Trump’s plan for 2020
Hmmm:
The story begins in New Mexico, which hasn’t been won by a Republican since George W. Bush in 2004 — and even that was a very near thing. Nevertheless, Bennett reports that Team Trump “is planning to announce a state director and additional ground staff there in the coming weeks.” The play is to “energize a slice of the state’s Hispanic voters” just big enough to turn it red. Jared Kushner told Time, “I can see us very aggressively playing in 18 swing states,” as opposed to just 11 last time around.
What would those states be? Kushner can’t be speaking of only states Clinton won in 2016, because she won only 19 states (plus D.C.). Clearly then Kushner is talking about battlegrounds both blue and red.
The author, Stephen Green, then tries to guess which states they might be; you’ll have to read the article for that. Then he concludes:
But the point is this: Trump wants to broaden the battlespace enough that a clean sweep would give him the biggest GOP win since George Bush ran for Reagan’s third term in 1988. (Bush declined to deliver Reagan’s third term; voters declined to reelect him.)
Now, that’s what you call optimism. But at this point I don’t discount any possibility.
I do think, though, that the outcome in 2020 will depend at least in part on who the Democratic nominee might be. Right now none of them seem any good to me. But there are also a lot of people who hate Trump enough to vote for anyone—literally anyone—who opposes him.
But there are also a lot of people who hate Trump enough to vote for anyone—literally anyone—who opposes him.
No problem. It can work both ways.Call me a yellow dog Republican. I initially voted Demo, then Third Party during the Reagan years. I voted for Bush in ’88 because too many prominent Demos, such as Kerry, were buddy-buddy with the Soviet-imperialism-supporting Sandinistas.
I was a pacifist/Conscientious Objector who abandoned pacifism when Pol Pot did his number on Cambodia. In that situation, I saw, none of us have clean hands. After all but 5 or so Demo Senators voted against Gulf War I, which had the support of the UN, I decided I would never vote for a Demo for President. Demos were applying domestic rivalries to foreign policy-rather unlike what Republicans did during WW2, I might add. The next three elections I voted Third Party.
As a consequence of the Florida recount mess, where I saw that the only principles Demos had were those which would get them more votes, I concluded that it was a cop-out to vote Third Party if Demos won. From then on I was a yellow dog Republican.
Trump’s edge is going to be this- the Democrat candidate will have to compete for WI, MI, and PA- they can’t be taken for granted this coming election. However, it will do the Democrats no good if they regain all three of those, but lose states like NV, NH, VA, NM, and CO.
If there is no recession, and umemployment is still under 4% in November 2020, Trump is likely to win 350 electoral votes. It really is the economy.
Neo flabbergasts me by writing, ” the outcome in 2020 will depend at least in part on who the Democratic nominee might be. Right now none of them seem any good to me.”
Right now none seem any good?
Neo, they are preposterous, outrageous, all of them. The nominee will “move to the middle” but that will be a flagrant lie to Americans who they all see as suckers.
We have seen their true colors.
I do notice that my (many) liberal friends and relations on Facebook are being very quiet about the Democratic nominees.
I’ve no idea what the state travel rally scheme may be but the substantial campaigning seems clear enough: just as Pres. Trump symbolically embraces a flag on stage (and his enemies choose perforce to spit on it, so to distinguish themselves from him), in like manner he will campaign embracing prosperity, while his adversaries one and all proclaim they promise to destroy all prosperity in a jiffy.
You see, the adversaries are geniuses.
Cicero:
I mean “any good” as vote-getters. I wasn’t talking about their value otherwise, or the policies they advocate, which are abysmal.
Mrs Whatsit, anecdotally I agree 100%.
Only one of my democrat friends/acquaintances has mentioned their candidates. He’s a huge Bernie Bro – a trial attorney unsurprisingly.
Everyone else … crickets. Don’t want to be shamed if they support the wrong Totalitarian I guess.
Jared Kushner masterminded Trump’s electoral college strategy last time around. The guy ‘s smart. I’m still calling it for Trump in 2020.
Neo:
Oh.
OK!
In politics 14 months is a very long time. As a relectant Trump voter (there was no other choice) I have come to appreciate that he does his best to achieve his campaign agenda, more so that any president in my lifetime, including RR who was my gold standard. Secondly, he does not back down whenever he is attacked by the leftist cabal. Last of all I find it is easy to pass over djt’s excessive tweets. Simply because he fights back against the millions who wish I was dead, by any means.
Anyone who doubts a hot war is coming had better rethink their wishful thinking. They want you dead, just not me and my family.
Neo: “But there are also a lot of people who hate Trump enough to vote for anyone—literally anyone—who opposes him.”
I agree. There is also a huuuuuuuge number of people who would vote for whoever is the nominee of their party (be it Dem or Repub).
I predict that the Democrat nominee for president will win here in California regardless of who he or she is.
A bit of anecdotal good news: I’ve noticed more and more conservatives coming out of the woodwork right here in the middle of the City of Los Angeles.
I love the map if Trump wins the popular vote.
It’s still very very early. Some big historical event could happen in 9 or 10 months and change everything.
miklos,
Right you are. “Events, dear boy. Events.”
Having said that, a real catastrophe favors Trump – the man actually gets things done. Can you imagine any of the current dem candidates capable of dealing with any kind of Really And Truly Serious Issue? Their specialty is chimeras like AGW.
Ira,
Could you enlarge on the conservatives coming out of the woodwork in LA a little more? Professions? I’ve got friends and family there – grew up just north of LA. I can’t help but think anyone connected to entertainment industry in LA* would be committing professional suicide by coming out as conservative.
*And isn’t that everyone in LA!?!
Trump trolls California (or, Calizuela, if you prefer!), but it shows his approach to “getting things done.”
Quoting the WSJ:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/whats-the-environmental-crisis.php
If Social democrats get to the top…
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union began life in 1898 as the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. In 1903, at the party’s 2nd Congress, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin split their Bolshevik faction from their rival Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks were self-professed Social Democrats.
Molly Brown: “Ira, Could you enlarge on the conservatives coming out of the woodwork in LA a little more? Professions?”
Yes. Sole practitioner lawyers, and talent agents, and landlords, and shop keepers, and entrepreneurs. As for “shouting from the rooftops” their conservativeness, that is not yet happening. But, in casual conversations they say Trump is their guy, and bemoan state of affairs afflicted on us by California politicians and the voters who amazingly vote for them.
To be sure, us LA conservatives are huuuuuugely outnumbered, but there are more of us than most people think.
“…preposterous, outrageous…”
Well, OK, but a bit lacking in balance.
I would add “…ludicrous, pathetic…”.
“…more of us than most people think.”
Keeping in mind that in California, being opposed to public defecation, shooting up in the streets and leaving tainted needles all over the place along with mountains of uncollected garbage likely brands one as a rabid white supremacist…..
Indelibly.
Don’t be surprised if Trump’s campaign hammers home more of his promises and accomplishments. Don Surber wrote of his Oct. 2016 speech and Contract With America:
https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2016/10/reviewing-trumps-contract-with-america.html#comments
He’s done more, against more gov’t opposition, than any post WW II president, including Reagan. Who was, at the time, the target of those with Reagan Derangement Syndrome (mostly unmentioned at his funeral — every dead Rep becomes a good Rep).
If one looks at actual, real world statistics – unemployment levels for all, for blacks, for women, for hispanics;
the growth of the economy –
the fact that there are a million or so FEWER folks receiving food stamps
plus avoiding another one of those god-forsaken, hopeless foreign conflicts that cost the US citizens BILLIONS of $$$;
the FACT that the USA is now energy independent and no longer reliant on Arab oil (yes folks, Arabs HATE the USA and HATE western culture), which is most beneficial, economically, for the citizens of the USS
and the fact that somebody, finally, many many years after our immigration laws were passed by the US Congress, is actually attempting to enforce EXISTING laws.
And yet, the people who hate Trump simply DO NOT CARE about any of this. They do not care that, so far anyway, more Americans are better off now as compared to the last year of Obama’s presidency.
All they care about is his hair, or his method of communicating or his personality, or whatever personality trait of his they find disgusting.
Further, these hate Trumpers seem to be most concentrated amongst the uber wealthy of Manhattan, LA, SF, Seattle, etc and presumably are more “educated” than most Americans.
It just demonstrates that these types, who already have “made it,” – economically, socially, academically – just despise and have contempt for the average American.
This is no different as to how Hitler felt about Slavs and Jews, or how Lenin and Stalin felt about the peasants, or Pol Pot felt about the middle/upper classes.
The anti-Trumpers are motivated and consumed by hate and contempt for the average American.
They can’t wait to vote in a Warren who will literally destroy the US economy and put millions of Americans on the unemployment roles and double the number of Americans on food stamps.
These anti-Trumpers would rejoice and welcome these events so long as their “man” (or, in Warren’s case, their “native American squaw”) attains the presidency.
The leftist ideology is motivated by hate and contempt for the “unwashed masses.” That is why the left never, ever has a problem with leftists engaging in genocide (“you need to break a few eggs to make an omelette”), why they never had a problem with the USSR or Castro or Chavez/Maduro, or why if liberal progressive policies destroy the lives of millions of Americans.
The left, and the leftist elites in particular, care only for imposing their world view upon the citizenry regardless of the pain and suffering it will cause.
A friend, who admittedly is not very political savvy, speculated recently that Hillary might just emerge as the only Democrat who doesn’t sound like a flaming socialist. Now THAT would shake things up a bit! She’d get most of the votes she got last time, plus a few from people who just cannot give up their Trump hate. And her party might just think that is what it will take to beat Trump.
JohnTyler is absolutely right.
I happened to read this piece today in which, very unfortunately, Charles Hurt correctly sums up what I think may be the extent, spread, and strength of the Deep State.
See https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/19/donald-trumps-promise-foreign-leader-breeds-fake-n/
I predict that the Democrat nominee for president will win here in California regardless of who he or she is.
Trump is going to try for the popular vote. That is what he is doing in CA. Imagine what will happen in all those states that passed NPV laws ! I think CA is one.
Pandemonium.
No edit. Ignore the first version.
Mike K:
I got rid of the first comment of yours and left the second.
But by the way, the NPV laws only kick in when a certain threshold of states have passed the law. That threshold has not been reached yet, so they would not be operative.
However, if Trump won the popular vote, it certainly might give pause to the states that already have passed the law, and they might be moved to repeal it.
On the way to 2020, I note the recent emergence of the supposed Intelligence community “whistle blower” complaint, about some supposedly “alarming” telephone call or calls that Trump supposedly made with a foreign leader.
A few days ago the report first emerged, noting just the fact of the existence of such a “whistleblower” complaint.
Then, seemingly coincidentally, we saw saw reports again focusing on Biden, and his and his son’s very lucrative doings in the Ukraine.
You might remember the story, how—with no experience in the energy field, Biden’s son somehow secured a position on the board of a dodgy Ukrainian energy company, which paid him $50,000 dollars per month.
Reports were that the Ukrainian equivalent of the Attorney General was investigating corruption at this dodgy energy company, and VP Biden is on video bragging that he called the President of the Ukraine and told him that unless he fired this AG, Biden—with Obama’s agreement—was going to pull $1 billion dollars in U.S. loan guarantees that the Ukraine desperately needed.
Bragged Biden, he gave the Ukrainian President just six hours to make his decision—the amount of time left on Biden’s visit to the Ukraine—and the Ukrainian President capitulated, and fired this “troublesome” AG.
Now, we are seeing the emergence of stories saying that these mystery calls may have been with Ukrainian officials, and perhaps had Trump asking these officials to investigate what Biden and his son were up to in the Ukraine.
Some commenters are saying that this Intelligence Community “whistle blower” complaint was cooked up to deflect attention from Biden and son’s activities in the Ukraine. I happen think that rather than deflecting from them, it will attract more attention to them.
P.S.—It seems like a major question to me—what gave this supposed Intelligence Community “whistle blower” the power/right to listen in on President Trump’s telephone conversations with anyone, much less foreign leaders or, perhaps, read a transcript of this call or calls?
Moreover, isn’t merely leaking the information to the MSM that these calls exist a crime?
