Is the Republican National Committee considering a secondary protocol — which would mean practically abandoning Donald Trump and diverting resources to down-ballot? That seems to be what Time discussed, detailing a presidential campaign that appears to be heading towards total disaster:
When Donald Trump screws up, the first person to tell him off is usually Republican Party chairman Reince Priebus. Almost every day, Trump picks up his cellphone and hears Priebus on the line, urging him to quell a feud or clarify a provocative remark.
The Wisconsin lawyer has been a devoted guide to the Manhattan developer, helping him navigate the complex struggles of the presidential race and lobbying the Republican Party to unite behind a figure who threatens its future.
But every bond has its breaking point. In the case of this partnership, that moment almost came in early August. Priebus was on vacation when he learned that Trump had declined to endorse Paul Ryan, the House speaker and a close friend. The chairman had a candid message for the candidate, according to two Republican officials briefed on the conversation. Priebus told Trump that internal GOP polls suggested he was on track to lose the election. And if Trump doesn’t turn his campaign around in the coming weeks, the Republican National Committee will consider redirecting resources and party machinery toward House and Senate races.
The article also illustrates a number of mistakes the campaign made; unnecessary attacks on the Khan family, who lost their son, Army Captain Humayun Khan, in Iraq in 2004; attacks on other Republicans; and the possibility of creating super PACs to destroy the political careers of Senator Ted Cruz and Ohio Governor John Kasich. In Khan’s case, it was a losing battle, even if it could be justified (and it probably is), and the family are now nothing more than attack dogs used by the DNC. Still, you’ll never win a battle by attacking a Gold Star family.
The publication cited a Washington Post/ABC News poll that found 70 percent of Republicans thought Trump had handled the dispute, while 59 percent agreed. He’s trailing by double digits in the polls, but even his staunchest critics say it’s too early to write off the billionaire:
History suggests that an 8-point lead in August can melt like ice cream in the heat. Al Gore lost by that much in August 2000 and came back to win the popular vote. In 1988, George H. W. Bush rebounded from a similar deficit to win the White House. Clinton’s convention bounce could dissipate in the coming weeks.
Trump hopes to regain territory in the debates. But back to that whole voting buffer. First of all, Trump and the RNC negative that this conversation took place, or that it’s even being considered. So there’s that aspect to the rumor mill. On the Hot Air websiteAllahpundit (AP) recorded that a) Reince is in no position to demand anything from Trump, which reinforces the belief that the Republican candidate’s campaign is telling the truth; b) the RNC is doing everything it can to avoid the appearance that it’s not doing enough to lend a hand Trump; and c) if the RNC were to consider withdrawing, its endless attacks on the election being rigged could work with Trump/GOP voters in this election. And potentially hurt the party in the 2018 midterm elections. Which is why the AP said that if this were true, Trump should call Reince’s bluff; fuck me — fine, I’ll “paint the map blue” next cycle.
Still, it’s a pretty alarming sign that 70 Republicans have sent a letter to the RNC demanding that Trump’s campaign funding be cut off. Again, it’s unlikely that anything will come of this; it seems about as likely as Trump withdrawing — which will never happen. Furthermore, The Koch Brothers and other Republican Donors They are expected to fill the war chests for lower-ticket races anyway.
When it comes to the general election, is Trump bringing the party down? For some positive insight into a disastrous week in the Republican media, National Journal Charlie Cook noted that he was somewhat skeptical about whether a Clinton victory in November would trigger cascade of Republican defeatsin the House of Representatives and Senate:
While I think Clinton’s downsides are too high for her to win by a vast margin, let alone a landslide, others talk about the odds and calculate the consequences. People are at least quick to recall the huge Republican gains that accompanied Ronald Reagan’s 10-point victory, 51-41, in 1980, when he carried 44 states over President Carter, giving the Republicans 34 seats in the House and 12 in the Senate. They tend to forget what happened in three other presidential years in which the landslides were huge.
