2024 US Presidential Election

[Lisnaholic]

This all reminds me of when conservatives were railing that Obama was a 'secret Muslim' and was going to institute Sharia Law (during the 2008 Dem primary) after Hillary Clinton's campaign released the following photo and it became known that Obama met with Louis Farrakhan ("Obama knows them", "Obama has ties to them", "Obama is sympathetic to them", etc). Obviously, in retrospect, those fears were baseless and ridiculous.

May I suggest that you un-remind yourself of any similarity between Trump+P25 facts and Obama+Sharia Law conspiracies? This article might help you see how they aren't really similar: https://newrepublic.com/post/184719/project-2025-leader-donald-trump-very-good-relationship

Also, this quote from wikipedia:-

CNN found that at least 140 people who worked in the Trump administration had a hand in Project 2025, including more than half of the people listed as authors, editors and contributors. Vox estimates that nearly two-thirds of the authors and editors served in the Trump administration.

If anything, for me, the Trump Campaign/Proj 2025 connection reminds me of the Supreme Court/Heritage Foundation connection, which has turned out to have had a bunch of real-world consequences that most Americans wish had never happened. The lesson is not "all shadowy link stories sound the same", the lesson is : dismiss proven links between the GOP and extreme right-wing organisations at your peril.

[SGR]

Thanks, SGR: It's great to be engaging with you again, especially as the Dems are now on a roll and I hope to be landing a few "I told you so" type posts at your expense.

Great to have you back buddy! 

Don't get too hot to trot just yet with the 'I told you so' stuff, because we've certainly had some debates in the recent past about Biden's mental capabilities and Democrat voter enthusiasm. 

My own opinion is that the border probs are such lied about, fudged over issues, that there's plenty of wiggle room for KH to find a postion that'll stand up to scrutiny when interviewed, much as I did on her behalf a post or two ago.

Assuming she does some hostile/non-friendly interviews, she'll need a position and message that could stand up to the scrutiny of Fox News - that'll be more difficult than coming up with a position that could stand up to the scrutiny of MSNBC.

I also wonder at this stage how many voters are really going to untangle who has been consistent, who has been effectual ? However inaccurate, aren't they more likely just to go with their gut impression thus far? Dems = open borders, Trump = inhumane policies.

Ahh...it sounds like you're finally coming around to my 'glass half empty' perspective of how most voters make their voting decisions. 

[SGR]

May I suggest that you un-remind yourself of any similarity between Trump+P25 facts and Obama+Sharia Law conspiracies? This article might help you see how they aren't really similar: https://newrepublic.com/post/184719/project-2025-leader-donald-trump-very-good-relationship

There was a linked article on the same site from that link that had something interesting:

Regardless, senior Trump advisers have warned news outlets against reporting on the connections, repeatedly insisting that Project 2025 has no affiliation or involvement with the Trump campaign, and have instead pointed to Agenda47 as Trump's official platform. They do not offer an explanation as to why Agenda47 is almost identical to Project 2025.

If Trump's official policy platform is 'almost identical' to Project 2025, wouldn't it make more sense for Democrats to attack him on that, where he has no outs or chances for deflection, instead of attacking him for the policy proposals of a think tank that can only be tied to Trump through other people?

[Lisnaholic]

Great to have you back buddy! 

Don't get too hot to trot just yet with the 'I told you so' stuff, because we've certainly had some debates in the recent past about Biden's mental capabilities and Democrat voter enthusiasm. 

^ Thanks, SGR And thanks for the advice: I will hold back on any "I told you so" stuff for the moment.

Remember the "Primary Biden" thread, back in March 2023? This old post isn't to say "I told you so", but is a rare, gratifying moment when political hopes come true:

Isn't it time we let this octogenarian retire with a bit of still-intact dignity? As a lead-up to the 2024 election, he should clearly endorse a younger, more energetic candidate, such as Liz Warren or AOC. 

Such a winning position for the Dems to've changed horses in mid-stream for a younger, more dynamic candidate. If they are still capable of such self-analysis, the GOP must be kicking themselves because they missed their chance to do the same, swapping out Trump for Nickie Haley. Ha! That's one of many occasions when a team responding to real-life circumstances (Dems) has a huge advantage over a cult demanding blind allegence to a false prophet (GOP).

Assuming she does some hostile/non-friendly interviews, she'll need a position and message that could stand up to the scrutiny of Fox News - that'll be more difficult than coming up with a position that could stand up to the scrutiny of MSNBC.

Actually, I don't think standing up "to the scrutiny of Fox News" is the necessity you seem to think it is. Whatever positions KH adopts, there won't be a single drop of approval from Fox, afaik, so therefore, why knock yourself out trying to get it ?!

Ahh...it sounds like you're finally coming around to my 'glass half empty' perspective of how most voters make their voting decisions. 

^ I don't remember the details of that discussion, SGR, but yes, I'm sure there's a limit to the amount of analysis that voters put in before an election. I expect that many voters rely on general impressions, vague memories of candidates, etc. Still, some positions and principles probably stand out, and the GOP are on the unpopular side of most of them: the right to female health care, limiting access to guns, clearing the money lenders out of the temple (in less biblical terms: kerbing the corruption of a partisan Supreme Court). 

[SGR]

Remember the "Primary Biden" thread, back in March 2023? This old post isn't to say "I told you so", but is a rare, gratifying moment when political hopes come true:

Such a winning position for the Dems to've changed horses in mid-stream for a younger, more dynamic candidate. If they are still capable of such self-analysis, the GOP must be kicking themselves because they missed their chance to do the same, swapping out Trump for Nickie Haley. Ha! That's one of many occasions when a team responding to real-life circumstances (Dems) has a huge advantage over a cult demanding blind allegence to a false prophet (GOP).

There's definitely some humor and amusement to be found in all of this. Many of us knew that Biden was too old to run again - but despite that, it wasn't clear he would lose to Trump if he did (especially with all of Trump's legal issues). There wasn't any real push to make him step down until no one could ignore or make excuses any longer (after the "Emperor has no clothes" moment of the debate) that he was definitely not cognitively fit to complete a second term. Politically for Trump, it was probably a mistake in retrospect to accept that debate that was scheduled historically early in a general election cycle, because he gave Democrats a viable out from Biden. I wouldn't be surprised if the thought process of the Democrat movers and shakers when going into that debate was: "If he does well, we'll stick with him. If he does very poorly, we still have a chance to right the ship".

It's also humorous that Republicans have been crowing about Biden being senile and too old to run again for 4 years now - and then Democrats finally agree and say: "You know what Republicans, you're right, we'll follow your advice for once" and force his hand in withdrawing from the race and much of the sentiment from the right (including Trump himself) since has been: "Wait, what!? You can't do that!...it's...it's unfair! Biden won those primary votes fair and square, this is anti-democratic!!" 

To that point, you can refer to the GOP as a 'cult demanding blind allegiance to a false prophet' if you'd like, but they did hold and encourage much more open and competitive primaries this cycle than the Democrats did (which isn't that unusual when the sitting president plans to run for another term, but Biden's age and cognitive decline maybe should've made them encourage it in retrospect). It's not like the GOP/RNC just bowed and crowned Trump as their de facto nominee in 2024 from the outset, they tested whether or not he still held majority support in his party with primaries, and it turns out he did (whether the Republican primary voters regret their decision to vote for Trump at this point in time, or would've made a different decision had they believed Kamala to be the general election opponent is unknown). As a result, Republican voters made the choice about who would lead their ticket, while Democrat voters, it can be argued, did not get to make that same choice. It's not at all clear that Kamala would be leading the ticket if the Dems had held open primaries - for example, and this isn't to rag on you specifically (because similar sentiments were common), one of your suggestions after Biden's bad debate was not to replace Biden on the ticket, but to replace Kamala (though you were very polite with your apology to her!  ):

If I was Joe Biden, I think I'd get Gavin Newsom to be my running mate, then I could campaign on the slogan, "If I die in the Oval Office, Gavin will take over and do a decent job."
(*apologies to Kamala Harris*)

Regardless, none of that matters now, I suppose. The race we've got is Kamala vs Trump, no matter how we got here, and it will soon be minted and official at the Dem National Convention beginning August 19th. After their convention is finished is when this race should begin to get more interesting (from both sides: more interviews, more attack ads, more mudslinging, more rumours, more rallies, etc).

Actually, I don't think standing up "to the scrutiny of Fox News" is the necessity you seem to think it is. Whatever positions KH adopts, there won't be a single drop of approval from Fox, afaik, so therefore, why knock yourself out trying to get it ?!

I agree, 'need' was probably the wrong word for me to use, but I did couch it under the assumption that she chooses to do some hostile/non-friendly interviews. If her immigration stance could be molded such that it could stand up to opposition scrutiny, that would be ideal, but definitely not strictly necessary. As I mentioned before, I wouldn't be surprised if Kamala doesn't do a single interview with the likes of Fox News (I don't believe Biden did in 2020). Kamala certainly could craft an immigration stance that could stand up to the scrutiny of Lester Holt, but she'll still need to answer questions about the Biden administration's record on immigration, even if her prospective immigration approach and policies are different from the current administration.

^ I don't remember the details of that discussion, SGR, but yes, I'm sure there's a limit to the amount of analysis that voters put in before an election. I expect that many voters rely on general impressions, vague memories of candidates, etc. Still, some positions and principles probably stand out, and the GOP are on the unpopular side of most of them: the right to female health care, limiting access to guns, clearing the money lenders out of the temple (in less biblical terms: kerbing the corruption of a partisan Supreme Court). 

The heart vs. the mind in voting decisions discussion. It's obviously a mixture of both, and often times, I'd be willing to wager that the heart convinces the mind (or at least more often than the mind convinces the heart). The policy favorability mention reminded me of something else - about a third of Americans actually have an unfavorable view of both parties. And yet, we still don't have a true independent party alternative 

Also, I'm familiar with the Cleansing of the Temple, and while the analogy to Supreme Court reform is definitely far from perfect, I think I see what your point is. 

[Jwb]

That's not a wild take. The timeline of Trump's political affiliations provides some context and perhaps reinforcement of your point:



My bet is that if, in an alternate reality, Romney won in 2012, Trump probably would've registered as a Democrat and run for the Democrat nomination.

I feel like you are forgetting he had just spent the previous couple years making the accusation that Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States. I think we can rule that scenario out tbh. It had to be the Republican party. 

What I do think is true is that even if Trump hadn't come along, the GOP was poised to move in a more right wing populist direction.  In 2010, 2012 and 2014 the congressional races saw GOP incumbents being successfully primaried from the right,  by candidates that were backed by the Tea party movement.

Even though that movement was purportedly centered around fiscal conservatism, a lot of the actual 'tea party' candidates themselves were in fact hard right Christian ideologues that represented a more hard line stance on both social and fiscal issues.

On this backdrop Ted Cruz was already poised to run on the issue of immigration in 2016. People had been openly speculating about that since at least 2014. Then Trump just came along and stole his thunder.

I think he's a political opportunist, as you suggest,  but I think his window of opportunity was only ever going to come from the right.  The Bush dynasty basically ran Neoconservatism in to the ground.  And in the aftermath of that power vacuum Trump's opportunity emerged. 

Many people compare Trump's 2016 run to Pat Buchanan's attempts in the early 1990s to run on a very similar set of issues.  The biggest noticable difference is that Buchanan is much more articulate.  Trump never even tried to present himself as a policy wonk.  He was always just a captivating demagogue. He auditioned for the job,  again,  by going on rants about how Obama wasn't born in the country. And as evidenced by his results,  being a captivating demagogue is a lot more effective than being well read and articulate.

But it's interesting to know that Trump supposedly apologized to Buchanan in 2011 or so for calling him an anti semite more than a decade earlier. I think at this point (2011) Trump was likely already gearing up to try to run for president as a Republican.

[SGR]

I feel like you are forgetting he had just spent the previous couple years making the accusation that Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States. I think we can rule that scenario out tbh. It had to be the Republican party. 

What I do think is true is that even if Trump hadn't come along, the GOP was poised to move in a more right wing populist direction.  In 2010, 2012 and 2014 the congressional races saw GOP incumbents being successfully primaried from the right,  by candidates that were backed by the Tea party movement.