This is the Deep State at work here, and shit like this has been and is going to get thrown at Trump on an almost daily basis by the Deep State monkey troop until the election and, if Trump wins reelection, for the next four years of his second term as well.
What you’re describing Snow is an ongoing problem all right, one which Angelo Codevilla sees too. Codevilla says about this that Pres. Trump has every power necessary to end the trouble but has not used said power, and therefore deserves what he gets. Hard judgement from Codevilla but correct, I think.
Link: https://amgreatness.com/2019/09/20/shamelessness-and-ignorance-unlimited/#.XYTZiUHe24A.twitter
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/19/phil-mudd-trump-communications-foreign-leader-dni-whistleblower-complaint-bts-cpt-vpx.cnn
Mudd makes all the points Codevilla does about the impropriety of having anyone reveal Presidential phone calls, and then some.
“I happen think that rather than deflecting from them, it will attract more attention to them.” – Snow on Pine
If the Democrats had not persisted in pushing the Russian collusion hysteria, we would not know today as much as we do about the Deep State & Democratic Party malfeasance and criminality.
“…we would not know today as much as we do about the Deep State & Democratic Party malfeasance and criminality.”
Indeed. And we are on the cusp of learning a very great deal more, also a part of DJT’s plan for 2020. The crimes will be rolling out from this fall all the way into the heart of campaign season next year. It will be a metaphorical Democrat bloodbath. Which, good.
Many decades ago—when our Federal civil service was much smaller and less specialized than it is now—I’ve read that a straightforward “spoils system” prevailed, and it used to be the practice that when a new Administration was voted into office, practically all of the civil servants appointed by the old Administration were chucked out, and new people appointed by the incoming Administration took their places.
But now, as the saying goes, “you have to pick your battles.”
While it is true that, on paper, you would think that President Trump has all sorts of Executive branch powers but, he is up against what may be a large majority—perhaps an overwhelming percentage of Federal civil servants—government officials he is supposedly in charge of, who are—many of them—apparently making direct and every effort to hamper and to bedevil him.
You also know that any steps he might take to fight back against his tormentors, or to fire them, will be portrayed by the MSM as the next step in Trump’s march towards dictatorship.
I’d love for Trump to fire a slew of obstructionist Federal employees, and to send a whole bunch of U.S. Marshals to some government agency, to escort selected government employee obstructionists out of the building, clutching a cardboard box, full of the contents of their cubicles.
Thing is, as I picture it, the majority of Federal employees Trump is counting on to carry out his programs and policies, his orders, are in positions which enable them to somehow obstruct, to willfully misinterpret, to only partially enforce, to “slow-walk,” or to even simply ignore his orders.
Given this, and the vast size of the Federal bureaucracy, any strikes he might make against those who oppose and thwart him have to be very carefully calculated, very carefully timed, and narrowly focused.
A case in point is probably all of the currently classified documents relating to the Russia hoax; documents which many people have been clamoring to be declassified, and which President Trump has said he has ordered declassified and released to the public, but which have not yet been declassified and released.
I expect that there has been a whole lot of “resistance” to the order, and all sorts of objections and obstructions placed in the way of this ordered declassification and release taking place.
Does President Trump try to fire all those who are refusing to expeditiously and to fully carry out his order—high and low—or does he just accept that his order will be “slow-walked,” but likely will, eventually, be carried out?
And, if he fires this obstructionist crew, will he be able to fire the next obstructionist crew, and the one after that?
Trump has already had to dump several major Administration officials, does he have enough power, is it practical to dump all the others who might not be that responsive to his orders, or on board with his programs and policies?
As a practical matter, I think not.
Many decades ago—when our Federal civil service was much smaller and less specialized than it is now—I’ve read that a straightforward “spoils system” prevailed, and it used to be the practice that when a new Administration was voted into office, practically all of the civil servants appointed by the old Administration were chucked out, and new people appointed by the incoming Administration took their places.
Speaking of the ‘federal civil service’ prior to the institution of the system of examinations ca. 1884 is an anachronism.
The spoils system lasted from 1828 to 1884. The one reference I’ve seen to it’s effect on federal employment estimated that about 20% of federal workers were replaced with a change in administrations.
I am not worried about Deep State shade being thrown at Trump, not after the collapse of the collusion narrative. People are getting tired of being gaslighted. My biggest fear is that they will try to pull off what I suspect they may have done in 2008.
I usually look askance at conspiracy theories but one I can’t quite shake is that the financial crisis was engineered, possibly by Soros, with the intent of electing Obama. Recall that despite his shortcomings as a candidate McCain pulled ahead of Obama in the polls after he chose Palin for VP. But when the Secretary of the Treasury had to go on national TV and tell us we needed 800 billion dollars or the economy was going off the cliff the election was over. There was nothing McCain or any other Republican could have done. Not denying he handled it poorly but it didn’t matter. Trump’s biggest strength is the economy so they will try to target him there.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/20/cnn-report-thousand-of-minnesota-democrats-switch-to-support-trump/
Gringo, I got exactly this far in the comments:
and had to break off and rush to tell you that if I were up for having anybody’s babies (thank the Great Frog, I’m not) you would be on the ultra-short list. :>))))
. . .
It is said, by people more politically knowledgeable than I, that Pres. Bush (43) made a terrible mistake in keeping on so many from the Sith’s administration on staff.
But I certainly think that’s true. And as I understand it, it was quite unusual.
“It is said, by people more politically knowledgeable than I, that Pres. Bush (43) made a terrible mistake in keeping on so many from the Sith’s administration on staff.” — Julie
There were a great many problems with the Tammany Hall machines, but they knew the value of surrounding themselves with their own people.
Civil Service was supposed to protect low-level jobs from patronage, so the Postmaster of Podunk didn’t get changed after every federal election and the desk-jockeys in the agencies had some continuity, but the idea that “civil service” meant “nonpartisan” was always a myth.
Rotating ultra-high-level staff (that serve at the President’s discretion) is not exactly non-controversial these days, but it is understood to be one of the Prez’s perks.
That middle ground, though, seems to be the real problem now. Some have civil service protections, but are still high enough up the ladder to be a speed-bump for administrations they don’t support. Others serve at discretion, but are low enough in the heirarchy chart that it doesn’t seem worth the effort to change them; yet, when from the opposing party, they can do significant damage.
The problem for GOP presidents is that Democrats are distinctly in the majority in those middle ranks, either through design or drift. I don’t know the stats — and doubt if the ratio is as lopsided as in academia — but have seen it mentioned more than once in the punditsphere.
I qualified the “non-controversial” because of the Democrats’ manufactured hysteria over the routine requested resignations of the United States Attorneys by Trump, and the mid-term firings of Attorneys by Bush 43.
Of course, we know now that a major agenda of the Left is stuffing the prosecutors’ offices with partisans; they obviously have been working that gig for a long time.
Since FDR & the USSC, in fact.
I now support term limits for bureaucrats — after 10 years in a gov’t agency, one stops getting pay raises or promotions. After 12 years, one starts getting 5% pay cuts, until one voluntarily leaves the gov’t or is fired.
For police / security agents, one can transfer from or to State, Municipal, & Federal positions. For the military, special exemptions would be available for the top performing 50% each 5 years starting with 15 (and pay frozen until exemption, but no pay cut). The military has too many “top” generals & admirals.
There should be more changes in the hierarchies, more often. And especially in the administration office workers — they should more often come from and return to the private, profit making sectors of the economy.
I’ll believe in indictments against Deep Staters when I see them, tho I do pray for lots of indictments.
Tom – the military already has an “up or out” policy IIRC, but I agree with you in principle. No one should have a permanent sinecure in public service.
“Thing is, as I picture it, the majority of Federal employees Trump is counting on to carry out his programs and policies, his orders, are in positions which enable them to somehow obstruct, to willfully misinterpret, to only partially enforce, to “slow-walk,” or to even simply ignore his orders.” – Snow
I have long remembered a comment made about a much earlier Republican president:
ATTRIBUTION: HARRY S. TRUMAN.—Richard E. Neustadt, Presidential Power, the Politics of Leadership, p. 9 (1960).
https://www.bartleby.com/73/1514.html