Trump Tries Slogging It Out

He’s lost his crucial advantage from 2016—the ability to surprise.

By
41
Donald Trump at an event in Dallas, 2015. (Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images)

Alfred Hitchcok told us that the difference between “surprise” and “suspense” lies in how much the audience knows. For Donald Trump, the difference between surprise and suspense is between 2016 and 2024.

Hitchcock understood that the anxiety about something that will happen is different from being startled “at the moment of the explosion.” And when Trump won the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, it came after a lot of moments of explosion. 

There was some suspense at the end as Trump slowly, inevitably wrung the necks of the last candidates standing and the “contested convention” nonsense sputtered to its obvious conclusion. But prior to that, he was full of surprises—all the way back to the would-he-or-wouldn’t-he talk of springtime eight years ago. 

Even after Trump was the Republican frontrunner, it wasn’t uncommon to hear politicos and pundits wonder whether he was really running to win or not. (Imagine thinking that the guy leading the race was going to quit while he was ahead.) It was true that Trump did not know what he was doing, but that added to the madcap energy of the outsider, the television star either oblivious to or disdainful of every rule. Not only did it keep Trump’s opponents, who were playing the old, grinding game, off balance, but the genuine spontaneity of the campaign kept the media’s rapt attention. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
41
By
Comments (41)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Jack H Wolf

    Trump has been counted out many times. Predicting the future is fool's errand, but if the polls are to be trusted it is his to lose, with the most recent Emerson and Harvard-Harris having him +20 and +26 over the second place DeSantis and those numbers haven't changed a lot.
    The Republican primary system, being largely a winner takes all, works for Trump because if he maintains a loyal base of 30-40% that will give him plurality victories. Note most of the Dem primary states have a modified proportional awarding of delegates which make it harder for a moderately strong candidate to steamroll through.
    Now if the leading Rs worked together and for instance chose their states where they were strongest and chose not to run and supported the non Trump candidate in the states where they were strongest, then, they would have a shot. But there was no cooperation in 2016 and it is a hard one to do given everybody's ambition.

    Collapse
  2. Shadraq

    "Trumpers" are still clueless. In order to win a national contest requires getting the votes of independents and even conservative Democrats, a-la Reagan. Not only does Trump fail with them, he also fails with a large portion of Republicans. Trump knows this and doesn't care that if he becomes the nominee, there will be another D in the White House, 100% guaranteed.

    Collapse
  3. DTruitt

    The campaign as always will be too long and mind-numbing. But generally following prior practice we'll see a bunch of candidates announce themselves between now and this summer, and at some point thereafter, probably September when the first televised debates will take place.

    We haven't had a real GOP primary since 2016, so maybe some things will change. But by the end of the year we'll have had a bunch of televised debates, all the candidates will have visited the early primary states multiple times and been to various state fairs and such in the late summer and fall. And then we'll do it some more until the first vote takes place. Right now New Hampshire is scheduled to vote Tuesday February 5.

    By the end of March we'll probably know who the nominee will be, though it could stretch out to as late as May.

    Collapse
  4. Tim.Moore2

    "Trump certainly may win"

    God help us. The last polling I could find showed more Democrats than Republicans, and that ignores the number of Independents. Given the overall media drift to the Left, and the hash of comments Trump has made since the last election (not to mention during his tenure), the Republican Party is not going to be enough to get him elected (a party which appears to be moving more and more to other possible candidates indicating a serious lack of commitment to him). And none of that takes into account the apparent move of Independents toward the Democratic Party, nor the vitriol the progressive side of the media will bring to bear. If Trump gains the nomination, the Democrats will elect the next President - whether we like it or not.

    Collapse
    1. Jack H Wolf

      I dont know if you are referring to new registrations or what.
      The most important metric is the congressional generic polling which has the Rs up about 2% at this moment, not unusual for that out of power midterm party.
      Also Biden remains unpopular with no trend to more or less.
      Now in head to head, Biden vs Trump the RCP aggregate has Biden +1.2 in the popular voted, but he would need to get at least +2-3 to be favored to win the EC given the R advantage in the College.

      Collapse
      1. Tim.Moore2

        No, more to the issue of what we hear in the "news" - which divides the world into "Democrats" and "Republicans". The short of it is that whomever is running has to convince not only their party, but also the Independents. And I don't see any poling which clarifies that. Given that prelims are by party, Trump (God help us) could possibly win the nomination and not carry sufficient Independents in the election, whereas a different candidate could be much stronger within the Independents. Just my frustration.

        Collapse
        1. Jack H Wolf

          The polling that I refer to - generic congressional polling - is purposely balanced between Rs and Ds and Independents. It is a poll, not what we hear in the news, and does come with the inherent error of polls, but works better than pure punditry which usually has each side overestimating their prospects.
          What you say is true, both candidates have a better chance of winning primaries than winning the election, as they are about equally disliked. I read today a poll that 48% of Rs wanted Trump to run and only 33% of Ds wanted Biden. Trumps approvals are 39% and Biden's at 42%. Contrast this with both Bush and Obama whose approvals were well over 50% when they ran for a second term.

          Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Martinallday3

      & "hog waller." God help us, indeed!

      Collapse
  5. Bobby D

    Well said. I was ambivalent to Trump in 2016 and grew to dislike him during his term. Two things come to mind.

    First, as you note, he is no longer entertaining. He’s a bore. And that’s usually the kiss of death in our entertainment-crazed society.

    Second, he no longer discusses issues. In 2016, he seemed much less narcissistic and petty, and seemed to have touched on issues that the competing candidates ignored. In 2024, many of those issues will be front and center, and Trump has moved on from them into narcissism and personal grievance.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    TerrBear

    I wonder what happens to the GOP once Trump bolts to run as in indie or the head of his his newly made-up party.

    Collapse
    1. DTruitt

      Nothing. He would have to fund the campaign at that point without any major donors. He'll never do that - he's a huge cheapskate and grifter.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        TerrBear

        But what happens to the GOP?

        DJT, still holds about $100 million now and it'll grow another year. He'll spend it by "billing" his own entities for sure, because...what else does a grifter do?

        But it's the GOP I wonder about. Does it find happy-warriors or does it double down on unlikable, grieving jerks? How would that three-way race play out?

        Collapse
        1. Bobby D

          He’d need far more money than that to go through the process of even getting his name on the ballot in a decent number of states.

          Besides, the GOP only needs the hard-core Trumpists if Trump is the candidate. If someone else is the candidate, the GOP will pick up enough anti-Trump right-leaning independents and never-Trump Republicans to offset any loss of the hard-core Trumpists’ votes.

          Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Djc8950

    The Elephant (or Donkey) in the primaries will be the number of Democrats who want to make a bad faith vote for Trump, especially if President Biden will be the Democrat on the ballot.

    Collapse
    1. DTruitt

      If there is a competitive Dem primary the Dems will not pass up a chance to select their own candidate. So it depends upon what happens later this year, whether any Dems stand up and announce a campaign to unseat Biden and thus force a competitive primary.

      Collapse
    2. Hikingguy

      Do you remember Rush Limbaugh and "Operation Chaos"? I do. You see, I used to love Rush. The plan was to flood open primaries with Republican voters supporting the most obnoxious Democrat. He was quite thrilled with it-and so was I. I used to love Rush. So enough of the "bad faith" stuff. Nothing bad faith about using the rules to your advantage. Rush taught me that. I used to love Rush.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Gordy Eicher

        Did you like Rush?

        Collapse
      2. BadgerBill

        When I first heard him, 25 years ago, it was fun to listen to a funny, different viewpoint. Soon, I noticed he was really just a jerk, and his humor was mean-spirited and with ill intent. The damage he did to discussion of climate change was unforgivable, as was his full-on Trump support. His legacy is the division within the country.

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Well written and wisely observed, Mr. Stirewalt. Carry on.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    Yes, Trump sounds "old" now. You know who sounds even older? The old mainstream Republicans running to challenge Trump (DeSantis, et. al.: half a dozen and counting).

    The realistic Republican candidates running against Trump all have the same problem: they've been defending him for so long that they cannot attack him on the things that make him unpopular to independents. They have all said a thousand times that the anti-Trump stuff is a bunch of lies ginned up by the non-Republican media. Their criticisms are technical in nature, e.g. that "you shouldn't say that out loud because it will make you look bad to moderates". They are all saying, in essence, that they are better politicians than Trump even if they agree with his conclusions about essential things.

    In other words, the realistic candidates cannot actually attack Trump in the way he needs to be attacked because that would also be attacking themselves.

    Collapse
    1. DTruitt

      DeSantis has not been defending Trump at all. Where have you been?

      DeSantis has focused on his issues - the "Free State of Florida" stuff. I have not heard him utter one word about Trump in years, pro or con, and he is my governor. He has made some statements that can be read as critical of Trump, but he never makes it personal ... he is the diametric opposite of Trump who has always run a personality cult.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        DeSantis started his entire political career by forcing his children to demonstrate their allegiance to Trump on TV. Where are you been?

        And yes, DeSantis "doesn't make it personal". LOL. That's also known as "cowardice". When Trump had Thanksgiving dinner with a Nazi, he and others didn't mention Trump by name and just said in essence, "dining with Nazi's is something I wouldn't do".

        How exactly are you supposed to compete with a rival politician if you aren't allowed to criticize anything they do? How are the millions of people who only get their news from Republican media going to even know what particularly is wrong with Trump? Isn't that just a bunch of lies the "MSM" makes up?

        All DeSantis is going to be able to run on is, "I'm a more swell guy than he is". And he's short, and Trump is tall. DeSantis might not want to run on personality, but without attacking Trump directly--and admitting that the "MSM" was right all along--that's all he's got left to run on.

        Collapse
  10. CatoTheElder

    Implicit in analyses such as this is the notion that voters are rational, reasonable, and likely to use those capacities in checking boxes in the voting booth. A second, more distant, assumption is that the primary process is likely to select a good, if not necessarily the “best”, candidate for the given party. I suggest that this belief is almost entirely unsound, and that, to parrot our dear Jonah Goldberg, if the parties were to go back to their smoke-filled room methods of candidate selection, we’d actually see better candidates on the ballot.

    I agree that Trump is no longer enjoying the advantages that come with provoking joyful frissons in those who feel excluded, belittled, forgotten, etc. There are still some notes of this, but it’s all an old song that isn’t getting the playtime it used to.

    The column here doesn’t move the ball down the field, but it does serve the useful purpose of confirming that the play stands as called. It’s not a lot, but it does have the benefit of being one more reminder that, with Trump, “there’s no there, there”.

    Collapse
    1. BadgerBill

      Carthago delenda est.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      All of those smoke-filled rooms would be filled with election-denying Trump supporters today, though. Take a look at the GOP agenda of the House, or the agendas of many state-level Republican reps e.g. Arizona. It's a fun thing for oldsters to go on about, but the reality is that changing the structure wouldn't change the outcomes any.

      Collapse
Load More