2017年1月,特朗普总统站在美国国会山的西面,发表了就职演说,这被历史学家称为“史上最不利的就职演说之一”。就在总统开始致辞之时,雨点正好戏剧性地落下。特朗普将其即将领导的国家描述为水深火热的国度——“锈迹斑斑的工厂像墓碑一样散落在全国各地”,这是一个充满了犯罪和抢劫团伙的地方。这位新宣誓就任的美国掌门人说道:“水深火热的美国将于此时此刻不复存在。”
43个月之后,就在特朗普谋求连任时,他与其竞选团队和政府中的其他人依然在描绘着这样一幅美国水深火热图,并呼吁人们要经常关注“暴力骚乱”,特朗普称这一现象让美国很大一部分地区苦不堪言。
6月,在宁静的白宫玫瑰花园中,特朗普总统叹息道:“我们的国家一直掌握在职业无政府主义者、暴徒、纵火犯、抢劫者、犯罪分子、暴乱分子、极左翼分子等人手中。”7月4日,在南达科他州拉什莫尔山的阴影中,他谈到了“愤怒的暴徒”正在各大城市掀起“暴力犯罪潮”。8月,在充斥着高音警报声的共和党代表大会上,特朗普讲述了“街头的暴力与危险”,并警告称无政府主义者正在“屋外拆毁我们的雕像和纪念碑。”
当然,如今与2017年就任日之间的区别在于特朗普不再是那个自吹自擂、称只有自己才能够收拾这些烂摊子的局外人。他现在已经成为了掌管者,说到让我们相信这些言辞,让美国出现这种无法无天行为和混乱局面的人正是他自己。对于这种“继续选我当总统”的策略来说,把上述信息作为宣传内容显得十分另类。
著名的民调公司盖洛普(Gallup)的高级主编、研究员杰弗瑞·琼斯称:“从历史上来看,那些竞选连任的候选者都会努力说服人们,一切安好。”他说,这种观点在于“继续选我担任总统四年,便可以维持当前的光景。很明显,当局势并不怎么好时,这么做比较困难。不过话说回来,尝试让人们相信现在的局势不好确实是一种非常规打法。我认为这种打法源于2016年,也是他最初赢得大选的原因。”
诚然,特朗普并没有对选民说美国到处都令人感到恐惧和不安,仅仅是民主党主导的城市和州才是这样。然而,这个数字也并非是个小数目。例如,在美国规模最大的100个城市(也就是那些通常作为民主党、共和党阵营中多数州经济中心的城市),近三分之二的市长都是民主党。美国人口普查局(U.S. Census Bureau)的数据显示,在约2.5亿的人口中,有80%的民众居住在“城市化地区”。因此当特朗普总统在指责“明尼阿波利斯冒烟的废墟、波特兰的暴力无政府运动以及芝加哥血迹斑斑的人行道” 时(就像他8月底在宾夕法尼亚州斯克兰顿所做的那样),这种做法的一个必然风险在于,它会折射出特朗普自身领导整个国家的能力。
事实上,盖洛普的“美国满意度”调查便体现出了特朗普总统最新的美国水深火热式宣传活动所带来的间接伤害。该公司自1979年便发起了这项调查。在最近的调查(7月30日至8月12日)中,仅有13%的受调对象(总计1031名)称,他们对美国“当前的状态感到满意”,而84%的人表示不满意,是2008年金融危机以来最低的正指标。
作为对比,在2012年的选举前夕,也就是奥巴马总统连任竞选之时,满意度指数为33%,在当时亦创下了历来连任候选者的新低。(约翰说,像吉米·卡特和老布什这些任期只有一届的总统均面临着其选民满意度徘徊在20%以下或20%出头的水平,当时也输掉了连任竞选。)
特朗普的支持率较2月出现了大幅下滑,那时,新冠疫情刚开始侵袭美国,美国也还没有下达封锁令,失业率也还没有出现激增,而且有45%的民众对国家的发展方向感到满意,是特朗普上任以来最高的满意度。
更为让人吃惊的是,对美国走向信心十足的共和党人比例在这五个月期间也出现了大幅下滑(如图)。在2月3日至16日的调查中,80%的受调共和党人称对国家的发展方向感到满意。在8月12日结束的调查中,这一比例降至25%。在这一期间,感到满意的民主党人则从13%降至4%;独立选民则从38%降至12%。(琼斯说,另一项调查当前正在开展当中,它将体现两场政党大会的部分影响力;有可能共和党的情绪会有所好转。)
其他民调公司对这个问题的措辞略微有所不同,它们会问民众“是否认为美国正在朝着正确的方向发展……或正在误入歧途?”Realclearpolitics网站对此类调查的测算平均值显示,认为“误入歧途”的美国民众比例在8月3日结束的调查中创下了近7年以来的新高。在3日当天,该平均比例为70.7%,是2013年10月以来的最高值。截至9月5日,在两党大会结束和其他一些不断下降的调查数字浮出水面之后,这个数字下探至65.8%。作为对比,2月底这个数字才不到55%。
尽管声称美国“误入歧途”的共和党人比例通常要比盖洛普的满意度调查要低,但这即使是这一数字也让人感到吃惊。Reuters/Ipsos跟踪系统在9月2日显示,35%的共和党选民(以及78%的独立选民)对国家的发展方向感到不满。与此同时,Morning Consult and Politico通过其8月的跟踪器发现,不满意的共和党人比例为44%,但表达不满情绪的女性共和党人比例则达到了51%的警戒线。
然而,尽管这些数字看起来对特朗普阵营来说不是什么好消息,但特朗普总统在竞选活动中抛弃这一策略的可能性不大。而且,他们几乎必然会加大在这一方面的力度。
美国企业研究所(American Enterprise Institute)驻访学者、《大西洋月刊》(Atlantic)的特约编辑诺曼·厄恩斯腾说:“作为一名竞选候选人,会出现两种可以预料的情况。第一种,这是一场全民投票,你可以说‘我很出色,让我连任吧。’第二种是,这是一个选择。如今,这是一场全民投票,而特朗普则在尝试将其变为一种选择。”
