Has Donald Trump finally put his foot in his mouth in such a way that his campaign for the presidency starts to sink? That’s the question on the minds of the tens of millions of Republican voters around the USA that are weighing the decision about whether to support a traditional politician or to back the reality TV star.
Associated Press
Yesterday, the Trump campaign announced that The Donald will NOT be participating in Thursday’s Fox News Channel debate in Des Moines, Iowa, which is the last chance for the voters to see all of the candidates on the same stage before the voting begins with the Iowa caucuses next Monday. Trump’s reason for his boycott goes back to the very first made-for-TV moment of this campaign circus when, at the beginning of the first debate in the cycle, Fox moderator Megyn Kelly asked him a very pointed question about his numerous disparaging comments about women. The real estate developer turned politician did not appreciate the question and, in subsequent days, launched an interview and Twitter tirade against Kelly, calling her a “bimbo” and saying that she had “blood in her eyes, blood in her wherever.” After a brief boycott of the entire network, Trump made peace with Fox CEO and Chairman Roger Ailes and has appeared on trillions of FNC shows, all but Megyn Kelly’s prime time show “The Kelly File.”
Still, Trump’s bitterness towards Fox’ rising star has remained and he threatened to pull out of this Thursday’s debate unless the network removed Kelly from the roster of moderators (which includes two other tough interviewers, Bret Baier and Chris Wallace). Fox refused and issued a rather snarky press release about Trump’s insistence that he would be treated “unfairly” during the debate by Kelly.
“We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.” — Fox News Channel statement
Anyway, Trump, of course himself the king of the snarky Twitter comment, deemed this official statement from FNC to be a bridge too far, decided that his supporters didn’t need to see another debate and had his campaign announce that he would not participate. Truth be told, it was inappropriate for Fox to send out an official statement like that but Trump clearly overreacted.
Anyway, with the backstory told, I return to the key question: was this the first major strategic blunder by Trump or yet another unconventional but brilliant maneuver by the master of media manipulation?
First, let’s present the argument about how this debate boycott won’t hurt and might actually help the GOP front-runner:
- The lack of Trump at the debate will tank the TV ratings and nobody will see the other candidates, which would help the person currently in the lead. At this writing, he has plans to stage his own rally in Iowa, a benefit for our nation’s veterans. In a Twitter poll conducted last night on FNC’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren,” a whopping 83% of respondents said they would NOT watch the debate without Trump on the stage.
- The debates really don’t help Trump. It’s the one aspect of the Republican nomination fight in which he cannot completely steal all of the news coverage. He must share some of it with the other candidates. Also, he’s not particularly adept at the format while his chief antagonist, Ted Cruz, is masterfully skilled at the craft. Polling has shown that Trump’s support tends to dip in the days immediately following each debate.
- Trump’s supporters are all in for him and nothing he does or says will deter them from their champion. As he said the other day, he could take out a gun and shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and his supporters would still be behind him. This was a tongue in cheek remark but the best humor has an element of truth to it. All of the polls show that the Trump voters are the least likely to change their minds about who to vote for.
- By boycotting this debate, Trump is showing everyone that he is a man not to be trifled with. The snarky and unprofessional statement by FNC actually gives him cover. The statement in and of itself shows some bias from the network and Trump is telling all of his supporters or would-be supporters that he is bigger than Fox News. He got the full unbridled support for his decision by no less than the grand poo-bah of talk radio, Rush Limbaugh,
- With Trump missing, the other candidates on stage will train their rhetorical fire on Ted Cruz, who is running neck and neck with The Donald in Iowa. Marco Rubio in particular has been effective in combating his fellow senator. If Trump holds steady and Cruz slips a bit, that would mean a Trump win in Iowa.
- By snubbing the last debate before the voting begins, Trump has done what he always manages to do: he has completely dominated the news coverage for two days.
OK, now the case about how Trump’s boycott will hurt the billionaire’s prospects of winning the Iowa caucuses next Monday:
- My belief is that the TV ratings will still be robust despite the lack of the bombastic Trump. The Donald has created intense fascination with the entire process; the two-thirds of the Republican electorate who are supporting other candidates or remain undecided will still want to see their candidate make their case. There will also be a fascination to see what the others say about Trump. As for that 83% “won’t watch” on-line poll, Twitter polls are unscientific and I’d bet the farm that the nature of that poll inspired Trump-ians to express their support for the Donald and everyone else not to bother. Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski predicted that FNC’s ratings would plummet to 2 million viewers. If the number is actually dramatically higher, that’s a news story in and of itself and a rebuke to the narrative that Trump is the only game in town.
- It’s true that Trump doesn’t do particularly well at these debates but that’s mostly the perspective from people like myself who are not fans of his candidacy. For his supporters and for those who think they might support him, they feel that he does very well. If he’s not on stage, he won’t have the opportunity to bring up (again) the issue of Cruz’ birth country of Canada. If he’s not on the stage, he won’t have the ability to fight back when other candidates snipe at him. Other candidates and commentators have used words like “terrified” and “afraid” to describe Trump’s views towards potential questions from Megyn Kelly. Cruz, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ben Carson, John Kasich and Ron Paul all will have the opportunity to tee off on Trump without immediate retribution. Expect Cruz, Bush, and Paul in particular to belittle or question the manhood of the missing Donald.
- I truly believe that a majority of Trump supporters will stand by their guy, that this will do nothing but solidify their feelings that he’s a different kind of politician, that he can’t be pushed around. They see a strong, principled leader who can’t be bought, bullied or taunted. However, there are still undecided voters and still voters open to changing their mind. This could particularly hurt him Iowa, which is hosting the debate and holds its caucus on Monday. In Iowa, they really want you to show up. They’re used to having candidates show up in their homes and local diners; Trump has shown up for big events only. As he skips the biggest of all events, Cruz and others will make the point that the people of Iowa deserve to hear a closing statement. Persuadable members in the live and Iowa viewing audience, who you would expect to be likely caucus-goers all, may perceive the no-show as disrespect to their special place in the nominating process. A caucus is not the same as a vote: the power of persuasion comes into play where neighbors give speeches in cold gymnasiums to plead the case of their candidates and change the votes of others.
- While boycotting the debate may play very well with those who already are supporters, to me it seems like another nail in the coffin to those who are skeptical or in outright opposition. I’ve heard phrases like “petulant child,” “delusions of grandeur,” “personal and petty” and “temper tantrum” used to describe Trump’s decision not to show up Thursday. We currently have a thin-skinned narcissist in the Oval Office who has waged a war on Fox News. Do we want another?
- With the national front-runner missing in action, Cruz and Rubio will have the opportunity to win the crowd and there are no debaters more capable of repelling incoming attacks than the two freshman Senators. If I’m right that the event will still have a big audience (especially in Iowa), the other candidates will have a chance to make their closing arguments and Trump will not.
- While Trump has dominated the airwaves for the last 24 hours, a lot of it has been negative, more so than usual. I’m not sure how that helps him.
So, bottom line, what ultimate impact will this have? I cautiously predict that this will ultimately be detrimental to Trump’s quest for the presidency. I use the term “cautiously” because Trump had done or said many other things that would sink a traditional candidate and he has proven immune to all conventional political wisdom. Still, I just can’t forsee any way that this helps him win the caucuses in Iowa unless Cruz is severely damaged during Thursday’s debate. Most of Trump’s supporters will likely stick with him but I can’t fathom how this move gains him any new ones.
I would expect all of the candidates to echo a theme that Trump has shown disrespect to the American people and to the citizens of Iowa in particular. Throughout the campaign, the Donald has portrayed a tough-guy image but he’s served himself up on a silver platter for the others to call him weak, scared, terrified, arrogant, petulant, and unhinged and he won’t be able to respond in real time.
Caucus and primary polling is notoriously unpredictable and attitudes can change rapidly in the final week. Four years ago, Rick Santorum was polling 6 points behind Mitt Romney in the Real Clear Politics average of polls but wound up eking out a narrow win. In 2008, Mike Huckabee was clinging to a 3-point lead over Romney in the RCP average and wound up winning by 9 points. Similarly, Barack Obama was polling nearly even with Hillary Clinton in the RCP average but wound winning by 8 percentage points. So in each of the last three examples, the polling was off by 6 to 9 points. Trump’s current 6-point lead over Cruz could turn into a huge win or a narrow loss.
A stunt like this will have unpredictable consequences but I just can’t see how it helps. When this first happened 24 hours ago, my gut reaction was that this was the “big one,” the major blunder that anti-Trumpians have been waiting for. After further reflection and seeing the spectrum of analysis by others, I’m more inclined to see it as a downward blip but not a “complete disaster” for the billionaire candidate.
Thus, I predict the pendulum will swing and that Cruz will earn a narrow win. Still, with the added “disrespect” factor to the voters of Iowa, I wouldn’t be shocked to see Cruz win big, with Rubio and somebody else also out-performing current expectations. Perhaps there’s an opening here for an unexpectedly good showing by Rand Paul. The Kentucky Senator barely qualified for the main debate but he’s in it and the core of his support is among college students, who are notoriously difficult to reach by the polling organizations. Paul’s father Ron Paul did very well here in 2012.
Most prediction models show that Trump will win with a record turnout of caucus-goers (certainly a possibility given the level of interest he’s infused into the process) and that Cruz would win narrowly with a robust but not record-setting turnout. This is because all of the polls show that Trump does best with likely first-time caucus attendees and that Cruz does better with those who have attended a caucus in the past. I’m just speculating here, but I think that Trump’s “no show” on Thursday might result in a significant amount of “no shows” on Monday for those who support his quest for the Oval Office. If Cruz earns a narrow victory, Trump will remain a viable candidate going forward. But if Cruz wins big, it could be the beginning of the end for the Donald.
Of course, Trump could change his mind at the last minute which would render an entirely new equation: would he be seen as caving in to Fox or as being wishy-washy? Or does Fox issue a public apology for the snarky press release about the Ayatollah and Putin, which might be considered an acceptable bargain to the master of the art of the deal? If Trump succeeds in dominating the news coverage for 48 hours and ALSO shows up at the debate without looking like he “gave in,” he could have the last laugh on all of us.
I will say one thing about this election season: it’s not boring!
Thanks for reading.
Chris Bodig