Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 247: Chicken Little media gets it wrong -- Trump will win suburbs

Trump benefitting women
They warned conservatives and Republicans in 2016 and now they’re doing it again. Speaking of the eternally-apprehensive Republican establishment consulting class, a nebulous group of political worrywarts who can’t see the forest for the trees and kvetch over every poll or burp of public opinion as a harbinger of doom for the party’s chances in 2020.

These people reason if President Donald Trump is beaten in next year’s election it’ll be because soccer moms and the white college-degreed suburban crowd either backs the Democrat nominee or simply decides the lesser of two evils isn’t a sufficient incentive to vote at all.

Naturally the GOP elites are leading the way in sounding the alarm… or is it simply rehashing their role as “Chicken Little” in forecasting how the sky is falling? Julia Manchester and Scott Wong reported at The Hill, “The GOP forfeited the House in 2018, largely after losing suburban women voters, a key voting bloc that turns out at the polls but with whom Trump has proved particularly unpopular since becoming president.

“The suburbs could also pose a threat to Trump’s reelection chances as well as a number of vulnerable Senate Republicans facing uphill reelection battles in states such as Colorado, Maine, North Carolina and Arizona. The GOP currently holds a narrow 53-47 majority in the upper chamber.

“Republican lawmakers and strategists say they face an even bigger challenge winning back suburban House districts, especially given Trump’s controversial actions in recent days.”

As examples of Trump’s “controversial actions” the Hill duo listed the New Yorker’s lack of concrete action on gun control, his snubbing of Denmark over the European country’s refusal to negotiate a sale of Greenland, the president’s calling Jewish Democrats “disloyal,” his labeling of FED Chairman Jerome Powell as an “enemy,” and, perhaps most insultingly of all, for suggesting the next Group of Seven summit meeting should be held at his golf place in Florida (Trump National Doral, which he pulled out of bankruptcy in 2012 at the bargain price of $150 million).

Blah, blah blah… it’s almost like certified members of the establishment media don’t even bother writing new and fresh material anymore. It seems all they do is dig through their files and find an old story that sounds like it meets the day’s version of “Trump is gonna lose because traditional Republican constituencies are turning against him due to his rhetoric, tweets, orange hair, ownership of the Mar-a-Lago club, and, most of all, because he’s a sexist, racist rube in fancy suits who disguises his true contempt for the little guy by doing things like donating his presidential salary to worthy causes” line of argument.

None of it’s true for a variety of reasons. First, it’s only the first week of September in 2019, about fourteen months away from Election Day, 2020. What Trump says or tweets today, tomorrow, next week or next month won’t make a hill of beans worth of difference to voters next year. By the time Americans hit their polling precincts (or, as has become increasingly more common, fill out their early ballots) they’ll have long forgotten whatever the media, consultant class and blubbering chatters are bellyaching over this week.

It’s hard enough to recall what happened yesterday versus a year ago. Anyone remember what they did for Labor Day weekend last year? How about the year before?

Without trying to be too derogatory, the average memory span of the American electorate is about two weeks (which still may be granting them too much credit). A million things can and will happen between now and the appropriate time to sway people in the suburbs -- and everywhere else -- as to who they’ll vote for.

Heck, a well-timed hurricane (like Sandy, 2012), a bipartisan group-hug (like Chris Christie’s with Barack Obama) and an attention-challenged public was more than enough to grant a second term to the more-incompetent-than-most previous Oval Office occupant. If you don’t believe it, look up the post-Labor Day headlines in 2011 and see if the media honks were talking about any of the same things in late October, 2012.

Second, Democrats aren’t even close to settling on a nominee to appear opposite Trump. Next week ten Democrats will “debate” for the third time this nominating cycle. While it’ll be the first time all of the top-tier contenders will appear on stage together, the overall race is volatile and far from over. Without repeating the entire storyline, frontrunner Joe Biden’s polling lead is all over the place and the contest is shaping up to be a classic battle between the ardent socialists (I was going to say “young turks” but how could anyone describe a 77-year-old (Bernie Sanders) and a 70-year old (Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren) as “young”?) versus the quickly disintegrating “moderate” establishment of the party (represented by the former VP).