在大多数层面上,将选举塑造为一种选择对特朗普来说没有太大的帮助。在今夏的各种民调中,选民们一致称,他们相信前副总统乔·拜登在应对最紧急的问题方面会做的更好,例如种族不平等和新冠疫情。拜登在“谁的经济管理能力更强”这个问题上也在不断进步,与特朗普总统几乎打成了平手。
但有一个领域可以成为特朗普阵营的强力支撑点,那就是人们莫可名状的恐惧。
厄恩斯腾说:“特朗普知道美国有大量受过教育的郊区白人选民,其中很多都是共和党人,而且在2016年的大选中支持过他,他们位于滨州巴克斯郡、底特律郊区、密尔沃基郊区这类地方,但他们随后在2018年抛弃了他和共和党。特朗普所希望的就是让足够多的这类选民对各大城市的暴力感到恐惧——而且这类恐惧会传至郊区,从而迫使这些选民重投他的怀抱。”
厄恩斯腾还表示:“我对这种策略表示怀疑。这种做法是让人们相信,拜登上任后未来美国就会是这种状况,而在特朗普就任之时这种状况就已经存在,所以这种观念并没有什么市场。然而人们知道,我们无法说这是一种彻底的失败。”(值得注意的是:美国联邦调查局同类犯罪报告称,在拜登于奥巴马麾下担任副总统的8年期间,暴力犯罪率实际上下降了13.1%,同时财产犯罪下降了23.7%。)他说:“这种做法总是有可能让其中的一些边缘选民回归特朗普的怀抱,或至少让他们不投票。”
在这场竞赛中,哪怕毫厘只差也会让局势发生反转,2016年的总统选举团争夺战便是如此。
译者:Feb
2017年1月,特朗普总统站在美国国会山的西面,发表了就职演说,这被历史学家称为“史上最不利的就职演说之一”。就在总统开始致辞之时,雨点正好戏剧性地落下。特朗普将其即将领导的国家描述为水深火热的国度——“锈迹斑斑的工厂像墓碑一样散落在全国各地”,这是一个充满了犯罪和抢劫团伙的地方。这位新宣誓就任的美国掌门人说道:“水深火热的美国将于此时此刻不复存在。”
43个月之后,就在特朗普谋求连任时,他与其竞选团队和政府中的其他人依然在描绘着这样一幅美国水深火热图,并呼吁人们要经常关注“暴力骚乱”,特朗普称这一现象让美国很大一部分地区苦不堪言。
6月,在宁静的白宫玫瑰花园中,特朗普总统叹息道:“我们的国家一直掌握在职业无政府主义者、暴徒、纵火犯、抢劫者、犯罪分子、暴乱分子、极左翼分子等人手中。”7月4日,在南达科他州拉什莫尔山的阴影中,他谈到了“愤怒的暴徒”正在各大城市掀起“暴力犯罪潮”。8月,在充斥着高音警报声的共和党代表大会上,特朗普讲述了“街头的暴力与危险”,并警告称无政府主义者正在“屋外拆毁我们的雕像和纪念碑。”
当然,如今与2017年就任日之间的区别在于特朗普不再是那个自吹自擂、称只有自己才能够收拾这些烂摊子的局外人。他现在已经成为了掌管者,说到让我们相信这些言辞,让美国出现这种无法无天行为和混乱局面的人正是他自己。对于这种“继续选我当总统”的策略来说,把上述信息作为宣传内容显得十分另类。
著名的民调公司盖洛普(Gallup)的高级主编、研究员杰弗瑞·琼斯称:“从历史上来看,那些竞选连任的候选者都会努力说服人们,一切安好。”他说,这种观点在于“继续选我担任总统四年,便可以维持当前的光景。很明显,当局势并不怎么好时,这么做比较困难。不过话说回来,尝试让人们相信现在的局势不好确实是一种非常规打法。我认为这种打法源于2016年,也是他最初赢得大选的原因。”
诚然,特朗普并没有对选民说美国到处都令人感到恐惧和不安,仅仅是民主党主导的城市和州才是这样。然而,这个数字也并非是个小数目。例如,在美国规模最大的100个城市(也就是那些通常作为民主党、共和党阵营中多数州经济中心的城市),近三分之二的市长都是民主党。美国人口普查局(U.S. Census Bureau)的数据显示,在约2.5亿的人口中,有80%的民众居住在“城市化地区”。因此当特朗普总统在指责“明尼阿波利斯冒烟的废墟、波特兰的暴力无政府运动以及芝加哥血迹斑斑的人行道” 时(就像他8月底在宾夕法尼亚州斯克兰顿所做的那样),这种做法的一个必然风险在于,它会折射出特朗普自身领导整个国家的能力。
事实上,盖洛普的“美国满意度”调查便体现出了特朗普总统最新的美国水深火热式宣传活动所带来的间接伤害。该公司自1979年便发起了这项调查。在最近的调查(7月30日至8月12日)中,仅有13%的受调对象(总计1031名)称,他们对美国“当前的状态感到满意”,而84%的人表示不满意,是2008年金融危机以来最低的正指标。
作为对比,在2012年的选举前夕,也就是奥巴马总统连任竞选之时,满意度指数为33%,在当时亦创下了历来连任候选者的新低。(约翰说,像吉米·卡特和老布什这些任期只有一届的总统均面临着其选民满意度徘徊在20%以下或20%出头的水平,当时也输掉了连任竞选。)
特朗普的支持率较2月出现了大幅下滑,那时,新冠疫情刚开始侵袭美国,美国也还没有下达封锁令,失业率也还没有出现激增,而且有45%的民众对国家的发展方向感到满意,是特朗普上任以来最高的满意度。
