Trump Cannot Win, but Biden Can Lose
It is difficult to comprehend how Donald Trump, the most corrupt, devious, immoral, ignorant, and self-serving president the United States has ever had, can receive more than a few thousand votes in his next bid for the presidency. Yet, he has a solid base of tens of millions of followers and appeals to an assortment of independent voters. From where does Trump gain his support?
Trump's traits that please his followers consist of being his outlandish himself, willing to make decisions that offend his own Party, daring to express his mind, no matter how degrading or insulting to others, and exhibiting courage to show himself, warts, and all, without regard to angry charges the exposure brings. To a sector of the nation that has sinned grievously, that is partial to single issues that serve them well, that feel their outspoken attitudes are rejected, that take pleasure from leaps to the jugular, that have limited knowledge and find solace in simple prevarications that satisfy that knowledge, and feel their own outlandish and conspiratorial expressions are not heeded, Trump is a fresh face on a mummified landscape.
This sector’s number is insufficient to give Trump the support he shows and much below the vote he needs to win the presidency. As the election approaches, his campaign gains strength and he becomes a more active contender. From where do these votes arise? Sum it up in two thoughts:
A Liberal Establishment
Every time Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, House majority leader, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and long established Democratic politicos and representatives use public access to degrade the opposition in a strident, divisive, negative, obsessive, careless, and strictly politicized manner – emulating Republican tactics that a responsible electorate despises – a segment of the electorate is reminded of a “liberal establishment” that spoke of obtaining peace and stability and engaged in disputes that caused death and havoc, that spoke of a shared economic prosperity and engineered huge income disparities, that promised immigration reform and left immigrants and Americans at odds with one another, that talked of cohesion and enhanced identity politics, that talked of spreading democracy and nurtured right wing extremism, that preached human rights and supported intolerant and autocratic regimes, that criticized polarization and character defamation and used them in attempts to thwart nominations to judicial and legislative positions, that promised a solution for the Palestinian crisis and enabled Israel to increase its settlements and oppression.
Senator Bernie Sanders’ strong following and election of more radical Democrats to office signaled the despair that the Democratic constituency had with its established leaders. The lame reaction of the Democratic elite to this challenge reinforces the perception of a “liberal establishment” that controls an electorate in cooperation with a cheerleading liberal media, which is only more subtle in its biased approach than an obviously mendacious “reactionary media,” which does not hide its partiality and colors it with entertainment.
Whether or not a “liberal establishment” exists within a Democratic Party and is guilty of hypocrisy is not the issue; the issue is that a segment of the population demonstrated in 2016, when it rejected Hilllary Clinton, that it is moved by the assumption. Democrats and their favored media, by rhetoric and action, reinforce the belief.
Biden’s campaign and the candidate have not exhilarated voters and have focused on the wrong issues.
Trump’s main claim to fame is what he describes as “the greatest economy the world has ever seen.” He, wisely, focuses on the principal issue affecting voters. The mendacious rhetoric and preposterous claim have resonated well with the electorate – Trump has delivered a strong economy and provided prosperity to the nation. Public relations efforts usually concentrate on soothing the negatives of a product, in this case Trump’s supposed strong positive being the Dems strong negative. Instead of exposing the falsehood that Trump is responsible for a greatest economy, Biden has focused on Trump’s inept record in handling the CoVid-19 epidemic, of which most everyone is aware. Some attention to that grim assessment is in order, but too much attention diverts from destroying a voter mindset that believes Trump, who uses debts as collateral, has created a fabulous economy.
Exposing someone who knows nothing about economics and manufacturing, who actually believes that exporters pay tariffs, that tariffs are beneficial for international industries, and that the Chinese government suffered financial difficulties from other nations’ import duties, is a simple manner.
From Reuters, Wire Service Content, Sept. 25, 2020.
About 3,500 U.S. companies, including Tesla Inc., Ford Motor Co, Target Corp, Walgreen Co and Home Depot have sued the Trump administration in the last two weeks over the imposition of tariffs on more than $300 billion in Chinese-made goods.
Trump’s claim of achieving “the best economy that the world has ever had” is a meaningless and self-aggrandizing play on words. When a multitude of factors, rather than a few handpicked factors, are considered, during his term in office, U.S. economic progress has been meager – average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increase of 2.53% – and the United States’ $21.4 trillion GDP at Purchasing Parity, the more realistic measure of economic growth, has been eclipsed by China’s $27.3 trillion GDP at Purchasing Parity, an event that occurred in 2014. From 1890 to 2014, all U.S. administrations, which includes those during the Great Depression decade, the U.S. had the world’s leading industrial economy. China also leads the world in manufacturing output, at $2.01 trillion, followed by the United States at $1.867 trillion. Trump's great economy is only a byproduct and continuation of Obama's truly great economy
No words from Biden to combat the exaggeration and rebut Trump’s principal message for gaining voters.
