Legacy Media Thinks It Sees An Opening

Real Clear Politics is a creature of big investment money and legacy media, although the conventional wisdom says it's pro-Trump:

In November 2020, The New York Times published an article alleging that since 2017, when many of its "straight-news" reporting journalists were laid off, RealClearPolitics showed a pro-Trump turn with donations to its affiliated nonprofit increasing from entities supported by wealthy conservatives. RCP executive editor Carl Cannon disputed the newspaper's allegations of a rightward turn. . . . Cannon stated that RCP regularly publishes perspectives from both liberal and conservative publications, saying that "the simple fact is that the amount of liberal material published in RCP every week dwarfs the annual conservative content in The New York Times".

But the circumstance on the ground is that RCP gets its reputation from polling averages, when polls wouldn't exist if they weren't financed by legacy media, and legacy media won't buy polls that don't tell them what they want to hear.

In 2012, Ben Smith, editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed, said "They are a huge force. Their polling average is the Dow Jones of campaign coverage."

Nevertheless, as I've discussed here, recent RCP averages, for instance from last year's midterms, were wildly outside the margins of error for the individual polls that made up the average. The whole process was garbage in-garbage out. The same applies to the opinion pieces they run twice a day: one from Victor Davis Hanson, Column A, against one from Robert Reich, Column B -- what are we supposed to do, put them in a blender and figure out what's the truth? This is a meaningless exercise.

As of this morning, RCP seems to have taken it on faith that Iran has split MAGA, and Trump has lost his coalition: A teetering ceasefire bodes ill for treacherous US-Iran talks ahead. A New Theory of Trump: The 'Soft TACO'. Iran Folly Blasting GOP Coalition to Smithereens.

Granted, each of these is a Column A, counterbalanced at least in theory by an equivalent piece from Column B, but how are we expected to derive any real insight from this process? Let's take the last piece above, from Megyn Kelly of all people -- she covered the military action of the past five weeks almost not at all on her podcast; for most of that time, she was still breathlessly reporting on the whole Nancy Guthrie nothingburger when everyone else had moved on. But here's what she says now:

So what led Trump, at 79 years old, to sit in there in that Situation Room when Bibi Netanyahu was seated as an equal? Trump didn’t even sit at the head of the table. Trump sat at the side of the table and Bibi was across from him as an equal in the American Situation Room.

What led him to sit there and buy what that guy was selling hook, line, and sinker when every other president was able to see through that liar?

This isn't commentary, it's repetitious hysteria. And it's hard to avoid seeing hysteria in this whole strain of opinion. Yesterday I noted that Edward Feser seemed to have calmed down, at least a little, after Trump announced the cease fire, but by evenning, Trump was again immoral and corrupting consciences:

💯 As @johnddavidson argues, the president’s extreme threats, even when not carried out, send the world the message that U.S. policy is not governed by just war principles but by “might makes right” realpolitik. And sending that message is itself immoral and corrupts consciences. https://t.co/smsdH9xY1u

— Edward Feser (@FeserEdward) April 9, 2026

In fact, Feser now seems to see himself as a whole new political species, a "postliberal":

Brutal piece from @SohrabAhmari demonstrating the sheer irrationality of the last year of governance. From economics to foreign policy, it has not advanced postliberal goals, or America First goals, or any goals at all, amounting to little more than a series of despotic spasms. https://t.co/CsRubq27Hy

— Edward Feser (@FeserEdward) April 9, 2026

You know what? Edward Feser is an angry guy. Down deep, there's something basic that doesn't have anything to do with Trump. Farther up in the thread, he muses that maybe libertarians aren't so bad -- "While many libertarians are, from a postliberal point of view, awful on social issues – abortion, drugs, pornography and sexuality in general – they often produce penetrating critiques of economic and war-making policy that identify perverse incentives, unintended consequences. . ." So he's rethinking whether maybe he should cast his lot with atheist, pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-LGBTQIA+, pro-porn Ayn Rand cultists as long as they hate Trump as much as he does. There's something out of kilter here.

I think the basic problem for the current crop of Never Trumpers is that Trump is actually succeeding at resetting both domestic and international political arrangements. For instance,

I estimate that net international migration has plummeted to roughly one-third of the levels observed at the end of Biden’s second term. Official U.S. Census Bureau projections already indicate that net international migration in 2026 is expected to be roughly nine times lower than in 2024—an estimate I view as broadly reasonable.

The largest declines in net international migration have occurred in Democratic-leaning urban areas—particularly in California, Chicago, and the Northeast, but also in parts of Texas, Colorado, and Florida. Given that the Census has already signaled that 2030 U.S. House reapportionment may already be unfavorable to Democratic states, a continuation of this trend—where domestic outmigration from blue states is not offset by international inflows—could further exacerbate those losses and frankly make the 2032 Electoral Map pretty scary for Democrats.

Internationally, he's simply recognizing changed circumstances. Traditionally, let's keep in mind, the UK was the lead non-US NATO ally. Certainly others are aware that this is no longer the case:

There are Russian warships in English Channel and there is nothing we can do about it, our Prime Minister is being cucked by Putin whilst our Navy is utterly degraded. We spend £60b/year on defence - for what exactly? We are sitting ducks

All the while 10s of thousands of… pic.twitter.com/gRlvMiIk6S

— Winston Marshall (@MrWinMarshall) April 9, 2026

A better perspective on the overall view of Trump is from Sundance at Conservative Treehouse:

Most of us have supported Trump throughout his endeavors in office, trusting him to do what needed to be done, and using his best judgement on whatever the issue was while understanding that he has much more information than us. This still applies today.

This doesn’t mean that President Trump can see everything or has immediate reference for everything happening.

. . . The White House is focused on the issues confronting them daily; they have a priority perspective, and they do not see everything. Trust God, and pray for President Trump.

Hysteria and bitter anger aren't a recipe for success in any case. Trump has had people like George Conway, John Bolton, Michael Cohen, Mike Pence, and Ann Coulter throughout his political career. But these have never been anything but blips. My view continues that on one hand, Trump is astonshingly lucky, and it's better to be lucky than good. On the other hand, the harder he works, the luckier he gets.