How do we get there? In his piece, Mr. Linker mentions "the combination of polarization and negative partisanship." And he's right. Just think of any Republican that you may happen to know: your Fox News-watching uncle, that co-worker in the next cubicle, etc. They would rather vote for a candidate backed by Russia than one from the Democratic Party. (Remember, Britain sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War. Don't you think Southerners would have been more partial to the British than to the North?)
Consider my own brother-in-law. I ran into him in the hotel lobby on the morning of his son's wedding recently and decided to buy him breakfast. (And there was no one else around to eat with.) He and my sister are pretty typical establishment Republicans. I'm sure they liked candidates like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and John Kasich (not necessarily in that order) in the 2016 primaries. But I have to admit I was a little surprised to hear how anti-Trump he was. (He -- and my sister, I assume -- voted for Gary Johnson.) It kind of conformed with what I already knew about them, and yet they fit the demographic for Trump's voters: although they both graduated from college (and have prospered), they are retired white seniors who mainline Fox News all day long. Oh, and not only do they live in the uber-suburb of Naperville (sorry Ed C.) but they live in a gated community in Naperville. (I always want to ask them what they are so afraid of but I already know the answer: Those People, as Paul Krugman puts it.) Anyway, the point of all this is that even though I didn't argue with him (I've learned that there's simply no use), what I really wanted to ask him was -- under truth serum -- Given a binary choice, who would you have voted for, Trump or Hillary? (Or, who would you vote for today?) But, alas, I already know the answer. Just as the Southerners would have allied with aliens from Mars during the Civil War, so would today's Republicans vote for any Republican -- including someone as unqualified and unfit as Donald Trump -- rather than Hillary or Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or any Democratic candidate for president. (Yes, Tom T., even Joe Biden.)
But let's walk through my 2020 scenario. Assuming Trump is still around (and I do -- I think he'll fire Mueller eventually and pardon everyone involved in the Russia investigation) he'll enjoy the benefits of incumbency and, let's assume for the sake of argument, a decent economy. Even if Trump gets primaried -- as I expect he will -- he'll still win the Republican nomination. (Who's going to beat him, John Kasich? Please. Trump will crush him like a bug just as he did last time. What's Kasich's big issue, a Balanced Budget Amendment? Good luck finding any economist who will support that.) No, Trump will defeat any hapless primary opponent or opponents just like he did that supposedly "deep bench" in 2016.
So then Trump gets to the general election and faces -- who? Who cares? As Linker writes:
We won't be able to answer that question with great precision until we see which Democrat ends up running against him.
And I say: Baloney! Linker goes on to support my argument (my emphasis):
The Trump campaign (and the RNC, and Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh, and Breitbart, and the rest of the right-wing media complex) will work to convince Republican-leaning voters that however much they dislike (or have ambivalent feelings about) Donald Trump, they should hate and fear his opponent far more. "Come home, Republicans!" will be the message. "Yes, it's been a messy four years, but at least Trump isn't one of them!"
That will be the game plan: Demonize the other side so completely that just enough people vote not so much as Republicans but as Anti-Democrats.
Remember, the country is about half Republican, half Democratic. And, just like the last election proved, Republicans come home on Election Day. (Almost the identical percentage of Republicans voted for Trump as did Mitt Romney in 2012.) Finally, from Mr. Linker's piece:
Combine that push with targeted acts of voter suppression in heavily Democratic districts of key swing states, and the effort just might deliver a second term to Donald Trump.
Now one last thought of mine that I think may seal the deal: I always assumed Trump's voters would get wise to him one day, but I've since changed my mind on that. I've been saying that Trump's downfall will come when his voters wake up one day, look in the mirror and say, "Hey, where's that good, high-paying blue collar job that Trump promised me?" Or, "Why hasn't the GM plant in Janesville reopened? Is Trump a -- gulp -- con artist? Have I been had?"
But I don't think that's going to happen anymore. After watching Trump at these rallies (like the one in Arizona recently), I think his voters are going to stay conned. They just have too much invested in him. And Trump's right: he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and they'd stick with him. If GM doesn't reopen that plant in Janesville it will be Paul Ryan's fault, not Trump's. And if they don't get The Wall (which they most certainly won't), it will be Mitch McConnell's fault or the fault of the liberal media or some other convenient scapegoat.
Look, I'm as appalled as anyone at the thought that Trump could win reelection in 2020 and serve two terms as president. But I'm at least getting mentally prepared for it. I'd say it's a better than 50/50 chance.
P. S. What does that say about the United States? That's the subject of another post, but the gist of it is that Trump is a symptom of what's wrong with our country, not the main problem.
2 comments:
First - I am honored for the shout-out. Second - Naperville is not any more Uber-suburb than Glenview. Third - this is truly scary. I agree that Trump can get the nomination ( if he wants it and is still healthy ) - but I firmly believe the Dems will be better in 2020.
And Third - I was travelling last week and sick this week ( caught a cold on the plane) - and so am just catching up. Keep up the great work with the dogs and laundry and urban hikes.
Post a Comment