更为让人吃惊的是,对美国走向信心十足的共和党人比例在这五个月期间也出现了大幅下滑(如图)。在2月3日至16日的调查中,80%的受调共和党人称对国家的发展方向感到满意。在8月12日结束的调查中,这一比例降至25%。在这一期间,感到满意的民主党人则从13%降至4%;独立选民则从38%降至12%。(琼斯说,另一项调查当前正在开展当中,它将体现两场政党大会的部分影响力;有可能共和党的情绪会有所好转。)
其他民调公司对这个问题的措辞略微有所不同,它们会问民众“是否认为美国正在朝着正确的方向发展……或正在误入歧途?”Realclearpolitics网站对此类调查的测算平均值显示,认为“误入歧途”的美国民众比例在8月3日结束的调查中创下了近7年以来的新高。在3日当天,该平均比例为70.7%,是2013年10月以来的最高值。截至9月5日,在两党大会结束和其他一些不断下降的调查数字浮出水面之后,这个数字下探至65.8%。作为对比,2月底这个数字才不到55%。
尽管声称美国“误入歧途”的共和党人比例通常要比盖洛普的满意度调查要低,但这即使是这一数字也让人感到吃惊。Reuters/Ipsos跟踪系统在9月2日显示,35%的共和党选民(以及78%的独立选民)对国家的发展方向感到不满。与此同时,Morning Consult and Politico通过其8月的跟踪器发现,不满意的共和党人比例为44%,但表达不满情绪的女性共和党人比例则达到了51%的警戒线。
然而,尽管这些数字看起来对特朗普阵营来说不是什么好消息,但特朗普总统在竞选活动中抛弃这一策略的可能性不大。而且,他们几乎必然会加大在这一方面的力度。
美国企业研究所(American Enterprise Institute)驻访学者、《大西洋月刊》(Atlantic)的特约编辑诺曼·厄恩斯腾说:“作为一名竞选候选人,会出现两种可以预料的情况。第一种,这是一场全民投票,你可以说‘我很出色,让我连任吧。’第二种是,这是一个选择。如今,这是一场全民投票,而特朗普则在尝试将其变为一种选择。”
在大多数层面上,将选举塑造为一种选择对特朗普来说没有太大的帮助。在今夏的各种民调中,选民们一致称,他们相信前副总统乔·拜登在应对最紧急的问题方面会做的更好,例如种族不平等和新冠疫情。拜登在“谁的经济管理能力更强”这个问题上也在不断进步,与特朗普总统几乎打成了平手。
但有一个领域可以成为特朗普阵营的强力支撑点,那就是人们莫可名状的恐惧。
厄恩斯腾说:“特朗普知道美国有大量受过教育的郊区白人选民,其中很多都是共和党人,而且在2016年的大选中支持过他,他们位于滨州巴克斯郡、底特律郊区、密尔沃基郊区这类地方,但他们随后在2018年抛弃了他和共和党。特朗普所希望的就是让足够多的这类选民对各大城市的暴力感到恐惧——而且这类恐惧会传至郊区,从而迫使这些选民重投他的怀抱。”
厄恩斯腾还表示:“我对这种策略表示怀疑。这种做法是让人们相信,拜登上任后未来美国就会是这种状况,而在特朗普就任之时这种状况就已经存在,所以这种观念并没有什么市场。然而人们知道,我们无法说这是一种彻底的失败。”(值得注意的是:美国联邦调查局同类犯罪报告称,在拜登于奥巴马麾下担任副总统的8年期间,暴力犯罪率实际上下降了13.1%,同时财产犯罪下降了23.7%。)他说:“这种做法总是有可能让其中的一些边缘选民回归特朗普的怀抱,或至少让他们不投票。”
在这场竞赛中,哪怕毫厘只差也会让局势发生反转,2016年的总统选举团争夺战便是如此。
译者:Feb
On January 20, 2017, President Donald Trump stood at the West front of the U.S. Capitol and delivered what historians described as “one of the most ominous inaugural addresses ever.” As the rain began to fall, timed cinematically to the start of the President’s remarks, Trump offered a dark and despairing portrait of the country he was about to lead—a landscape of “rusted out factories scattered like tombstones,” a nation infested with crime and marauding gangs. Vowed the newly sworn-in Commander-in-Chief: “This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.”
Some 43 months later, as Trump strives to make the case for reelection, he and others in his campaign and Administration are still painting that same picture of American carnage—calling daily attention to the “violent mayhem“ that they claim is still laying waste to a big chunk of the country.
