Trump: Too Ignorant to be President

Trump: A Case Study in Ignorance

Should he ever become president, Donald Trump is on course to become the Terrorist-Creator-in-Chief.

Trump: A Case Study in Ignorance

(Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)

By Peter Fenn | Contributor

June 15, 2016, at 8:00 a.m.

Not only is Donald Trump a clear case of someone who knows so little yet says so much, completely unprepared for the consequences of his actions, but if elected, he will put in place policies that will result in the exact opposite of what he claims he wants to achieve.

Take one issue: Islamic terrorism.

Let’s look at some numbers from Pew Research Center’s report on Muslims and Islam last December. As of 2010, there were 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, 23 percent of the population. Islam is far and away the fastest growing religion – they are projected to grow at a rate of 73 percent from 2010 to 2050, compared to 35 percent for Christians and 34 percent for Hindus. That projected growth rate is faster than the world’s population is expected to increase. While women in other religious groups have an average of 2.3 children, Muslim women have an average of 3.1.

With a median age of 23, Muslims are young compared to other religious groups, as well. Young and impressionable.

So, the real question is: What is the effect of Donald Trump’s xenophobic, vitriolic, unbridled negative view of Muslims? Bans on Muslims, shutting down places of worship, stoking fear, even political and personal attacks against the president – every day another assault.

Is he bringing Muslims together to battle the Islamic State group and other extremist groups? Hardly. Is his rhetoric encouraging clerics and mosques to cooperate in identifying possible terrorists and joining forces to prevent horrific acts of violence? No chance. Is he sending a message to the world of tolerance and solidarity with 23 percent of the world’s population? Are you kidding?



Even before Trump, before his outrageous campaign for the presidency, there were disturbing poll numbers about the Islamic State and the use of violence. Though the vast majority of Muslims deplore violence and the tactics of the Islamic State, that sentiment is not universal. Pew found that in the Palestinian territories, 40 percent say violence is sometimes justified, 39 percent agreed in Afghanistan and 29 percent in Egypt.

Suicide bombings are rejected by the vast majority of Muslims. However, one series of very disturbing results comes from the perceptions of Muslims toward the West and vice-versa. In predominantly Muslim countries, Westerners are perceived as selfish by 68 percent, violent by 66 percent, greedy by 64 percent and immoral by 61 percent. Conversely, in the U.S., Russia and Western Europe, about 50 percent perceived Muslims as fanatical and violent; the good news is that 51 percent viewed Muslims as honest, and 41 percent as generous.

The difficulty with Donald Trump, of course, is that he does not do nuance; he does not focus on the impact of his words nor the consequences of his actions. But it doesn’t take a mental giant to figure out what his campaign is doing to create a negative view of the United States by Muslims around the world.


RELATED CONTENT

Trump’s Orlando Speech Was a New Low

He delivered one of the most demagogic anti-immigration speeches by a candidate in modern times


Let me just do a little hypothetical math here for those who are worried that Trump may be creating a much bigger problem than any of us realize. As we have established, there are over 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Let’s presume that 20 percent of those Muslims have an increasingly unfavorable view of America and the West – not evenly spread throughout the world, of course, but concentrated in much higher numbers in high-conflict areas. In shear numbers that would be 320 million Muslims who increasingly dislike America and the West. Could be more, could be less.

OK, so assume you have 10 percent of those who actually despise what Trump stands for, who feel Trump is declaring war on them and who believe that action is called for, political or violent. Sadly, you now have 32 million Muslims out of 1.6 billion who are serious about real opposition.

Now, suppose you have a small percentage – 5 percent – of the 32 million who think they are willing or able to take up arms and become terrorists. That would be 1.6 million people. OK, but only 10 percent of those actually have an opportunity or make the move to become violent. That is still a population of 160,000 individuals. That is 160,000 people to watch, keep track of and identify out of a population of over 1.6 billion.

The truly scary thing is that when you combine these vast numbers with people with serious mental illnesses, access to almost any weapon they desire and the opportunity to wreak havoc almost anywhere in the world, you have a problem that demands cool heads and careful thought.


