Since Trump’s ultimate acquittal is certain, his presentation at the trial needs to be focused on the American public, not the Senate. Would you pick a friend of Jeffrey Epstein and the guy who investigated Bill Clinton to make the case to undecided voters?
Didn’t think so.
You don’t have to be Ken Jennings to get this one right.
A: An ignorant, corrupt, narcissistic blowhard with no concept whatsoever of public service, he was enabled by a party that sold its soul to him for tax cuts and right-wing judges.
Q: Who is Donald Trump?
The polls I have seen indicate that support for free trade among Democrats has increased over the last few years. There are undoubtedly two reasons for that: the negative economic impacts of Trump’s tariffs; and the general toxicity of his brand in the eyes of everyone outside his base. And yet, none of the Democratic candidates is running as a free trader in Iowa, a state which naturally leans against protectionism. Why?
Because the candidates know that the general election will almost certainly be won in the Rust Belt, and Rust Belt voters generally support measures to protect their declining industries. Promoting free trade will win you more votes in places like California and Washington, but running up huge margins in those states won’t help you get elected. So, blame the Electoral College for forcing the candidates to emphasize the agendas of swing voters over the interests of the country as a whole.
Whether or not a woman could beat Trump is the burning question of the day. In Klobuchar’s case, the answer is a ringing yes.
She presents the fewest points of vulnerability of any of the major candidates. She’s not a socialist. She doesn’t look or sound like a liberal elitist. She isn’t into culture wars. She isn’t tied to any of the failures of the Obama administration. Her responses to questions during the debates make sense–most notably, on education. As she never fails to point out, she has a record of winning in both blue and red areas, and she has had a fair amount of success working across party lines. She would be a very plausible nominee.
Luckily for Trump, she has no following among minorities, so it won’t happen. His gain is our loss.
NOT FADE AWAY
I’m gonna tell you how it’s gonna be.
You’re gonna give your votes to me.
If I lose, somehow, some way
You know I’m not gonna fade away.
You know I’m not gonna fade away.
___________
My base is bigger than a Cadillac.
They give me love, and I give it right back.
Their love for me is undoubtedly real
‘Cause only I know how they feel.
A love that’s real, not fade away.
_______________________
I’m gonna tell you how it’s gonna be.
You’re gonna give your votes to me.
I’ll be with you every day.
Trump is Trump, and not fade away.
Trump is Trump, and not fade away.
__________________
Parody of “Not Fade Away” by Buddy Holly
You’re probably not looking for a reason to be depressed, but if you are, here’s something to chew on: barring a crushing defeat in November, which doesn’t appear very likely at this point, Trump isn’t going away for the foreseeable future.
If he wins, we know what lies ahead. But even if he doesn’t, he’s not going to follow protocol and keep his mouth shut after he leaves office. First, he’s going to scream about voter fraud, threaten litigation, and do his best to tear the country apart. Then, when that doesn’t work, he’s going to retreat to Trump Tower, vow revenge, and start tweeting his brains out. His hold on the base and the media is such that he will remain the de facto leader of the GOP even after his defeat. He might even run again in 2024.
In a lot of ways, this will be more of a problem for the GOP than for the Democrats. Mitch McConnell probably won’t appreciate getting advice from Trump on a daily basis, and the next generation of Republican presidential contenders is going to be overshadowed. Oh, well.
How can this scenario be avoided? Only if he loses big in November, goes to prison, or chokes on a cheeseburger. We’re just lucky he’s as old as he is.
If Mayor Pete is the nominee, his sexual orientation will be a big bullseye on his back in the general election. What would Trump do with it?
For all of his innumerable shortcomings, Trump really hasn’t shown much interest in bashing gays. It might also alienate moderate swing voters. I don’t think you would see any commercials from him on that subject.
That doesn’t mean his reactionary acolytes would follow his lead; in fact, he would probably count on that. The high road, low road approach with surrogates probably would work nicely here.
Otherwise, Mayor Pete doesn’t present a lot of obvious avenues for attack; he’s not a socialist, a woman, or an anti-war wimp. There is probably something in his tenure at South Bend that would work, and, of course, there is the McKinsey/elitist thing. For the most part, however, he would be a difficult target, which is a big argument in favor of nominating him.
On the Democrat candidate Bern.
He thinks that it’s finally his turn.
His hard left-wing plans
Have millennial fans.
It’s the old folks whose votes he can’t earn.
As with Biden, Trump wouldn’t be able to rely on his favorite identity politics gambit against Bernie Sanders. So what would his campaign look like?
This one is obvious: socialism and Sandinistas. Trump would portray Sanders as a threat to economic prosperity and property rights at home, and a wimp with dangerous leftist leanings abroad.
A large majority of Americans (older voters in particular) are terrified of socialism, so that part of the argument would stick. I’m not sure that pictures of Bernie with the Castros and Daniel Ortega will resonate with the electorate (at least outside of Florida) in 2020, however. Those days may just be too remote to matter.
Could Sanders beat Trump? Barring a fairly severe economic downturn between now and November, probably not. He would have a better chance than Warren, however, even though she would make a much better president.
Joe Biden says he’s the McConnell whisperer; he can get his agenda through the Senate by playing an inside game. Bernie Sanders is Mr. Outside; he claims “the revolution” will force McConnell to give in. Elizabeth Warren thinks both approaches are necessary. Who’s right?
Let’s put it this way–McConnell didn’t give in even in the face of an economic crisis and 60 Democrats in the Senate in 2009, and it ultimately paid off for him and his party. Does anyone seriously believe he can be persuaded to behave differently with a majority in the Senate and 3.5 percent unemployment?
None of the candidates is persuasive on this issue, barring a national calamity and a highly unlikely Democratic sweep in November. That operates in favor of Biden, whose political identity, unlike the others, is not tied to dramatic changes in the system.
There was less aggression than you would have expected under the circumstances. No one stood out, either positively or negatively. It is unlikely that the needle moved much, if at all.
That’s the big picture. Here are my other reactions:
1. Biden wasn’t quite as effective as he was last time, but he was OK. He didn’t implode. That’s probably good enough.
2. Klobuchar was fine, but her constant pandering to the people of Iowa gets annoying. She’s running to be president of the entire country, not just Iowa. What will she talk about in March, if she’s still in the race?
3. Sanders and Warren were scapegoating their brains out. I expect that from Sanders; he doesn’t know any better. Warren should.
4. The question was about being the commander-in-chief, not the pacifist-in-chief. If you believe what you heard at the debate, we don’t even need a military.
5. No one would defend free trade, even in Iowa. That’s depressing.
In spite of her impressive intellect and humble background, Elizabeth Warren is Trump’s dream opponent, because she feeds into every identity narrative that he wants to emphasize. An elderly, sharp-tongued woman who loves wonks, taught at Harvard, and claimed to have American Indian ancestry? For Trump, that’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
His other line of attack, of course, will be socialism. Warren isn’t actually a democratic socialist, but it would be easy to make her wealth tax, innumerable social programs, and new government regulations on business look like a looming threat to your job and your 401(k). Put this information in enough commercials, and the majority of American voters will come to believe it.
There is a reason that Warren’s poll numbers against Trump are significantly worse than Biden’s or Bernie’s. In the real world, I just don’t think she would have much of a chance to beat him, barring a national calamity between now and November.
With Sanders apparently gaining support on the left, Warren has started picking small fights with him and arguing that she is the bridge between the two wings of the party, not Bernie lite. Will it work?
I doubt it. There are too many photos of Warren and Sanders standing arm-in-arm. No one is going to forget “I’m with Bernie” on M4A. Being a watered-down version of Sanders is not the same thing as being a bridge between realos and fundis. Realo voters aren’t going to support her unless Bernie is the only other option.
It didn’t have to be this way. Warren could have made more of an effort to distinguish her world view from Bernie’s, and she easily could have avoided supporting the Sanders version of M4A. In the end, she decided to chase democratic socialist votes instead of tacking to the middle, and as they say in “The Irishman,” it is what it is.
Nominating the elderly white guy would deprive Trump of his favorite weapon–identity politics. It would mean he couldn’t run against Hillary Clinton again. It also means that he won’t be able to sell a “socialism” argument to swing voters. So–other than talking about the big, bad Ukrainians, of course– how would he campaign against Biden?
By going back to an old argument in the GOP playbook. Remember, to a Republican, every GOP nominee is Ronald Reagan, and every Democrat is the weak, ineffectual Jimmy Carter. Trump will argue that Biden is just an extension of Obama, and that America from 2009 to 2016 looked like America in 1979; the economy was weak, crime was soaring, illegal immigrants were running wild, China and Iran remained unchecked, and America was disrespected throughout the world. According to the narrative, Trump and his swagger made America great again over the last four years. You wouldn’t want to put that at risk, would you?
This is so much hogwash, of course. Could he get enough swing voters to ignore their actual experience and buy into it? Maybe.
The next debate is tomorrow night. With Iowa just a few weeks away, you can expect a higher level of aggression from the also-rans. Otherwise, this is what the candidates will be trying to accomplish: