By Bernard Goldberg
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
In the late 1970s, TV Guide ran a poll to find out which
sportscaster fans liked the most and which one they disliked the most. Howard
Cosell finished first in both categories. Which brings us to Donald Trump,
another loud, over-the-top, brash personality.
According to the latest Quinnipiac University national
poll, when Republicans were asked who they would vote for if the primary for
president were held today, Trump finished first. When asked who they definitely
would not support for the nomination, the very same Donald Trump finished first
again.
Being a polarizing figure didn’t hurt Howard Cosell. Even
people who said they didn’t like him tuned in to watch the game — and, truth be
told, to watch him, too. But politics is different. In that arena, you can get
away with being polarizing after you win the election — Barack Obama is proof
of that. But polarizing pols have a tough time winning in the first place; the
math doesn’t add up.
So, if these were normal times, the numbers would be bad
news for The Donald. But these are not normal times. Pundits who are still
confidently saying he can’t win the nomination are the same ones who said he’d
never get this far. Or to put it another way: The smarties aren’t as smart as
they think they are.
When voters were asked what the first word was that came
to mind when they thought of Donald Trump, respondents said “arrogant,”
followed by “blowhard” and “idiot.”
And when voters were asked what the first word was that
came to mind when they thought of Hillary Clinton, they said “liar,” followed
by “dishonest” and “untrustworthy.”
Note well: These two are the front-runners! Rodney
Dangerfield got more respect.
So which party is in more trouble? You can make a case
that it’s the Republicans.
While 26 percent of Republicans say they would never vote
for Trump, only 11 percent of Democrats say they would never vote for Clinton.
Democrats don’t have the same kind of ideologically pure wing that has hurt GOP
presidential candidates in the past. Democrats, it seems, are more practical.
They may prefer Bernie Sanders, or one of the others, but when push comes to
shove, almost all of them will vote for Clinton. Why? They want to win.
I recently received an e-mail from someone named Carl who
described himself as a conservative Christian, and he wrote, “I have voted
Republican since Eisenhower beat Stevenson, and if Jeb, Christie, Kasich, or
Graham are nominated, I WILL STAY HOME!”
Carl is not alone. I received similar e-mails during the
last two presidential campaigns and millions of the ideologically pure — who
normally would vote Republican — did in fact sit home, if not handing the
elections to Barack Obama, at least making it a lot easier for him to win.
These purists have told me that there’s little or no
difference between a moderate Republican and a liberal Democrat. They’re
delusional, of course, blinded by their hard-right ideology, but that’s what
they believe nonetheless. And depending on who the GOP nominee is, they could
represent big trouble for the party.
Finally, consider this: In the last six presidential
elections, 18 states have voted for the Democratic candidate every time,
totaling 242 electoral votes — just 28 short of victory. That means Democrats
are about 90 percent of the way to winning the White House even before the
actual voting begins.
Of course, anything can happen. Technically, history
tells us only about the past. But it’s often a good indicator of what lies
ahead.
So if Republicans hope to win in 2016, they will have to
unite and support the GOP candidate whoever he or she is. Republicans, who
today are vowing to never support Donald Trump, will have to reconsider, should
he win the nomination. And the conservative purists, who swear they will never
vote for a moderate, will have to abandon their ideological purity — or abandon
all hope of a GOP victory.
This won’t be easy. But it’s the only thing certain in
this summer of uncertainty.
No comments:
Post a Comment