Dem
51
GOP
49
The Bulwark has an interesting piece up headlined "Trump Just Had His Worst Week--Ever." This is not a "new" subject for Trump pieces; there were dozens and dozens of articles like this while he was president. However, those focused on things that should have done him harm—scandals, criminal acts, etc.—but largely didn't. This one focuses on the change in his political circumstances, change that appears to be real.
On the weekend following the Republican National Convention, Trump was riding high. He was coming off the assassination attempt; as Winston Churchill observed, "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result." The Convention itself was a Trump lovefest, with the speakers—particularly on the fourth day—chosen based not so much on their appeal to American voters, but on their appeal to Trump's ego. Trump himself hogged the spotlight with the longest acceptance speech in American history. He had his newly minted running mate, also chosen based substantially on appeal to Trump's ego. The polls were trending in the right direction, and the media, even the non-right-leaning media, were hammering Joe Biden for being too old and feeble. Everything was coming up roses for Trump '24.
And then, things kinda imploded. The Convention, and in particular Trump's speech, was not well-received by people watching at home. Vance turned out to have more baggage than Terminal C at LaGuardia, and his selection was also poorly received, both by Democrats and by many Republicans. Joe Biden withdrew from the race, and the Democrats almost instantly coalesced around Kamala Harris, backing her with both money and enthusiasm. The polls took a shockingly sharp turn, particularly in terms of Harris' approval (headed up!) and Trump's approval (headed down!). Given that Trump is near-immune to the things that would damage any normal politician, it did not seem possible his fortunes could decline so far in so short a time. He could still win this thing, of course, but The Bulwark may be right that he's never had a week as poor as this last one, in terms of his odds of victory on Day 1 as compared to his odds of victory on Day 7.
Much of this was beyond Trump's control, but not all of it was. In particular, both members of the ticket have shot themselves in the foot with ill-chosen words. And they've spent the last couple of days trying to clean their respective messes up, without a lot of success.
Starting at the top of the ticket, Trump's damaging moment was his remark before an adoring crowd of supporters:
Christians, get out and vote, just this time. You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it will be fixed, it will be fine, you won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians. I love you Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you, get out, you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote.
As we noted yesterday, one reading of this is that Trump envisions a world where there won't be any more elections, as he will have installed himself as dictator. Another reading is that there's only going to be one more election with him on the ticket, and he doesn't give a damn what happens to the Republican Party after that.
Both of these readings are problematic, politically. Immediately after Trump said it, his spokesman Steven Cheung could not provide a non-problematic explanation for what the former president meant. Trump eventually said he was "joking," which is not much of an explanation, either.
It's not just us who see that; Trump mouthpiece/Fox entertainer Laura Ingraham sees it, too. She had Trump on her show yesterday, and tried to get him to clean it up. Initially, he answered her inquiries like this:
That statement is very simple. I said vote for me, you're not going to have to do it ever again. It's true, because we have to get the vote out. Christians are not known as a big voting group. This time vote. I'll straighten out the country, you won't have to vote anymore. I won't need your vote. You can go back to not voting.
First, it is laughable that Christians are not known as a big voting group. That's like saying gun owners are not known as a big voting group. Second, this "clarification" could still be read as saying "I'm going to straighten out the country by bringing an end to elections." So, Ingraham took another bite at the apple, and asked "You meant you won't have to vote for you because you have four years in office. Is that what you meant?" Trump dodged the question, only noting that voting would no longer be necessary because "we will have such love." Whatever that means.
Meanwhile, the remark that is dogging Vance, of course, is his comment from 2021 that "childless cat ladies," like Kamala Harris, should not have as much voting power as people with children because they (the cat ladies) aren't as invested in the success of the country. To the surprise of everyone (and, by everyone, we mean "Donald Trump and J.D. Vance"), a lot of people took offense at the arrogance and the presumption entailed in this judgment. And so, Vance did an interview with Megyn Kelly to try to explain himself:
I've heard from a lot of conservative women, and frankly, a lot of liberal women who said "I'm actually glad that you pointed out there's become something profoundly anti-family in our public policy in our republic conversation." Obviously, it was a sarcastic comment. I've got nothing against cats, I've got nothing against dogs, I've got one dog at home and I love him. But look, people are focusing so much on the sarcasm and not on the substance of what I actually said. And the substance of what I said, I'm sorry, it's true. It is true that we become anti-family. It is true that the left has become anti-child. It is simply true that it's become way too hard to raise a family. I myself had a lot of step-parents when I was growing up. I certainly was enriched by some of those step-parents and frankly not enriched by others.
The careful reader will note that Vance has already mastered the Trumpian technique of attributing his evidence to unnamed "people." In any case, this is what is known as a non-apology apology. Put another way, "Sorry if you were offended, but I was just joking, and besides, what I said is true."
Obviously, this appearance did not get it done, and so Vance took another shot at it on Sunday night, appearing on Trey Gowdy's Fox show. Here's what Vance said during his second swing at the piñata:
If you look at what the left has done, they have radically taken this out of context and, in fact, aggressively lied about what I've said. What I do think is true, Trey, and this goes to the heart of what I was talking about three years ago in those comments but it's going to be something I continue to talk about, is that the left has increasingly become explicitly anti-child and anti-family.
This is another non-apology apology. It's also a misrepresentation of Vance's original argument, which was much more extreme. And finally, the argument that Democrats are "explicitly anti-child and anti-family" simply does not stand up to scrutiny, when considering the legislative records of the respective parties over the last 20 years.
Vance's second effort was no more successful than his first, and so yesterday, Trump tried to step in and make the repairs. During the aforementioned Ingraham appearance, the former president explained that:
Well, first of all, [Vance] has got tremendous support, and he really does among a certain group of people. People that like families. I mean, you know, he made a statement having to do with families. That doesn't mean that people that aren't members of a big and beautiful family with 400 children around and everything else, it doesn't mean that a person doesn't have - He's not against anything, but he loves family. It's very important to him. He grew up in a very interesting family situation and he feels family is good, and I don't think there's anything wrong in saying that.
Three things: (1) There are those anonymous "people," again, serving as proof of concept; (2) What families have 400 children? Maybe Genghis Khan's family, but beyond him... and (3) This, yet again, does not actually address what Vance said. He did not say he loves his family. He did not say the Democrats are anti-family. He said that the Democrats are run by people who don't have children, and that people like that should have their influence watered down, to the point of reducing the value of their votes, because they aren't real Americans with a real investment in the future of the country.
The fundamental problem here could not be clearer. Trump does not WANT to back off of his comments about there being no further need to vote after 2024. Vance does not WANT to back off of his remarks about childless cat ladies. Both of those men said the things they said because that is what the base wants to hear. But now the duo is running a national campaign, and under circumstances much changed from a week or two ago. They don't want to anger centrist voters with extreme rhetoric, but they don't want to anger the base by backing down from the extreme rhetoric, either. And they are dealing with this by explaining that it's all very clear and mumble, mumble, mumble.
In short, they are doing a pretty terrible job of trying to have it both ways, with the result that they are not putting out the fires at all. And what will happen when and if the media try to pin the pair down about what they really think about abortion?
In particular, Florida, where Trump votes, is going to have an initiative on the ballot to enshrine the right to an abortion in the state Constitution. It is called Amendment 4. Reporters are going to ask him: "Will you vote "Yes" or "No" on Amendment 4?" He wants to leave abortion to the states. Fine. What does he think his own state should do? Trying to weasel out of that isn't going to make anyone happy. (Z)