2020 Presidential Election

[CameronBornAndBred]

Um, what? This isn't to bash Trump, by the way. It can be enormously effective for a politician not to be tied into unpopular positions due to loyalty to friends or underlings. It can also be refreshing for a politician to pivot, even reverse themselves.

But Trump does not reward loyalty. He jettisons anyone and everyone--and any and every position, often undercutting allies and defenders--whenever he feels like it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-trump/562523/

I dunno. Getting pardoned is a pretty nice reward.

[OldPhiKap]

Bad news for budwom -- it looks like Trump's rally in NH tomorrow is being postponed due to expected bad weather.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Bad news for budwom -- it looks like Trump's rally in NH tomorrow is being postponed due to expected bad weather.

Once again, a tropical storm causes trouble for Trump.

[dudog84]

New poll out of Alabama has Trump beating Biden by 14 points. Why do I post this non-news? Because to me this gives credence (please, no CCR jibes) to all the swing state polls showing Trump in big trouble. Trump won Alabama by 28 points.

P.S. As expected, poll also shows Jones losing the Senate seat.

[swood1000]

Must confess, I have a very hard time figuring out Trump’s strategies.

It's Trump's refusal to curtail shoot-from-the-hip style statements and tweets which regularly produce unintended consequences that mystifies me. I guess he figures that if it worked for him the first time why fix it. Also, his insistence on maligning the integrity of the mainstream press in the most direct and insulting way possible guaranteed that every one of his statements and actions would, by at least some, be assigned the worst possible interpretation. Presidents in the past always seemed to be able to avoid directly attacking the press. One of the lessons here may be that, in the final analysis, the press controls the narrative.

[cspan37421]

Also, his insistence on maligning the integrity of the mainstream press in the most direct and insulting way possible guaranteed that every one of his statements and actions would, by at least some, be assigned the worst possible interpretation. Presidents in the past always seemed to be able to avoid directly attacking the press. One of the lessons here may be that, in the final analysis, the press controls the narrative.

It does have, for him, the beneficial effect that negative stories in the press about him are discounted by his hardcore followers, because they don't believe the press any longer. So from his perspective, maligning the mainstream press has upside potential as a tactic.

[swood1000]

Condi removed herself for consideration of the VP slot in 2016: https://news.yahoo.com/condi-rice-sa...193941558.html

Doubt she wants it now.


Nikki is an early front runner for 2024; she would be crazy to jump into the slot right now.

What has Condoleezza Rice said that is different from what anybody would say who didn’t want to be constantly deluged by reporters but who is still persuadable? 2016 was a different circumstance. Nobody gave Trump a chance of winning and Rice didn’t want to lend her prestige to a losing race. But Trump is a much more credible candidate in 2020, especially with Rice on the ticket. Is there no promise or enticement that Trump could offer that might catch her ear? I’ve read previous VP candidates say that when the president tells you that your country needs you it’s very difficult to turn down. What if Trump made a credible promise to give her a free hand on certain aspects of foreign policy and to back her in 2024?

[dudog84]

Some polling analysis by the WaPo, covering the 'burbs, demographics, and when Rs might start to distance themselves from the prez. Interesting stuff showing the changes from 4 years ago.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elect...dRG?li=BBnb7Kz

[CDu]

It's Trump's refusal to curtail shoot-from-the-hip style statements and tweets which regularly produce unintended consequences that mystifies me. I guess he figures that if it worked for him the first time why fix it. Also, his insistence on maligning the integrity of the mainstream press in the most direct and insulting way possible guaranteed that every one of his statements and actions would, by at least some, be assigned the worst possible interpretation. Presidents in the past always seemed to be able to avoid directly attacking the press. One of the lessons here may be that, in the final analysis, the press controls the narrative.

Only insomuch as the voting populace believes the press...

Trump's calculus appears to be to discredit the portion of the press whom disagree with him, sowing distrust in them from his base and as many in-betweens as possible. That strategy can work so long as there are either enough in-betweens who are convinced, or that voter turnout is sufficiently low among those who believe the press (or a combination of both).

[swood1000]

It does have, for him, the beneficial effect that negative stories in the press about him are discounted by his hardcore followers, because they don't believe the press any longer. So from his perspective, maligning the mainstream press has upside potential as a tactic.

His hardcore followers stick to Trump-friendly news sources and so don't need to discount anything. It's the middle-American watching CNN who can't avoid being influenced, and this can't be adequately countered by Trump's periodic general denunciations of CNN. This is not to agree with Trump's characterization of CNN, but it would be normal for one whose journalistic integrity is so regularly belittled to perhaps not harbor gentle thoughts toward his antagonist.

[CDu]

His hardcore followers stick to Trump-friendly news sources and so don't need to discount anything. It's the middle-American watching CNN who can't avoid being influenced, and this can't be adequately countered by Trump's periodic general denunciations of CNN. This is not to agree with Trump's characterization of CNN, but it would be normal for one whose journalistic integrity is so regularly belittled to perhaps not harbor gentle thoughts toward his antagonist.

Right, but the influencing goes both ways. If Trump can convince enough of "middle America" that CNN is "fake news", then they will also stop trusting CNN.

[swood1000]

Right, but the influencing goes both ways. If Trump can convince enough of "middle America" that CNN is "fake news", then they will also stop trusting CNN.

But Trump can't denounce CNN to a person who only watches CNN.

…in the final analysis, the press controls the narrative.

Only insomuch as the voting populace believes the press...

A person who watches a partisan news source would tend to be influenced in the partisan direction even if he only believes 10% of what the news source tells him. In any event if he is not exposed to an alternative interpretation then how could the alternative interpretation gain sway with him?

[Steven43]

What has Condoleezza Rice said that is different from what anybody would say who didn’t want to be constantly deluged by reporters but who is still persuadable? 2016 was a different circumstance. Nobody gave Trump a chance of winning and Rice didn’t want to lend her prestige to a losing race. But Trump is a much more credible candidate in 2020, especially with Rice on the ticket. Is there no promise or enticement that Trump could offer that might catch her ear? I’ve read previous VP candidates say that when the president tells you that your country needs you it’s very difficult to turn down. What if Trump made a credible promise to give her a free hand on certain aspects of foreign policy and to back her in 2024?

First of all, what makes you think Rice would be a strong candidate for the Republican nomination in 2024?

Second, perhaps she doesn’t want to be a part of what looks to be a Titanicesque calamity that is about to befall Trump and the GOP in 2020. Why would anyone in their right mind willingly sign on for that?

[CDu]

But Trump can't denounce CNN to a person who only watches CNN.

First, CNN isn't the only media outlet. Second, folks aren't all in a "I watch one and only one news network" camp. Some watch/follow many different outlets. Some only occasionally watch the news. While I agree that avid CNN watchers probably aren't going to be swayed by Trump's message, that's not who he is targeting. He's targeting those who are less attached to a particular media outlet who might come across whatever CNN/MSNBC/etc might say about Trump. If he can convince enough of those folks to not believe those outlets, that's a win.

[OldPhiKap]

I seriously doubt that someone from the Bush foreign services area (Secretary of State, National Security Administrator, etc.) would want anything to do with Trump. That group has been amongst Trump's harshest critics from within the Republican ranks.

My guess is that she is much more aligned with the thinking of her predecessor at Sec/St. Colin Powell, who will be voting for Biden.

Plus, she's a member of Augusta National now. She has things to do.

[swood1000]

Um, what? This isn't to bash Trump, by the way. It can be enormously effective for a politician not to be tied into unpopular positions due to loyalty to friends or underlings. It can also be refreshing for a politician to pivot, even reverse themselves.

But Trump does not reward loyalty. He jettisons anyone and everyone--and any and every position, often undercutting allies and defenders--whenever he feels like it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-trump/562523/

I don’t think that the article you referenced has the most impartial take on the matter. Why wouldn't Trump reward loyalty? Isn't that a strong incentive for loyalty? According to other sources: Trump Rewards Vulnerable Senators for Loyalty in Impeachment, Trump looks to reward conservative Catholics for their loyalty and “On the other hand, Trump dangles rewards to those who show loyalty — a favorable tweet, or a presidential visit to their state — and his heavy hand has assured victory for a number of Republican candidates in their primaries.”

