Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Chamber board meets today
Next Post: Today’s number: $168 million
Posted in:
* My social media streams have been jam packed with warnings from hardcore conservatives that last Friday’s Chicago protests at Donald Trump’s rally would backfire on the liberals. And lots of liberals appeared to agree that they’re just solidifying Trump’s position.
So, let’s look at the numbers…
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% of Likely U.S. Voters believe there is a greater danger of political violence this election cycle compared to past presidential campaigns. Only nine percent (9%) feel there is less of a danger this campaign season, while 26% say the potential for violence is about the same. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Fifty-two percent (52%) blame Trump’s positions rather than his political opponents for the recent violent protests at some of his rallies. Thirty-one percent (31%) say Trump’s opponents are more to blame. Seventeen percent (17%) are undecided.
Liberal political activist group MoveOn.org has taken credit for the protests last weekend that forced the cancellation of a Trump rally in Chicago, but 72% of Democrats still blame the Republican front-runner’s positions more than his opponents for the violence at some of his recent rallies. Just 39% of Republicans and 42% of unaffiliated voters agree.
* OK, now look at the crosstabs. Not mentioned in the above narrative is that the 42 percent of independents who agree that the violence is Trump’s fault is actually a plurality. Only 35 percent of indies believe it’s not Trump’s fault and 22 percent have no opinion.
And while a substantial minority of 39 percent of Republicans think the violence is Trump’s fault, only a plurality of 45 percent think it’s not. Another 15 percent have no opinion.
* Women tend to vote in larger numbers than men, and 59 percent of women say the violence is on Trump, while a 44-40 plurality of men say the same thing.
Indeed, a majority or plurality of every racial, age, etc. demographic except Republicans, conservatives and Obama disapprovers think the violence is on Trump.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 8:55 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Chamber board meets today
Next Post: Today’s number: $168 million
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Obama disapprovers”? That’s putting it as delicately as an elderly maiden aunt!
Comment by RIJ Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 8:59 am
At this time, and for this particular incident, I think there is blame on both sides (and this is reflected in the split opinions). If Trump is smart and tones down the rhetoric going forward, and if liberal activist groups continue to disrupt his events, I think you will see a shift in the perception of that blame. However, that is a big “IF” (the first one).
Comment by BigDoggie Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:02 am
Wow, and that’s from Rasmussen, a biased conservative firm.
Comment by Tone Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:04 am
So much for “Stick and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me”. Words are words, violence is violence, and while both can be dangerous there is a vital difference.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:06 am
=== If Trump is smart and tones down===
I agree totally that he’s a smart guy. But the tone is who he is. I’m not sure he can overcome his own self. He tried the day the New Jersey governor endorsed him. Lasted like ten minutes.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:13 am
When people say the protesters cause the violence, are they saying that by showing up to these events and yelling that it’s their fault they get punched? Or are they saying that these incidences of violence are physically started by the protesters? I don’t know that I’ve seen any evidence of a protester starting any physical violence.
Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:16 am
I think it works both ways. The “tone” can energize both sides, and arguably helped Trump win the primary here, but if something really bad happens in that atmosphere and people get seriously injured or worse, it could really backfire on the tone-setter.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:18 am
Trump’s large public events have become ground zero for political confrontation. Trump supporters attend to hear him speak and show their support. I understand why they get upset when outsiders disrupt the program.
Outsider disrupt the program because they know it will upset the Trump supporters. It’s a recipe for a riot and the media can’t give it enough attention.
It sure seems like the media wants to see the bloody melee unfold on live TV. Think of the ratings that sort of spectacle will garner.
Everybody needs to dial it down and take a deep breath.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:22 am
Operating on the assumption that the Chicago rally was staged to incite protestor violence, the vast majority of protestors didn’t take the bait and the violence that did occurred seemed to be directed towards the CPD as opposed to Trump supporters. However, I’m certain Trump would have been delighted to see the protestors focusing their anger on the Trump supporters rather than the CPD.
At the most basic level Chicagoans beating on Trump supporters would distract the media from Trump supporters attacking protestor’s at the rally. Although I’m taking a big leap here, I think many of Trump’s supporters see themselves as being persecuted and perceived threats against them seem to perversely justify their belief in Trump. I think that ultimately, regardless of your beliefs, the idea that you face some sort of danger as the result of your beliefs validates those beliefs.
