrats speak against Citizens United, when in fact they're the party that benefits from it the most. We must remember the 2008 Election and the 'funny money' that came from that. As well as the now admitted evidence that Clinton accepts donations from abroad for State Secrets."

 

I agree it's fun. But I don't think those former union members who lost their jobs to NAFTA are going anywhere but to the Democrats again. Both parties are pro NAFTA. The only Republican candidate who can criticize those trade deals is Trump, and I suspect you don't think he has a chance of winning the nomination. So back to the Democrats those union guys go.