Why on Earth Would Trump Plan This Speech At This Location At This Time

Tod Kelly

Tod is a writer from the Pacific Northwest. He is also serves as Executive Producer and host of both the 7 Deadly Sins Show at Portland's historic Mission Theatre and 7DS: Pants On Fire! at the White Eagle Hotel & Saloon. He is  a regular inactive for Marie Claire International and the Daily Beast, and is currently writing a book on the sudden rise of exorcisms in the United States. Follow him on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

25 Responses

  1. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    Many of us keep seeing it happen. And we keep being met with arm waving “whataboutism” because the policies he supports are polices the arm wavers support. As a son of the south, who had to vote against David Duke for governor at one point, All of this is far too clear.Report

  2. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    White grievance and resentment is the well to which the conservatives can always return again and again.

    The reason resentment works again and again is that it is the perfect problem to rouse voters, in that it is a problem which can never be solved but always addressed.

    When you look at the culture warriors like Trump or Vance or DeSantis or the rightwing activists like Prosobiec or Charlie Kirk and listen to their complaints about modern American culture, it becomes clear there is no possible state of affairs which would satisfy them.

    They might claim that they merely want a restoration of culture from before the 1960s for instance, or maybe before the New Deal. But this is contradicted by the fact that their words and complaints are almost verbatim the complaints of people from the 1950s and 1920s.

    Then as now, there were black people agitating for civil rights. Then as now there were gay and trans people existing and thriving. Then as now there were childless cat ladies living out loud.

    Grievance is the perfect political tool since it remains forever potent, and is powerful enough to drive people to subordinate every other desire. As we can see from current affairs, some voters will happily surrender freedom and democracy and the rule of law in an effort to pursue their grievance against the hated outgroup.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      There is also what I think of as the Charles Krafft problem. Imagine someone told you that a dear friend of yours had been participating on white supremacist sites for years and gave you proof.

      Are people going to be angry at their friend or angry at the person who pointed out their friend was a white supremacist?Report

  3. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    Luckily, the York, PA speech was a bomb as far as I can tell.

    The question though is who is ignoring it. Joe Biden has tried with all his valiance and might to highlight Trump’s racism and was largely rewarded with being seen as too old and whatever Grandpa because have you seen egg prices and he was allegedly Genocide Joe.

    Harris is pointing it out and seemingly doing better because he campaign knows how to troll people well and people see her youthful 59 and now think he us old and unfit on many levels for the Presidency.

    Interestingly depending on who you ask, she is a moderate or heavy favorite to win the Presidency or people still see it as a 50/50 chance Trump wins because Harris polling is way better than Biden’s but still in margin of error territory.

    I think it is places like OT unfortunately that make it easier for Trump to get sway with these kind of stunts and antics and barely hidden messaging. This site does it because the PTBs have a view that it is possible to debate all topics including contentious topics with the tones of dulcet tea party and maintains this through aggressive word blocking that moderates words like N##i in order to avoid Godwin’s Law. They might think this avoids OT becoming just another internet site but I think the practical effect is that it helps Trump supporters and penalizes his opponents because it enforces indirect confrontation. Sometimes people need to be confronted directly even if it makes others squirm.

    Trump is a racist, white supremacist, and his staff is filled with white supremacists and xenophobes even if some of them are too stupid to realize “those trains are never late” like Ben Shapiro, Stephen Miller, and Libs of Tik Tok lady. The last train to Auschwitz is still a train to Auschwitz.

    The cult of “polite dialogue and a wide views is always possible” isn’t worth it if means giving cover to explicit or implicit Trumpists* (whether they admit it or not) and the kind of leftist whose view seems to be it is the perfidious Democratic Winemoms from Mill Valley and Roslyn who are the real roadblocks to socialist revolution (TM) and hey, at least the Trumpists hate Democrats too.

