And who was the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time? Marco Rubio. Think he’ll have anything to say about Trump bringing Manafort back into the fold?
Rubio will do what he’s told by the MAGAt Party.
My only problem with the Al Jazeera article is that it appears to be inspired by Nate Silver without giving credit.
We are seeing a sorting where Americans with a higher average educational level trend towards the Democratic Party, and for others, the likelihood of becoming Republican increases. More people of color voting for Republicans can be a part of this without it necessarily being a net negative for Democrats (although Nate suggests it is).
A lot of opinions about Trump involve various degrees of wishful thinking. Writing in The Atlantic, Frum thinks his self-focus is going to cost Trump the election. (excerpt:)
…[I remember] some advice I’d heard dispensed by an old hand to a political novice in a congressional race [thirty years ago]. “There are only two issues when running against an incumbent,” the stager said. “[The incumbent’s] record, and “I’m not a kook”. Beyond that, he went on, “if a subject can’t elect you to Congress, don’t talk about it.”
The same advice applies even more to presidential campaigns.
Trump defies such advice. His two issues are “his” record and “Yes, I am a kook”. The subjects that won’t get him elected to anything are the subjects that he is most determined to talk about.
In Raymond Chandler’s novel “The Long Goodbye”, the private eye Philip Marlowe breaks off a friendship with a searing farewell: “You talk too damn much and too damn much of it is about you.” When historians write their epitaphs for Trump’s 2024 campaign, that could well be their verdict.
Frum’s article only makes sense if lots of voters are waiting for a traditionally timed fall election campaign, during which they will make up their minds. I hope he is correct! My fear is that minds were made up during the inflation spurt and are now closed.
Another consideration is that, nowadays, the great majority pull the big lever, or the paper ballot equivalent, as claimed here:
Hal Malchow Is Going to Die on Thursday. He Has One Last Message for Democrats.
If so, Trump — a genuinely weak candidate for reasons Frum explains — may win on the coattails of less kooky state and local GOP office seekers.
Here’s a psychological explanation of why Trump is a viable candidate for President: Americans deeply desire his anti-NATO isolationist foreign policy:
The above paywalled article is admittedly speculative. One thing I do agree with — the rationalizations people give for why they plan to vote as intended often are socially acceptable excuses for the dimly understood real reasons. To give an example that many here may accept, I don’t believe people will really vote against Biden because of his age, and few truly think he caused the inflation.
Interesting. Deep down, this may be something that many on the left and right agree with: that US hegemony has been declining for a while, and (like Great Britain circa 1930-1980), the question is how best to manage this inevitable process. Admitting this fact outright is “taboo” on much of the right – not so much on the left – but many on both sides look forward to the US having fewer international entanglements/responsibilities/obligations. (The biggest remaining left-right difference related to this is about climate change accords and global frameworks).
Yeah, I’d say it’s pure speculation. The kind that is done by professors in ivory towers.
Have you actually spoken with anybody wearing a red Maga hat , say, in a rural small town, or at a Trump rally, or in a Waffle House? These aren’t people who pay attention to international affairs. These are people who think locally. They see the changes in their jobs, their culture, the language spoken by their neighbors… and they feel threatened, lost…so they want to cling to “the good ol’ days” they grew up with…
Academic historians can write lengthy dissertations on how this attitude connects to the “America First” politics of a century ago, followed in World War II by the opposition to lend-lease policies , etc.
But that’s only history…Trumps support is based, not on history, but on sociology. It’s a totally different subject, and a totally different mindset.
Good point. I’ll also mention the left-right difference on taking in asylum seekers.
There is a connection between nativism and isolationism, and MAGA is about pushing both to the max.
Another speculation:
Question: How can so many U.S. soldiers support a candidate who calls them losers and suckers?
Speculative answer: It shows his true sincerity when he opposes wars and deployments. Trump’s policy will potentially save their lives. Of course, if you believe NATO prevents world war, Trump also risks their lives, but that’s speculative, while being deployed to Syria (currently occurring to acquaintances of mine) is real.
P.S. One problem with my last paragraph is that Trump threatens war with Mexico. I’m expecting him to play this down on account of wanting to win the election.
But Donald Trump’s point is that he’s not threatening war with Mexico, but with drug cartels operating on Mexican territory. In his view, it’s a big difference. Plus, he probably figures something along the lines of “what could Mexico do? They’ll just have to sit there and take it”.
Trump’s entire life up to now has consisted of “getting away with it.” I think he believes that would apply to an act of war against Mexico, too.
Yes… they are tiny minded people living in their tiny little world without regard for anyone or anything beyond their tiny selves.
I was coming here to say something like this. My wife’s family fits that description pretty well. They are simple small-town folk who aren’t particularly sophisticated, aren’t particularly well educated, and don’t like change, And they are surprisingly fearful of anything new or different from their usual routine within a few miles of their home.
It’s not that they don’t follow international affairs. They just don’t understand them.
It’s hard to have any sort of rational conversation with them. It will usually start out with something weird or outrageous based on something they half-heard or understood. Like the other day, my MIL was talking about some woman Mrs Soandso who came into the thrift store with a green light so she could buy any glassware that that glows because it contains some metal used for making batteries and that’s going to be in high demand and she’s very well to do so she knows what she’s talking about.
Upon deeper probing and research, Mrs Soandso is “well to do” because she inherited some NJ farmland, not because she corned the market on some process to extract trace amounts of lithium or whatever from old glassware.
The glassware apparently probably has trace elements of uranium, which causes it to glow under the green light. Some people like to collect and sell it because it looks neat. Not because one can profitably and safely extract the uranium out of it (you can’t).
What Donald Trump is good at is connecting with these sort of ignorami and crafting a story that resonates with the sort of things they already “know” and feel strongly about.
I learned important things from this post – seriously. Your little anecdote speaks volumes.
First I want to say – Given how often Trump makes statements that would destroy the candidacy of any traditional politician, explaining how he can remain viable requires, well, a whole lot of explaining. I don’t claim that every viability explanation is equally strong. But when I see one that seems to explain some of Trump’s viability, I put it in this thread.
I agree that it’s speculation. However, AFAIK Claire Berlinski has never been a professor.
Now, if you said it is the kind done by a spy novelist, I would have to agree 
Here’s why punditing from Paris isn’t disqualifying. Would-be Trump voters decide who they lean towards in a non-verbal emotional part of their brains.* Then, verbal neural circuits kick in with justifications that are socially acceptable in that voter’s milieu. So they might say that they support Trump because Biden is old, or because they recall a good economy when Trump was president. True or false as factoids, these are rationalizations for a non-verbal decision. So listening at the Waffle House is a plus, but a lot there is left out.
That’s true. But, then, they may also not pay attention to how close the likely nominees are in age, or to how the unemployment rate increased under Trump and decreased under Biden (admittedly could have little to do with who was president at the time, like with the inflation. but my point is – they don’t pay attention to what a political junkie like me pays attention to, whether domestic or foreign).
Moreover, it is because they don’t pay attention to international affairs that their instinctive reaction to hearing about U.S. tax dollars spent on NATO is – I don’t like that. This is in contrast to the post-World War II era, when an almost instinctive repulsion against anything that smacks of appeasement was drilled in.
Agreed – but that’s consistent with the Berlinski thesis. Conservatives donate more, relatively speaking, to their local church and other community charities. This is sometimes called parochial altruism. Biden voters, relatively speaking, may be more likely to contribute to an internationally-focused charity.
Most Biden voters may not prioritize NATO as a way to achieve world peace, as they put diplomacy above saber rattling. But hearing that the U.S. spends more on arms, than some nations we are allied with, doesn’t set their teeth on edge.
______________________________________
* I suspect this is true for almost all voting decisions, but for purposes of this thread, all that matters is whether it applies to typical Trump supporters.
Yep. Pretty common collectable. The “green light” is actually a UV lamp.
Please excuse the tangent. We have a UV LED flashlight that we used when Tonka went blind and couldn’t find the litter box. Could this be used to identify uranium glass?
Poster name/post match
Yes, I believe so.
The Master Spoke:
https://www.straightdope.com/21342140/is-red-fiestaware-radioactive
Would picking Marco Rubio as his VP make Trump any more viable?