INDIANA — Tuesday evening’s primary race here in the Hoosier State once again proved that the press, both local and national, still does not understand the impact that President Donald Trump has on the electorate. Nor do they understand his enduring appeal, as Indiana Republican voters unequivocally sided with the challengers over those who voted down congressional redistricting last year.
So far, the results from Tuesday’s primaries saw incumbent Republican state senators Travis Holdman of Markle, Jim Buck of Kokomo, Linda Rogers of Granger, Dan Dernulc of Highland, and Greg Walker all go down, and go down big. According to early Associated Press tallies, their challengers received a whopping 60% of the vote.
Incumbent Sen. Spencer Deery of West Lafayette was in the lead by a mere three votes after voting concluded, leaving the race too close to call.
Gov. Mike Braun, who supported the challengers, called Trump’s influence and victory in the results historic. Braun said that he was proud that “Republicans stood with me and President Trump to nominate some great America First conservatives.”
Going into Tuesday night, both the local and national press professed doom for Trump’s fortunes and influence, with headlines from Politico reading “Trump’s redistricting revenge tour in Indiana isn’t going so well.” The reporter openly mocked the attendance at a Turning Point USA rally with conservative activist Scott Pressler, showing shots of a handful of people attending as proof that the effort was flailing.
Perhaps what was missed is that while voters may or may not show up for a rally in the middle of April, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they won’t show up to vote. What TPUSA did effectively was both door-knocking and providing a positive, aspirational presence.
That TPUSA presence was also mocked by local Indiana press, including James Briggs of the Indy Star, who, days before the first votes were cast, opined with a column headlined “Trump’s day of reckoning is here — for Mike Braun, Jim Banks.” Briggs wrote that by Wednesday, they’d all be gone, and all that would be left is regret for likely losing the primary battle.
“The Turning Point USA organizers call May 5 a day of reckoning in Indiana,” the column said. “They’re cosplaying as an elite special forces unit, mugging for cameras as though we should be thanking them for their service of making seven Republican state senators pay for voting against President Donald Trump’s early redistricting scheme.”
The analysis concluded:
“The overhyped rallies and social media theatrics will be over. Braun, Banks and the entire Indiana Republican Party will have to wake up and figure out what just happened.”
By Tuesday evening, Briggs’ headline for his follow-up story to his prediction read: “Sometimes you gotta hand it to Trump.” However, it wasn’t much of a compliment since the first graph read: “Donald Trump is the most corrupt president in history.”
It wasn’t that Politico wasn’t here in Indiana, nor that the Indy Star columnist isn’t here as well. The reporting had nothing to do with a lack of putting yourself in a place to try and understand it. But it does bring into debate just how much reporters try to understand the conservative populist movement and the President.
In short, find out what drives them as opposed to making fun of them and their efforts, and dismissing the president’s influence on the conservative populist electorate.
CNN also had a reporter here. His headline read: “Indiana GOP lawmakers defied Trump on redistricting. Now GOP voters may thwart his push for revenge.”
ED GALLREIN SHOWS NORTHERN KENTUCKY WHAT HE’S MADE OF
What was interesting about the language in this race was that most of the challengers wisely focused on local issues and community concerns. They supported conservative ideals in government and the president’s agenda, and not redistricting, which is what many reporters turned the race into — likely because in the world of the press everything revolves around a story about him.
That should have been a hint that the challengers were playing the long game and were not one-offs on a revenge tour. Yes, redistricting was always at the core. But representing districts was also there if you paid enough attention to the whole race.