10 Reasons Trump Will Win Reelection

 

Following up on the 2016 classic 10 Reasons Trump Will Win, here are the 10 Reasons Trump Will Win Reelection:

1. First time’s the hardest

Parties running for a second term have won eleven times and lost just once (Carter / Reagan) since 1900. Getting elected is hard. Getting reelected is much easier. Especially when…

2. Morning in America (and the world?) again

Things have improved for the majority of the country not obsessed with politics. Especially when compared with the fear-mongering predictions.

Dow will never cross 18,000 again? It’s crossed 24.

Trump has no magic wand to get the growth rate up or bring jobs back? He did.

Net neutrality will kill everybody who didn’t die from the tax cut apocalypse. So will pulling out of the Paris Accords and moving the embassy to Jerusalem.

Handmaid’s Tale, putting people in camps, blundering us into nuclear war.

In reality, far fewer people are dying in Syria and elsewhere than under prior administrations. By election day we’re likely to see further steps towards North Korean denuclearizing and partially reunifying with the South. We may also see further progress in Iranians liberating themselves, and continued improvements in relations between Israel and her neighbors. The Islamic State caliphate has been almost entirely taken down. Things will likely look better on election day.

Other than the deranged Trump hatred, the country and the world are better off than they were two years ago, quite the opposite of the insane predictions.

3. Reagan Dems have no home to return to

This election will largely be decided by the working class Rust Belt voters whose families gave us JFK, Reagan, Bill Clinton, Obama, and Trump.

The Democrats hate them. They really hate them.

Chuck and Nancy established that walls are immoral. And they’re the moderates. Open borders are more important than open government.

Gramps’ wing that Kevin Williamson trollingly (but accurately) described as National Socialists has gone full Socialist International. Open borders and socialism.

They want to replace the deplorables with better people from elsewhere.

This is the “the future is female and intersectional” party now.

They hate Catholics, coal, Trump voters, and (strangely) bringing American troops back from the Middle East. And they want to pack the court.

Despite all the misleading talk about Repubs being extremists, in more ways the realignment saw Trump take the middle and the popular positions and leave the extremes to the Dems.

4. Hillary wasn’t the problem

Ask Hillary supporters why Trump won and they’ll say “Russia.”

Ask Trump-hating Repubs and they’ll say “Hillary.”

No.

Hillary had many flaws, but also strengths.

The first woman. She was secretary of state, senator, and first lady. Her husband loved and was loved by the voters Hillary needed. She would take us back to the better and less bitter 90s, while also taking us forward.

Her successor will have her own flaws, and none of these strengths. And by election day, will have likability numbers in the Hillary / Trump range. 2016 was a choice between two historically unpopular candidates more because of bitter partisanship than because of the particular candidates.

5. Trump’s opponents go down

Avenatti, Stormy, The Weekly Standard, Liz Warren, Hillary, Corker, Flake, Comey, Michael Wolff, Michelle Wolf, the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Merkel, Macron, Zuckerberg, Colin Kaepernick, the Oscars, Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, and Jeb!, to name a few.

Some of these went down when Trump found a vulnerability and kept hitting it.

But mostly, Trump opponents self-destruct.

Some went down in their misguided responses to Trump. Rubio was the first to learn, too late for him, that Trump didn’t change the rules, he’s just exempt from them. The old rules still apply to everyone else.

Unless you’re Trump, if you go Trump, you lose.

Some went down because the forces they unleashed to fight Trump turned on them. Often with good reason. Eventually, they came for Robespierre too. Or as Derek Hunter likes saying, Frankenstein always comes back to the castle.

Others went down because they never should have been elevated. Deranged media had beer goggles for anyone who attacked Trump, and eventually had to cut bait after further embarrassing themselves with clowns like Avenatti and Wolff. I suspect those who elevated AOC will suffer for it.

All of them misread the terrain, playing to the clapping seals of Trump-haters, oblivious to their vulnerabilities and to how their shtick plays outside their bubble.

Trump’s opponents may start with decent numbers. They won’t stay decent.

While on the other side…

6. Trump has already been hit with everything

Let’s call Trump a Putin-puppet racist rapist, compulsive liar, narcissistic conman who sexually desires his daughter, and is literally Hitler.

Done. What else you got?

There’s a saturation point after which more attacks just show decent folks that you’re the bully.

This will be especially true when more Americans fully understand things like the Steele Dossier scandal. About which…

7. Dems lost their key corrupt allies

Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Powers, Rice, Ohr, Strzok, Page, Lois Lerner, and others are out. I’m sure Dems still have some dirty tricks up their sleeves. But it’s going to be much harder for them in 2020 when their corrupt friends hold less power.

8. The media has been exposed

Media didn’t have much credibility in 2016, but they still had some. They always had some token Repubs to give them the facade of non-partisanship.

But they spent the past few years all-in against Trump. They don’t even have Trump agnostics at most major outlets. Just a combination of Trump-hating Democrats and Ana Navarros. Fewer people who can be influenced will believe a word they say.

9. Timing

When George HW seemed to be soaring to reelection, George Will warned that Bush got the timing wrong.

The idea was to have the big divisive fights early (Trump went overboard here) and to unify before the reelection.

Trump will time his crises so that most resolve before his reelection. Even limited victories will move important numbers in the right directions.

Stay on point, Donald” will be gracious at the end of the campaign, winning back some people who want to vote for him if he’ll just stop being mean for a bit.

The House elections were a disaster but Trump correctly focused on the Senate in the midterms, helping to knock off four of the Trump-state ten. He can close well in most of the swing states.

On the other side, the normal opposition playbook is to accept the election results, appear to work with the president, and then say “we tried but he’s just impossible.” Four years of “the Russians tricked the racists into voting for the monster so we should eliminate the electoral college to take away those voters’ power” is an approach that’s never been tried before. For good reason.

10. Repubs are more unified

Repubs were a hot mess on election day in 2016, and in the year following. Most were positioning themselves for the post-Trump era. It took long enough, but they’ve now accepted that their only path to success lies through Trump’s. Trump in turn accepted that his only path to success lies through Cocaine Mitch.

Corker and Flake (and Bannon and Omarosa) are gone. Romney attacked once; he likely won’t do it again.

Lindsey 2.0 has become Trump’s leading wingman. Trump can stop being his own bad cop as allies finally have his back, as most Repub voters want.

Ninety percent of Repub voters support Trump. Many Late-Trump Republicans, who hated Trump during the primaries, are now more solidly pro-Trump than even the MAGAs and Reagan Dems. Trump won their loyalty with judges, Jerusalem (and Israel in general), deregulation, energy development, and generally standing up for “us” (Christian baker, America, deplorables, Kavanaugh…) against those who oppose us.

On the other side, Dems will destroy each other.

Do they work with Trump, or not? Once you’ve established that Trump, Repubs, and everything they stand for are wrong and evil, how do you move forward?

If Repubs have a primary, it will just further prove how solidly they support Trump.

Dem primaries are going to be brutal, and may even go to a contested convention where the candidates will vie for the title of biggest lunatic.

The DNC may be corrupt and evil but they were only mostly clueless. They won’t be able to control the process or the results this time. They won’t be able to make the top challenger say things like “nobody cares about your emails,” or pretend that the delegates didn’t vote against God and Jerusalem. They won’t be able to stop their party from following the Israeli left into long-term opposition.

Summary: A very short story

Once upon a time, there was a large group of swing voters in swing states who were not just underrepresented but despised by many of the most powerful and influential people on all sides.

An unlikely hero or grifter or conman, maybe all of the above, took up their cause. The respectable rich and powerful people hit him with everything they had. But they failed to stop him.

People and groups that hated this man decided to try to work with him, making those who still hated him even angrier. Those who worked with him were happy and successful. Those who opposed him were not, and they kept getting uglier, angrier and crazier, until they had no hope of ever winning back the people they so hated.

Halfway through his first term, he was in the middle of many battles. But he ended them before reelection day, with considerable success.

He went into reelection day with a lot more support than he had four years earlier, especially among the swing voters from swing states whom he first championed. His opponents double down on screaming at the sky.

The end.

There are 52 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. cdor Member

    And may it be so. Amen.

    • #1
    • January 14, 2019, at 8:29 AM PDT
    • 11 likes
  2. EDISONPARKS Member

    Trump’s only chance in 2020 is for the (D)’s to do what they did in 2016.

    Nominate a candidate which enough of the electorate finds more detestable than Trump …. which is quite possible.

    • #2
    • January 14, 2019, at 8:47 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  3. thelonious Member

    Your stats are wrong about #1. Bush Sr. lost reelection in 1992 as did Taft in 1912. Also both Truman in 1952 and Johnson in 1968 decided not to run for reelection. Their successors lost those elections.

    • #3
    • January 14, 2019, at 8:54 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  4. Gil Reich Inactive
    Gil Reich Post author

    thelonious (View Comment):

    Your stats are wrong about #1. Bush Sr. lost reelection in 1992 as did Taft in 1912. Also both Truman in 1952 and Johnson in 1968 decided not to run for reelection. Their successors lost those elections.

    Bush Sr and Hoover were running for their parties’ fourth terms when they lost. Taft was running for his party’s fifth.

    • #4
    • January 14, 2019, at 8:58 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  5. Mendel Member

    One reason conspicuously missing from this list is “he upheld his biggest promises to repeal Obamacare and build a wall”.

    And frankly, I agree with the omission. There’s a very good chance Trump will be re-elected without fulfilling either promise. Heck, I’ll probably be voting for him bar some drastic unexpected change on his part. But I think this phenomenon is worth noting every time Republican voters whine about “how come our elected officials never do what they promise us?”

    Well, the reason is because we reward them for not upholding their promises. Why should they go through the hard work of the balancing act that is our healthcare system or the political nightmares surrounding immigration enforcement when they can just obfuscate, blame their failures on someone else (Democrats, courts, GOP leadership, dead Senators, etc.) and get re-elected?

    • #5
    • January 14, 2019, at 9:04 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  6. thelonious Member

    As far as the rest of your points:

    #2. I agree things are going well but it’s not translating to higher approval ratings. His approval ratings should be in the 60’s but they’re still in the 40’s.

    #3 Reagan Dems are dying off. That well is running dry.

    #4. Sort of agree. Sort of disagree. You make a solid point. Still think Hillary was very flawed.

    #5. Those who wrestle in the mud with him get dirty.

    #6 Agree

    #7 Dems just reload with corrupt allies. They’ll be stronger now since they have the house.

    #8 The media is pretty fractured. People mainly go to media they agree with.

    #9 His timing might be bad. What happens if the economy slows down in 2020? When does the Mueller report come out? I’m sure the timing of the report is designed to come out at a really inopportune time.

    #10 The party is unified but party participation has been going down in both parties for years. Getting your base out is still important but not as big of a factor as it was in years past. Based on the mid terms the Republicans are losing in the suburbs now.

    • #6
    • January 14, 2019, at 9:19 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  7. Misthiocracy grudgingly Member

    Gil Reich:

    Some went down in their misguided responses to Trump. Rubio was the first to learn, too late for him, that Trump didn’t change the rules, he’s just exempt from them. The old rules still apply to everyone else.

    Unless you’re Trump, if you go Trump, you lose.

    I wager that John McAfee might have found more political success as a Republican running for Congress or the Senate, rather than a Libertarian running for President.

    In other words, I wager than one can “go Trump” if one is already “Trump-like” to begin with. It’s not a guarantee of success, but it’s not a guarantee of failure either.

    I wager that the real kiss of death comes when one tries to be something one is not. e.g. Howard Dean trying to be a showman when his strength was as a sober yet compassionate manager. He was the “real-life Jed Bartlet” candidate right up until “The Scream”.

    • #7
    • January 14, 2019, at 9:22 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  8. Western Chauvinist Member

    Gil Reich:

    Let’s call Trump a Putin-puppet racist rapist, compulsive liar, narcissistic con-man who sexually desires his daughter and is literally Hitler.

    Done. What else you got?

    Haha! Love this!

    You’re not going, are you Gil? You can’t go!

    • #8
    • January 14, 2019, at 9:23 AM PDT
    • 12 likes
  9. thelonious Member

    Gil Reich (View Comment):

    thelonious (View Comment):

    Your stats are wrong about #1. Bush Sr. lost reelection in 1992 as did Taft in 1912. Also both Truman in 1952 and Johnson in 1968 decided not to run for reelection. Their successors lost those elections.

    Bush Sr and Hoover were running for their parties’ fourth terms when they lost. Taft was running for his party’s fifth.

    Sort of misread your first point. You did write party. My bad.

    • #9
    • January 14, 2019, at 9:24 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  10. Western Chauvinist Member

    Mendel (View Comment):
    One reason conspicuously missing from this list is “he upheld his biggest promises to repeal Obamacare and build a wall”.

    Do you believe Trump would have signed the Obamacare repeal bill McCain torpedoed? Do you believe he’d accept 5 billion to “build the wall” and try to start construction? 

    I don’t think it’s fair to assign these as Trump’s failures. 

    • #10
    • January 14, 2019, at 9:26 AM PDT
    • 12 likes
  11. Misthiocracy grudgingly Member

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Mendel (View Comment):
    One reason conspicuously missing from this list is “he upheld his biggest promises to repeal Obamacare and build a wall”.

    Do you believe Trump would have signed the Obamacare repeal bill McCain torpedoed? Do you believe he’d accept 5 billion to “build the wall” and try to start construction?

    I don’t think it’s fair to assign these as Trump’s failures.

    It’s fair to assign them as “failures”, but not (necessarily) fair to assign them as “broken promises”.

    If I promise to win a race but I only get bronze, that’s a failure. If I promise to win a race but then I go get a hot dog instead, that’s a broken promise.

    • #11
    • January 14, 2019, at 9:35 AM PDT
    • 19 likes
  12. Mendel Member

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    I don’t think it’s fair to assign these as Trump’s failures. 

    Which is precisely why I wrote:

    Mendel (View Comment):
    blame their failures on someone else (Democrats, courts, GOP leadership, dead Senators, etc.)

    Once upon a time, the philosophy of the American presidency was “the buck stops here”. Now the mantra among Republican voters is “if you can pass the blame to someone else, you’re golden”. And then everyone scratches their head about why policies never get passed.

    • #12
    • January 14, 2019, at 9:43 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  13. Mendel Member

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Do you believe Trump would have signed the Obamacare repeal bill McCain torpedoed? Do you believe he’d accept 5 billion to “build the wall” and try to start construction?

    I ask myself why Trump didn’t show 1/10th of his current passion for the wall at any point while Republicans still held the House.

    Had he lit a fire under the GOP Congress’ rear ends, he almost certainly could have secured much more than a paltry $5B. After all, McConnell has been consistent in saying that if Trump states his intentions firmly on immigration, he’ll try to round up his caucus behind that. And even if the GOPe had stood in his way, why didn’t he even try? I feel as though I’m one of the few currently asking themselves “where was this Trump when it could have made a difference?”.

    Perhaps my general point is this: one of Trump’s major selling points – both by himself and many of his ardent supporters – was that we can’t trust the establishment Republicans to pass the measures the voters want, so we need Trump to bash their heads together. Trump wins, the GOP holds Congress, no GOPe heads bashed. I’d say by that measure, he failed to live up to a major campaign promise. And yet his supporters seem to be, in the official Ricochet parlance, OK with that.

    • #13
    • January 14, 2019, at 9:56 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  14. Gil Reich Inactive
    Gil Reich Post author

    Mendel (View Comment):
    I feel as though I’m one of the few currently asking themselves “where was this Trump when it could have made a difference?”.

    Many of us ask this. @aaronmiller asked it in a recent comment 

    Why did President Trump wait until Republican domination of Congress ended to publicly focus on the wall?

    and a few people attempted answers. 

    Reminder that most of us Late-Trumpers consider Trump to be seriously flawed, but far better than his opponents, and far better than he gets credit for. Trump should have pushed on the wall much harder and much sooner. In his defense, hard to pass a Dem filibuster on this, and many Repubs were giving him pretty luke warm support for a while. But yes, he should have pushed this much harder. I think also he was planning on a grand deal and then some of his base went nuts (perhaps correctly) and he backed down, leaving some of those who had followed his lead out on a limb.

    • #14
    • January 14, 2019, at 11:17 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  15. Gil Reich Inactive
    Gil Reich Post author

    thelonious (View Comment):

    As far as the rest of your points:

    #2. I agree things are going well but it’s not translating to higher approval ratings. His approval ratings should be in the 60’s but they’re still in the 40’s.

    I think it may be many years before a president has approval ratings in the 60s again. But yes, some of the reasons his approval is low is Trumpian.

    #3 Reagan Dems are dying off. That well is running dry.

    Not really. I wrote people whose families gave us JFK, Reagan, Bill, Obama & Trump. The white working class is still very big, especially in the rust belt states that will most decide this election.

    #4. Sort of agree. Sort of disagree. You make a solid point. Still think Hillary was very flawed.

    #5. Those who wrestle in the mud with him get dirty.

    When you wrestle with a pig …

    #6 Agree

    #7 Dems just reload with corrupt allies. They’ll be stronger now since they have the house.

    Yeah, but they won’t have the senior levels of the FBI, NSA, IRS and FEC working for them this time. That makes a difference.

    #8 The media is pretty fractured. People mainly go to media they agree with.

    Yes and no. People who aren’t political junkies get their news wherever it’s on. ABC, CBS, CNN, AP. I think there’s a lot more awareness among non-junkies how #FakeNews these guys are, and specifically that they’re a participant, not a neutral referee, in this war with the president.

    #9 His timing might be bad. What happens if the economy slows down in 2020? When does the Mueller report come out? I’m sure the timing of the report is designed to come out at a really inopportune time.

    Yes, if the economy goes south he has a problem. I think the Mueller report will come out in 2019, and it (and the IG and other reports) will be quite the disappointment for Dems. 

    #10 The party is unified but party participation has been going down in both parties for years. Getting your base out is still important but not as big of a factor as it was in years past. Based on the mid terms the Republicans are losing in the suburbs now.

    True. Still, it’s helpful to have Repub politicians a lot more solidly behind him now. The Senate has gone from 45 + Murkowski, Collins, Flake, Corker, McCain & Rand Paul to 51 + Murkowski and Collins, with Paul firmly supporting the president when the president needs him. This is a huge difference. Kevin McCarthy is a far more vocal Trump supporter than Ryan was (sadly, he’s not the speaker).

    And among voters, Trump has a solid group of MAGA, Reagan Dems &Late-Trump Repubs.

    Yes, the Repubs are losing the suburbs and that’s a big problem. Though while devastating for the House, they may survive this in the Senate & Electoral College.

    • #15
    • January 14, 2019, at 11:29 AM PDT
    • Like
  16. Western Chauvinist Member

    Mendel (View Comment):
    I’d say by that measure, he failed to live up to a major campaign promise. And yet his supporters seem to be, in the official Ricochet parlance, OK with that.

    Well, he failed to drain the swamp, didn’t he? Do you think any of his “ardent” supporters expected he would? In two to four years? I’d say this is a case of Trump critics taking him literally and not seriously again. Does that make me an “ardent” supporter? Or a Trump realist?

    I’m not happy with the lack of improvement of border security. Could Trump have done more? Maybe. But, he’s battling deeply entrenched interests in government and media and, considering the headwinds, I wouldn’t call this a breach of his promises quite yet. 

     

    • #16
    • January 14, 2019, at 11:37 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  17. cdor Member

    Mendel (View Comment):

    One reason conspicuously missing from this list is “he upheld his biggest promises to repeal Obamacare and build a wall”.

    And frankly, I agree with the omission. There’s a very good chance Trump will be re-elected without fulfilling either promise. Heck, I’ll probably be voting for him bar some drastic unexpected change on his part. But I think this phenomenon is worth noting every time Republican voters whine about “how come our elected officials never do what they promise us?”

    Well, the reason is because we reward them for not upholding their promises. Why should they go through the hard work of the balancing act that is our healthcare system or the political nightmares surrounding immigration enforcement when they can just obfuscate, blame their failures on someone else (Democrats, courts, GOP leadership, dead Senators, etc.) and get re-elected?

    @mendel do you hold Trump responsible for not having built the wall and/or repealing Obamacare? And do you believe most voters will hold him responsible for those two deficiencies?

    EDIT: Sorry I see @westernchauvinist already asked you. I’ll go back and look for your answer.

    • #17
    • January 14, 2019, at 11:38 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. Miffed White Male Member

    Gil Reich (View Comment):

    Mendel (View Comment):
    I feel as though I’m one of the few currently asking themselves “where was this Trump when it could have made a difference?”.

    Many of us ask this. @aaronmiller asked it in a recent comment

    Why did President Trump wait until Republican domination of Congress ended to publicly focus on the wall?

    and a few people attempted answers.

    Reminder that most of us Late-Trumpers consider Trump to be seriously flawed, but far better than his opponents, and far better than he gets credit for. Trump should have pushed on the wall much harder and much sooner. In his defense, hard to pass a Dem filibuster on this, and many Repubs were giving him pretty luke warm support for a while. But yes, he should have pushed this much harder. I think also he was planning on a grand deal and then some of his base went nuts (perhaps correctly) and he backed down, leaving some of those who had followed his lead out on a limb.

    I assume he was deferring to the Congressional Republican caucus who didn’t want it pushed.

    Now that they’re gone, he doesn’t need to defer anymore.

    • #18
    • January 14, 2019, at 11:44 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  19. Gil Reich Inactive
    Gil Reich Post author

    cdor (View Comment):

    Mendel (View Comment):

    One reason conspicuously missing from this list is “he upheld his biggest promises to repeal Obamacare and build a wall”.

    And frankly, I agree with the omission. There’s a very good chance Trump will be re-elected without fulfilling either promise. Heck, I’ll probably be voting for him bar some drastic unexpected change on his part. But I think this phenomenon is worth noting every time Republican voters whine about “how come our elected officials never do what they promise us?”

    Well, the reason is because we reward them for not upholding their promises. Why should they go through the hard work of the balancing act that is our healthcare system or the political nightmares surrounding immigration enforcement when they can just obfuscate, blame their failures on someone else (Democrats, courts, GOP leadership, dead Senators, etc.) and get re-elected?

    @mendel do you hold Trump responsible for not having built the wall and/or repealing Obamacare? And do you believe most voters will hold him responsible for those two deficiencies?

    I can’t answer for Mendel but in my view voters will hold him responsible if he doesn’t make significant progress on the wall. It will be like HW’s read my lips. That’s why Dems are so focused on stopping him.

    I don’t think most voters will blame him for Obamacare though. That was more a GOP Congress thing, and may be part of why they lost the House.

    • #19
    • January 14, 2019, at 11:45 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  20. cdor Member

    Mendel (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Do you believe Trump would have signed the Obamacare repeal bill McCain torpedoed? Do you believe he’d accept 5 billion to “build the wall” and try to start construction?

    I ask myself why Trump didn’t show 1/10th of his current passion for the wall at any point while Republicans still held the House.

    Had he lit a fire under the GOP Congress’ rear ends, he almost certainly could have secured much more than a paltry $5B. After all, McConnell has been consistent in saying that if Trump states his intentions firmly on immigration, he’ll try to round up his caucus behind that. And even if the GOPe had stood in his way, why didn’t he even try? I feel as though I’m one of the few currently asking themselves “where was this Trump when it could have made a difference?”.

    Perhaps my general point is this: one of Trump’s major selling points – both by himself and many of his ardent supporters – was that we can’t trust the establishment Republicans to pass the measures the voters want, so we need Trump to bash their heads together. Trump wins, the GOP holds Congress, no GOPe heads bashed. I’d say by that measure, he failed to live up to a major campaign promise. And yet his supporters seem to be, in the official Ricochet parlance, OK with that.

    I thought Trump did attempt to get funding for the wall in the first budget deal. He offered to increase the DACA numbers to 2 million and Schumer shut the government down to keep the budget bill vote from happening. He was getting very lukewarm support from his own party. They even allowed a Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate their own Republican President. Sometimes I wonder why Trump would even bother to run in 2020. He could slide down the banana just like the 40 Congresscritters who resigned before the last election.

    • #20
    • January 14, 2019, at 11:55 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  21. Stad Thatcher

    Gil Reich: 3. Reagan Dems have no home to return to

    This one is “yuge” to me, but I won’t call them Reagan Democrats here in 2019. I’ll call them conservative Democrats using my definition:

    A Democrat voter who is typically blue-collar, Christian, gun owning, hunts and fishes, fully supports our military, capitalist (but may not know it), supports law-enforcement, is appalled by what is being taught in public schools but can’t do anything about it, balances the family budget . . . let me stop here for brevity.

    Where he differs from conservative Republicans is:

    Believes government can be a solution to our nation’s problems, supports government social welfare programs, supports public schools in principle (even if opposed to their agenda for their children), supports LGBT rights (although opposed to the LBGT agenda being rammed down their throats), again, let me stop here for brevity.

    Trump can win again with these folks behind him, because his agenda is something they want, something they voted for in 2016. The MSM cannot attack Trump without attacking what these folks want and believe.

    To me, the Democrat party can only survive if it returns to its base of people represented by my second paragraph. Dems like to use static scoring when looking at tax increases, but the same happens with all their other agenda items written into law. People change their behavior with tax increases, but I believe these “forgotten men and women” Democrat voters changed their voting behavior in 2016, and will do so again in 2020.

    • #21
    • January 14, 2019, at 12:27 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  22. Gil Reich Inactive
    Gil Reich Post author

    Stad (View Comment):

    Gil Reich: 3. Reagan Dems have no home to return to

    This one is “yuge” to me, but I won’t call them Reagan Democrats here in 2019. I’ll call them conservative Democrats using my definition:

    A Democrat voter who is typically blue-collar, Christian, gun owning, hunts and fishes, fully supports our military, capitalist (but may not know it), supports law-enforcement, is appalled by what is being taught in public schools but can’t do anything about it, balances the family budget . . . let me stop here for brevity.

    Where he differs from conservative Republicans is:

    Believes government can be a solution to our nation’s problems, supports government social welfare programs, supports public schools in principle (even if opposed to their agenda for their children), supports LGBT rights (although opposed to the LBGT agenda being rammed down their throats), again, let me stop here for brevity.

    Trump can win again with these folks behind him, because his agenda is something they want, something they voted for in 2016. The MSM cannot attack Trump without attacking what these folks want and believe.

    To me, the Democrat party can only survive if it returns to its base of people represented by my second paragraph. Dems like to use static scoring when looking at tax increases, but the same happens with all their other agenda items written into law. People change their behavior with tax increases, but I believe these “forgotten men and women” Democrat voters changed their voting behavior in 2016, and will do so again in 2020.

    Agreed. People get distracted by Trump’s trumpyness and miss that in most ways Trump is far more attractive to conservative Dems than traditional Republicans are.

    I don’t see Dems winning these people back, so long as Repubs stick with a guy whose policy instincts are more like Trump than Ryan. I like Ryan, BTW, and think the deficit and entitlement issues are terrible threats to everything. But on a politics level, paying the bills and living within your means is not very popular.

    I think this realignment will hold, and conservative Dems will be Repubs for a long time, just as NeoCons were Repubs for decades (until Trump).

    BTW, you misspelled yuuuuge.

    • #22
    • January 14, 2019, at 12:37 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  23. Stad Thatcher

    Gil Reich (View Comment):
    BTW, you misspelled yuuuuge.

    I know. It was a YUUUUUUGGGEEE mistake!

    • #23
    • January 14, 2019, at 12:42 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  24. Misthiocracy grudgingly Member

    Gil Reich (View Comment):

    Mendel (View Comment):
    I feel as though I’m one of the few currently asking themselves “where was this Trump when it could have made a difference?”.

    Many of us ask this. @aaronmiller asked it in a recent comment

    Why did President Trump wait until Republican domination of Congress ended to publicly focus on the wall?

    and a few people attempted answers.

    Reminder that most of us Late-Trumpers consider Trump to be seriously flawed, but far better than his opponents, and far better than he gets credit for. Trump should have pushed on the wall much harder and much sooner. In his defense, hard to pass a Dem filibuster on this, and many Repubs were giving him pretty luke warm support for a while. But yes, he should have pushed this much harder. I think also he was planning on a grand deal and then some of his base went nuts (perhaps correctly) and he backed down, leaving some of those who had followed his lead out on a limb.

    It’s also possible that with a Republican majority the White House felt it could afford to negotiate slowly and quietly to get the best deal possible, whereas now that the Dems have the majority it has become necessary to ramp up the rhetoric to get any sort of deal.

    • #24
    • January 14, 2019, at 12:46 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  25. Misthiocracy grudgingly Member

    Stad (View Comment):

    Gil Reich: 3. Reagan Dems have no home to return to

    This one is “yuge” to me, but I won’t call them Reagan Democrats here in 2019. I’ll call them conservative Democrats using my definition:

    A Democrat voter who is typically blue-collar, Christian, gun owning, hunts and fishes, fully supports our military, capitalist (but may not know it), supports law-enforcement, is appalled by what is being taught in public schools but can’t do anything about it, balances the family budget . . . let me stop here for brevity.

    Where he differs from conservative Republicans is:

    Believes government can be a solution to our nation’s problems, supports government social welfare programs, supports public schools in principle (even if opposed to their agenda for their children), supports LGBT rights (although opposed to the LBGT agenda being rammed down their throats), again, let me stop here for brevity.

    In other words, people who are holding out for a Jed Bartlet presidency.

    • #25
    • January 14, 2019, at 12:49 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  26. Gil Reich Inactive
    Gil Reich Post author

    Misthiocracy secretly (View Comment):

    Gil Reich (View Comment):

    Mendel (View Comment):
    I feel as though I’m one of the few currently asking themselves “where was this Trump when it could have made a difference?”.

    Many of us ask this. @aaronmiller asked it in a recent comment

    Why did President Trump wait until Republican domination of Congress ended to publicly focus on the wall?

    and a few people attempted answers.

    Reminder that most of us Late-Trumpers consider Trump to be seriously flawed, but far better than his opponents, and far better than he gets credit for. Trump should have pushed on the wall much harder and much sooner. In his defense, hard to pass a Dem filibuster on this, and many Repubs were giving him pretty luke warm support for a while. But yes, he should have pushed this much harder. I think also he was planning on a grand deal and then some of his base went nuts (perhaps correctly) and he backed down, leaving some of those who had followed his lead out on a limb.

    It’s also possible that with a Republican majority the White House felt it could afford to negotiate slowly and quietly to get the best deal possible, whereas now that the Dems have the majority it has become necessary to ramp up the rhetoric to get any sort of deal.

    Ok, but Repubs have known for a year that they were likely to lose the House in the midterms. 

    • #26
    • January 14, 2019, at 12:54 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  27. Mendel Member

    cdor (View Comment):
    @mendel do you hold Trump responsible for not having built the wall and/or repealing Obamacare? And do you believe most voters will hold him responsible for those two deficiencies?

    To reiterate, one of Trump’s selling points was “you can’t trust GOP leadership to deliver your policy wishes, so you need me to prod and poke the unwilling GOPe to do your bidding”. So even if repealing Obamacare was rightly a legislative prerogative, he foretold their intransigence but didn’t deliver on the poking and/or prodding.

    And with the current spat, we see that he is still more than capable of poking and prodding. We can split hairs about what he did or did not request in previous budgets, but there’s no question that he didn’t show any of the passion for the wall at any point during which his party held Congress. So to my mind, that’s a failure to even try to deliver on his promise.

    I don’t personally hold him responsible, because frankly I never expected him to deliver on any of these promises. Then again, I think Trump is a huge fraud who is completely oversold by his supporters (including those who claim to be deeply distrustful of him). At the same time, Trump has so far proven much better than WBush, and I will probably vote for him next time around. So take that as an endorsement or derision as you wish.

    • #27
    • January 14, 2019, at 12:54 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  28. Gil Reich Inactive
    Gil Reich Post author

    Misthiocracy secretly (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Gil Reich: 3. Reagan Dems have no home to return to

    This one is “yuge” to me, but I won’t call them Reagan Democrats here in 2019. I’ll call them conservative Democrats using my definition:

    A Democrat voter who is typically blue-collar, Christian, gun owning, hunts and fishes, fully supports our military, capitalist (but may not know it), supports law-enforcement, is appalled by what is being taught in public schools but can’t do anything about it, balances the family budget . . . let me stop here for brevity.

    Where he differs from conservative Republicans is:

    Believes government can be a solution to our nation’s problems, supports government social welfare programs, supports public schools in principle (even if opposed to their agenda for their children), supports LGBT rights (although opposed to the LBGT agenda being rammed down their throats), again, let me stop here for brevity.

    In other words, people who are holding out for a Jed Bartlet presidency.

    Or Bill Clinton 

    • #28
    • January 14, 2019, at 12:54 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  29. PHCheese Member

    Gil you need to take it easy, Gary just got out of the hospital.

    • #29
    • January 14, 2019, at 1:32 PM PDT
    • 8 likes
  30. Misthiocracy grudgingly Member

    Gil Reich (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Mendel (View Comment):

    One reason conspicuously missing from this list is “he upheld his biggest promises to repeal Obamacare and build a wall”.

    And frankly, I agree with the omission. There’s a very good chance Trump will be re-elected without fulfilling either promise. Heck, I’ll probably be voting for him bar some drastic unexpected change on his part. But I think this phenomenon is worth noting every time Republican voters whine about “how come our elected officials never do what they promise us?”

    Well, the reason is because we reward them for not upholding their promises. Why should they go through the hard work of the balancing act that is our healthcare system or the political nightmares surrounding immigration enforcement when they can just obfuscate, blame their failures on someone else (Democrats, courts, GOP leadership, dead Senators, etc.) and get re-elected?

    @mendel do you hold Trump responsible for not having built the wall and/or repealing Obamacare? And do you believe most voters will hold him responsible for those two deficiencies?

    I can’t answer for Mendel but in my view voters will hold him responsible if he doesn’t make significant progress on the wall. It will be like HW’s read my lips. That’s why Dems are so focused on stopping him.

     

    There are some big differences between 1992 and 2020:

    1. In 1992 the country was in recession. Trump (probably) won’t have this problem in 2020.
    2. HW was defeated by a folksy Democrat from a Southern state whose running-mate was also from a Southern state, with both of them known at the time as center-right Democrats. (Remember, before he reinvented himself as an environmentalist Al Gore was best-known for hating explicit rap lyrics.) There’s not much in Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign platform that Donald Trump would oppose. He promised tax cuts, balanced budgets, cuts to the bureaucracy, more school choice, more police officers and tougher sentences for violent crime, “tough and effective” trade laws, “strengthening the family”, ending “welfare as we know it”, etc. etc. etc.

      If the Dems were truly focused on stopping Donald Trump they’d be pushing to nominate a “Bill Clinton 2.0”. Instead, they seem intent on doubling-down with the left-wing identity politics.

    http://4president.org/brochures/billclinton1992brochure.htm

    https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/26/us/1992-campaign-platform-final-draft-democrats-reject-part-their-past.html

    https://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/05/us/1992-campaign-strategy-discipline-message-good-luck-clinton-s-campaign-came-back.html

    https://socialistworker.org/2003-2/460/460_08_Clinton.php

    • #30
    • January 14, 2019, at 1:39 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  1. 1
  2. 2