Yes and no. Many Latinos are very family oriented and traditional; some skew Conservative but they are individuals with a. broad pastiche of views, from different generations, some from countries that are quite different from one another (even if many Americans are ignorant of these differences)… some like authoritarians, some like Conservative social policies.
I agree this is a very diverse group with many opinions. However, one can still appeal to many of them, in many ways. One might start by highlighting Trump’s positions but this in itself is not enough; the next step is to stress common positions with direction and purpose, and this effort could be stronger though it is early days.
Then I don’t see your point? Seriously, Biden is unpopular, mostly for reasons that have NOTHING to do with him (perceptions that the economy is terrible) or are flat up made up. The issue IMHO is that “mainstream” news tells the truth (things are looking up but there are risks) but ALSO will take the administration to task for legitimate screw ups.
If you watch some combination of Mainstream news and MAGA propaganda (such as Fox news), then the Fox news puts EVERYTHING in terrible light. And many people seeing both, assume it’s somewhere int he middle, which pushes the window in a much bleaker direction, which makes it seem more likely that said “reasonable” “centrist” person then thinks that the mainstream must be downplaying things, because the other side says it’s totally terrible! And so the spiral continues.
Again, not just specific subgroups.
Speaking of which, I think Biden should be doing something along the lines of what you say, @Dr_Paprika
But it shouldn’t be restricted to or absolutely targeted at a single Demographic - we need everyone still reachable to realize just what we have to work on. Putting the focus on a specific group / ethnicity / etc seems to lead right back to the assumptions inherent in “why doesn’t X support Y” - it is often read as pandering, or at least, inherently dishonest. If you say “group Y is super important to me” but then act for (presumably) the good of everyone, Y is going to feel cheated. Better to make a common good for all, or even most, which is something Biden does try for.
But none of it means a speck of snot when it’s buried in the propaganda wave that Trump and his enablers spew forth like a firehose of rotted filth.
No doubt there is media spewing a steady stream of stuff to glorify Trump and diminish Biden. The situation is what it is. There are still people who can be persuaded, and some of those live in six important swing states. Biden has some genuine accomplishments but needs to better publicize them. Since Trump’s musings seem to become Republican policy, also given his past, there is an awful lot of room to challenge these, appealing to both logic and emotion, for every demographic (though some are, as you imply, beyond persuasion). Not least is a Trump presidency will likely spend more energy addressing past slights than future issues.
One factor that I think is underappreciated is Trump’s skill at political relationships. Even lower level people seem to have personal access to Trump if willing to be a dittohead. And he spends hours each day talking to influential and would-be influential people, playing golf with them, spending time at resorty places and using all the trappings of business and politics to do that.
Of course any leader has relationship skills. But with different resources, priorities and amount of time devoted to those things. And with more hierarchy it is less common to go from being unknown to a major administrative role.
I think the opposite. Seniors and other folks that can answer phones all day (stay at home Republican moms) are more available to answer phones than working class democrats or independents. Trump followers are like sheep and tend to support Trump at all turns. They welcome the phone call. Because they are angry! Democrats are only fearful. Also, the voters there do not follow poltics or Fox news or MSNBC as much. it is mostly us hard core democrats that bother with MSNBC.
i don’t agree with this at all. Yes, trump loves to have people toady up to him, and he’s not too picky about who or how important they are, as long as they fawn over him sufficiently.
But when it comes to real political relationships, he’s viciously turned on, or thrown under the bus, countless formerly loyal political associates since the beginnings of his political ‘career’. As I mentioned in my OP to this thread, this is one of the things that really confounds me, since the very currency of politics has traditionally been political capital: building and then spending it as needed. How trump can burn so many political bridges and still stay viable in politics is baffling. At some point it seems like what he mainly brings to the table, his rabid base of dimwit deplorables, would be far outweighed by his utter instable inability to work with pretty much any politician, including many, many former trump loyalists.
Because the MAGAts out there don’t give two hoots about political capital, probably not even knowing about what it is and how it’s used, and right now as a Republican, if you cross them you’re not going to come out of primary as a candidate.
You have a point. But something explains why, in the face of reason and rationality, Trump has maintained a consistent support level of 35% or so. Part of it is celebrity worship, conservatism a mixture of fear and fawning (by Trump behind the scenes, as well as his flunkies) and spinelessness. The bigger question: how has he kept the support of his fellow Republicans so that his every musing seems to set the party agenda (agendum)?
But Trump has spent a lifetime using accoutrements like planes and fancy buildings to influence people. Sure, he has thrown many under the bus. Would do so again without a second thought. But the fact is rank-and-file lawmakers have more access to Trump than any presidential equivalent I can think of (although being Canadian this does not mean much).
This I think is amply proven: if you DON’T toe the line, he supports anyone who primaries you (which WILL happen given his legions of fans) and more likely than not, you LOSE the primary and thus your job / career / lucrative post-political sinecure. And the former kingmakers of the Republican party can’t do a thing about it, even when said radicals winning the primary cost them the general election (or causes a far closer battle than it should have been).
It’s just that simple. The ones who were on ‘his’ side, but NOT willing to be a lapdog have all been forced out or retired. A substantial number at that, including those (Cheney as a key example) with far better “Republican” records. This isn’t a political group anymore, it’s a cult and those who are trying (and often failing) to ride the tiger out, or hoping to be it’s next messiah.
I get all this, but trump’s hold on his rabid 35%-ish base is pretty much all he brings to the table. Certainly not his brilliant strategic political skills or his ability to work with other politicians to get things done (other than tearing shit down or knocking over guardrails). Granted, his deplorable army has been enough to give him leverage over other Repubs, but I’m surprised that it has been, at least so far.
The ability to primary his Repub opponents, or even the threat of it, has been his greatest weapon, yes, but if I recall correctly, that has not always worked for him. And he’s been generally ineffective at boosting Repubs in general elections with his support.
As I mentioned upthread, ‘establishment’ Repubs like the McConnells, McCarthys and Grahams were condemning trump’s actions in the immediate aftermath of Jan. 6, and it looked like the tide was turning. But they caved and backed down. I just don’t get the abject cowardice and complete lack of any political strategy among establishment Repubs, to not be able to do something to close ranks and stop the runaway trump train.
Which even at the times when it’s not enough to give you victory, it’s is enough to deny it to you.
There are no “ranks” to close. The GOP Establishment is very appropriately unsuited for acting for “collective” good, due to the widespread view among them of life as a contest of all on all.
The only common cause of Establishment Republicans any more is lowering taxes on the magnates and letting corporations go Guilded Age on the workers and environment. But they really have no single plan to offer the voting masses.
And that makes them vulnerable to someone who unifies that part of “the base” on an emotional level – the Establishment GOP had for decades grabbed them on matters of anticommunism or religion but that would leave them still susceptible to come and go and not fall solidly behind a specific someone, just voting R because it’s not D. The Trump camp figured out that you could go to that segment and say “Hey! Behold, the standard-bearer of you anger!” …and that would unify that group in a manner that can’t be reasoned away from since it was not reasoned into.
All those officials who seemed to be decrying him on 1/7, when they headed back to their districts the next recess, found that the base was angry at them for not having had his back.
From the Trump lawyer I am getting a concept. The courts can block presidential acts, such as Biden loan forgiveness. But presidents cannot be charged with crimes while president. Except “private conduct” such as rape.
So say Biden does a tit for tat–trump wins the electoral vote (god forbid) and Biden successfully blocks the certification–that would be totally cool according to Trump’s lackeys?
That would be a presidential act. The Supreme Court would step in as they can control presidential acts. Not state election related acts.
Trump WOULD have been able to interfere with certifiaction at state level. He tried. Those are just phone calls, not legally binding on the states. Private person Trump will do this again in 2024.