I must say I’m proud of Chicago, angry residents have been set up a couple of times recently with the Laquan McDonald tape and Trump’s rally, yet, although with some exceptions, haven’t taken the bait. In both cases the media was salivating hoping for widespread civil unrest, but calmer heads prevailed.
Comment by Jon Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:23 am
==the tone is who he is==
That tone is what is drawing people to him. He’s not going to change that to avoid being blamed for some of the violence occurring. Besides, I’m not sure he cares if he is blamed.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:23 am
It’s only going to get worse. What scares me is what I’ve been seeing on my social media from the rougher trades union folks. It’s like they are looking to pick fights with the Trump people. It’s like there is a internecine battle to define working class people and it’s moving rapidly towards the violent side. It’s not going to be long before we seen street battles between the trades folks and the working class Trump supporters. The prevailing wage stuff/right to work/anti union etc has gotten those folks really jacked up. It’s like they see a target in the Trump people. I’m being honest here. I know OW said labor needs to be likable but what I’m seeing privately is a lot of frustration and anger. It’s a powder keg.
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:25 am
If you are someone who cherishes political correctness over your first amendment rights, then you probably don’t like Mr. Trump. If you are someone who wants your candidate to blather non-aggressively about policies and issues, then you don’t like Mr. Trump. If you are opposed to Mr. Trump’s policies, then you don’t like Mr. Trump. If you don’t like Mr. Trump, you don’t like his presidential campaign.
If you are tired of feeling like you have no future providing for yourself and your family, if you earn less than $80,000 a year, if you live from paycheck to paycheck - you don’t give two figs about any of that.
If you live in a dying neighborhood, in a dying town, in a Rust Belt state and remember when your neighborhood, town and state wasn’t dying - you don’t give two figs about any of that.
If you watched the Federal government bail out millionaires and billionaires who should have been jailed for the 2007 Wall Street Meltdown, watched a $70,000,000 Obamacare web site fail, watch an IRS official plead the fifth, listened to excuse after excuse after excuse why you are still earning less money than you did a decade ago - you don’t give two figs about any of this.
Trump isn’t the problem. He is the messenger. A decade of crappy times is exploding around us. Go ahead and talk about how naughty he is, how arrogant he is or how ridiculous he is. Then give his supporters someone else who they can relate to.
There were 20 candidates running for president, yet only Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have risen to address the frustrations being felt by millions of Americans. Any of the other guys could have jumped on this bandwagon and ridden it to political success in 2016. Why didn’t they?
If you want to stop Trump or Sanders, you give their supporters what they want. You do it with someone who would be a better president than either of them. I’d be delighted. Trump is almost the last person I would ever want to elect.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:27 am
Agree totally. Trump must trumpet Trump. His Self is expanding with the universe. There are no brakes internally to slow his course to disaster…..better his than ours. But if elected, we will ‘feel the burn’.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:29 am
If you start with the assumption that the “liberal” people opposing Trump are predominantly Democrats to start with, and if they think Trump would not win against Clinton, wouldn’t it be in their best interests to solidify enough Republican support for Trump to win the nomination?
Comment by titan Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:29 am
What Six Degrees said. Those anti-Trump numbers might have been even higher but-for the protests, as there had been a growing narrative about Trump inciting violence - the Chicago protests provided a counter-narrative and might have taken some of the air out of those sails. I saw some evidence of this among Cruz blogs, where people posted “I support Cruz, but…”
If the MoveOn “Heckler’s Veto” becomes a thing at Trump rallies, I suspect it will indeed help him. If it ends here, the hooliganism on the pro-Trump side will continue to dominate in the media.
Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:29 am
“Liberal political activist group MoveOn.org has taken credit for the protests last weekend that forced the cancellation of a Trump rally in Chicago”
I’m pretty sure MoveOn.org also took credit for defeating George W. Bush in 2004.
No matter what one thinks of ‘em, the Chicago protests were planned and organized by Chicagoans.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:30 am
Rich, I have taken a few shots at you over the past year, but in all sincerity, your reporting and analyses are indispensable.
To the post: These numbers persuade me that I was wrong about the effect of the March 11 incident on the Illinois primary. Whether the plurality is correct, that Trump is mostly to blame, is another matter.
