Friends, my latest article is hot off the digital presses, and it's a doozy! I upbraid Trump for all the opportunities he missed in the debate, which were numerous, and which may end up hurting his chances more than the unfortunate gaffes he actually made. I also suggest that there is still time for the Trump-Vance campaign to correct these errors and get its messaging on track.
Losing By Omission
To be clear, there is little sign at this stage of the presidential race that Donald Trump is destined to lose. According to the polls and the betting markets, the only reasonable conclusion one can reach currently is that the outcome is a toss up. Nonetheless, there is no denying that the debates have hobbled Trump and have caused him to lose momentum, and, lest we forget, in such a close contest, every drop, every iota, of momentum is precious and could ultimately be determinative.
The first mistake Trump made vis-à-vis the debates was to announce that he would face off against Joe Biden “anytime, anywhere”. This forfeited Trump's leverage over the timing and the venue(s), needless to say, and led to an early debate on CNN that, while it yielded a Trump “win” over Biden, also facilitated a successful Democratic Party coup that ousted Biden, a weak candidate, and replaced him with, by most accounts, a younger and abler competitor. Thus, in the grand scheme of things, the big loser of the June debate was...Trump himself. And it need not have been so. Had Trump not given the coup plotters an opening, the Democrats would be saddled with Sleepy Joe to this day.
Because Trump had already agreed to debate his opponent, who was then Biden, on CNN and ABC, he was essentially boxed in and had to accept a September debate against Kamala Harris on ABC – a network whose documented hostility to Trump and Republicans made it highly unlikely that the questioning and moderation would be congenial. Quite predictably, it wasn't. Harris put forth a performance that exceeded expectations – especially those of Trumpers, Republicans, and conservatives – while Trump seemed defensive, repetitive, and poorly versed in policy and facts. Meanwhile, ABC's crack team did its best to kick Trump while he was down.
I would like to suggest, however, that Trump's biggest failures in the recent debate do not flow from what he said, or what Harris said in response. The most shocking and egregious fumbles that Trump made lie in what he didn't say, and in the golden opportunities that he missed. These omissions lead one to question whether Trump's political instincts are as sharp as they used to be.
First, in discussing abortion, Trump talked up the virtues of the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the consequent empowerment of the states. That is a sound approach, but what Trump did not do was personalize the issue. Harris did: she made it clear that real women are suffering because of the abortion restrictions passed by Republicans at the state level. The natural retort, which Trump failed to make, is that real babies are being born, and actual human lives are being saved, by abortion restrictions as well. At the very least, Trump could have suggested that the issue is a complicated one and there are valid reasons – politically, constitutionally, morally, emotionally, religiously, etc. – to respect both sides.
Second, both candidates were asked a question about race and identity, which was a perfect opportunity to make their pitches to voters of color. Harris did so, and Trump did not. Obviously, one of Trump's most serious weaknesses as a candidate is that he is widely perceived to be a racist and a sexist. Indeed, Democrats, progressives, and so-called journalists have invested much time and energy in painting him as a bigot. Thus, when Trump has a chance to build bridges with minority and female voters, he should probably make the effort. He has plenty of potential ammunition: from the legions of minority and women voters who already support him, to the gains that people of color and women made during his first administration, to the fact that Democrats so often take these demographics for granted and do not genuinely care about their interests. Trump could have attempted to appeal to this massive and growing component of the electorate in countless ways. He didn't even try, which is political malpractice.
Third, Trump did not mention Kamala Harris's long period of self-isolation after her crowning as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, including her refusal to give press conferences or do one-on-one interviews. He didn't mention in any detail her record as a San Francisco District Attorney or as California's Attorney General, which could be used to peg her as a typical Bay Area leftist. He didn't allude to her steadfast support for Joe Biden, up to the moment that she stabbed him in the back and took his place as her party's standard-bearer. In short, Trump missed countless opportunities to attack Harris based on her record, her ideology, her trustworthiness, and other personal defects.