Biden’s choice of a running mate was a difficult and a no-win adventure. He needed a much younger person, a woman, someone to offset his centrist credentials, a fighter who would take care of the rough and tumble dialogues, and, most importantly, a Vice President who is experienced and considered presidential. The latter requirement carries extra weight in this election. Being of an Africa-American minority carries a negative — the Dems already have that vote and some white voters view the selection as another “liberal” pretense for attracting the Black community.
Three contenders for the position fulfilled four of the five desirable characteristics. Senator Kamala Harris lacked the most significant characteristic — presidential; Senator Amy Klobuchar, considered a centrist, did not balance the ticket; and Senator Elizabeth Warren, at 71 years of age, was not young. The latter two women, due to their experience and records of accomplishment, were more attractive candidates than Harris, who had the most severe and other negatives — having grown up, as an adolescent, with a single Indian mother in Canada (parents were divorced), while falsely attaching herself to the struggling African-American community, enhancing her political career by a questionable liaison with much, much older San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, and, as a local prosecutor and California attorney general, being typed as antagonistic to criminal justice reform. Kamala Harris triggers the words “hypocrite of the liberal establishment” in the minds of many doubtful voters.
From fact-checker Snopes.
Harris dated former San Francisco Mayor and State Assembly Speaker Willie Brown for a period of time between 1994 to 1995. In his capacity as speaker, Brown appointed her to two political posts — first to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, and then to the Medical Assistance Commission.
From Agence France-Presse, August 11, 2020, Harris Under Scrutiny for Tough-on-Crime Prosecutor Past.
"Time after time, when progressives urged her to embrace criminal justice reforms as a district attorney and then the state's attorney general, Ms. Harris opposed them or stayed silent," law professor Lara Bazelon wrote last year.
"Harris turned legal technicalities into weapons so she could cement injustices," Bazelon, a former director of the Loyola Law School Project for the Innocent in Los Angeles, wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times.
Kamala Harris had a reputation in California as a prosecutor and attorney general who waited rather than led, who moved on controversial issues only once she saw what was politically viable," the daily Sacramento Bee wrote in a June editorial.
If Kamala Harris was not selected, this would have left either Amy Klobuchar or Elizabeth Warren as one of the more logical choices, which would have been resolved by deciding which is a more wanted quality – age or place on the political spectrum. Considering that women live longer than men, that Trump, if elected, will be 74 on inauguration day, and Reagan was almost 70 when first taking office, and close to 74 at the start of his second term, Elizabeth Warren at 72 on Jan, 21, 2021 is not young, but within the parameters of modern day age requirements for the highest office. Amy Klobuchar, despite all of her excellent qualities, would have severely unbalanced the ticket and alienated a highly volatile and radical portion of the Democratic Party; those who eschew liberal politics. Senator Elizabeth Warren was the preferred choice.
As of September 27, most polls showed Biden ahead by eight points. Because one candidate’s loss in votes enables the other candidate to gain those votes, the margin translates to a four percent advantage for Biden, with five weeks to Election Day. A four-point advantage can flip easily, especially when the voters do not always relate their true intentions.
Trump does not have the constituencies to win the election. Biden has constituencies that can flip if they are disgruntled with their candidate. Biden’s campaign has shown a tendency to enable those flips.
Kamala Harris remains; that damage is done.
Trump remains, and his damaging manner, as exhibited in the Presidential debate, will continue.
Biden has not taken advantage of a significant Trump defect – acting in isolation. He can attract voters who are dubious of his governing ability by saying, that, unlike Trump, he will have a “brain trust” of a small cadre of qualified Democrats that will provide intelligent information for making objective decisions, contrary to his opponent who discards advice from others and make decisions based upon personal agendas and subjective intuition.
By gathering the facts and displaying them, Biden can shred Trump's triumphant appeal to the electorate – the supposed and exaggerated great economy.
The recent selection of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court poses a challenge to the Democrats. If the Dems use aggressive and defamatory techniques to thwart the nomination, they will lose independent votes. If they pursue an honest and legal approach that does not appear devious and divisive, that binds rather than wounds, they will secure independent votes.
Donald Trump cannot win. If he wins the election, America loses identity, America is isolated, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence become pieces of paper, Democracy is reduced to a theoretical discussion, and the socio-economic system goes chaotic. By these judgements, all Americans lose, including Donald Trump.
september 28, 2020