Comment by perry noya Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:34 am
It’s on Trump!
Comment by MrGrassroots Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:45 am
The 1932 German elections? Does anyone remember 1968? Two assassinations. Riots, risings, and a near revolution. The Democratic Convention? The ‘police riot’ at that Convention? Then and now, the left has a virtual monopoly on the violence threatened and committed, and the media is blaming a candidate’s legitimate, although you might disagree with them, views as causation.
Not views on war and peace, but on immigration and reviving the American economy. Strange times indeed, and manufactured outrage the only similarity to previous attempts at mob rule.
Comment by Maguffin Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:48 am
The hecklers just harden Trump supporters, and he will ramp that up to his perceived benefit, not tone it down.
Vanilla Man with a solid post.
Comment by Original Rambler Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:48 am
==the left has a virtual monopoly on the violence threatened and committed==
Winner of the most ridiculous comment of the day
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:57 am
If you want to join those pushing a dishonest narrative, go ahead. More and more intelligent people are seeing through it every day.
And news flash, Trump won Illinois. In a HUGE way.
Comment by too obvious Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:57 am
Maguffin:
“There used to be consequences for protesting. There aren’t any consequences any more. We need to toughen up. These people are bringing us down.”
“I want to punch him in the face.”
“If somebody tries to throw tomatoes up here, knock the crap out of him. I’ll pay the legal fees. I promise.”
“In the old days, they didn’t come back (the protesters). They were taken out, they didn’t come back”
::loud cheers from the crowd::
Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 9:58 am
My not so optimistic prediction - as a Trump nomination gets to be more inevitable, there were will be an ugly incident with racial undertones caught on camera at a Trump rally where Trump supporters beat someone to the point of needing hospitalization and the Trump campaign craters as people decide that they don’t want to be part of that crowd.
Comment by The Way I See It Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:01 am
=== In a HUGE way===
If garnering 38.8 percent is HUGE, then your measuring is off. Must be the small hands.
/snark
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:02 am
“Does anyone remember 1968? Two assassinations. *** Then and now, the left has a virtual monopoly on the violence threatened and committed…”
You honestly believe Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were assassinated by liberals?
I hope you find the help you need.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:04 am
===Does anyone remember 1968?===
I was six.
Any idea how much this country has changed since then? Particularly when it comes to voter demographics?
White male backlash just ain’t got the oomph is used to have.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:04 am
Vanilla - excellent post above. I think you are exactly right about Sanders and Trump connecting with a large chunk of the electorate.
To bring it to Illinois…. it will be interesting to see how the Presidential race affects down-ballot races here. State senate and House races are a proxy battle between Madigan and Rauner. Assuming Trump is the nominee, it is possible his populist agenda attracts independents and some Democrats. To what extent? Who knows. If so, how many of them split their ballots? Also, how many Republican voters stay home? I would guess that more republicans stay home than democrats cross over. This lowers Rauner’s odds in the proxy battle.
Comment by Anony Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:08 am
=== In a HUGE way===
From the Smart Politics group: the 8.5-point Trump-Cruz margin was the second most competitive Republican race ever held in the state [Illinois].
Yep, you definitely got small hands.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:08 am
This is one of these cycles that will go on forever, because each side gets what it wants. Protesters see the act of disrupting his speech as a victory in itself, Trump gets to keep his base fired up.
But in the long run, the disruptions benefit Trump, because it’s playing in his frame.
Comment by Century Club Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:09 am
===Does anyone remember 1968?===
Yeah, thousands of young men were being chosen at random and sent overseas to fight in a war that was tearing at the domestic fabric of the country. Two of our young and promising political and social leaders were assassinated in that atmosphere. There are pervasive issues in the country today, but nothing quite like that.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:12 am
Divisiveness. There is more than tone to his madness.
Comment by Vole Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:12 am
So Rich, if you’re a Republican, conservative, or an Obama disapproved, does that invalidate your opinion?
Comment by Gantt Chart Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:13 am
===does that invalidate your opinion?===
Not at all. But not even majorities of those think Trump isn’t at fault. Read closer.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:14 am
Trump talked violence long before any of the protesters incited violence on their own with statements like “punch that guy out” or “carried out on a stretcher”. Now he’s suggesting “riots” may occur if he’s not accepted. Are we surprised his staff and followers are now responding with violence towards protesters and even reporters? Sanders message is just as electrifying, yet there isn’t violence at his events. But then, Sanders doesn’t disparage certain demographic groups or occupations.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:14 am
==So Rich, if you’re a Republican, conservative, or an Obama disapproved, does that invalidate your opinion?==
Ugh. More victimhood.
I believe you missed the point. You would expect conservatives, Republicans and the anti-Obama crowd to agree that it’s not Trump’s fault. So, the backlash argument would have to be focused on independents. Independents still believe it’s Trump’s fault.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:19 am
For the general election Trump needs to change his perception among the 60% of Republicans who don’t like him. A common way to do so would be to get the focus on the left. Trump is not my guy, and I am shocked he’s gotten this far; he’s shown himself to be pretty shrewd. Focusing on Moveon.org, etc., could be an effort to rally those republicans that don’t like him.
Comment by Anony Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:21 am
“The left has a virtual monopoly on the violence threatened and committed”…1968 was a very violent year, cited in response to a previous comment on the 1932 German elections. Perhaps Rich doesn’t remember 1968, but I do, and I’m not sure what he is referring to with observations on voter demographics, or white male backlash, my badly written point was (although I appreciate the award of most ridiculous comment of the day…it’s rather early in the day) that the violence so far this year is ‘virtually a monopoly’ of the left: MoveOn.org is not a conservative organization, nor is Black Lives Matter, nor are most of the anarchist groups holding signs and flags at violent protests whether they be in Ferguson or Baltimore or Chicago. Trump’s words may be incendiary to some, but purposeful disruptions of any candidate’s right to speak, are incendiary as well.
Comment by Maguffin Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:21 am
==Not views on war and peace, but on immigration and reviving the American economy.==
Actually, it’s his views on…violence at his rallies. Which are literally “Go ahead, I’ll help pay for it.”
When the guy on stage says “I wish we could still punch people” and “If you tackle someone, I’ll pay the legal bills” don’t be surprised if someone tries to punch or tackle people!
To the broader point, I thought the idea was that the backlash would help Trump through the primaries, though that was a fair accompli before Chicago. I suspect that anything that makes any candidate look more chaotic hurts them in a General Election.
Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:25 am
So in your mind, holding signs is equally as incendiary, if not moreso, than telling somebody to punch somebody else in the face and you’ll pay their legal bills?
interesting
Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:26 am
===that the violence so far this year is ‘virtually a monopoly’ of the left:===
Lol. You sound like Chris Robling. Tell me, Cliven Bundy and his followers, are they leftists?
No one has a monopoly on violence. It’s all around us every day. Some of us, like Maguffin, are powerless victims. Others choose not to be.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:32 am
Trump’s belligerence plays right into his very high negative ratings. Outside his supporters- who are very loyal to him and only him- large numbers are put off by him. Not surprising that people blame him, people don’t like him to begin with.
Comment by In 630 Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:32 am
the left has a virtual monopoly on the violence threatened and committed. If we conveniently forget about the Bundy occupations, the Oklahoma city bombings … Our country has a serious problem with violent lawlessness on the right.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:34 am
And I’ll add in abortion clinic murders to the violence on the right list.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:35 am
And this poll appears to have been conductef before Trump threatened “riots” by his supporters if he doesn’t get the nomination.
Comment by JoanP Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:38 am
“MoveOn.org is not a conservative organization”
Or a violent one. But your circular “violence is only caused by lefties because lefties are only violent” argument aside, the Bundys are certainly conservative, and the guys at the Trump rallies sucker punching folks are by no means liberal. So you’re two ways mistaken!
Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:38 am
Excellent analysis, Rich. I should mention, as a disciple of King and Ghandi, that I think my progressive brethren could benefit from a refresher course in the tenets of non-violent civil disobedience. It is so much more powerful and effective than the alternatives.
Comment by Molly Maguire Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 10:53 am
What Johnny PD said above,…
“There used to be consequences for protesting. There aren’t any consequences any more. We need to toughen up. These people are bringing us down.”
“I want to punch him in the face.”
“If somebody tries to throw tomatoes up here, knock the crap out of him. I’ll pay the legal fees. I promise.”
