1) Trump wins outright. I don't have a good feel for the probability, but I don't think it's zero.
2) Trump contests the election, e.g. in the manner outlined in the linked article. At the very least, this will delay the next administration, maybe give the opportunity to install more judges and tear down some more Obama related laws & regulations.
3) same as 2 but shortlived. Trump hands over power but continues after the election to run interference and whip up unrest for the next 4 years, maybe paving the road for more Trumps to ascend to the presidency.
I believe 3) is the most likely scenario, and probably the most damaging to the US.
You might be forgiven to say 3) is the most obvious conclusion, but 4 years ago, we all thought that Clinton would win didn't we? and look what happened.
I suggest you should recalibrate your crystal ball once again.
Traditionally, ex-presidents just shut up and go away, at least with respect to politics. Obama has done so less than previous presidents.
I find it almost impossible to believe that Trump will just shut up and go away. He's going to be stirring things up, attacking the next president (Biden or the 2024 winner), yelling about how much better he would have done it and how the new president should have done things. That's bad. What's worse is the effect he's going to have on the next round of Republican primaries, pushing them to run a Trump-like candidate in 2024.
The Republican Party can't heal until they learn to ignore Trump, even after he's out of office.
If a man with experience who is out of office has public criticism for how a person who is currently in office is running their office, that is, in general, bad. (Same as with any job. If the old coach at the college is publicly criticizing how the new coach calls plays, that's rather inappropriate.)
I tend to think that the "Trump will seize the presidency" is akin to the "Trump is a fascist" narrative which is only a hop and skip away from the "Trump is a Russian stooge" narrative.
Notice how little we hear from Democratic messaging about Russian interference or impeachment? Clearly this must not have tested well when they were vetting their messaging against test audiences.
My guess: the idea of some refused succession is all bluster and fantastic delusions of media-elite liberals, unable to imagine a reality that's not all-out emergency.
It takes some next level cognitive dissonance to read an article where a republican party chairman is noted as confirming the story, and then respond by saying that it's all a Democratic hoax.
I haven't a clue whether it's true or not - Trump himself could even admit it and it doesn't make much difference.
I'm saying that the article and general character of these types of allegations fall in line with the previous four years of frantic searching for the magic phrase or story that'll finally banish Trump. It's more desperation than reporting.
I suspect it’s the historic levels of party disaffiliation.
Since parties largely lack an ideological foundation and their constituencies aren’t attached, they need to portray things as pure disaster and make clear will-to-power arguments, cast their opponents as devils, etc.
14 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 47.0 ms ] threadI see at least 3 scenarios:
1) Trump wins outright. I don't have a good feel for the probability, but I don't think it's zero.
2) Trump contests the election, e.g. in the manner outlined in the linked article. At the very least, this will delay the next administration, maybe give the opportunity to install more judges and tear down some more Obama related laws & regulations.
3) same as 2 but shortlived. Trump hands over power but continues after the election to run interference and whip up unrest for the next 4 years, maybe paving the road for more Trumps to ascend to the presidency.
I believe 3) is the most likely scenario, and probably the most damaging to the US.
I suggest you should recalibrate your crystal ball once again.
I find it almost impossible to believe that Trump will just shut up and go away. He's going to be stirring things up, attacking the next president (Biden or the 2024 winner), yelling about how much better he would have done it and how the new president should have done things. That's bad. What's worse is the effect he's going to have on the next round of Republican primaries, pushing them to run a Trump-like candidate in 2024.
The Republican Party can't heal until they learn to ignore Trump, even after he's out of office.
So if a man with experience of running a country expresses opinions about running that same country that would be bad in your book?
https://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/web-video/former-pre...
Notice how little we hear from Democratic messaging about Russian interference or impeachment? Clearly this must not have tested well when they were vetting their messaging against test audiences.
My guess: the idea of some refused succession is all bluster and fantastic delusions of media-elite liberals, unable to imagine a reality that's not all-out emergency.
I'm saying that the article and general character of these types of allegations fall in line with the previous four years of frantic searching for the magic phrase or story that'll finally banish Trump. It's more desperation than reporting.
"Bush derangement syndrome" they called it with W.
Republicans were like this with Clinton.
I don't remember it before that. But it's been growing worse and worse with each president since Clinton.
Since parties largely lack an ideological foundation and their constituencies aren’t attached, they need to portray things as pure disaster and make clear will-to-power arguments, cast their opponents as devils, etc.