Ian Bremmer, a good and neutral pundit without much bias except toward the need to position himself favorably to get corporate clients, but in spite of that, on point… wrote an article here with the headline of “Battleground States Swinging Against Trump“, and the bottom line leaned in the direction of Trump having a tough time in battleground states, and therefore not a shoo-in to be re-elected.
I saw and responded on Facebook with the blurb below regarding the premise that battleground states are swinging against Trump:
Unless the Democrats nominate a socialist, which doesn’t seem unlikely – and that combined with the low popularity and high scare factor of the “S” word in swing states.
AND/OR since Trump is already bolder than he was in 2016, and will be even more so by general election debate time, maybe he’ll steamroll the Democratic nominee in the debates in the mind of Joe the Plumber (it won’t matter what the pundits say). Sure, Donald may turn debates into a farce as a thinking person sees it, but that hasn’t stopped other populists or him much because the views of thinking people are always a bit suspect, but especially these days.
AND/OR, since liberals are flooding my Facebook feed with naive posts about how “all we have to do is excite our base”, and posts calling ALL Trump supporters outright racists, and they think they’re making a difference helpful to their cause (I’ve never seen an argument like that swing a single soul). Maybe all that will flip a switch in some cynical voters that ALL politicians represent problematic ideology, so they might vote for Trump cuz the economy is okay, or not vote at all.
AND/OR, since Trump is already gaining access to lots of mainstream Republican donor money he did not have access to in 2016 – maybe he’ll use it for lots and lots and lots and lots of negative ads. (Negative ads often work, that’s why they’re used.) Maybe Trump’s path to a win in is making his opponent unfavorable like him. Didn’t he do that once already. Hey Democratic nominee, Socialist much? Pal around with people of color much? Support third trimester abortions much? Etc, etc, etc.
AND/OR, maybe Russians and various fever swamps will spread lots and lots of misinformation from now until then – sucking most of the oxygen out of many news cycles – Donald has figured out how to gain as much as he loses. IF liberals go full crazy above, what if that opens the door for 1% of voters currently on the “maybe racist/maybe not” fence to get Donald’s coded and straight up racist appeals and finally swing his direction. (“If I’m being called a racist in no uncertain terms, I might as well finally screw over that black/Latino person I think deserves it.”) What if it’s 3%? 4%?
AND/OR, maybe Trump will continue to be a master of hijacking the news cycle with complete buffoonery. He currently does this SUCCESSFULLY on a regular basis, especially when his opponent is having their moment, or when something damaging comes out about him, minimizing the negative impact for him of his gaffes, and maximizing the positive impact for him of others’ gaffes.
AND/OR, perhaps Trump will be continue to capitalize on his understanding that media is driven by ratings, ratings, ratings. P.T. Barnum provides the spectacle, and people tune in. He doesn’t have to win over everybody, just a few here and there.
AND/OR, perhaps the Donald will turn some of the liberals’ own logic against them. Common man liberals use words like ‘racist’ and ‘implicit bias’ to paint all opponents with a broad brush. (I’ve heard ‘anybody who supports Donald Trump is a racist.’ several times lately.) But since EVERYONE has implicit bias, i.e. everyone is a ‘racist’ on some level… if accusations of racism are common enough that people start getting numb, maybe the door is more open to more loud and proud actual racism (living DOWN to expectations, it’s a thing), which then shows a path to others, and becomes a cycle.
AND/OR, maybe there’s a stigma stopping wannabe racists from shouting “go home” to someone in a parking lot, or harassing someone online. But if any of the above factors result in they do it once, they’re likely to feel conflicted and look for justification for what they did. If/once it’s justified, they will do evil in the name of their newfound justification/cause.
Maybe. There’s factors pushing this way and that way.
Just don’t get too cocky or stuck in your liberal bubble, Democrats. We’ve been there before, and we see what happened.
MLK JR had levels and levels of sophistication and power levers within his methods that modern social justice warriors don’t bother to learn because their righteousness says they’re right, screw the bad guys. This isn’t new, MLK JR faced the very same argument, and the deeper you get in the history the more it’s clear Rustin, MLK, and A. Philip Randolph achieved way way WAY more than Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, and Stokely Carmichael.
That is very un-satisfying to the righteous do-gooder ego. But it’s true.
If you don’t use the most effective methods, you won’t get the best results. If guilt trips, circular logic, warmed over Marxism, and demonizing are not the best methods, all the effort in the world with those methods won’t change the fact they could have better results with Rustin’s and King’s methods.
And in this case, using less effective (Sanders/Warren/sjw) methods may keep Trump in the White House.
Comments by Derek Ottman