“In the old days, they didn’t come back (the protesters). They were taken out, they didn’t come back”
…is still the message that most Americans (who are paying attention) are taking away from the Trump circus..
Comment by Gman Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 11:03 am
VanillaMan probably does the best job of articulating what I hear when I talk to my friends who support Trump. They lack the words to so artfully express their frustration - so they express it the only way they can. But V-Man comes further than anyone I’ve heard as to what about a racist sociopathic demagogue resonates with them.
Thank you sir, you have broadened my understanding.
Comment by Name Withheld Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 11:17 am
If protesters weren’t previously spit on, sucker punched and pushed around by Trump supporters, would there have been such a large crowd of protesters in Chicago?
Trump himself said that he’d like to punch a protester in the face, in the old days protesters would have been carried out on stretchers and he might pay the legal fees of the sucker puncher.
There were protesters at Democratic rallies, but nothing like this.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 11:28 am
Not surpriesed by these polls since every major TV news outlet from Fox to MSNBC has gone out of their way to portray this as Trump’s fault. They say it over and over and over again and certainly not in a “Fair and Balanced” way.
Will conservative/right groups protest Hillary in the same manner and how will the different media outlets portray such protests? That would be interesting.
Comment by Federalist Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 12:24 pm
“Not surpriesed by these polls since every major TV news outlet from Fox to MSNBC has gone out of their way to portray this as Trump’s fault.”
The uniformity of reporting must be due to media bias not mere facts — like when they report on the anniversary of the so-called “moon landing”!!1!
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 1:09 pm
==Will conservative/right groups protest Hillary in the same manner and how will the different media outlets portray such protests==
Ugh. I grow so tired of these sorts of arguments. Victims around every corner. The constant whining about how somebody is or isn’t being treated and how unfair it all is.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 2:08 pm
Someone is actually bringing bundy into this? There was zero violence committed by those guys, the only people doing the shooting were govt agents.
Comment by Hick Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 2:10 pm
The gun-brandishing Bundys were charged with threats to use violence. It’s a crime of violence even if you don’t actually shoot the gun.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 2:18 pm
yea what could possibly be regarded as violence when groups of armed people take over and occupy a government building and set up armed road blocks to keep the public out of public property?
They were just there for a tea party guys geez
Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 2:22 pm
===There was zero violence committed by those guys,===
Armed occupation of public land isn’t violent? If it was a peaceful political demonstration, why was it necessary to bring firearms? Why was it described using military terminology?
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 2:26 pm
Demoralized,
Are you tired of all victims or do you make exceptions for those you support?
As I said, and you have twisted my comment, “We shall see.” But probably not since “the Tea Party’ types you hate have more integrity than to go to a Democratic rally and create trouble. Of course there is some chance that those on the equally loonie right will cause mayehm. Will be interesting to watch and note the reporting.
Comment by Federalist Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 2:58 pm
===There were protesters at Democratic rallies, but nothing like this.
There were protests at Rubio and Kasich rallies too. The response from Rubio was great–”Don’t worry, we won’t beat you up here.” Kasich did the same, but frankly Rubio had the better comic timing.
There are protests at every candidates’ rally. The issue is how it is dealt with. Mostly, they are escorted out and everyone gets out of the way and perhaps does a cheerleader like chant.
We give the state a monopoly on violence for a reason. That way we don’t have groups of people attacking each other. Trump’s campaign and supporters aren’t playing by the pretty well established rules. We call those rules the law.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 3:47 pm
====As I said, and you have twisted my comment, “We shall see.” But probably not since “the Tea Party’ types you hate have more integrity than to go to a Democratic rally and create trouble.
Quite a few did in 2010 especially. I saw a couple assaults personally at a Russ Carnahan town hall.
There are conservative protestors at many Democratic rallies. You know what–that’s okay. It’s okay to have liberals at conservative rallies. The thing is when they do their protest, you let them be escorted out by security and police and get out of the way. If you want you might do a neat counter chant like a cheerleader. But you don’t get into the scrum.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 3:51 pm
ArchPundit,
You saw what you saw and I take your work for it. Who knows what precipitated it in the first place.
Too often the person who initiates the trouble in the first place escapes attention. True in grade school and at conventions.
Comment by Federalist Thursday, Mar 17, 16 @ 6:16 pm