In 1964, President Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater by 22 points, 61 percent to 39 percent, winning 44 states, according to Vital Statistics on Congress, but while Democrats gained 37 seats in the House, their gain in the Senate was one seat. In 1972, when President Nixon crushed George McGovern by 23 points, 61 percent to 38 percent, winning 49 states, Republicans gained only 12 seats in the House and actually lost a net two seats in the Senate. In President Reagan’s “lone victory” in 1984—when he defeated Walter Mondale by 18 points, 59 percent to 41 percent, winning 49 states—his party gained only 14 seats in the House and again lost two seats in the Senate. The counterargument to these examples is that people now vote more often on one ballot and less often on two ballots than they did back then.
Two factors make me suspect that even if Clinton wins by a much larger margin than, say, Obama’s victory over Romney four years ago, I don’t think the implications of the down-ballot will be all that great. There are fewer contestable districts in the House than at any other time in our lifetimes; between natural population sorting and gerrymandering, there’s not a lot of flexibility in the House right now. The GOP majority in the Senate is absolutely at stake; I’d bet it ends up 50-50, give or take a seat or two, but given voters’ concerns about Clinton, the “don’t give Hillary Clinton a blank check” argument could be politically potent, and many tight-lipped Hillary voters might seek checks and balances in the down-ballot.
Still, even with Clinton’s unpopularity, Trump’s chances of winning seem to be getting worse by the day, especially when he decides to veer off course—which is happening more and more often. It’s gotten so bad that he’s lost 17 points in his core constituency: the white working class.
Amy Walter, also of the Cook Report, noted that even if Trump manages to rebound among working-class and non-college-educated white voters, Clinton would easily take the presidency. His unpredictable behavior has been magical in uniting a fractured Democratic Party whose left-wing elements so desperately wanted Senator Bernie Sanders as their candidate. While Republicans seemed to be uniting around Trump, Walter added that only 81 percent of Republicans support him. To make matters worse, Walmart moms, voters who could have carried him to victory, saw this as a problem. Others thought he would start World War III:
Almost all of the women in these groups had at least some college or technical education, although fewer than half had a college degree. They were mixed in age and race. All were undecided and/or timid supporters of one of the two candidates. In other words, they are the kind of “swing voters” that both sides should be trying to attract. By and vast, these women were fully aware that the GOP is divided on Trump and that it’s a substantial deal. When asked if it matters that the GOP isn’t united behind him, a woman in the Columbus group said, “Yes. If your parents aren’t on the same page, that’s a problem.” In Phoenix, Connie, a 44-year-old college graduate, worried that “whatever change he wants to make, he’s not going to have anyone who’s going to work with him…he doesn’t even get along with his own party.” Stephanie, a 38-year-old mother of two and a customer service representative, leans toward Trump but also worries that “he’ll act on an executive order and go too far.”
[…]
As we’ve seen/heard for months, these women saw Clinton with a massive trust deficit (“liar” was the most common description of their concerns about her) and Trump with a temperamental problem (“she’s acting like a 2-year-old,” said one woman from Phoenix, “and I have a 2-year-old”). But these women were also resigned to the fact that Trump probably wouldn’t change. Even those who said they’d vote for him had a strenuous time defending his behavior. As one woman in the Phoenix group noted, “I don’t trust Hillary Clinton to fight terrorism, but Trump would get us into World War III.”
Most telling, though, is that while these women were not particularly enthusiastic about supporting Hillary Clinton, they were almost unanimous in their belief that she would ultimately win the election. By and vast, these women don’t trust Hillary Clinton, but Trump scares them. And Trump’s unpredictability and recklessness seem to be a bigger problem for them. If Trump showed a side of him that was less impulsive and more focused, these women would probably be more open to him. But as one woman in Phoenix noted, “I think he could change, but he doesn’t want to change.” That underscores more than anything how strenuous it will be for Trump to get these women—and others like them—to vote for him. And while this race may tighten, Clinton’s advantage over these kinds of classic GOP voters may hold.
So it’s fair to suggest that if Trump were a little more grounded in his rhetoric, he’d be an effortless alternative choice for Walmart moms and other undecided voters who have a deep distrust of Hillary Clinton. A distrust so deep that it might force some voters to split tickets to avoid a unified Democratic government under her administration. This election is winnable for someone as faint as Trump, although his past antics have shown he has no plans to change anytime soon. And that window for a long-awaited presidential turnaround is closing speedy.
