Is it possible to make a distinction between what Trump says he'll do, and has done from a policy sense, and Trump himself?
Trump certainly talks like a conservative, and absolutely did some things that conservatives can and should support. Of course trump also did some things that conservatives cannot support, especially when it comes to his handling of the budget/deficit and his handling of COVID (although COVID is helped by hindsight). While I know that this will be controversial, Trump's first term was a mixed bag when it came to conservative policy. He was very good on some things (SCOTUS, pro life), good on others (immigration), and not so good on others.
The pro Trump argument is that his "experience" puts him head and shoulders above everyone else. Which is strange because his status as an outsider without experience was one reason why people liked him.
So, the question is, whether or not it's better to support Trump with the positives as well as some significant negatives or someone who espouses the same conservative policies as Trump without the negatives?
I personally would love to vote for the majority of Trump's policies, without voting for Trump. I also think that Trump's relative success as a president with no experience, should stop people whining about experience being such a great thing.
Hell, Biden has tons of experience, look how well that's going.
4 comments:
If Trump becomes the GOP candidate, he will lose.
I don't disagree with the sentiment at all. It's why DeSantis has appeal. But everyone has negatives. It's just a matter of a given voter's tolerance for the type of negatives at issue. I see Trump's success in business as his guiding methodology, and that method can probably be accurately described as "gut instinct with a note of seat of your pants". That's actually enhanced by his years doing it. As such, I would suggest he's more likely to have learned a thing or two which would make another term more successful, at least in terms of mitigating the negatives. One can't be certain one way or the other any more than one can about the potential of any candidate, particular one without any executive experience. There are a number among the current field with that experience, some in politics...like DeSantis...and others in business...like Ramaswamy. Those two, along with Trump, are my top three choices currently, and their polling puts them in the same cluster by most people (as that polling data suggests).
I would not presume that the Democrats would "reach across the aisle" in more than a token manner at best regardless of which of the three wins the presidency. The RINO faction would not be much better. All three present similar problems for those miscreants, with Trump having also his willingness to call them miscreants at the drop of a hat.
Most every president can be said to have had some policies which were better than others, made some choices which were better than others. I don't regard that as disqualifying given it will never be otherwise. One must look at the total package. Between Trump and DeSantis, the total package is perfectly acceptable because both have served their constituencies very well, if not perfectly. The question between the two is whether or not the two exec positions are comparable enough to deny putting a governor as below a president. I would not presume to say that DeSantis couldn't do as well in the "higher" position because he's proven himself in the governor's chair.
The "experience" is a rather weak factor for consideration given all who served in exec positions successfully are proven commodities. That one is in the public sector with another in the private sector is neither here nor there. Yet, though Trump's experience as an actual president is give too much value by many, it's not like it's without value of some significance. But DeSantis' work, I think, covers that well enough.
It's laughable to regard Biden's time in politics as "experience". We know that one needn't be any good to get reelected. But he's a case, like so many Democrats, where "experience" is given far, far more value than is justified because there's nothing else one can cite on which to recommend him. It's no more significant than saying, "Well...he has a nice Corvette!"
Glenn,
6 months ago, I would have agreed with you confidently. Now I have my doubts. At one point I did the math and determined that it wouldn't take much of a shift among black voters to swing any election to the GOP. Of late, I keep seeing more and more evidence that this might be happening. I am starting to think that the more the administration keeps interfering with Trump's candidacy, the more likely it is that Trump gets a significant sympathy vote.
The recent decision to schedule his trial on the day before Super Tuesday is an excellent example. There is absolutely zero possibility that the judge was unaware of the date, and of the possibility that choosing that date would interfere or appear to interfere with Trump's candidacy, yet she stuck with that date.
I still think that a second Trump administration will fall significantly short of the expectations people have, and I still think that Trump is incapable of working with anyone worthwhile to increase the chances of a GOP administration to follow his (potential) 2nd, but at this point who knows.
I've seen quite a few articles and videos indicating that shift in black support for Trump is happening at a rate exceeding his first term, particularly black men. They see Trump's predicament as similar to what they believe has been common for their own and relate. But also those who've been paying attention understand how his policies made their lives better, and also how the Dems are liars about caring about them.
I see "expectations" for and against Trump as extreme in too many cases. We'll not suffer should he win the election anymore than we did the first time around. That's not a lofty expectation, but an objective one. A Kansas City Chiefs fan doesn't have lofty expectations they'll be better than most because they've proven themselves. If a die hard Trumper thinks we'll have jet packs because he's president, that's a bit too much to expect. But to expect a guy who's attained as much as he has never learns from mistakes is an unreasonable negative expectation.
Another objective and rational (in my opinion) expectation is that there will remain too many on both sides of the aisle who will ignore the will of the people (should he become prez) and continue working against him just because he's Trump.
Should Trump win the primary, there are only two reasons he would lose the general if that should happen:
1. Dem cheating, and worse...
2. Too few right-wingers casting their votes for him to overcome the cheating.
We hear most every election how "this one" is the most important of our lifetimes. In recent elections, I don't believe that was ever untrue. It's just that it's become more important each time, and thus, it's never been more important than now. The greatest threat to the nation is another Democrat victory. That's the most important thing for good people to understand because it's absolutely true. Thus, there's no GOP candidate anyone should regard as one who will lose. I don't give a flying rat's ass how much one likes or dislikes the eventual GOP nominee. Vote for him/her.
Post a Comment