Even though that movement was purportedly centered around fiscal conservatism, a lot of the actual 'tea party' candidates themselves were in fact hard right Christian ideologues that represented a more hard line stance on both social and fiscal issues.

On this backdrop Ted Cruz was already poised to run on the issue of immigration in 2016. People had been openly speculating about that since at least 2014. Then Trump just came along and stole his thunder.

I think he's a political opportunist, as you suggest,  but I think his window of opportunity was only ever going to come from the right.  The Bush dynasty basically ran Neoconservatism in to the ground.  And in the aftermath of that power vacuum Trump's opportunity emerged. 

Many people compare Trump's 2016 run to Pat Buchanan's attempts in the early 1990s to run on a very similar set of issues.  The biggest noticable difference is that Buchanan is much more articulate.  Trump never even tried to present himself as a policy wonk.  He was always just a captivating demagogue. He auditioned for the job,  again,  by going on rants about how Obama wasn't born in the country. And as evidenced by his results,  being a captivating demagogue is a lot more effective than being well read and articulate.

But it's interesting to know that Trump supposedly apologized to Buchanan in 2011 or so for calling him an anti semite more than a decade earlier. I think at this point (2011) Trump was likely already gearing up to try to run for president as a Republican.

Yeah, now that you mention that, there was no chance after the birther stuff that Trump could run as a Democrat. I suppose had things gone differently though (in an alternate reality scenario), I could have seen Trump running as a Democrat, had the opportunity arisen, because I don't think Trump has any deep convictions about much of the social policy stuff Republicans have far so long moralized about (abortion, gay rights, god and religion, and now transgenderism) - I don't think Trump really cares about any of that stuff, but he takes certain positions on them to try and appeal to his base. If you could make LGBT about Trump (or cast them as largely in favor of Trump), he'd happily be up there on stage waving the flag, just like he once did during his first run, saying: "I love the gays! Nobody loves the gays more than Trump!"



To your point about the direction of the party being most likely the same (or similar), even without Trump, I don't necessarily disagree. Maybe it would've shifted into right-wing populism even without him under someone like Ted Cruz, but probably with a lot less social/political conventions being shattered or outright ignored.

I've heard comparisons of Trump and Buchanan before, and from what I've read, they seem to mostly track policy wise (although, I haven't done a deep dive into Buchanan's campaign back then or anything). As for being a captivating demagogue being more effective than being well read and articulate, that's probably true politically - or at least it was for Trump in 2016 - but I think the reasons why that worked had to line up pretty auspiciously for Trump, and they did. Trump, unlike Pat Buchanan and all of his 2016 primary opponents, deeply understood how media and the press worked due to his background.

I think that deep understanding of the media is what was really more important than the understanding of policy or the ability to be articulate or well-read. The 'captivating demagogue' and the rants were simply an effect of that media understanding. Trump would say some wild shit, and corporate media (left and right) would give him loads free airtime because he was great for ratings - people tuned in and couldn't pull their eyes away. Trump also understood that if you fudge numbers or facts, the essence of your message, if there is some truth to it, will be amplified even more. Ex. Trump tells supporters at a rally that two million illegal immigrants entered the country last year, his supporters believe it. Fact checkers pounce and correct the record and say: "Donald Trump claimed two million illegal immigrants entered the country last year, we rate this FALSE. In fact, statistics show it was actually only 1.5 million illegal immigrants who entered the country last year" - the net effect? People on both sides are now becoming concerned about immigration numbers and it becomes a topic of conversation and a driving narrative. The take-home message for many will still be: "Trump's a liar, see?" while for others it will be: "Well, he's not lying that immigration and the border is a problem we need to fix" - but regardless of what the takeaway is from that, the topic will still be blasted across news headlines and social media. At its base is a deeper truism: Things don't need to be strictly true for them to be persuasive. Both sides of the political aisle understand this.

Speaking of Trump's political opportunism and understanding of media, it appears he's finally going to be posting on Twitter again. Not sure what took him so long to make that decision (some contractual obligation with his own social media company? Not sure).

https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1823016427680358790

Anyways, I guess mean tweets are back on the table. I'll give it 48 hours before Trump tweets something about Kamala being either a "LOSER" or a "MARXIST" or a "FRAUD". 

[Jwb]

I also wanted to reply to @SGR  regarding Kamala's need to do Fox News interviews and the like.  I want to make it clear that when I said she needs more semi- challenging interviews and debates I meant in contrast to what Biden was doing. 

Democratic candidates don't usually go on Fox News to campaign. IIRC Bernie was the only one who did so in 2020. And he's technically not even a Democrat.  So that's certainly not the expectation.

But what she does need to demonstrate is the ability to answer questions extemporaneously etc and not just give prepared speeches. She's already agreed to several debates with Trump and I think it's fair to say with the current state of things Trump needs those debates just as much as she does, if not more so.

So why even take the debates if it's the 2020 Biden Basement strategy? The fact is that the extent to which Democrats are energized around Kamala is only because Biden was seen as incapable of making the case against Donald Trump.  Now they are energized because they expect Kamala to be able get out there and make that case in a way Biden wasn't able to do. 

Trying to hide from that expectation would be a massive mistake.  Biden was able to ride the anti Trump sentiment especially during covid to victory.  And covid and social distancing measures were the only shred of plausible deniability they had that time around for not campaigning in the normal fashion. That isn't a winning strategy this time around. 

She absolutely doesn't need to come up with an immigration policy that fox news viewers agree with.  That's a waste of time.  Those people aren't voting for her anyway.  But she does need to make a case for herself to try to appeal to some in the middle while energizing her base.  In today's polarized world more emphasis is honestly placed on the latter than the former. 

As for whether not holding a more competitive primary is a valid criticism, I think people are forgetting that neither side ever primaries their incumbent as president,  as a general rule.  This was one exception where,  as it turned out,  Biden was so unfit that they would have been better off if they primaried him.  But in most cases that's just a way of kneecapping your own candidate.  So because people are reacting to the exception,  they demand a new rule. Which is a basic mistake of short sightedness.


Is it fair in the case where maybe your candidate seems old or weak politically for you to then decide to have a more competitive primary? Well that could sound good on the surface but it basically means that any potential or perceived weaknesses an incumbent have could open up this process and you once again end up knee capping your incumbent unnecessarily. The truth is the reason both parties usually bypass this process when running an incumbent is based on a strategic calculation.  This is not even a norm that the other side would even be likely to call out if you were to violate it,  because generally they would welcome the other side primarying their incumbent presidential candidate.  It's a sign of weakness.

The real mistake was running Biden as a sort of transitional President whose only real job was to defeat Trump and bring normalcy back to american politics.  There was even a vague conception put out there that maybe he'd only run for one term.  They were never thinking in terms of 8 years with Biden,  and never taking his age seriously enough.  That was the actual mistake that could have been avoided. Not having a competitive primary is business as usual.

My biggest actual worry with Kamala is that she ends up being the same kind of dead end, one term president.  Because she has landed in this position through quite a bit of luck and circumstance and hasn't been tested in a whole host of important ways.

She's going to have to start doing so eventually.  Likely some time after the convention. They can't coast like this for the next 3 months. 

[SGR]

I agree with most of what you said, so I'll reply to those points I don't exactly agree with.

I also wanted to reply to @SGR  regarding Kamala's need to do Fox News interviews and the like.  I want to make it clear that when I said she needs more semi- challenging interviews and debates I meant in contrast to what Biden was doing. 

As I mentioned to Lisna, 'need' wasn't exactly the right word to use - but I was talking in terms of the assumption that she'd do hostile interviews - Fox News is simply the most obvious example of a hostile interview. More accurately, what I meant is that her position on immigration in that case should, ideally, be able to stand up to scrutiny from Fox News - which doesn't mean Fox News or their audience has to sign off on it or like it, but rather, it should be able to dispel notions that she'll be some far left 'open-borders' president and should dispel notions that she'll be as poor on the issue as Biden has been. That's not exactly a high bar - the catch is that she needs to be able to communicate the position clearly.

Democratic candidates don't usually go on Fox News to campaign. IIRC Bernie was the only one who did so in 2020. And he's technically not even a Democrat.  So that's certainly not the expectation.

When was 'the expectation' established? Obama did an interview with Fox News/Brit Hume in 2008 while running for president (can't find a video unfortunately), and he also did interviews with Fox News while he was president.

Likewise, Hillary also did an interview with Fox News while running for President:

We see Trump not shy away from hostile media/formats (CNN Townhall, NABJ, the Libertarian Convention, MSNBC/Morning Joe interviews in 2016) - should our expectations be higher for Democrat candidates? Isn't it valuable to see how our candidates for president deal with real criticism for their record and policy proposals before we cast a vote for them to lead our country? If for nothing else, then just to gauge how well they might be able to communicate with and persuade the opposition party in the case they become president and need to work with them to get legislation passed?

But what she does need to demonstrate is the ability to answer questions extemporaneously etc and not just give prepared speeches. She's already agreed to several debates with Trump and I think it's fair to say with the current state of things Trump needs those debates just as much as she does, if not more so.

Has she? As far as I know, Trump suggested two additional debates in addition to the ABC-hosted Sep 10th debate agreed upon previously with Biden. From what I've read, Kamala has only agreed to that one.

The former president said there would be a debate on Fox News on September 4 in Pennsylvania, as well as the previously agreed to September 10 debate on ABC News in Pennsylvania, and a third debate on NBC News on September 25 in Michigan. "Details to follow. I look forward to seeing Kamala at all three Debates!" he wrote.

However, the Harris campaign suggested that this schedule was not agreed to from their side, except for the ABC debate.

"We're pleased Trump finally agreed to debate the Vice President on ABC after previously trying to back out. We are open to another debate, and we'll continue those conversations. But to be clear, any additional debate would be subject to Trump actually showing up on September 10. We're not playing his games," a Harris campaign aide told Newsweek in a Sunday morning email.

So why even take the debates if it's the 2020 Biden Basement strategy?

The '2020 Biden Basement strategy' did include two debates. It would be difficult for any presidential candidate to get away with no debates, but Kamala probably needs at least one, assuming she does well in that one. If she hasn't significantly improved in her ability to speak off the cuff and provide explanations, limiting debates and spontaneous interviews would probably be wise from a political standpoint.

[Paul Smeenus]

This is devastating

[Lisnaholic]

There's definitely some humor and amusement to be found in all of this. Many of us knew that Biden was too old to run again - but despite that, it wasn't clear he would lose to Trump if he did (especially with all of Trump's legal issues). There wasn't any real push to make him step down until no one could ignore or make excuses any longer (after the "Emperor has no clothes" moment of the debate) that he was definitely not cognitively fit to complete a second term. Politically for Trump, it was probably a mistake in retrospect to accept that debate that was scheduled historically early in a general election cycle, because he gave Democrats a viable out from Biden. I wouldn't be surprised if the thought process of the Democrat movers and shakers when going into that debate was: "If he does well, we'll stick with him. If he does very poorly, we still have a chance to right the ship".

It's also humorous that Republicans have been crowing about Biden being senile and too old to run again for 4 years now - and then Democrats finally agree and say: "You know what Republicans, you're right, we'll follow your advice for once" and force his hand in withdrawing from the race and much of the sentiment from the right (including Trump himself) since has been: "Wait, what!? You can't do that!...it's...it's unfair! Biden won those primary votes fair and square, this is anti-democratic!!" 

Yep, KH's sudden candidacy has led to lots of irony, lots of scripts being flipped !

To that point, you can refer to the GOP as a 'cult demanding blind allegiance to a false prophet' if you'd like, but they did hold and encourage much more open and competitive primaries this cycle than the Democrats did (which isn't that unusual when the sitting president plans to run for another term, but Biden's age and cognitive decline maybe should've made them encourage it in retrospect). It's not like the GOP/RNC just bowed and crowned Trump as their de facto nominee in 2024 from the outset, they tested whether or not he still held majority support in his party with primaries, and it turns out he did (whether the Republican primary voters regret their decision to vote for Trump at this point in time, or would've made a different decision had they believed Kamala to be the general election opponent is unknown). As a result, Republican voters made the choice about who would lead their ticket, while Democrat voters, it can be argued, did not get to make that same choice. It's not at all clear that Kamala would be leading the ticket if the Dems had held open primaries - for example, and this isn't to rag on you specifically (because similar sentiments were common), one of your suggestions after Biden's bad debate was not to replace Biden on the ticket, but to replace Kamala (though you were very polite with your apology to her!  ):

That's definitely a debate point to you, SGR ! Good work catching me out with an earlier post that I'd forgotten !

