The only thing trump’s team needs him to do in that rally was seed the message about Somalis. They’re now going to monitor the outrage meter to see if demonizing Somalis will stir up enough panic in the masses that they can scream about that loudly enough they drown out the people asking about the economy. And the grift. And the foreign influences. And the billionaire quid pro quo. And the Epstein files. If the Somalis don’t move the needle enough, at the next rally it will be something else about someone else. And the fun part is, it will work. Again.
Yes, but Dan is right about the voters’ acute awareness of their own economic pain. Trump can distract them all he wants but they will vote their dissatisfaction in November.
Hopefully Dems will at least manage to turn up the volume..
I say this all the time! Unfortunately, we are a Center-Right country, and increasingly becoming further Right. Therefore, generally, voters prefer to stick with Republicans if we're doing well: Clinton handed a decent economy to Bush, Obama handed a decent economy to Trump, and Biden handed a decent economy back to Trump again. But if there's a disaster, like a globabl recession or pandemic, only then do they take a chance on a Democrat.
That’s a bit pessimistic for me. Between LBJ and Clinton the Dem party seemed determined to nominate flawed candidates, weak and ill-suited, so no surprise we only won a single election in that time.
Can’t believe I’m saying this, but the country needs a strong two-party system. When a single party dominates, corruption follows.
But even with one party dismally unfit, voters still exercise the choice of swapping out parties pretty regularly.
Trump and his cabinet are so mired in other things (Immigration, Venezuela, corruption, jockeying to replace Trump) that I don’t see them turning this around. That would require leadership. I hope not, anyway.
I think and hope that Trump and peam will never able to turn things around before the midterms. So Democrats have a real chance to win the House and perhaps the Senate.
That being said, I hope for two things; One, that a Dem Congress can perform by NOT overpromising with MAGA still in the White House. Investigations (but short realistic ones that make Justice Department referrals pretty quickly). Yes, I know they won’t be acted on, but let’s just pretend Garland is still AG, so no expectations of action. Plus reassert congressional control and oversight. Of the economy, the armed forces, independent agencies, intelligence, etc. Pass a few messaging bills that really cut to affordability.
Two, in 2028 please let’s focus on electing someone who has very strong and proven executive ability. In other words, a skill set of getting things done. And who hires Cabinet officials who get things done. Of all likely Dem candidates, all score high on decency and commitment to Dem principles, so there’s no need to make it a race on who’s the most socially progressive.
I think we have one chance at this. If we elect another president who has all the best intentions, and great ideas, very decent, but those great ideas just wait around for the next president to undo, we’re sunk. Similarly, if cabinet officers are intellectual, articulate, but action-free (Garland, Blinken, Buttigieg, Haaland, Becerra, Mayorkas, Lander. Cardona), Dems revert to the “talks a good game” party.
"There was a school of pundits who...argued that if you talked up the economy, voters would feel better about the economy, and your poll numbers would improve....When political rhetoric runs headlong into reality, reality wins every time."
I will politely disagree, in that this is true if a pol tries to peddle good news in the face of a bad or difficult reality, but it *does* work in the reverse: how many voters believed the lies of "Haitians eating dogs and cats," or, "Portland is being destroyed"?
Perhaps fear sells, while happy denial talk doesn't.
Maybe Dan was referencing only the economy, one of those issues where the voter has first-hand knowledge to compare to the message a politician is sending.
The thing is, only "reality" affects Democratic voters. And even then, we had a legitimately good economy by every metric last year, and 40% of Biden voters wouldn't believe it. Trump's go-to tactic is repeating lies until people think it's true, and it's working enough that only 35% of Trump voters believe affordability is a problem (and probably those that do, blame Biden).
We had aspects of a good economy. But we had also had 3 years of unchecked inflation. Which Biden and his team at first tried to explain away as transitory, then argued about, then denied, then ignored. Exactly what Trump is doing. And it was as maddening in 2024 as it is now.
If you were a working class voter last year, and you had been stretching the same paycheck as costs steadily rise, for 3 years, you were primed to vote for the guy who says he’ll fix it over the guy who dismissed your feelings of deep concern for that same three years.
I thought Susie Wiles was supposed to be a decent strategist.. But maybe she’s just another craven sycophant looking to enrich herself at the expense of any principles she might have had?
I have met Suzie a few times. She started her career in Jacksonville, FL in a mayoral race, then chief of staff to the winner. My impression (and sort of the local vibe) was that she is genuinely talented as a campaign strategist or manager. Very much an asset and someone who can turn a campaign around quickly. Able to assert control and keep people in line and on message. But out of her depth as a chief of staff.
Notice that she seems to see the antidote to Trump’s current problems (bad economy, bad immigration enforcement, corruption at scale, plus he’s a piggish. insane asshole) in terms of campaigning. Not addressing the problems themselves.
She probably has very limited ability to address the policy missteps and is undoubtedly unable to transform Trump into a decent human being.. all the more reason she should want to keep his appearances to a bare minimum.