In June, in the placid Rose Garden of the White House, the President lamented that “our nation has been gripped by professional anarchists, violent mobs, arsonists, looters, criminals, rioters, Antifa, and others.” On July 4th, in the shadow of South Dakota’s Mount Rushmore, he spoke of “angry mobs“ unleashing a “wave of violent crime in our cities.” In August, at a Republican National Convention replete with high-decibel alarms, Trump intoned about the “violence and danger in the streets“ and warned of anarchists “ripping down our statues and monuments right outside.”
The difference between now and Inauguration Day 2017, of course, is that Trump is no longer the swaggering outsider insisting that only he can fix what’s broken—he’s the man in charge who, if we’re to believe his own rhetoric, has allowed lawlessness and chaos to fester. For a “hire me again” strategy, it’s an unorthodox message to promote.
“What we’ve seen historically is that incumbents running for reelection try to convince people that things are good,” says Jeffrey Jones, a senior editor and researcher at Gallup, the venerable polling company. The argument is “Elect me for four more years, so we can keep this going,” he says. “Obviously, it’s harder to do when things aren’t going as well. But yes, it does seem unusual trying to convince people that things are bad. I guess maybe that goes back to 2016 and how he got elected in the first place.”
Trump, to be sure, isn’t trying to convince voters that things are terrible and terrifying everywhere—just in the cities and states led by Democrats. But that number is hardly negligible. Consider that nearly two-thirds of the 100 largest cities in America—places that generally serve as the economic centers of the majority of states in the union, both red and blue—have Democratic mayors. Eight of every 10 Americans, around 250 million people, live in an “urbanized area,” according to the U.S. Census Bureau. So when the president rails against the “smoldering ruins of Minneapolis, the violent anarchy of Portland and the bloodstained sidewalks of Chicago,” as he did at a late August rally in Scranton, Pa., there is inevitably a risk that it will reflect upon Trump’s own ability to lead the country as a whole.
