Data on the Roots of Trumpism

At RealClearPolitics, David Brady and Douglas Rivers use survey data to explain Trumpism:

If Trumpism is fueled by people who have become disillusioned with Washington, then it stands to reason that Republicans who believe that government is run for a few and that the politicians are crooked will be more inclined to support Trump over his opponents. This turns out to be exactly the case.

The Economist/YouGov results show that among Republicans who believe that the government is run by a few big interests (75 percent), Trump is preferred by 39 percent to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, at 16 and 22 percent, respectively. (Numbers for John Kasich and Ben Carson are insignificant and not included here.) Among Republicans who believe that quite a few people running government are crooked (67 percent), Trump has 41 percent preferring him, as compared to 19 percent and 17 percent for Rubio and Cruz.

In both instances, Trump’s margin is double-digit and impressive. When income and education levels are factored in, the correlation becomes even sharper.
...
In sum, much of Donald Trump’s support appears to come from Republicans who have lost faith in Washington. Republicans’ attitudes on trust and corruption in the capital help determine their candidate preferences. In addition, the less-affluent are concerned with a different set of issues and are not as conservative as other Republicans when it comes to taxes on the well-to-do, while they are more conservative on immigration and social issues.

These voters are turning out in large numbers in the early primaries. Turnout through the first 14 Republican primaries in 2016 was more than double 2012 levels. Donald Trump has in his camp voters who are less affluent and highly committed—and they are sending the GOP establishment a strong signal that some of the the politics and policies it has been pursuing are not in sync with a significant portion of the voters the party acquired in the Reagan era.

Donald Trump, George Wallace, and Mobs

At The Huffington Post, Sam Stein and Dana Liebelson write:

Racial slurs, nasty rhetoric and violence at Trump rallies have become commonplace against protesters, bystanders, and reporters. Assaults are committed not only by rowdy Trump fans, but by the staff he employs to keep the events safe. But rather than denounce these incidents, Trump is making them part of his brand, and uses them to rev up crowds.

"There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience," Trump warned people at a rally in Iowa last month. "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell -- I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees."

Trump has even threatened to personally get in on the action. "I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell ya," he said of a protester on Feb. 22.

Threats against reporters have become so pervasive at Trump rallies that many of those who cover the Republican front-runner seem to have a personal story. As Katy Tur, the Trump embed for NBC News, described in a Tweet, "Trump trashes press. Crowd jeers. Guy by press 'pen' looks at us & screams "you're a bitch!" Other gentleman gives cameras the double bird."

In 1968, David Broder wrote of George Wallace:

What strikes you about that message — and I am trying to be as restrained as possible— is its steady and repetitive incitement to violence. Wallace may not be tougher on law and order than Nixon or Humphrey, but he verbalizes the wish to lash out against those who offend in a way that more restrained and responsible leaders would never do in a age of violence such as we live in.

He will "take every one of those Communists in our defense plants and toss him out on the seat of his pants."

If any anarchist (the Wallace word for "demonstrator") lies down in front of a Wallace motorcade, "it will be the last car he ever lies down in front of."

If students fly the Viet Cong flag in a Wallace administration, "I would have me an Attorney General that would drag them in by their long hair and ..."

You rarely hear the last words of Wallace's threats, because they are lost in the roar from his crowd. "Crowd" is perhaps too polite a word. When Wallace has finished his harangue, the emotion is closer to that of a lynch mob -- a pack of angry, frustrated men and women, who see his cause, not just as a chance for victory but as a guarantee of vengeance against all who have affronted them for so long.

Trump Record on Outsourcing and Visas

At CNNMoney, Blake Ellis and Melanie Hicken report on Trump Model Management's abuse of H-1B visas.

The agency is currently battling a proposed class action lawsuit filed by Jamaican model Alexia Palmer, who was brought to the country with an H-1B visa.

The suit alleges that the agency recruits foreign models with promises of wages that never materialize and defrauds the U.S. government on visa applications. Palmer is currently the only plaintiff and the suit has not yet been approved as a class-action.
In her case, Palmer says she was paid only a few thousand dollars over three years despite being lured with the promise of more than $200,000 in earnings in that same time period.

That salary was also what was listed by Trump Model Management as part of the visa application.

"Ms. Palmer will receive compensation of at least $75,000 per year," the agency's president Corinne Nicolas said in a letter to immigration officials. "She is a model whose services have been in great demand, and whose proposed temporary presence in the United States has stirred great anticipation by Trump Model Management and its clientele." (Nicolas did not respond to a request for comment).

Government data analyzed by Howard University professor Ron Hira shows that since 2008, Trump's agency has successfully brought over around 30 foreign models -- from countries like Brazil, Latvia and China -- using the H-1B program. Almost half of these applications indicated the same $75,000 annual salary, while others went as high as $416,000.

CNNMoney asked a dozen attorneys and other immigration experts to review facts and documents from the case, and the vast majority said Trump's agency appears to have violated immigration law.

Three Tough Questions for Trump

The following questions may be too harsh for the debate stage, but expect them to be part of the discussion in the weeks ahead.

On Meet the Press in January, you said "it's fine" if people raise questions about your personal life. You have publicly bragged about having many sexual relationships.  Since you also claim to be "pro-life," some questions naturally arise.  Did any of the women get pregnant?  Did any of them have abortions?

“I went to the Wharton School of Business,” you have said. “I’m, like, a really smart person.”  But you have recently been unable to spell simple words such as lying.  Why have you refused to release your college transcripts?  Did you get bad grades?  Did you cheat?

You claim that you got a medical draft deferment because of a bone spur.   If you had such a problem, you could have fixed it with an outpatient procedure.  Why didn't you take care of it right away so you could serve your country?

Cruz: Flopping with Peers, Rising with Voters

Great HuffPo headline:  

Senate GOP Tries To Like Ted Cruz The Way You Have To Hug Your Sweaty Cousin

Sahil Kapur writes at Bloomberg:

Cruz is the only Republican candidate without any Senate endorsements. In interviews Tuesday with 18 senators, there was scant indication they're heeding Cruz’s call to unite behind his campaign. When asked why the Texan lacks Senate support, their answers ranged from awkward chuckles and long silences to no-comments and briskly walking into a senators-only elevator to evade the question.
...
A new ABC/Washington Post national poll released Tuesday found Cruz in second place, 9 points behind Trump, although more Republicans (65 percent) said they'd be "satisfied" with Cruz than with any other candidate. A second poll out Tuesday, by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, found Cruz just three points behind Trump. Rubio came third place in the ABC poll and fourth place in the NBC poll.

Rubio's Problems

 Ed O'Keefe, Robert Costa and Paul Kane report at The Washington Post:

Party leaders, donors and other supporters of Rubio portray a political operation that continues to come up short in its message, in its attention to the fundamentals of campaigning and in its use of a promising politician. The failures have all but doomed ­Rubio’s chances of securing the GOP nomination, leaving him far behind Trump and Cruz in both delegates and states won.
...
They have no infrastructure,” said Scott Reed, who is unaffiliated with any campaign but serves as the chief political strategist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “His campaign hasn’t been able to keep up with his candidacy. . . . They don’t have the operation in the states to help him get over the top. He should be a finalist going all the way to California, and he’s not.”

...
 There is disagreement among Rubio’s supporters over whether his decision to aggressively attack Trump — belittling his character, his appearance and even his manhood — has worked. Rubio’s advisers felt he had to mock Trump to gain national exposure amid the round-the-clock attention given to the front-runner. But others fret that the attacks have damaged Rubio’s image as a young, optimistic party leader.

...
As more than two dozen senior GOP Senate aides looked on Thursday afternoon at a private lunch presentation about the 2016 presidential race, conservative scholar Henry Olsen turned to Rubio’s chief of staff, Alberto Martinez, and offered a candid assessment of the senator’s campaign pitch.

Olsen said that while he appreciates Rubio’s sweeping call for building a “21st-century economy,” he worries that speaking in such broad terms in a year of populist unrest may be a political mistake.

Later, Olsen gently suggested that Rubio might be better served by fine-tuning his message with a more visceral appeal to working-class Americans who feel left behind and say he’s got their backs.

Martinez listened politely, and the conversation moved on.

Contested Convention

At The FlashReport, Jon Fleischman explains how a contested GOP convention might work.

On the first ballot at the convention, just over 85% of the 2,472 delegates will be bound to vote for the candidate to whom they are individually pledged. Some delegates are pledged for more than one ballot, but not most. Just under 15% of the delegates – 165 of the 168 RNC committee members – are “superdelegates.” Yes, we have them too – though far fewer than the Democrats. Around 7% of the RNC convention floor will be made up of superdelegates – i.e. people who are automatically delegates separate from the election process. The Democrats will have 717 of them – about 15% of their 4,678 total delegate count. In addition, there will be around 180 delegates from a handful of state and territories that send their delegates “unbound” and who go to the convention as free agents.

After that first ballot, most of the delegates will likewise be free to vote for whomever they choose. Now before you start thinking that Trump, Rubio, Cruz or Ohio Gov. John Kasich would “control” their delegates, understand that this is likely not the case.

Just over 10% of the states have party rules that provide for candidates to choose their own actual delegates – 259 delegates, to be precise (and 169 of those are from one state, California).

However the vast majority (close to 90%) of the delegates are actually chosen through internal party elections of one sort or another. Some are chosen at conventions, some at caucuses. In some states individuals run for delegate, by name, on the ballot. These folks are then “bound” to a candidate, as I outlined above.

Presumably candidate-chosen delegates will have a much higher likelihood of being loyal to their candidate and also more likely to let their candidate “broker” or “throw” their votes as part of a negotiated deal. But again, that’s a small percentage of the total delegate pool.