Also, I'm familiar with the Cleansing of the Temple, and while the analogy to Supreme Court reform is definitely far from perfect, I think I see what your point is. 

Yes, not a very well thought-out analogy from me I'm afraid - but thanks for the picture: I think, at the back, I can see an ancestor of Clarence Thomas receiving bribes of wine and cattle.

[SGR]

Yes, not a very well thought-out analogy from me I'm afraid - but thanks for the picture: I think, at the back, I can see an ancestor of Clarence Thomas receiving bribes of wine and cattle.

To your credit, your analogy probably isn't as bad or as confusing as my housing appliances/lies about people analogy. 

[Shhon]

[Jwb]

Yeah, now that you mention that, there was no chance after the birther stuff that Trump could run as a Democrat. I suppose had things gone differently though (in an alternate reality scenario), I could have seen Trump running as a Democrat, had the opportunity arisen, because I don't think Trump has any deep convictions about much of the social policy stuff Republicans have far so long moralized about (abortion, gay rights, god and religion, and now transgenderism) - I don't think Trump really cares about any of that stuff, but he takes certain positions on them to try and appeal to his base. If you could make LGBT about Trump (or cast them as largely in favor of Trump), he'd happily be up there on stage waving the flag, just like he once did during his first run, saying: "I love the gays! Nobody loves the gays more than Trump!"



To your point about the direction of the party being most likely the same (or similar), even without Trump, I don't necessarily disagree. Maybe it would've shifted into right-wing populism even without him under someone like Ted Cruz, but probably with a lot less social/political conventions being shattered or outright ignored.

I've heard comparisons of Trump and Buchanan before, and from what I've read, they seem to mostly track policy wise (although, I haven't done a deep dive into Buchanan's campaign back then or anything). As for being a captivating demagogue being more effective than being well read and articulate, that's probably true politically - or at least it was for Trump in 2016 - but I think the reasons why that worked had to line up pretty auspiciously for Trump, and they did. Trump, unlike Pat Buchanan and all of his 2016 primary opponents, deeply understood how media and the press worked due to his background.

I think that deep understanding of the media is what was really more important than the understanding of policy or the ability to be articulate or well-read. The 'captivating demagogue' and the rants were simply an effect of that media understanding. Trump would say some wild shit, and corporate media (left and right) would give him loads free airtime because he was great for ratings - people tuned in and couldn't pull their eyes away. Trump also understood that if you fudge numbers or facts, the essence of your message, if there is some truth to it, will be amplified even more. Ex. Trump tells supporters at a rally that two million illegal immigrants entered the country last year, his supporters believe it. Fact checkers pounce and correct the record and say: "Donald Trump claimed two million illegal immigrants entered the country last year, we rate this FALSE. In fact, statistics show it was actually only 1.5 million illegal immigrants who entered the country last year" - the net effect? People on both sides are now becoming concerned about immigration numbers and it becomes a topic of conversation and a driving narrative. The take-home message for many will still be: "Trump's a liar, see?" while for others it will be: "Well, he's not lying that immigration and the border is a problem we need to fix" - but regardless of what the takeaway is from that, the topic will still be blasted across news headlines and social media. At its base is a deeper truism: Things don't need to be strictly true for them to be persuasive. Both sides of the political aisle understand this.

Sure,  I agree that Trump is not really ideologically driven, so it's not impossible to imagine him with a different message, if that's what he thought the room wanted.  But the basic appeal of a business tycoon who isn't a political insider and understands the systemic rot and wants to drain the swamp, has an intrinsic sort of right wing orientation to it.  It would be next to impossible for the garish billionaire tycoon and reality TV star to gain any kind of traction as a left wing populist,  regardless of how he changed the contents of his speeches.