Some of the collateral damage from the president’s latest American carnage campaign, in fact, can be seen in Gallup’s “U.S. Satisfaction“ survey, which the firm has been conducting since 1979. In the most recent poll (July 30 through August 12), a mere 13% of the 1,031 respondents said they were “satisfied by the way things are going” in the country, compared with 84% who said they were dissatisfied—the lowest positive measure recorded since the financial crisis in 2008.
For comparison, in the days leading up to the 2012 election, when President Obama was seeking a second term, the satisfaction index was at 33%, which was then the lowest level for any reelected incumbent. (Former one-term presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush both faced electorates whose satisfaction levels were wallowing in the teens and low 20s when they lost their reelection bids, Jones says.)
Trump’s rating is down precipitously from February—before the novel coronavirus began its lethal swing through the U.S., before the shutdown, before unemployment soared to the moon—when 45% expressed satisfaction with the direction of the country, the highest level during Trump’s presidency so far.
More striking still is the decline over that five-month span in the share of Republicans who feel confident about where America is headed (see chart). In the Feb. 3-16 poll, 80% of Republicans surveyed said they were satisfied with the direction of the country. By the poll ending Aug. 12, that share had fallen to 25%. Democrats dropped from 13% satisfied to 4% over the same period; independent voters, from 38% to 12%. (Another survey is currently in the field, Jones says, which will reflect some of the impact of both political conventions; so it’s possible that the Republican mood may brighten some.)
Other polling firms phrase the question in a slightly different way, asking whether people “feel that things in this country are heading in the right direction…or heading down the wrong track?” Here, too, the share of Americans who believe we’re on the “wrong track” hit a nearly seven-year high on Aug. 3, according to the average of such polls calculated by the website Realclearpolitics. On that date, the average for the wrong-track share was 70.7%, the highest percentage since October 2013. As of Sept. 5, in the wake of the conventions and some other tightening poll numbers, that figure has dipped to 65.8%. In late February, by contrast, fewer than 55% of Americans felt that we were headed the wrong way.
While the share of Republicans saying, specifically, that the country is on the “wrong track” is generally lower than it is in the Gallup satisfaction survey, the numbers here are striking as well. In the Sept. 2 Reuters/Ipsos tracker, 35% of Republican voters (and 78% of independents) gave a thumbs down to the country’s direction. Morning Consult and Politico, meanwhile, pegged the share of disaffected Republicans at 44% in their August tracker, though the percentage of GOP women expressing the same dismay was a red-flag-waving 51%.
As bad as those numbers might seem for the Trump camp, however, there’s little likelihood that the president’s campaign will abandon the strategy. Indeed, they’re almost certain to double down on it.
“To run as an incumbent, you have two options that you can hope for. One is that it’s a referendum and you can say, ‘I’m great. Reelect me.’ The second is that it’s a choice,” says Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing editor for the Atlantic, who has written extensively about American politics. “Right now, it’s a referendum. Trump is trying to make it a choice.”
On most levels, framing the election as a choice is unlikely to help him. In poll after poll this summer, voters have consistently said they believe former Vice President Joe Biden would do a better job than the incumbent on the most pressing of issues, from responding to racial inequality to tackling the coronavirus. Biden has also gained ground on the question of who would be a more able shepherd of the economy, drawing mostly even with the president on that front.
But one area where the Trump camp can move the fulcrum is in the amorphous category of fear.
“Trump knows that there were significant numbers of college-educated suburban white voters, many of them long-time Republicans who supported him [in 2016] in places like Bucks County, Pennsylvania, in the suburbs of Detroit, in the suburbs of Milwaukee, and elsewhere, who then abandoned him and the Republicans in 2018,” says Ornstein. “And what he’s hoping he can do is to get a sufficient number of them scared at violence in the cities—and the fear that it could spread to their suburbs—to come back to him.”
“I’m skeptical of that strategy,” Ornstein adds. “The idea that people will believe this is what Biden’s America will bring when it’s what Trump’s America is already bringing is not going to fly terribly well.” (Worth noting: In the eight years that Biden served as vice president under Obama, the violent crime rate actually fell 13.1% and property crime dropped 23.7%, according to the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Reporting.) “Still, you know, you can’t say that it will be a complete failure,” he says. “There’s always the chance that it will turn some of those votes at the margins back towards the president or at least get them not to vote.”
In a game of inches—as the 2016 battle for the electoral college was—that could make the difference.