Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at a rally at Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland, Friday, Oct. 21, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
The two biggest moments of last night’s debate also work neatly in tandem to suggest how the ending to this whole ugly campaign might surprise us all. The first was Trump’s repeated refusal to say he will accept the legitimacy of the outcome, which is properly being denounced as an outrageous effort to undermine our democracy.
The second key moment was Trump’s suggestion that Clinton is “such a nasty woman.” This seemingly helpless slide into low-grade pettiness, in response to the most cursory of efforts to needle him over his taxes, hints at another way this could all turn out.
Trump is trying to go out in a blaze of frightful demagoguery that threatens to take our democracy down with him. Indeed, he appears to be laying the groundwork to question the outcome’s legitimacy long after the election is over as a way to keep his followers engaged. But, should things continue as they are, Trump may end up furiously tweeting about the election’s “rigged” outcome at 3:00 a.m. as a sidelined, shriveled, increasingly buffoonish figure, a failed demagogue who is beneath the attention even of late-night TV comics.
Trump’s effort to cast doubt on the integrity of the election, of course, has specific aims. He hopes to create the impression of a sh*tshow election, to depress enthusiasm and turnout among Clinton supporters. Trump’s own advisers have said this is their closing game plan.
But the early signs are that this is failing. Demographics expert Michael McDonald made an important point about this to Reuters: “The risk he faces by engaging in a scorched-earth policy is that he activates people rather than turning them off.”
McDonald’s calculations have found that, if anything, Trump’s antics are spurring more resolve to vote for Clinton, rather than less. McDonald found that after the first debate, there was a surge in absentee voter requests among women in North Carolina (a state Trump must win) and Georgia (a state that may actually be in play, which would be utterly disastrous for Trump, though this may not prove real). As McDonald concluded, the early evidence suggests that women who are increasingly tuning in to the choice between Trump and Clinton are responding by “exercising their right to vote.”
That was after the first debate — before the sex tape emerged, before Trump dismissed his own lewd boasts as “locker room talk” at the second debate, and before a parade of women responded to that by alleging unwanted sexual advances. And at last night’s debate, Trump essentially confirmed everything many female voters must be concluding about Trump’s dim view of them, when he called Clinton “such a nasty woman.” It seems plausible that all of this may only further engage female voters.
For some TV commentators, Trump’s “such a nasty woman” moment captured the depths of his failure last night — he has now squandered his final chance to broaden his appeal and settle doubts about his temperament and fitness for the presidency. If that is right, and it likely is, then he may well be heading for a decisive loss.
In that context, Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway made an accidental concession this morning that could reverberate later. Asked on Good Morning America whether Trump will accept the outcome, should he lose, Conway said Trump “respects the principles of democracy.” But she then said: “He can’t say what’s going to happen if the election is very close,” adding that “we just don’t know what will happen.” She compared such an outcome to the contested election in 2000.
That’s a silly comparison, since what distinguishes Trump’s current campaign is that unlike in 2000, he is questioning the legitimacy of the outcome in advance, something historians say may be unprecedented in U.S. history. Beyond that, Conway is essentially admitting that the only conceivable way Trump can continue casting doubt on the outcome is if it’s very close. But it’s now looking like it might not be close at all. Consider just how absurd it will really look if Trump actually goes through with his threat to continue claiming the outcome was rigged if he has lost the popular vote by five or more points and has suffered a massive landslide loss in the electoral college.
Trump also obviously hopes to sow doubts about the legitimacy of his defeat to keep his following engaged, in ways that maintain his potency as a political force and cause GOP leaders to quake with terror. He has already signaled his intention to direct his mob of supporters to blame GOP leaders for a loss. But what if all this just ends up fizzling? As GOP strategist Rick Wilson puts it:
“After 2008, there was a little Sarah Palin cult that has lasted, but it hasn’t changed the party. I see the same thing with Trump: a group of die-hards building a whole mythology about, ‘He was betrayed.’”
I don’t mean to minimize the danger Trump poses. But here’s what might happen in response to it: voters may turn out in record numbers, reaffirming our faith in our democracy.
That might actually happen. If so, all of Trump’s threats to continue sowing destruction may end up fizzling ignominiously. Or, alternatively, if Trump’s loss is humiliating enough, he may not even go through with his threat to continue contesting the outcome at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment