2020 Presidential Election

[swood1000]

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...

Not sure I grasp your point. Michael Cohen was disloyal to Trump (and also failed to avoid criminal conduct not related to Trump). Are you saying that Trump was disloyal to him first?

[MarkD83]

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).

My take on this is that Trump comes from a business world which is inherently autocratic. As "owner/president" of businesses he gets to decide what is right or wrong. Every decision in the business world is a matter of opinion perhaps based on some facts about the marketplace, but a business plan is still an opinion of what the business owner thinks is the right direction to take based on the market.

Anyone that disagrees with him who is in the "business" is fired and discredited. Anyone who disagrees with him who is "not in the business" has to be discredited.

[Acymetric]

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

I think your bubble might be affecting your analysis here (your estimate of how effective Trump's attacks on the media are with various segments of society and your 70-80% estimate of the breakdown of the electorate).

[AustinDevil]

Not sure I grasp your point. Michael Cohen was disloyal to Trump (and also failed to avoid criminal conduct not related to Trump). Are you saying that Trump was disloyal to him first?

Cohen was frozen out of Trump's inner circle, and the White House, after the election. You balked at my link from the Atlantic as if it were biased, but the Atlantic is highly respected; feel free to point out any errors in their reporting of that piece.

[Bluedog]

I think your bubble might be affecting your analysis here (your estimate of how effective Trump's attacks on the media are with various segments of society and your 70-80% estimate of the breakdown of the electorate).

Yep the last poll on trusting the media I saw had the absolute highest source being trusted by only 48% of Americans. That was ABC. There's also a large political divide as only 33% of Republicans trust ABC. 65% of Republicans trust Fox News.

https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/democrats-report-much-higher-levels-of-trust-in-a-number-of-news-sources-than-republicans/

[Phredd3]

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 think that article does a very poor job of advancing that argument. In the first place, foreign leaders are a whole different ballgame. They are not "Trump's people" and they can't be truly loyal. Browbeaten into temporary obsequiousness, perhaps, but that doesn't make them loyal. A foreign leader is beholden to his own country first and foremost. However, I would hasten to note that Trump's language in connection with Mexico has softened considerably as Obrador has become more and more publicly complimentary toward Trump.

Second, most of the cited examples of staff in the article are people who were widely known as not terribly loyal. Tillerson criticized Trump actively behind closed doors. Kelly lost his job after a long serious of incidents where he was wasn't able to adequately defend the President. The other cited examples are similar. Others in this thread have cited examples of rewarded loyalty that are more persuasive, and I'd suggest that current cabinet members Ben Carson, William Barr, and even Steve Mnuchin also fit in a cadre of Trump loyalists.

Trump even stuck with Cohen until the heat became too much and Cohen said he might cooperate. Only then did Cohen go under the bus.

[Skydog]

The distribution of people who view it positively is pretty concentrated though. Referencing the confederate flag in a positive light is unlikely to cost you any states, but could well help you carry others (because of the way views on the flag are distributed and because I suspect that a lot of the people who view it negatively are of the "I view it negatively, but who really cares" variety).
...

Trump speaking out against the toppling of statues of Washington, Jefferson and the like could help win him support among moderates. But his further ventures into defending the Confederate flag and Confederate monuments is a losing proposition imo. His attacks on NASCAR's decision to ban the Confederate flag and his follow-up attack on Bubba Wallace (who remains popular within NASCAR and with his teammates) surely appealed to the more "racially concerned" elements of his base. But he already had those votes locked up and those moves won't really expand his voter bloc. However they do reinforce the narrative that Trump is being driven by racist motivations and so will likely help motivate African American voter turnout. And AA turnout may well end up being decisive in this election. Not necessarily, but its a real possibility that turnout will decide the election in some southern states, including NC. I just can't see how fighting for the confederate flag is a winning move.

[swood1000]

-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

Trump’s lack of normalcy makes an interesting contrast to the lack of normalcy with respect to other issues facing the electorate. If there is one thing that seems to be in short supply generally this election it is normalcy. Besides Trump’s peculiarities we have conventional politicians reserving judgment on whether statues of George Washington should be taken down, whether police departments across the country should be uniformly defunded, whether mobs are at least partially to be excused after looting and burning small businesses, which PC violation or expression of opinion requires banishment. We have significant segments of the electorate who are on board, to varying degrees, with justifying their preferred normalcy anomaly. A kind of revolution is afoot. Accusations by various sides concerning which normalcy deficit is the most concerning are intriguing to consider, and to weigh against each other.

[dudog84]

Not sure I grasp your point. Michael Cohen was disloyal to Trump (and also failed to avoid criminal conduct not related to Trump). Are you saying that Trump was disloyal to him first?

What are you talking about? I thought he was in jail because of actions related to Trump.

[OldPhiKap]

we have conventional politicians reserving judgment on whether statues of George Washington should be taken down, whether police departments across the country should be uniformly defunded, whether mobs are at least partially to be excused after looting and burning small businesses, which PC violation or expression of opinion requires banishment.

People keep making statements like this without citation. What “conventional politicians” are espousing these views?

Link, please.

[Skydog]

People keep making statements like this without citation. What “conventional politicians” are espousing these views?

Link, please.

I'm curious about this as well. In politics (and talk radio) most of the energy is expended fighting against positions that few hold. Well few outside of Twitter (where extreme views seem to dominate).

[MartyClark]

My take on this is that Trump comes from a business world which is inherently autocratic. As "owner/president" of businesses he gets to decide what is right or wrong. Every decision in the business world is a matter of opinion perhaps based on some facts about the marketplace, but a business plan is still an opinion of what the business owner thinks is the right direction to take based on the market.

Anyone that disagrees with him who is in the "business" is fired and discredited. Anyone who disagrees with him who is "not in the business" has to be discredited.

I agree with everything you say. At the same time, the best business entities encourage a contrary view on important issues. It's really easy to find yes men. A good business leader values a well reasoned, evidence driven, contrary opinion.

[MarkD83]

I agree with everything you say. At the same time, the best business entities encourage a contrary view on important issues. It's really easy to find yes men. A good business leader values a well reasoned, evidence driven, contrary opinion.

I also agree with your statement. In the case of Trump there are many failed businesses that suggest he was not a great business man.

[Tripping William]

Trump commutes Roger Stone’s sentence late on a Friday. His latest 3-D chess move.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Trump commutes Roger Stone’s sentence late on a Friday. His latest 3-D chess move.

As mentioned above. Rewards for loyalty.

I don't think it is political nor a stretch to say that. I do wonder how it will play out in the grand scheme. It may not be a needle mover, but it also may be another drop in the bucket. The first one implies that any said event changes something. Trump has pretty much proven invulnerable to those. The second? We'll see. Events add up and make that bucket heavy.

[OldPhiKap]

As mentioned above. Rewards for loyalty.

I don't think it is political nor a stretch to say that. I do wonder how it will play out in the grand scheme. It may not be a needle mover, but it also may be another drop in the bucket. The first one implies that any said event changes something. Trump has pretty much proven invulnerable to those. The second? We'll see. Events add up and make that bucket heavy.

Reward for loyalty — Or quid pro quo for silence. They’re not really even trying to hide it.

[dudog84]

A bit surprised this hasn't been posted since we are a Duke site, and Duke is of course tax-exempt. Haven't been able to find if we are accused of indoctrination, but I assume that if one university loses standing, they all do or lawsuits will fly. But universities, through their sports teams, have a ton of fans and supporters that were not educated at their favorite university. Don't see how this helps Trump widen his base. In this country, most people care more about their sports than their politics.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...LuU?li=BBnb7Kz

Trump said: "Too many Universities and School Systems are about Radical Left Indoctrination, not Education. Therefore, I am telling the Treasury Department to re-examine their Tax-Exempt Status... and/or Funding, which will be taken away if this Propaganda or Act Against Public Policy continues. Our children must be Educated, not Indoctrinated!"

[sagegrouse]

A bit surprised this hasn't been posted since we are a Duke site, and Duke is of course tax-exempt. Haven't been able to find if we are accused of indoctrination, but I assume that if one university loses standing, they all do or lawsuits will fly. But universities, through their sports teams, have a ton of fans and supporters that were not educated at their favorite university. Don't see how this helps Trump widen his base. In this country, most people care more about their sports than their politics.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...LuU?li=BBnb7Kz

Trump said: "Too many Universities and School Systems are about Radical Left Indoctrination, not Education. Therefore, I am telling the Treasury Department to re-examine their Tax-Exempt Status... and/or Funding, which will be taken away if this Propaganda or Act Against Public Policy continues. Our children must be Educated, not Indoctrinated!"

Total blather of no political signficance whatever -- except to further undermine public support for higher education.

[Bostondevil]

I am fairly confident that POTUS does not have any advance notice of the decisions.

I have not read the briefs or listened to the argument, so this is a personal guess and not a learned one:

* NY AG gets what he wants, in full or in very large part.

* Congress is murkier. I would not be surprised to see a lack of resolution -- either (1) send the case back to the trial court for further hearing; (2) something like the DACA decision where the court says that there is a lack of showing of some predicate requirement, and therefore sends Congress back to try again if it wants; or (3) a mixed bag of getting some and not getting some. But this is a much harder case IMO than the criminal investigation issue.

But you can go broke trying to guess what a court will do, even in a case you've argued. I wouldn't make book on any particular outcome.

And yet, you would have won betting this hand!

[PackMan97]

Total blather of no political signficance whatever -- except to further undermine public support for higher education.

Disagree. I experienced this in a very real way at NC State. It is well known that there is a significant lack in political diversity in most universities.

I can't imagine this even cracks most folks top 20 issues for this election.

Trump can try to make it an issue, but it just seems like a distraction t hat is unlikely to gain any traction.