RELATED CONTENT

Trump 2016: The Ultimate Scam

Voters shouldn’t allow Donald Trump to scam them like he scammed the students of Trump University.


No question, the FBI, Homeland Security and CIA and others have produced much more sophisticated analyses than I have on playing out these scenarios. And experts have already said it is a real concern. Michael Hayden, head of the CIA and NSA under George W. Bush, said that with his divisive anti-Muslim stance, Trump is “using [the Islamic State’s] rhetoric” and “feeding their recruitment video.” Indeed, Islamic State terrorists even featured the GOP front-runner in a propaganda video to inspire new terrorist recruits. As Obama said just yesterday of Trump’s vitriol, “If we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims as a broad brush, and imply that we are at war with the entire religion, then we are doing the terrorists’ work for them.”

My point is that Donald Trump does not seem to understand what he is doing to inflame a sizable faction of 23 percent of the world’s population. He does not seem to understand what the implications of creating a crusade against the Muslim faith will be – to embolden and produce more terrorists in a climate of hate and fear, advanced by his own verbal jihad.

Trump’s stated objective of combating terrorism has been turned on its head – he will, in fact, be the Terrorist-Creator-in-Chief should he ever become president of the United States.

Role Reversal: Why Hillary Beats Trump Hands-Down

The Real ‘Woman Card’

Anti-feminist stereotypes traditionally lobbed at politically ambitious women now legitimately apply to Donald Trump.

The Real ‘Woman Card’

(Photo by Tomohiro Ohsumi/Getty Images)

By Peter Fenn | Contributor

June 20, 2016, at 3:15 p.m.

In the early 1980s when I started my political consulting firm, I began working for the Women’s Campaign Fund. Some of my first clients in the election of 1984 were Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, chair of the platform committee and nominee for vice president, and another candidate for Congress, Jane Wells Schooley of Pennsylvania, former vice president of the National Organization for Women.

At that time, there were two women in the United States Senate and 22 members of the House, a grand total of 24 out of 535. Today, we are up to 20 female senators and 88 representatives for a total of 108 – still not enough, but an improvement over the last 30 years.

During those early years, female candidates faced very tough obstacles: Do you have enough experience? Do you know “the issues” well enough? Are you “tough” enough to handle a campaign and the office? Do you have other “obligations” – children and family? Are you too “emotional” to govern? Do you understand budgets, foreign policy, legal issues, defense policy? In short, are you competent enough to handle all these “complex” governance problems as a woman?



Women had to be smarter, more knowledgeable, more experienced, cooler and calmer under pressure, even more “ready” for office than men to get elected. That situation has changed for the better, though some of the same prejudices are still present today.

Women like Ferraro and Wells Schooley were trailblazers, no question, and the Women’s Campaign Fund and later Emily’s List had to constantly fight against stereotypes.

That brings me to one theory of the 2016 presidential election. We are seeing a very serious role reversal in the Clinton-Trump race. The very criticisms that men unfairly hurled at politically ambitious women are now actually true about Trump. The old stereotypes and attack lines for women have suddenly become part and parcel of who Donald Trump really is:

Who is the most emotional, off-the-wall, candidate? Donald Trump.

Who is shrill and flailing at his rallies? Donald Trump

Who has little knowledge or understanding of the issues confronting the country? Easy one, Donald Trump.

Who lacks basic competency in governing? Donald Trump, hands down.

Who routinely makes statements that lack credibility, don’t rely on facts and depend on his “mood” at the time? Yup, Donald Trump.

Let’s Get Real On The “Damned Emails”

Fair Is Fair

The FBI investigation into Clinton’s emails wasn’t rigged, it’s how the system is supposed to work.

Fair Is Fair
FBI Director James Comey makes a statement at FBI Headquarters in Washington, Tuesday, July 5, 2016. Comey said the FBI will not recommend criminal charges in its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of state.

FBI Director James Comey makes a statement at FBI Headquarters in Washington, Tuesday, July 5, 2016. (AP PHOTO/CLIFF OWEN)

I am a big fan of New Yorker columnist and comic Andy Borowitz. His piece Tuesday is priceless: “Congressional Republicans Vote to Abolish the FBI.”

He is referring, of course, to the decision announced by FBI Director James Comey, who said regarding the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails that “no charges are appropriate in this case” and that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” Borowitz jokingly quotes Rep. Trey Gowdy talking about “the FBI’s ‘bloated and wasteful’ budget of eight billion dollars, which he (Gowdy) said could easily pay for an additional eleven hundred Benghazi investigations.”

The reactions from Republicans and Trump to Comey have been typically over-the-top: Trump tweeted it is a “rigged system” and “very, very unfair”; RNC spokesman Sean Spicer called it “a clear indictment” even though the FBI decision was precisely the opposite – no indictment.



This was a fair and independent investigation that lasted a year, not a congressional witch hunt of the sort that Republicans are prone to conduct. And it certainly wasn’t “unfair or rigged” as Trump attests.

But, of course, everything is rigged against the Donald – from all his bankruptcies, to his multiple business failures, to his legion of lawsuits. His decisions to not pay his bills to small businesses, his hiring of immigrants at below fair wages and his reaping millions when his casinos went under all have something very real to do with “fairness” and rigging the system.

Comey’s criticism of Clinton – he called her conduct “extremely careless” – is justified. It was a mistake, as she has said many times. But this was a fair and thorough American process designed to achieve justice. Sadly for Trump, he has never understood what true bullies never understand: Integrity and character and fairness should define leadership. Unlike Clinton, he has very little of it.

Donald Trump Calls a Reporter a “Sleaze”: Who is the Real Sleaze?

Trump 2016: The Ultimate Scam

Voters shouldn’t allow Donald Trump to scam them like he scammed the students of Trump University.

Trump 2016: The Ultimate Scam

By Peter Fenn | Contributor USNews & World Report

June 1, 2016, at 4:45 p.m.

On Tuesday, Donald Trump went off on the press, calling one ABC reporter covering his fundraising for veterans a “sleaze.”

Think about it. Just when Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, was being exposed in court documents for conducting one of the sleaziest scams, ripping people off at his so-called university, he tries to turn the tables.

I get the showmanship, the P.T Barnum, the celebrity, but the word “sleaze” drips from Donald “there’s a sucker born every minute” Trump like an oil slick.

The employees of Trump University, in newly released documents, testified that it was “a facade, a total lie”, “a fraudulent scheme and that it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money.” Trump started the operation in 2005 and owned 93 percent of the company, according to the New York Times. He was the pitch-man, the face, the reason people signed up. According to employees of the company and those who were defrauded they were encouraged to max out their credit cards and take out additional ones; one couple was even encouraged to use disability income and take out a home equity loan to pay the $35,000 tuition.

Internal documents revealed the scam’s trade secret: “We teach the technique of using OPM … Other People’s Money.” Now, that sounds like Donald Trump.


The key here is that this is not some isolated incident, some aberration, some operation gone bad bearing the Trump name. This is the way Trump makes money in real estate, steaks, wine, foreign-made garments. This is a pattern of behavior that calls into question whether Trump has any real ethics at all – other than enriching himself and those around him.

If we see his tax returns and his real charitable behavior patterns we will know more. But I suspect that none of that will see the light of day. He knows he’s a “sleaze” and that will govern his decisions regarding transparency. Strange that he attacks the press for doing its job with a term that so clearly applies to him.

Donald Trump has succeeded in one of the greatest con-jobs in all of America’s history – securing the nomination of a major political party for the highest office in the land. Just as Trump University is being revealed as a fraud, I can’t imagine that by November the majority of Americans won’t see through the bluster and the vitriol and reject the sales tactics of a charlatan.

Republicans Opposed to Trump Should Skip the GOP Convention in Cleveland | US News Opinion

By Peter Fenn | Contributor May 9, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. USNews & World Report

 

Here is a lesson from the past when it comes to Republicans dealing with Donald Trump and the upcoming convention in Cleveland. It was the summer of 1968. The country was torn apart. Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy had just been assassinated, the Vietnam War was raging and Lyndon Johnson had taken himself out of the race for president.

I was a wet-behind-the-ears college sophomore working in the re-election campaign of Sen. Frank Church of Idaho. A liberal Democrat who was an early opponent of the Vietnam War, elected in a conservative state, Church had a decision to make that summer. Should he attend the Democratic Convention in Chicago in August, knowing that chaos would be the order of the day? Or should he remain in Idaho and run his own campaign? In some ways, not an easy decision.

Church was the keynote speaker at the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles that nominated John F. Kennedy, eight years earlier. He led the Idaho delegation to the 1964 Democratic Convention in Atlantic City, four years before. He was a loyal Democrat who cared about his party and would later, in 1976, run for president himself.

But Idaho was a hotbed of George Wallace conservatives; the John Birch Society had attempted a recall movement against Church a year earlier. (Rather reminds me of the Tea Party actually!) When we traveled all across the vast state, we saw far too many bumper stickers that read: “America, Love it or Leave It!” Frank Church had opposed President Johnson on Vietnam but supported his Great Society programs and had been an ally of Hubert Humphrey on civil rights and many other issues.

But he saw clearly where the Chicago convention was headed, both inside and outside the convention hall. The last place Sen. Church wanted to be during the hot month of August was in Chicago, in the midst of that firestorm. So from Aug. 26-29, 1968, Frank Church was nowhere near the Windy City. Instead, he took a few days off the campaign trail and holed up with his family and a group of us in the mountains of Idaho.

In the end, he ran his own campaign and barnstormed across the state under the slogan: “Re-elect Senator Frank Church: As Independent as Idaho.” His courage taking on his own party and president actually worked to his advantage, and having convictions that he cared deeply about earned the respect of voters even if they were not always in total agreement with him. But the decision to skip Chicago, to stay out of the donnybrook that ensued, was a very wise move for Frank Church in 1968.

For those Republicans who oppose Donald Trump, who are deeply worried about his lack of knowledge, understanding and qualifications to lead this nation, my advice would be stand clear. Let him run his campaign, you run yours. Let him have his convention, don’t follow him into that quicksand. Go with your conscience, not with a go-along to get-along march to Cleveland. Donald Trump is not the answer to the nation’s problems, he is a symptom of them. A strong, vibrant, Republican Party and Donald Trump have very little in common. Cleveland will no doubt prove that.

Source: Republicans Opposed to Trump Should Skip the GOP Convention in Cleveland | US News Opinion

Democrats:  Leave the Circular Firing Squad to the Republicans

Hold Your Fire, Democrats

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders need to leave the party infighting to the Republicans.

Hold Your Fire, Democrats
Editorial cartoon on Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders

Jack Ohman/Tribune Content Agency

OK. It’s time.

It’s time to prove the legendary Will Rogers wrong when he said, “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” Or to prove, in fact, that the current circular firing squad is the Republican Party and not the Democrats.

After the New York primary, we are at a crucial period in the Democratic race. Sure, we are going to go on until June 7, but the next seven weeks will be crucial in determining whether the Democrats shout at each other or shout at the Republicans. I prefer the latter, thank you.

First of all, there is no need for the Hillary Clinton camp to attack independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and no reason to bait them either. With one week to go before five states decide on April 26, they are in the driver’s seat in this campaign. And there are only a total of five contests during all of May. So work as hard as can be to win the bulk of the primaries on April 26, but don’t have surrogates taking shots at Sanders. No need.

As for Bernie and his supporters, one lesson he has learned from New York and earlier contests is that the more he attacks Clinton, the worse he does. No more attack ads. No more speeches about speeches. No more questioning her “qualifications” or even “judgment.” It simply won’t help the Sanders campaign, and it conflicts with his own message and who he is in this race.

The month of May is important in setting the stage for November. In 2008, Hillary Clinton backed off from the critique of then-Sen. Barack Obama and played out the primaries until June. Bernie should do the same, especially after this week of competing in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware and Maryland.

Not only is it important to make this race about Democrats v. Republicans and the strikingly different visions for the country, it is also important to have a unified party that will win back the Senate and, possibly, even the House in November. In order for the Democrats to build from this primary season, it is critical that they put the back-and-forth of a contentious campaign behind them. Of course, compared to the Republicans this has been a tame contest – beanbag really. But what the Democrats don’t need is a senseless negative barrage of ads or talking heads who take off after each other. The candidates lose, the Democratic Party loses and the chances increase that we lose a much-deserved advantage come November.

The bottom line here is that what Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have been talking about for the last year can only be accomplished with a resounding victory in November – not just winning the presidency but electing Democrats up and down the ticket, and especially in the House and the Senate. Getting the things done they have talked about means having the bodies in Congress to deliver the legislation. There is too much at stake now – time to avoid that circular firing squad. Leave that to the Republicans.

Coming Soon: Chaos in Cleveland

Headed for Chaos in Cleveland

Trump has hit a wall and nobody likes Cruz, so the GOP has a big mess on its hands.

The Associated Press

This way to a contested convention.

By April 6, 2016, at 2:30 p.m.+ More   USNews and World Report

The question has been asked: Does Wisconsin matter?

The answer is: Yes, for the Republicans. Not so much for the Democrats.

On the Republican side, Donald Trump has hit a wall. No, not that wall! A delegate wall. He may figure out a way to get over it but it will be far from easy. He has to roll up big victories in winner-take-all states and manage to defeat Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. John Kasich handily. All this, when his poll numbers are tanking and his mistakes are mounting.

In Wisconsin, Trump won only 6 delegates compared to 36 for Cruz. There are 16 states left to vote and nine of them are winner-take-all or modified winner-take-all. Clearly, for Trump to go from the 743 delegates he has to the 1,237 he needs will require a string of victories, not just coming in at 30 to 35 percent of the vote. Yet, one would be hard pressed to assume that Trump will not come in at over 1,000 delegates when all the primaries are over. Cruz, of course, would have to romp and vanquish Trump and Kasich to reach the magic number. That’s unlikely, considering how much dislike there is for him within the Republican Party.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the 2016 Presidential Elections]

I have been predicting the Trump demise since last summer, without much success, but I think it has finally come to pass. Will he drop out before the convention? Doubtful. Will he make the case that he is close to a majority, that he can motivate untold numbers of non-voters in a general election, that he can fund the campaign himself, that he will be the outsider the country is craving? Sure.

But, end of the day, we are facing Chaos in Cleveland. Members of the Republican Party establishment – or as I would call them, the adults in the room – do not want either Trump or Cruz. They not only see electoral disaster in November but they fundamentally believe that neither of these two candidates would be good presidents. The problem, of course, is that you have a large collection of very angry, dissatisfied supporters and delegates of these two men who would revolt if the convention chose a Speaker Paul Ryan, who didn’t compete, or a John Kasich, with his single primary victory.

But the longer this primary season goes on and the more Republican primary voters indicate they won’t vote for their party’s nominee, the more likely the Republican convention will finally turn to an alternative choice. Yet, the convention rules committee and the delegates will have to overturn a 2012 rule that requires a nominee to have won at least eight states to have their names placed in nomination. The so-called Paul rule was named after Ron Paul, who Republicans wanted to prevent from wreaking havoc on the convention that year.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on Donald Trump]

If both Cruz and Trump are being denied the nomination because they have not reached the required 1.237 delegates on the first ballot, do you really think true chaos will not ensue? Are these two men the types who will accept being shunted aside and denied the nomination after all the primaries and caucuses are completed? When basically they have split votes, are close to the magic number, and every one of the other 17 candidates who started running for president so many months ago has been put out to pasture?

Elected Republican officials, not only in Congress, but across the country, will be calling for another choice in Cleveland but still, the faces that will be preeminent will be Cruz and Trump. The only remote possibility is that Kasich will rise, but he could not even score the required 15 percent in Wisconsin to get any delegates. It’s hard to see money flowing to Kasich or added enthusiasm coming to his campaign if he doesn’t win, place or show in these upcoming contests.

With Trump’s negatives among nearly every voting bloc reaching stratospheric proportions, does Cruz suddenly look acceptable? He is the pariah, the rather creepy, sleazy, unlikable extremist who has managed to survive the gauntlet. But no one trusts him, respects him, believes in him – at least none of the Republicans who have had to deal with him.

So, thanks to Wisconsin and thanks to Trump himself, his interviews with the Washington Post and New York Times, his out of control tweets and his disorganized campaign, the Republicans are faced with continuing chaos all the way to Cleveland. And, somehow, the American people just won’t notice and are going to escape the unraveling and destruction of the Grand Old Party? I doubt it.

Do the Numbers….

Big Math v. ‘Big Mo’

Bernie Sanders’ sweep of five Western states ups his momentum, but the delegate math just isn’t on his side.

The Associated Press

The math doesn’t lie.

By March 28, 2016, at 4:15 p.m.+ More

Way back in 1980, when Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were running for president, Bush heralded his Iowa victory by declaring he had “the Big Mo” — momentum — that would carry him to the presidency.

Other states and the math intervened, and he became Reagan’s vice president instead.

Bernie Sanders is talking a lot about the Big Mo after his victories in five western states. If I were in his position, I would probably be doing the same thing. It helps him raise money and continue the battle for the next several months.

But Hillary’s sweep of five major states on March 15th wasn’t exactly chopped liver either, nor were her overwhelming wins in southern states. The difference is that Hillary has been racking up the delegates. The math is on her side.

Right now, according to RealClearPolitics, she has 1,712 delegates and Sanders has 1,004 (including superdelegates). For Hillary to reach the magic number of 2,382, she needs 670 more. Sanders will need 1,378 – over twice as many as Clinton.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the 2016 Presidential Elections]

There are over 1,700 delegates in upcoming states still to be chosen, plus over 200 superdelegates yet to declare whom they will support. Of those superdelegates who have declared, Clinton has 469, and Sanders has 29. That is a big math problem unless, somehow, delegates change their mind and support Sanders. Clearly, that is his hope.

But here is his problem: Even if he wins a number of states and scores some upsets, these are likely to be close races, and delegates will be split fairly evenly. From April 6 in Wisconsin until April 26 (with New York in between), there will be 710 delegates chosen. Other states include Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wyoming. Clinton is likely to win at least half of these delegates, if not more. None of the major states should be blowout races for Sanders, like the caucus states in the West. Or, for that matter, blowout states for Clinton, like the deep South.

[READ: Now Bernie Sanders Is Betting on the Establishment and the Superdelegates]

So for the sake of argument, let’s give Hillary Clinton 350 delegates between now and April 26; that brings her total up to 2,062, without additional superdelegates who may come over to her side. She will be 320 votes from the magic number of 2,382. If she wins 400 delegates in the next month, she will be only 270 votes short.

The pressure on the other 214 superdelegates to go over to the Clinton side will mount. Funny how politicians like to be the ones to put a candidate over the top or close to over the top.

The next big day with six states, June 7, has 694 delegates, with California selecting 475 and New Jersey 126. Again, assuming Clinton and Sanders are going back and forth winning states, Clinton will need only a portion of those delegates to secure the nomination.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on Hillary Clinton]

If Clinton wins out in most of these states, pressure will mount on Sanders to unify the party after April 26, though he could easily choose to keep on until June 7. He will probably have the money, and he has focused a lot of energy on California. That is, rightly, his choice.

Clinton’s path to the nomination may have a few more curves and bumps, but it looks pretty straightforward. The delegate math is the delegate math. Barring a catastrophe for Clinton and superdelegates leaving her en masse, it is doubtful the trajectory of this race will change.

Despite talk of the Big Mo, it really is about the Big Math.

Why Trump Won’t Win

Why Trump Won’t Win

The demographics do not look good for him in a general election campaign.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally Saturday, March 19, 2016, in Tucson, Ariz.

In deep trouble come November.

By March 21, 2016, at 3:45 p.m.+ More  USNEWS  & WORLD REPORT. THOMAS JEFFERSON BLOG

Shortly after Donald J. Trump announced for president, I published a blog post on these pages entitled “No Filter and No Chance.” This was followed by a number of pieces lamenting the surprising lack of substance evident in his campaign, the out of control ego and the sad descent into outrageous, violent, racist, sexist comments repeated with abandon. I, like many others, had predicted his downfall. Hmm, brilliant, right?