I actually don't disagree with the point about his media training playing an important role in how he eventually did find a successful political niche, but I don't necessarily grant that he has the level of insight you seem to suggest.  I think that he comes from a different media ecosystem than Washington politics and as such responds to a slightly different set of incentive structures than a trained politician would.  He certainly has less inhibitions about saying wild shit. That wild shit then gets him a lot of negative press which he benefited from in 2015/16, but I'm not at all under the impression this was a calculated strategy on Trump's part.

Rather,  he just has a much more unfiltered style of speaking and this often leads to quotes that could get another politician in hot water.  But Trump's persona as the brash political outsider is a big part of what allowed him to power through that.  There's not a parallel world where say Ted Cruz 'discovers' the Trump strategy to media first and thus takes the nomination. He could not have pulled it off even if he spent a decade in a media boot camp doing drills. Not giving a fuck in the way Trump does is a character trait,  not something that can really be taught.

And to presume it was an intentional strategy,  we would have to presume that comments like McCain being a war hero " because he got caught" was some kind of premeditated political stunt and not just Trump being his usual petty self and then doubling down out of pride.  I think you can guess which one I think is more likely.

Likewise,  with his constant lying,  I don't see any sense of strategy.  I think he's just a dishonest person, and that he lies so often and so shamelessly that it's impossible to even keep up with,  and so people become accustomed to him lying and pointing out said lies start to yield diminishing returns. Trump does benefit from this.  But once again,  just because he benefits from a particular dynamic doesn't mean it needs to be interpreted as an intentional strategy.  Personally, I think it's just yet another aspect of his unfiltered style.  He couldn't do any differently even if he wanted to.  I don't believe he has the internal discipline to do so.

What I do think was more strategic and calculated was once again correctly assessing where the energy was that could be tapped by an insurgent populist candidate.  I think the birther stuff was really him dipping his toes into the water as far as that is concerned. 

He definitely clearly understood that resentment against immigration and jobs moving over seas was the core source of the energy he would need to tap.

The comparison to Pat Buchanan, in my mind,  isn't to suggest their policies were the same,  because I haven't gone through in that much detail.  But rhetorically there are certainly some common themes: a self poised "political outsider" (although this isn't accurate for Buchanan he did try to style himself as such) who is opposed to the "globalist agenda" and wants to either "Make America First Again" or "Make America Great Again" by focusing on the hollowing out of our manufacturing sector and clamping down on the southern border.

Buchanan and the paleoconservative movement more broadly were also associated with a politics that pandered to racial grievances of working class whites.  This was the era when Pat Buchanan and David Duke were actually competing with one another to try to run as an insurgent far right alternative to Geroge HW Bush. 

Trump is famously actually ironically on record commenting on the state of this race,  saying in 1991 on Larry King that it was a dangerous thing that people like Duke were gaining traction.  He also rightly noted that Buchanan or Duke getting into the race could be a real problem for Bush.  So he was clearly aware not only of the kind of politics being employed by Duke and Buchanan,  but the threat they posed to the Republican political establishment at the time.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/10/16/1991-larry-king-interviews-donald-trump.cnn

He also denounced Buchanan in 1999 when they were part of the same third party, The Reform party. Trump was lightly toying with the idea of a presidential run even back then. He then later denied knowing who Duke was when he received his endorsement in 2016.

So all of this is to say I think his presidential ambitions were long in the making,  as was the political opportunity that was emerging on the right in this country.  Both of which can be traced back at least to the 90s.

Another thing that helped Trump was new was the modern media environment with social media and viral clips,  etc.  It's impossible to really imagine a Trump style campaign being successful back in the early 90s when the traditional cable news media had a much firmer grip on these things.

[Jwb]

@SGR

Re: Kamala

You're right on all of those points actually.  I don't know why I thought it wasn't normal for Democrats to campaign on Fox News.  I think it's because when Bernie did it last time that was presented as something unusual.

I'm not opposed to her going on Fox News either,  but it's just not my expectation.  Just like I don't expect Trump to go do an interview on MSNBC. Would it be better if they did? It would certainly be better content. Strategy? That's up in the air.

And as for the debates,  I thought I had heard they already had multiple debates lined up.  Again I was just wrong. 

I think the idea that in an ideal world her immigration policy would fly on Fox News is just too fanciful for me to even entertain.