Not someone else’s kids, THEIR kids.
Besides, these are presumably white kids from white Protestant families, not the brown Catholics (not to mention the children of Middle Eastern Islamic terrorists) who are locked up (where they belong) in detention camps.
I dunno. Will they make the connection that they have to turn against ***Trump ***to save their children? Or will it just be “please Trump, save us, only you can, please”? The other MAGAts elsewhere and the insider Trumpetista gut (not brain) trust figures (Coulter, Ingraham, etc.) will just deride them as being “WEAK” and unwilling to bear the price it takes to MAGA.
Sigh. You’re probably right.
That whole article is heartbreaking in a million ways.
It’s the Republican electorate who vote in the primaries. And the 85% number is consistent with a Washington Post survey, although the article does explain that the support is weaker among those who merely lean Republican.
That’s a very key concept that is often lost.
Trump’s support among those who currently self-identify as Republicans remains strong; he owns them. But “Trump owns a shrinking Republican party”. Increasingly more have moved out of embracing that identity and into Independent and Independents increasingly disapprove of Trump.
Mind you so far Democrats have not fully capitalized on this shift: they’ve moved out of R into I but so far no one is moving from I into strong D. They don’t like Trump but they aren’t (yet I hope) loving what the D side is offering up.
What the GOP has with Trump is a rocky core that is pretty damn loyal to him and a loss of the moons and even the atmosphere surrounding that rocky planet, heck even the top soil and the water. What is left is smaller and skewing older than before. The plus side for him is that the demographic that remains votes, especially in primaries, but when you lost a popular vote and won the electoral college by winning a few key states by very thin margins, and demographics are shifting so that those who dislike you the most are aging into voting more reliably age groups … A rocky core aint fertile ground for future crops.
In addition to this most interesting observation (one which I sign on for), The Atlantic’s Ronald Brownstein writes today that the new batch of Democratic Congress-people are a much more electorally cohesive group than the last time they held a majority in the House, for largely demographic reasons themselves.
In short, more of them are from fairly safe Democratic districts this time around, districts that are more urban, younger and better educated than some of blue-collar-leaning districts that voted for Dems previously. So they’re kind of solidifying around their own base but, unlike the Republicans, one that is growing instead of versa vicey.
Maybe this won’t matter so much in the short term but long term it should continue the country’s long slow pull leftward.
The way I see it going is like this: the townspeople start to get angry enough that it gets Trump’s attention and/or someone in the media asks him about it.
Trump: Obama personally took a shit in that town’s water supply! I saw him do it with a smile on his face on live TV! I rolled back the environmental protections there to PROTECT you from liberals!
Every fact checker everywhere, simultaneously: That never happened and here is irrefutable proof.
Townspeople: Why did Obama shit in our water?! President Trump is the best! MAGA!
If Trump deregulates (say) dioxin in (say) Redtown, Alabama, and a cancer cluster sprouts up next year, the conservatives in that area will say it’s Obama’s fault because something something the government can’t do anything right.
They are completely deranged. The ship has sailed regarding ‘Surely [insert hypothetical awful deed] will turn Trump’s supporters against him’. Nothing can turn them because they don’t want to be turned.
The sooner off we realize Trump supporters will never abandon him, and would rather have someone even Trumpier, the better off we’ll be. There’s no solution to this problem except to reliably turn out the non-Trumpers who didn’t turn out in 2016. There are more of us than them, but we all have to vote.
Marcy Wheelerhas an interesting post today about a resignation “off ramp” short of impeachment for Trump. She contrasts Trump with Nixon and the effects of resignation on each.
ETA - don’t miss the comments on this post - an exceptional number of erudite people added to what Marcy said.
I think one reason why you are absolutely right has to do with social media.
In the past, people could easily change from supporters to “I never voted for the man, never trusted him” quite easily. Someone might say “Hey, remember last Thanksgiving, when you said he was right, and you voted for him?” To which the response could be: “You must be mistaken, I never said that. Never liked the man”
Now though…
Their dedication and support for Trump is preserved for all time in Facebook posts, tweets, online pictures, etc. etc. There is no chance of historical revisionism. So to save face, the only route forward for these folks is to double down on Trump support.
Pelosi quotes Ronald Reagan in her speech today; Republican house members sit on their hands and do not clap, while others do.
This is now completely the Trump Party.
Fair point. Social media makes it hard to back down.
I would point out that many people are expressing online via pseudonyms or alt accounts at this point (there’s a reason they call it the alt-right) that they could walk away from. So maybe it’s not all that bad.
That is a Twitterism that I just realized sounds really condescending if you don’t know I’m 100% on your side, so I am sorry for saying that.
I should have said, if you yet have faith that Trump supporters will change their minds in response to any real-world negative consequences, including white children dying from deregulation-related pollution, you are a noble but naive optimist destined for certain heartbreak.
Amazingly enough, this came not even a day after Individual 1 discounted and undermined what has been one of the GOP’s primary pro-Reagan narratives: that the Gipper orchestrated the fall of the USSR. I’ve never truly bought into the idea that we “outspent” and bankrupted the Soviets in the last years of the Cold War…but I’ve also never heard a Republican argue that the Soviets “were right to be” in Afghanistan because of Afghan terrorists (the ones the US funded and supported), or that it was the Afghan war that bankrupted the USSR into “being called Russia again.”
It sincerely boggles my mind. When Nancy Pelosi is more in tune with Ronnie than the nominal leader of the GOP…what is this i cant even.
Because the GOP was never about Reagan or the fall of communism or anything else they say they value. Never-Trump republicans aren’t real and never were. Reagan republicans aren’t real and never were. If you want to know who Republicans are, watch who opposes the enemies of Republicans. Where white privilege and male domininance go, there go Republicans. Always.
Maybe so.
I’m 45 years old; Ronnie was my childhood. It honestly never even occurred to me that I might see the GOP piss on him in public in my lifetime.
I don’t see how a narcissist would do anything of the sort unless forced - and I don’t see how that happens unless it’s part of a plea deal offered by Mueller that would let him avoid prison. Let anyone who wants to, including Individual-1, spin it however they like, such as “I’ve accomplished everything I promised to, except for the things that are all the Democrats’ fault, so now it’s time to go back to my fabulously successful business empire having made America great again”, for instance.
Mueller is vastly too professional to demand a political act in return for a plea deal. That would be a horrifying overreach of the role of law enforcement and of his job as a special prosecutor. There is no chance whatsoever Mueller would entertain such a thing.
Trump will not resign, and he cannot be convicted in the Senate. Odds are good the world is stuck with him until January 2021.
I doubt it will happen in this case, but I believe it’s actually a standard practice for federal prosecutors to offer more favorable deals in exchange for resignation when a public official is being investigated. Like in the rule books and everything IIRC.
This is no ordinary defendant. The politics, and history, are intertwined with the criminal investigation. Mueller undoubtedly knows that.
That’s as strongly definitive a statement of certainty as it gets. You may want to be more cautious.
You’re certain he cannot be removed, but you’ll only say “the odds are good” that he won’t? What do you see, in your certainty, that is another remaining possibility?