[AustinDevil]

I dunno. Getting pardoned is a pretty nice reward.

I don’t think that the article you referenced has the most impartial take on the matter. Why wouldn't Trump reward loyalty? Isn't that a strong incentive for loyalty? According to other sources: Trump Rewards Vulnerable Senators for Loyalty in Impeachment, Trump looks to reward conservative Catholics for their loyalty and “On the other hand, Trump dangles rewards to those who show loyalty — a favorable tweet, or a presidential visit to their state — and his heavy hand has assured victory for a number of Republican candidates in their primaries.”

You know what? You both make excellent points. On the other hand, in each example you mention (or allude to, in the case of pardons), each of the people or groups of people you reference are among those from whom Trump really, really wants or needs things. There are many Michael Cohens for every Michael Flynn...

[budwom]

Bad news for budwom -- it looks like Trump's rally in NH tomorrow is being postponed due to expected bad weather.

I can deal with it! In fact the path of Tropical Storm Fay is supposed to track right over Womble Acres. I suspect the cancellation may have as much to do with concerns about crowd size as with the weather. They don't need another Tulsa.
Even Repub Gov Sununu said he wouldn't attend the rally...

[JasonEvans]

Trump's calculus appears to be to discredit the portion of the press whom disagree with him, sowing distrust in them from his base and as many in-betweens as possible. That strategy can work so long as there are either enough in-betweens who are convinced, or that voter turnout is sufficiently low among those who believe the press (or a combination of both).

If Trump was picking his targets more carefully, maybe only focusing on CNN or the NY Times or Wa Post or NSNBC, then I think he could be effective at raising questions and doubt in a large segment of the American people, but by carpet bombing pretty much everyone in the mainstream media world I suspect he has turned off a lot of voters that he might have been persuadable to his side.

To be clear, it is not just his attacks on the media that have done this. It is his twitter tirades, attacks on international allies, and other stuff that just falls outside the norms of what Presidents of any party have done in the past.

I think we can all agree that the voting populace is made up of a) people who care passionately about certain issues and b) people who don't. Group A -- whether they care about abortion or taxes or health care or immigration or racial justice or whatever -- pick the candidate they back based on whoever comes closest to them on the issues. I suspect that group makes up a good 70-80% of the electorate. But there is a group that, frankly, don't really know or care that much about the issues. These are the folks who swing from Dem to GOP from election to election often based on "who would you rather have a beer with" or "general likability." Despite some "out there" statements during the campaign, I think Trump did a pretty nice job of winning those folks in 2016. I think he is doing a wretched job of winning them in 2020. And I think attacks on the media, some of which almost appear to be something out of a crazy conspiracy theory, are part of why those folks are largely turned off.

-Jason "I doubt anyone reads the above and finds it a revelation, but I don't feel like we talk enough about how Trump's lack of.. well... 'normalcy' is impacting the election" Evans

[swood1000]

I seriously doubt that someone from the Bush foreign services area (Secretary of State, National Security Administrator, etc.) would want anything to do with Trump. That group has been amongst Trump's harshest critics from within the Republican ranks.

My guess is that she is much more aligned with the thinking of her predecessor at Sec/St. Colin Powell, who will be voting for Biden.

Plus, she's a member of Augusta National now. She has things to do.

You make some very persuasive points. She wouldn’t want to sully herself in advance of 2024 if that is in her sights. But as we know, politics makes strange bedfellows. And the presidency has been known to be a siren song for those who think it might be within their grasp. As for 2024, she is a bit too centrist to become a natural recipient of Trump’s core supporters but she could perhaps gain their loyalty and their default support as vice president (although her only slightly pro-life position would be a stumbling block). Would there be no way for her to associate with Trump without losing all credibility with the never-Trumpers? Perhaps a story could be concocted according to which she consented to join the ticket at great personal sacrifice in order that the country would be spared the apocalypse that would be a Biden presidency.