On Thursday night in Cleveland, Donald Trump made his case to lead this nation, influence this world, and impact your life and your finances. It was long (the longest since 1972), frightening and acrimonious in parts, somewhat dubious in others, filled with promises absent detail, and a failure. But that last one was inevitable.
By way of tweets, news coverage, and late night jokes, Presidential candidates are presented to us on a daily basis. Often folly-first. Political convention speeches no longer serve as a candidate’s grand introduction to the masses when the masses can’t help but be at least somewhat informed. And yet, Donald Trump still approached his speech as though voters had somehow forgotten all of his campaign’s many, many lowlights.
The Donald Trump at the podium in Cleveland was supposed to be the “blue collar billionaire” and strong champion for the everyman that had been talked up by his children, his wife, and a few close friends during the convention. This Donald Trump was the one who proclaimed that he was our collective “voice” and labeled Barack Obama as racially divisive despite his own history as a cross-cultural fire starter who wants to ban all Muslim immigrants from entering the United States. Hardcore Democratic voters likely saw through it, hardcore Republican voters probably didn’t care, and everyone else was underserved.
According to a CNN/ORC poll, 40% of respondents say that they will unequivocally vote for Hillary Clinton and 35% say the same about Donald Trump when presented with only those two candidates. The poll also shows that 9% say that they are for Clinton but that they can be swayed. The number is 8% on the Trump side. There’s an additional 8% that fall into the other/neither category. These are not insignificant numbers.
Let’s broaden things a little. Though it’s been hard to realize amidst the sea of Clinton and Trump coverage, there are two other candidates for the Presidency with a shot at making some kind of impact. They are Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, and Jill Stein from The Green Party. If you doubt that a third-party candidate can be a difference maker, please recall Ralph Nader and the 2000 election.
When the CNN/ORC poll adds Johnson and Stein to the mix, the total numbers look like this:
Hillary Clinton: 42%
Donald Trump: 37%
Gary Johnson: 13%
Jill Stein: 5%
None: 3%
Let’s assume that both Clinton and Trump have supporters in the broader poll that can be poached. Let’s say those supporters merge with Johnson, Stein, and the “None” option’s combined 21%. Are we talking about 25% of respondents who are not fiercely loyal to the two main candidates (who happen to be sitting at 55% [Clinton] and 59% [Trump] when it comes to their unfavorable ratings)? Let’s say we are and let’s reason that many of these possible voters have a wandering eye because we’re also assuming that Stein and Johnson’s supporters may be less committed as the election nears and both certain defeat and the possibility of a Nader-like disruption looms. Sorry third party people, that’s just the reality of the system.
In terms of what those voters are looking at, the CNN/ORC poll also offers some clarity with the economy leading the way (38%) as the issue voters care more about followed by anti-terrorism (21%), foreign policy (11%), illegal immigration (10%), and a few other topics. Let’s go ahead and assume that those voters also want to know specifics about a candidate’s plans on those topics. So, I’ll ask: do you think that Donald Trump did a good enough sales job with undecideds and nominally committed voters in Cleveland?
Throughout the campaign, Trump has repeatedly caught flack from critics for his vague and rambling speeches that make bold promises about a better tomorrow while painting the here and now with a very negative brush. The convention speech should have delivered more to those in search of specifics, but while Trump said he would share his “plan for action for America,” he instead distractingly bopped from issue to issue without going into much more detail than he has in his stump speech. In Trump’s defense, though, weightless platitudes are par for the course with convention speeches.
In 2000 and 2008, George W. Bush and Barack Obama were both, respectively, “change” candidates that were chasing the White House following two-terms of opposition control. Just like Donald Trump. Their convention speeches each contained the usual finger wags about the state of things and jabs at their opponents, but there is a thread of civility, as well. Then-Senator Barack Obama threw around words like “respect” and “admiration” when talking about his opponent, Sen. John McCain. Obama even went so far as to admit that McCain loved this country. Subjectively, those candidates also had a more coherent and feasible plan for America, but neither candidate went so far as to elucidate it. Not much more than Trump did with his plan, at least.
As I said earlier, that strategy is wholly outdated in a new media landscape when many people are naturally weary about being “sold to.” And no amount of craft, “aw-shucks” charm, or fear baiting is likely to overtake that weariness and put those voters in a place where they have faith in a politician (which is what Donald Trump is now) when he tells them, “Believe me” as Trump did a handful of times in Cleveland. Additionally, our reflexively cynical view of politicians makes the kind of soaring oratory that captivated voters in the time of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Obama obsolete as well.
Trump and Hillary Clinton, in particular, need to make their plans as clear-cut and accessible to voters as possible (and that means more than releasing a series of position papers on a website) because voters clearly do not “believe” them. According to that same CNN/ORC poll, 65% of respondents don’t view Hillary Clinton as honest and trustworthy and 61% feel the same way about Donald Trump. And since that sample comes from July 13-16, there’s no telling how high those numbers will go after a week of punishing attacks on Clinton’s reputation, the badly handled Melania Trump plagiarism scandal (where the Trump camp’s attempt at misdirection bordered on the insulting), and whatever the Clinton team has planned for next week.
Beyond tradition, though, we need to assess why it is that candidates opt for ineffective poetry over prose in their biggest moment. Faith is a two-way street, of course, so it’s easy to assume that vague detail-light speeches are endemic of a system where politicians want your vote but aren’t terribly concerned with whether you have a full understanding of the issues or not. Instead of leveling with voters, they aim for their hearts and fears, treating them like children who need to be shepherded toward what is best for them while assuming voters will be lost in the fog of complex ideas.
Thing is, politicians, including Donald Trump, have a responsibility in a representative democracy to set aside those regressive ideas and show voters the map upon which they think the course is drawn before they are given the reigns. They also, as I hope I’ve illustrated, have a self-serving reason to stand on the biggest stage beside their ideas now that there is next to no mystery about who they are or a willingness to believe them on merit alone. The question is, will the real Hillary Clinton show up in Philadelphia to have an honest conversation about her vision for America, or are we going to see a lot of the same stuff we saw in Cleveland, but with a different ideological slant and fresh balloons?