Biden’s national percentage is now less than the combined vote-shares of Sanders and Warren. And if you add in the totals of the other far-left candidates (Kamala Harris (who some in the Trump campaign allegedly fear most), Cory Booker, Andrew Yang and “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg) the establishment side is being swamped by people who vow to toss out the old and never look back. Biden’s 29-30 percent doesn’t look so ominous when you consider his pursuers together brag of around 50 percent support.

A similar phenomenon occurred within the GOP four years ago. The “outsiders” (Trump, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina) consistently polled at about 60 percent of the party primary faithful. There simply wasn’t room for an establishmentarian (Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, etc.) to dent the backing of those who sought to rid the country of the Bush-ian mob. Conservatives craved someone from outside DC to man the swamp pumps -- and they got one. But it took time.

It’s evident Democrats are going through the same candidate-culling process now. It’ll start showing up after the first voting states (Iowa and New Hampshire) and more dreamers leave the race. You heard it here.

Lastly, Republicans should stop obsessing over the supposed suburban-slip to the Democrats and start contemplating how to win territory away from the opposition. In this, it’s a little like war -- the enemy will be there regardless of what happens and you can’t always fret about what they’re doing. Time to be a little selfish and self-reflect.

A historical example is in order. After the Union Army of the Potomac suffered its latest thrashing at the hands of General Robert E. Lee’s Confederate Army of Northern Virginia (at the Battle of the Wilderness in May, 1864), General Ulysses S. Grant had had enough of all the doom and gloom talk among his subordinates. He said, “I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what we are going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do.”

Is it so different in today’s political environment? President Trump’s policies are working to build the American economy, and people recognize it (including black leaders such as BET’s Bob Johnson). Wouldn’t Republicans be better served by concentrating on a forward-thinking offensive strategy rather than agonizing over a potential (not provable) loss of the troubled liberal-leaning suburbs?

There are plenty of votes “out there” waiting to be won, including conservative blacks, entrepreneurial Hispanics and the final remnants of working-class Democrats. Trump is more popular than the polls reflect with these (and other) groups, and will be even more so when voters must choose between him and the socialistic Democrat nominee. Can anyone say, 1972 all over again?

The stakes are higher than ever. Roger L. Simon wrote at PJ Media, “From Big Tech to Hollywood to our media to our campuses to the campaign rhetoric of virtually every Democratic candidate, we are moving toward a homogenization of thought and action that is, well, Chinese communist in style and ultimately in content...

“Apocalyptic as it may sound, if you love freedom, election 2020 is becoming the last chance to stem the tide. I hate to place my hopes in the Great Vulgarian—or in any single man or woman for that matter—but at this point, there is no alternative, not even remotely. In any case, judging a politician by his or her personality is a boring and subjective enterprise. With Western civilization in the balance, voting against a candidate because you think a tweet is crude is nothing short of idiotic.”

As usual, Simon hits the nail on the head. It truly would be idiotic to discount Trump simply for his personality, hair color, mannerisms or somewhat crude, non-presidential manner of speech. It's a mental journey many American voters will undertake as Election Day nears next year. Do they really want to risk replacing a successful president because they don’t like the sound of his voice or can’t stand his off-putting decorum?

Conservatives didn’t care much for John McCain’s scratchier-than-heck mood swings and Mitt Romney’s phony smirks but they still voted for the losers because the alternative was far worse. Politics ain’t that complicated when you get down to it, especially in our two-party system which forces a take-it-or-leave-it choice between someone who isn’t ideal versus a candidate who would be truly awful.

It’s far too early for establishment consultants to predict Trump and the GOP’s congressional candidates will lose the once reliable suburban vote. True, bored media reporters need something to write about, but ultimately American voters will decide. Here’s thinking they’ll choose right.

Share this