    *There have been various times that OT has tried to recruit writers from rural America because it is an underheard voice and the pattern is always the samre. The writer starts off reasonably enough but eventually the full force of white resentment and cultural grievance comes out.Report

  4. Em Carpenter
    Ignored
    says:

    Thank you for writing this Tod!
    As you touched on a bit, what is the point of a rally at a place where you are assured a win? Is it just for his ego? I mean, the latter is a distinct possibility, of course. It just seems like a waste of time to just go shout at and pump up your most ardent supporters. I guess this is not something unique to Trump, but it always seems like a waste of campaign resources to me as opposed to going somewhere in which voters are maybe on the fence, and trying to win them.
    Then again… do undecideds go to rallies?Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Em Carpenter
      Ignored
      says:

      I think its more an admission that his campaign has no intent to go after undecided voters, but will rely on boosting turnout among the base.Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to Em Carpenter
      Ignored
      says:

      Politicians who don’t have rallies tend not to win. So the rallies must help somehow, or politicians wouldn’t have them.

      Maybe they help because they create positive-looking environments for free media to come and rebroadcast what is said to the already-converted. Maybe they help because they generate money that can be used for persuasive outreach or GOTV efforts later, to get at the less-motivated or the less-engaged come election day. Maybe they help because they enthuse the already-faithful to go out and evangelize to their less-engaged friends and neighbors.

      My personal theory is that it’s more of that last possibility than anything else: increasing engagement from the already-converted generates a downstream effect of more votes from the previously-unengaged. But YMMV.

      But they surely help somehow. If they didn’t, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper and less exhausting to just stay home and have your comms team issue cleverly-worded Tweets, and spend all your money on paid media instead of the movable feast that’s associated with having rallies at all.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Em Carpenter
      Ignored
      says:

      I like to see politicians campaign everywhere, rather than the few (perceived) swing states. I think it’s also an untapped source of contributions, and a way to support other candidates on the ticket.Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        I get the appeal of seeing politicians campaign everywhere, of candidates for President telling every American that their votes matter. Totally.

        The Electoral College is the basic reason this doesn’t happen. At the Presidential level, there’s no real point in a Presidential candidate spending a lot of time and effort campaigning in a state they can’t possibly win, or in a state they’re going to win regardless.

        Why should Trump go to Hawaii, for instance? He can’t possibly win there or rather, if he does win there, it means he’s winning basically everywhere in a 1984-for-Reagan style landslide, and therefore still doesn’t need to go. Or, for that matter, why should he go to Mississippi? If Trump is losing in Mississippi, ain’t nothing he does anywhere will salvage the campaign.

        Now, supporting a downticket race that can be influenced by a Presidential candidate’s visit might be worth a trip. For instance, Trump recently went to Montana, which he’s going to win regardless, because the Senate race between Tester and Sheehy is really close; if both Trump and Sheehy win, Sheehy owes Trump a favor. Maybe Trump also raised some money there too. But without a close race to influence, why go? Trump’s time is better spent in places like Pennsylvania and Arizona. (As is Harris’, and for the same reason.)

        If you wanted to change the incentive structure such that politicians would have incentives to go everywhere for the sake of influencing votes, switch from the Electoral College to a national popular vote. With a popular vote governing who wins, you can either find regions that have a lot of undecided votes, or you can spend your time working in safe places to pump up turnout in regions where you’re likely to win by big percentages. For Democrats that’d be urban areas (even in otherwise red states, places like St. Louis, Missouri) and for Republicans that’d be the denser-populated rural areas (even in otherwise blue states, places like Bakersfield, California).Report

        • Pinky in reply to Burt Likko
          Ignored
          says:

          As long as the list of swing states changes over time, there’s natural selection going on. So I don’t see this as a systemic problem, but a lack of vision. My gut says that a smart state party in conjunction with the national party and campaigns could turn any state viable in 16 years.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            It would take at least a generation if not two to turn most southern states purple, much less blue. The last democrat to hold statewide office in Mississippi – Jim Hood – couldn’t turn being a pro life, gun rights, law and order Democrat into a win against an ineffective younger Lieutenant Governor named Tate Reeves (who even back then was known colloquially as Tater Tot). Why? because the GOP has Gerrymandered itself into a supermajority and convinced the majority of the state’s white electorate that Democrats want to take from them and give to undeserving low economic status whites and all black folks, and we can’t have that now can we? Democrat could get Mike Espy elected to the Senate against Cindy Hyde-Smith because Espy is a light skinned black man.