Fourth, Trump did not push back against hostile questioning regarding January 6th and his rejection of the results of the 2020 election by focusing instead on the Democrats' and the Biden Administration's sponsorship of censorship and their attempts to keep their political opponents off the ballot. Why not put Democrats on the defensive on the issue of “democracy” whenever possible? Trump did address lawfare and the “weaponization” of the justice system against him personally, but he might have driven home these points by underlining the close connections between the prosecutors who are targeting him and the White House, and he might also have pointed out to the American people that, if he, a candidate for president and a former president, can be a victim of lawfare, then they, as ordinary citizens, are arguably even more exposed to persecution and prosecution. In other words, no one is safe when the rule of law breaks down.
Lastly, there is a burning issue in American political life that admittedly no politician likes to talk about, but every educated and informed voter finds highly concerning: our deteriorating fiscal situation. With recent yearly deficits of $1 trillion to $3 trillion, and a debt-to-GDP ratio that is now way above the danger point of 100% – meaning that our $35 trillion debt exceeds our $27 trillion economy – America simply cannot afford to keep spending wildly, while also cutting taxes, which is the apparent preference of both Trump and Harris. Something has to give, and our president, or our future president, needs to be straight with us and lay out the sacrifices that will have to be made to restore our financial soundness and stability. Almost every Republican and conservative, and many independents, understand this, but Trump said nothing that might appease those voters who are concerned about nation's fiscal future. In fact, he showed no awareness of the problem.
Trump's errors and omissions in the recent debate were serious. For some people watching, they may even be disqualifying. Luckily, there are still two months left for Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, and their many capable surrogates to address some of these gaping holes in Trump's messaging, and to reassure the American people that, on these critical issues, while the GOP may not have all the answers, it will not be altogether silent.
Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480/106.9.
And here it is in the Olean Times Herald:
***
In other news, Trump was the intended victim of yet another assassination attempt today! If some of these Trump haters learn better markmanship, and if these trends continue, Trump may not make it to November... Of course, don't expect to learn much about the shooter from the federal authorities. They'll be sure to paint him as a "lone wolf" and leave it at that.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: In the 12th century, English King HenryII was engaged in a historic conflict with Archbishop of Canterbury Beckett over ecclesiastical and royal prerogatives. In high rage he blurted words to the effect of "oh who will rid me of this meddlesome priest!" Some of his retainers, having heard this and thinking this gave them license, made haste to kill the Archbishop in his cathedral. Upon hearing the news Henry went prostrate with horror and dread that he had thus condemned his soul to eternal damnation. Consequently, he did painful, humiliating and prolonged public penance.
ReplyDeleteI suppose that concern and those sanctions are not in store for those who have advanced and those who celebrate, the unprecedentedly vicious personal onslaught on President Trump, for the sin of having opposed the antiamerican hate filled left, which has disgraced our public life beyond measure. But their savagery has been interpreted as license by unbalanced people. "Why, if all these prominent powerful people think Trump dangerous, why, he MUST be so!" Two have now acted murderously upon this conviction.
Medieval style penance is no longer practical but a modern penalty for this reckless, totalitarian onslaught on Trump is readily available. That is, show antiamerica and it's Dem party shills that their detestable choice of such a tactic condemns them too. Defeat them in November and let them rue their presumption forever. Their intent - to destroy a man who they know knows them for what they are, better than anyone - is plain and their utter discreditation is richly deserved. Show them America, show them!
RAY TO JACK
DeleteJust in case, "gird your loins" for a Harris win.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Your essay on how DJT and his campaign mishandled the debates is appallingly creditable. Why did they so?! Will their mishandling of this aspect of the campaign extend to the critical home stretch?
ReplyDeleteOK, no debates to plan for now. The rest of the campaign must be a unrelenting revelation and condemnation of her radical left bonafides, her essential and definitive San Francisco outlook and her contemptuous dishonesty about her views.
Do the vast majority of Americans harbor radical leftist convictions? No. Would they knowingly vote for one they know would force on them measures based on such beliefs? No. Then DJT must give America to KNOW that her Presidency would surely manifest the entire spectrum of the views incorporating a forced "fundamental transformation" , a mandated abandonment of the proven American way, in favor of unproven dreams based on the catastrophically discredited Marxist credo. He must, by tirelessly citing her past positions and her political origin, make it inarguable that she lies when she denies her already
recorded , openly expressed radical leftist views.
She WOULD: advance the complete destruction of the domestic energy industry; hamstring the use of our country's inexhaustible and fortuitous supply of relatively clean burning natural gas in order to force ill considered "politically correct"alternatives on us (following in this and much else, NY state's pioneering pronunciamentos to this effect); do the best which opportunity affords her to turn Scotus from lawfulness into a submissive radical rubber stamp; condemn many more millions of unborn children to denial of life itself through Federal law imposed on state cultures for which it would be anathema; extend her executive authority to divide our country into officially exalted and proscribed (and consequently punished) classes based upon historical injustices attributable to no one alive; complete the destruction of our southern border and purposefully enable the invasion of our country by masses including people whose culture is inimical to ours; etc, etc, ad nauseum. He can do this creditably in his most advantageous setting: out in public . He has the guts to face the risks so let him bustle!
The '88 campaign, in which Dukakis was fully shown up for the criminal apologist he was through hard hitting advertising which attracted vicious leftist excoriation, can be a good model. State just what she is, show the plain objective truth of it and to hell with the antiamerican left
when it howls!
America can win this election if it will but do so!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: In addition, Harris would champion and enable the conviction that social"equity" is proven only when equal results are fostered and the absurdity and counterproductiveness of some measures meant to artificially ensure this - to try to force what human nature denies - are no matter. And when such measures result in the disadvantage of theretofore "unjustly privileged" groups then equality of results is handily dispensable.
ReplyDelete". . . he can denounce this creditably . . . " Jack
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Good point about what DJT would do well to assert from here on in: how many living breathing four years olds are with us today who would have been "terminated" had the states not been given the "choice" of limiting the horror of abortion by DJT's lawful Scotus? Kamala Harris not only would take away that redemption but she would use Federal power to force all of the states to accommodate (and probably to pay for) practically unlimited dispatch of unborn babies.Bob Dole once said he would not outlaw abortion but he would talk about it every day. DJT should do that now. How dare the antiamerican left, through Kamala, even hint at forcing abortion on states whose cultures deem it anathema!? Hit it hard DJT!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: The gun rights issue helped to humiliate the Clintons by taking Congress from them in '94 and it may have sunk Gore back in 2000. He couldn't even win his gun owning home state. So DJT should hit Harris hard on guns. America is still a fundamentally free lawful gun owning civilization.
ReplyDeleteAs a DA in San Francisco she wrote Friend of the Court briefs to Scotus opposing gun owners in the monumental Heller case, the decision in which affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms and she did it again in the McDonald case, arguing that the states should ignore the Heller ruling in writing state gun laws. Her ilk was overruled both times.She coauthored gun grabber eventual far left Kalifornia Gov. , then San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's gun law package which infringed heavily on the 2nd Amendment. I mean, even San Francisco gun owners do have Constitutional rights but you wouldn't know it by Gavin and Kamala and they "feel" the same about America.
Of course she also purposes packing Scotus so that, among other far leftist impositions, it would disempower the 2nd Amendment and deny its protections to all.
Gun rights are a big, potentially decisive issue and DJT should hit her hard and relentlessly on it. If she tries to lie her way out of it he can easily catch her on it. She has no defense; its entirely reasonable to assume that in office she would do her best to make gun ownership and self defense as difficult as possible (just look at what NY state and her Kalifornia have already done).
Inevitably too , as a typical Kalifornia radical she apologizes for criminals. She wants to decriminalize illegal immigration despite the vicious criminal gangs it imports and she has worked to finance criminal defenses for murderous neototalitarian 2020 riotous "revolutionaries". Again, DJT should press this issue with unrelenting vigor and conviction.
Its time now for DJT to turn up the heat all the way and go after this deceitful far leftist whose views manifest only contempt for America and a firm intention to force "fundamental transformation" on us.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: BTY: the eating of dogs is common in some cultures. Are Trump's critics experts on Haitian culture? Among them no doubt are ignorant kneejerk cultural relativists ( who of course make derogatory exception for Western culture). Cats, I dunno if anyone eats them.
ReplyDelete