SHRIBMAN | Looking ahead to Trump v. Clinton - WDRB 41 Louisville News

SHRIBMAN | Looking ahead to Trump v. Clinton


By David Shribman
WDRB Contributor from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

She is going to say he is too unreliable (the way Barry Goldwater was in 1964). That he is too uninformed (the way Ronald Reagan was in 1980). That he is out of touch (the way George H.W. Bush was in 1992). That he is too much of a plutocrat (the way Mitt Romney was in 2012).

He is going to say that she is too liberal (the way George McGovern was in 1972). That she is too much a prisoner of special interests (the way Walter F. Mondale was in 1984). That she is too Ivy elitist (the way Michael Dukakis was in 1988). That she is too much a failure at her last job (the way Bill Clinton was in 1992).

And those are going to be the benign things Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton say about each other if both are nominated by their parties to run in November.

In August 1988, after Dukakis and George H.W. Bush were nominated, Roger Ailes, the onetime Republican consultant who now is the head of Fox News, predicted a vicious campaign. "Hide the children," he said.

This year you can almost hear the sound of cellar bulkheads opening all across the country as parents, terrified of what their children will hear on public-affairs television, hurry their youngsters into hiding. (Note to Mom and Dad: Take away those cellphones and iPads before you slam shut the cellar door. Your child might upload the debate in Dayton Sept. 26.)

Of course you might expect a negative debate from two candidates possessing what political professionals call "high negatives." Clinton, by a 56-to-39 margin, is regarded negatively by the public, according to the Quinnipiac University poll, while Trump does no better, with a 59-to-34 margin. And according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, two out of five Americans said they had "very negative" views of Clinton, while half of Americans expressed the same view of Trump. And these are the candidates who lead in delegates.

But these two also are candidates who are, or have been, angry, with Clinton once complaining about a "vast right-wing conspiracy" and Trump, in one unforgettable sentence, calling one of his opponents "a liar" and the other "a choke artist." These are not the Lincoln-Douglas debates, which in 1858 went on for hours and involved arguments crafted into precise paragraphs. Last month Trump described former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, the last GOP nominee, as a "dope."

The two -- perhaps testing applause lines -- blasted each other after their Super Tuesday triumphs, with Clinton, in a clear reference to Trump, saying that "trying to divide America between us and them is wrong, and we're not going to let it work." And Trump saying her potential nomination would be "a sad day for this country."

The irony of this possible contest is that both candidates will be seeking vastly different voter groups whose experience in the past eight years has been virtually identical -- those who have struggled in the Obama years.

For Clinton, that includes the black voters who fueled her wins in South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama, and other traditional Democrats, including those with union ties. For Trump, that includes people whose incomes have stagnated, particularly in the manufacturing and service sectors, along with those who blame immigrants for lowering wages and capturing jobs that Americans might otherwise take.

In Albany, Georgia, for example, where the unemployment rate is over 7 percent, Trump garnered more primary votes than Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio combined. In the Democratic contest there, Clinton won more than six times as many votes as Sen. Bernie Sanders.

That reflects the two most important movements in the primary phase of the campaign: the consolidation of support for Trump in the GOP race and a peculiar adjustment in the rhythm of the Democratic race.

Trump has transformed his campaign from a curiosity on the periphery into a force at the center of the Republican Party. The Democratic campaign has returned to form (Clinton as the almost inevitable nominee) after a flirtation with Sanders and his youth-powered appeal emphasizing the wealth gap, health care, education and the environment. Sanders began as a protest candidate and, even with his Michigan upset, has essentially returned to that role, but not without forcing Clinton to graft his themes (and the sharpness of his rhetoric) onto her own campaign.

Clinton and Trump differ substantially on major issues such as immigration, but their views are closer than they might otherwise admit on issues such as health care and trade. Trump is more outspoken on most of his policy goals than Clinton, whose default argument consists of claiming that she has spent a lifetime fighting for hers.

If the race maintains its current shape, Clinton now faces the fight of her life, far different in amplitude and volume than her earlier battles for the overhaul of education and health care, though perhaps matching the stakes of her fight on behalf of her husband when he faced charges of sexual misconduct that led to his impeachment and trial.

Trump is an opponent of an entirely different character than Kenneth W. Starr, who ran the investigation into President Bill Clinton's economic and personal affairs, or even Newt Gingrich, perhaps the original modern Republican insurgent. Starr was persistent but seemed prurient, and Gingrich was smart but seemed smarmy. Trump has many critics -- for his style, for his manners, for his policies -- but he has more self-confidence than Clinton's earlier opponents and is playing on a bigger stage.

At the same time, the Manhattan businessman has cause to worry about Clinton, who is better prepared than any commercial rival he has faced and who has an exceedingly powerful background: Wellesley College, Yale Law School, first lady of Arkansas and the United States, senator, secretary of state, and experience in countless international and domestic forums where she has defended unpopular positions with steely intelligence and grace.

For each of them, it will be the fight of a lifetime. For the country, it is the fight for the ages -- and for the age.

(David M. Shribman is executive editor of the Post-Gazette (, 412 263-1890). Follow him on Twitter at ShribmanPG.)

Copyright 2016 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and WDRB Media. All rights reserved.

Powered by Frankly
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2018 WDRB. All Rights Reserved. For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy, and Terms of Service, and Ad Choices.