            Your gut is ill informed at best.Report

          • Michael Cain in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            The two political geography stories in the US over the last 30 years (and a bit, now) are (a) the Midwest’s swing from Democratic to Republican and (b) the West’s swing from Republican to Democratic.

            I’ve lived through Colorado’s swing from solid red to solid blue. Our change was initiated by four local billionaires and their hired experts, almost entirely ignoring the state and (especially) national parties in the process. The whole thing took about 12 years, pretty close to your gut.Report

            • Pinky in reply to Michael Cain
              Ignored
              says:

              It’s a lot like how a company can prioritize short-term success or long-term success. Presidential campaigns often aim for 280 or so electoral votes. Spending a fortune on an unlikely state, or even more important, spending time on one, that’s wasteful. Listen to your pollsters. Then – throw them out of the office and plant a tree for the next campaign.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                The GOP has played a long game – almost 50 years. Democrats play to the next election, then reset. It shows.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ve said before that I think this is mostly perception, the same as we all think our favorite team should win every game even though we also think every move they make is a mistake. But one hobby horse I will go back to is the way neither party’s presidents have been using their cabinets to build a new generation of leaders. House members tend to form career-long alliances, but most other top political figures don’t bother (the only word I can think of has a bad implication, but it’s the right word) grooming.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Better to call it succession planning.

                And for once you and I agree.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I actually think Biden has done more than most, with Harris, Buttigieg, and Raimondo (who I was predicting as Harris’s running mate). Trump was the nadir, surrounding himself with unqualified people while destroying the futures of them and others. But so much of this happens with undersecretaries, state AG’s, failed first-time congressional candidates, et cetera that it needs to be handled deliberately and the results probably won’t even show for years.Report

          • Burt Likko in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            I’m not nearly so skeptical as Philip about your gut instinct here, Pinky. 16 years may well be enough time to turn a state around — with skill, money, vision, and some help.

            Arizona from 2004-2020 seems like a good example. Not all of that was AZ Dems being smart about growing their base but some of it surely was. Some of it was demographic changes that neither party could directly control but which worked out to favor the Dems, and and some of it was the AZ Republicans making a string of sub-optimal decisions about which we need not dwell here.

            Would AZ have flipped on the strength of the demographic changes alone? I don’t know.Report

  5. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    This is a real “fact check” a reporter wrote and the media published on Trump refusing to accept election results if he loses. Our media is hopeless

    https://bsky.app/profile/thearchduke.bsky.social/post/3l24s6jass62jReport

  6. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    They have nothing but hysteria and fear to peddle:
    Trump returns to Michigan to talk crime, but data shows rates dropped after he left office

    https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2024/08/20/donald-trump-howell-michigan-crime-campaign-speech-kamala-harris-illegal-immigration/74844154007/

    National violent crime data from the FBI showed the rate of violent crime decreased from 2017 to 2019 during the Trump administration before jumping in 2020 to 398.5 incidents per 100,000 people. In 2021 and 2022, the first two years of President Joe Biden’s administration, the nation’s violent crime rate dropped, hitting 380.7 in 2022, according to the FBI data.
    ..
    Apparently they do not, in fact, accept FBI statistics:

    However, the Trump campaign said Tuesday the federal data was “totally unreliable at the present time” because the FBI arrived at the statistics by using “estimated crime numbers” for law enforcement agencies that didn’t report numbers.
    Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *