Getting Out the Trump Vote Again

Canvassing doesn’t work in wooing uncommitted voters — here’s the evidence.

It does seem though that systematic efforts to get out the vote have some impact. That’s partly what happened in the 2016 presidential election: Republicans were persuaded to vote for Trump, even if they didn’t much like him, in order to prevent Clinton from winning. Meanwhile Clinton generated only tepid enthusiasm and turnout among Democrats.

Trump seems particularly vulnerable as the 2020 campaign gets underway, losing support from the swing states and the suburbanites who made the difference last time around, and not even factoring in the Mueller reveal that’s yet to come. You’d have to think that a lot of the people who voted Trump’s way last time are going to sit this one out.

So what can Republicans do to jack up the turnout? The traditional hot-button issues are still in play  — abortion, drugs, illegal immigrants, Obamacare. Terrorism? Trump himself just pulled that plug by declaring victory over ISIS and amping up negotiations with the Taliban, but maybe he’ll juice the anti-Iran sentiment.

What seems likely is that the Republicans will spotlight the new wave of left-wing Democrats, even if they lose the nomination to a more moderate candidate. The Democratic tent harbors radical leftists, increasingly strident and influential, who are pushing America inexorably toward socialism and infanticide while opening our borders to roving hordes of Mexicans who kill us with their drugs, rape our women, and take our jobs. Sure Trump is an asshole, but you already knew that when you voted him in last time and — thank God — prevented Hillary from ruining our country. Buck up and get yourself out to the polls!





5 thoughts on “Getting Out the Trump Vote Again

  1. I don’t know quite why people think that much about 2020 election beyond noting that someone else is announcing. Also occurs to me that people talk about 2020 because they can’t include the Mueller investigation yet. It’s as if he’s having a hard time finding what would condemn. I wouldn’t be so sure of that, given that they seized thousands and more documents from Stone’s house, and it takes a long time to review every single one, which they have to.

    There’s a good article in NYT today about how Republicans have actually been resisting him by not bringing up things he wants done, so that they don’t have to vote and seem to be against him. Although they did yesterday in regard to Syria and Afghanistan. The most extraordinary thing is his ignoring Haspel, Wray and Coats, all of whom he appointed, as ‘needing to go back to school’ and they’re ‘just wrong’, in the meantime still maintaining that Putin’s denial was so strong he couldn’t possibly believe the kind, gentle KGB president would possibly lie. Same with MBS.

    Yes, we knew that Trump was an asshole when some of us voted for him. I can’t speak for others, but ‘Hillary fatigue’ at that time is a well-known syndrome, and she was a horrible candidate. Voting for Trump was for short-term relief from certain suffocation. I don’t know how I would have felt if I weren’t in a state which I already knew would go for Hillary. I think I definitely will watch the SOTU, because I want to watch Pelosi from behind. Having to cave has made him so furious he’s dying to do something rash to change the subject, while still having it go down as ‘getting the wall’, in whatever form will save face.

    But you know all this. George Will likes both Klobuchar and Hakeem Jeffries. I suppose I’d vote for any of them this time, certainly not Trump under any circumstances. He’s merely a destroyer.

    We only have to wait a week before Cohen has to appear, as well they were right to make him, despite the incredible threats of Trump and Giuliani.

    It is very peculiar that Hillary won’t say she’s definitely not going to run, although I’d vote for this time, even though I find her disgusting. Most commentators say the Democrats will have to become more moderate to get votes, and Schultz is complicating all of it.

    Giuliani completely ruined his reputation with all his recent bullshit.

    Apparently Trump really is in a bubble kept intact somewhat by watching only Fox News. That interview with Sulzberger was extraordinary, with Trump begging for ‘at least one good piece about him’ in the NYT.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Among Dem aspirants Kamala Harris is favored to get the nod, while Beto O’Rourke is a close second but trending down. I don’t know much about either of them, though I think they’re both moderates. Maybe the less people know about a candidate the better. Next come some more well-known figures: Biden, Warren, and Sanders, all of them pretty tightly bunched in jockeying for third place. But the race is just getting started: 4 years ago Jeb Bush was the odds-on Republican nominee at this stage in the race, so we’ll see what develops. Maybe Kobuchar and Jeffries are biding their time, waiting for the front-runners to stumble a little so they can be the fresh horses for the stretch run. Betting odds on the election presently favor the Democratic candidate, whoever that turns out to be, over Trump.

    Will Trump get indicted? Probably not. Mueller might well go after Junior, who might blab to save his own skin, and the final report is likely to be pretty damning. There might be an impeachment but Donald would likely survive the vote. Everybody knows he lies daily, so the findings aren’t likely to unsettle his base. As you point out, Republicans are increasingly turning on Trump, reinforcing the standard Republican position on Iraq and Syria, I don’t know about Afghanistan. But mainstream Democratic policy is also pretty hawkish these days, so foreign military policy isn’t liable to separate the field. It seems likely that the Republicans are going to close ranks more and more to emphasize the importance of the Party over the personality cult. Rein Donald in as best they can so he can still be their torchbearer in 2020, still their best shot at winning.

    First the CIA went around Trump directly to Congress on the Saudi assassination. Not much news is coming out lately, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the House comes forward soon with a call to rein in support for the Saudis in Yemen. Next the CIA went around Trump with their Congressional briefings on Iran and ISIS. This seems unprecedented. CIA reports to the Director of National Security, which is a Cabinet-level post, part of the Executive branch and directly under Presidential authority. So for Coats to go around his boss, publicly disagreeing and potentially humiliating him in front of the Congress, is startling to say the least. My presumption is that the CIA knows about Trump’s involvements with Russia and other foreign nationals in the Mueller investigation, and Coats is letting that tacitly be acknowledged by bypassing chain of command.


  3. “My presumption is that the CIA knows about Trump’s involvements with Russia and other foreign nationals in the Mueller investigation, and Coats is letting that tacitly be acknowledged by bypassing chain of command.”

    Very good point. I didn’t think of it, but now that you say it, it seems almost certain it would have to be. CIA definitely good at keeping secrets. I always loved when Mike Morell would go on Charlie Rose. Maybe he’s on Amanpour. I should finally give in and watch that some.

    The McConnell-led amendment (I think that’s the one that was one) was about Syria and Afghanistan, and Trump taking troops out of there. Iraq is bound to figure in, because ISIS had territory there as well as Syria, and may still have a small amount.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for that link.

      President Trump plans to keep United States troops in Iraq to monitor and maintain pressure on neighboring Iran, committing to an American military presence in the region’s war zones even as he moves to withdraw forces from Syria and Afghanistan… But senior American officers and diplomats said Mr. Trump’s comments could undercut the delicate negotiations in Iraq by inflaming fears among the Iraqis that the moves would be a guise to check Iran, potentially straining ties with Baghdad and weakening the ability of the United States to respond to Islamic State remnants in Syria.

      If the Americans try to bring more troops to Iraq, said Jawad al-Musawi, a member of Parliament, “there will be an escalation in the opposition to them. There is distrust of the American government — even if they say they are coming to protect us against Daesh,” he said, using the Arabic word for the Islamic State, “the real reason they will be coming is to hit Iran.”

      So that’s problematic. In his book The Fifth Risk, Michael Lewis observed that the Pentagon and the CIA were dismayed when Trump jettisoned the Iran nuclear deal, which not only made it worth Iran’s while not to develop nuclear weapons but ensured that the US and allies could inspect Iranian nuclear sites and monitor their nuclear materials. So now Trump wants to watch Iran not from inside Iran but from the next country over and without a deal it place? Not shrewd.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s