But now it is more clear than ever that Trump has all the makings of a George Wallace candidacy, only with less experience in government.

So how could this nasty, vitriolic blowhard become president of the United States?

According to Stephen Moore, the conservative writer, here is how he does it: “Trump is remaking the GOP into a populist/reform party of working class/evangelical and entrepreneurial class voters.” And Pat Buchanan writes: “A Trump campaign across the industrial Midwest, Pennsylvania and New Jersey featuring attacks on Hillary Clinton’s support for NAFTA the WTO, MFN for China – and her backing of amnesty and citizenship for illegal immigrants, and for the Iraq and Libyan debacles – is a winning hand.”

Thus, the bottom line for the Trump trumpeters is that he mobilizes large numbers of new voters who are angry and fed up with Washington, pulls in the Reagan working-class Democrats and independents, and carries states that have voted Democratic over the last 25 years.

There are several problems with this analysis.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on Donald Trump]

First and foremost, Trump is not a candidate who is appealing to the majority of Americans – 67 percentcan’t see themselves voting for him in November, according to a March NBC/WSJ poll. He has a 25 percent positive rating and a 64 percent negative rating and is trailing Hillary Clinton by 13 points and Bernie Sanders by 18. (This was before the Clinton sweep of five primary states on March 15.)

Furthermore, 43 percent of Republicans believe he will be harmful to their party; 27 percent of all voters feel Trump’s version of change for the country would be right and a full 52 percent believe it would be wrong.

And even before most of the violence at the Trump rallies and the latest Trump rhetoric, 50 percent believe “Trump’s comments are frequently insulting and he has the wrong approach to the issues.” Only 18 percent believe Trump “tells it like it is and has the right approach on many issues.”

My guess is that these numbers are not going to get better as the campaign progresses but will only get worse for Trump. This is not a zebra who will change his stripes – if anything, the numbers will become more pronounced. Can you imagine the recording of Trump from Howard Stern’s radio show turned into political advertisements? More and more examples of his inconsistencies and outright falsehoods? His complete and total lack of knowledge about policy and failure to articulate issue positions?

He is also outright dangerous. Is this the person Americans want two feet from the nuclear codes?

Many of Trump’s supporters are arguing that he will bring to the polls millions of new voters – basically angry white males. Data on this is very sketchy given where we are in the primaries. There has not been a huge surge in voter registration beyond normal numbers and there is some evidence that turnout models may, in fact, hurt Trump and the Republicans, as Robert Schlesinger argues so persuasively in this space.

Here is a run-down of Trump’s problems:

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the 2016 Presidential Elections]

Hispanics: Washington Post polling shows 80 percent have an unfavorable opinion of Donald Trump. Romney got 27 percent of the Hispanic vote, Trump will be lucky to reach the upper teens. According to Pew, 48 percent of Hispanics voted in 2012 and more than 1.4 million new registrations have been recorded since 2008. Clearly, the number of Hispanic voters will only continue to grow. You better believe that turnout in 2016 will be closer to the mid-60 range for whites and blacks, not the upper 40s of the past.

African-Americans: It may be difficult to match the Obama numbers but given Trump’s treatment of blacks at his rallies and his talk of “political correctness,” it will be close.

Women: Of course, women will be a majority of the electorate in 2016. Trump’s problems with them, I believe, are just beginning. The more women see of him, hear of his past statements, view the treatment of Fox News’ Megyn Kelly and others, the more they will be turned off by his antics. Never mind his position on issues affecting women, which will be highlighted and are of grave concern.

Millennials and younger voters: Sen. Bernie Sanders may have excited them, but it is hard to believe they will sit on their hands if Trump is the nominee against Hillary Clinton. Voters in this age group are growing fast and flexing their political muscle.

Educated voters: This is a serious problem for Trump. Turnout for people with advanced degrees is over 80 percent: about 75 percent for those with bachelors degrees, 64 percent for those with some college, a bit over 50 percent for those who are high school grads and less than 40 percent for those without a high school degree. Trump’s strength right now is with less-educated voters. The big question is: Can he put together an organization that produces a sea change in registering and bringing to the polls the less educated, non-voters? There’s not much evidence yet that he can.

Finally, as we all know, the electorate is more diverse with each passing year. Close to 30 percent of 2016 voters will be non-white. Given the failure of the Republican Party, and particularly Donald Trump, to appeal to those voters, this is a serious problem. The current and future demographics do not bode well for a Trump or any other candidate who fails to appeal to all of America.

It is still possible that Trump will not be the nominee, but most Republicans who are worried about their party are looking right now at a train wreck come November. And maybe for years down the tracks. Unless things change, 2016 could make the Johnson-Goldwater election of 1964 look like a nail biter.

Donald Trump and Civility — Really?

Donald Trump and the End of Civility

If the Republican Party accepts Trump’s candidacy, it’s rejecting the virtues of teamwork, common courtesy and civility.

A serious threat to our country.

By Peter FennMarch 3, 2016, at 1:25 p.m.+ More

For a decade we have seen article after article, study after study, comment after comment on the death of civility in our politics. Politicians, pundits and academics worried that gridlock and the paralysis of Washington was heavily due to the nastiness of the political culture and the vitriol inherent in today’s politics.

Well, as Donald Trump might say – you ain’t seen nothing yet!

My friend, Ira Shapiro, wrote a terrific book, “The Last Great Senate,” about the accomplishments of the civil and functional U. S. Senate that we were both privileged to be a part of a few decades ago. Whether it was the Panama Canal treaties, passage of environmental legislation or social security reform, Republicans and Democrats actually worked together, forged compromises and got the people’s business done.

But as Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann chronicled in their book, “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks,” published in 2012, the rise of tea party extremists and hard-right ideologues has polarized and paralyzed our constitutional system of government.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on Donald Trump]

And now in 2016, we have Donald Trump, who would make Ornstein and Mann’s world of just a few years ago look like patty-cake. Trump, and many of his colleagues in this race who have followed his lead, has debased the dialogue and engaged in trash talk that would make a pro football player blush. It has truly spiraled out of control.

Facts and logical argument are cast to the wind like confetti; nasty statements about body parts are common and invective like “stupid,” “idiot,” “lightweight,” “choker,” “loser” are used by Trump in nearly every speech and press conference.

No one is writing about a return to civility so long as Trump has seized the stage, forcing a dialogue that has taken American politics even further down into the gutter. In fact, Trump has left many people who should be speaking out speechless instead. Now Republicans and conservative columnists are shaking their heads and wondering why the other candidates and Republican Party leadership have kept their heads in the sand for so long. A flood of pieces by the likes of David Brooks and George Will spell it out perfectly: talking about “the governing cancer” and Trump’s “demagogic cynicism and anti-constitutional authoritarianism.”

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the 2016 Presidential Elections]

But I fault those Republicans and conservative pundits who clearly should have been focusing on this transformation from a government that governed and legislators who legislated into a collection of talking heads whose constant desire is to be on gladiator-TV. Or to give a speech that incites a crowd. Many of them embraced the tea party and chose demagoguery over dialogue.

What has happened to words such as thoughtful, wise, substantive, open-minded and even educated, learned and knowledgeable to describe those in the arena of politics and government? Why are those not the standards we use to judge our leaders?

I am left with the enduring cover image from The New Yorker a number of weeks ago, showing a television set with Donald Trump raging and Presidents Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy and Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt looking on in horror.

[READ: Trump’s Southern Strategy Wins Him the South Carolina Primary]

This is no longer amusing nor something that should be passed off as entertainment. This is not “The Apprentice” or some reality television show. This is real.

If we allow a person like Donald Trump to capture the Republican Party, let alone the country, the price we will pay will be lasting, and the damage will be serious and permanent. This is so far from anything we have experienced; that it has no parallel in our history. He is not, as he says, building a new expanded Republican Party. This “movement” is based on fear and loathing, racism and prejudice, xenophobia and hatred. It is based on our basest instincts, not on our best instincts. It is destructive, not constructive.

With a Trump ascendancy, common courtesy and civility will be considered weaknesses and the politics of irrationalism and fear will triumph. That must not happen.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 858 other followers