I think she is a decent strategist, and I'm in the minority that I don't see this Trump roadshow as the surefire disaster everyone else thinks. Last year, Trump traveled the country ranting about shark attacks and Hannibal Lecter, and he won more voters than his first election. There's something people are hearing in his gibberish that I just can't.
If Democrats don’t use the “Affordability is a hoax, a con job” line in every single rally and speech, it will be the greatest political malpractice since, since, I don’t know.
But that by itself is a weak message unless it's paired with a policy remedy (i.e. "Tax the Rich, Medicare for All, etc.). And the problem is that there really isn't much to be done about high prices that aren't "socialist" remedies: Either pass price caps on goods and commodities, or subsidize corporations to lower their prices; either option is unpopular.
Break up monopolies or collusive near monopolies in meat packing, dairy, energy sales. Provide tax breaks for builders of starter homes, and enact federal rules that make it hard for local governments to veto single and multi-family housing starts. Pressure colleges and universities who receive federal funds to freeze tuition for three years. Perhaps refuse federal student loans to schools that don’t roll back tuition costs by a fixed amount. Excess profit tax for oil companies and refineries. Child care refundable tax credit. Increase the pitiful handful of medicines that Medicare can negotiate prices on.
Thank you, Mr. Pfeiffer. Sounds like susie wiles has lost a few brain cells, too. You never know what is going to come out of djt’s mouth when he is awake.
I'm not as hopeful as you for the following reasons:
1) Only 37% of Republicans think affordability is a big problem right now, and only 20% of Republicans believe the economy is Trump's responsibility.
2) Republicans are still more loyal to Trump than Democrats ever are to their candidate. When the economy actually was doing better by every metric last year, 40% of Democrats thought our economy was bad; we can't have that fracturing in our base.
3) Voters, especially low-information swing voters, just believe Republicans are better on economic issues, so they're more likely to believe Trump when he says the economy is great than they did when Biden said the economy was great (and it actually was).
Does Trump understand that the example he likes to use to defend his trade policy implies that his tariffs have brought prices so high that two or three dolls now cost what thirty-seven dolls used to?
Don’t forget to add “and his loyal Republican Party”.
Because those are the people we have to beat in 2026.
And don’t be afraid to say that this decades-long Republican project to make the rich richer and the rest of us poorer will continue until we elect people brave enough to take on the money and power that has corrupted our politics.
Yes by all means put Trump on the ballot. Dan made a point about republicans keeping Trump off the ballot in some of the recent special elections. Trump is turning into bad business very quickly for the Republicans. Watching them squirm between the rock and a hard place gives me great joy!
Things aren't bad enough yet. But (unfortunately) they will be soon. Even if the Court bails him out on tariffs, I am confident the WH will continue them somehow. And Dems really need to find a way to ramp up Epstein. Been way too quiet.
The only thing trump’s team needs him to do in that rally was seed the message about Somalis. They’re now going to monitor the outrage meter to see if demonizing Somalis will stir up enough panic in the masses that they can scream about that loudly enough they drown out the people asking about the economy. And the grift. And the foreign influences. And the billionaire quid pro quo. And the Epstein files. If the Somalis don’t move the needle enough, at the next rally it will be something else about someone else. And the fun part is, it will work. Again.
Yes, but Dan is right about the voters’ acute awareness of their own economic pain. Trump can distract them all he wants but they will vote their dissatisfaction in November.
Hopefully Dems will at least manage to turn up the volume..
And right on cue, MyPillow Lindell announces for governor. Almost like they planned it that way.
I reassert: Democrats don’t win until Republicans fuck up consistently.
Lots of truth to that unfortunately.
I say this all the time! Unfortunately, we are a Center-Right country, and increasingly becoming further Right. Therefore, generally, voters prefer to stick with Republicans if we're doing well: Clinton handed a decent economy to Bush, Obama handed a decent economy to Trump, and Biden handed a decent economy back to Trump again. But if there's a disaster, like a globabl recession or pandemic, only then do they take a chance on a Democrat.
That’s a bit pessimistic for me. Between LBJ and Clinton the Dem party seemed determined to nominate flawed candidates, weak and ill-suited, so no surprise we only won a single election in that time.
Can’t believe I’m saying this, but the country needs a strong two-party system. When a single party dominates, corruption follows.
But even with one party dismally unfit, voters still exercise the choice of swapping out parties pretty regularly.
But Dan, what if the Supreme Court rules the tariffs illegal and they’re able to make the economy bounce back before the midterms?
Trump and his cabinet are so mired in other things (Immigration, Venezuela, corruption, jockeying to replace Trump) that I don’t see them turning this around. That would require leadership. I hope not, anyway.
I think and hope that Trump and peam will never able to turn things around before the midterms. So Democrats have a real chance to win the House and perhaps the Senate.
That being said, I hope for two things; One, that a Dem Congress can perform by NOT overpromising with MAGA still in the White House. Investigations (but short realistic ones that make Justice Department referrals pretty quickly). Yes, I know they won’t be acted on, but let’s just pretend Garland is still AG, so no expectations of action. Plus reassert congressional control and oversight. Of the economy, the armed forces, independent agencies, intelligence, etc. Pass a few messaging bills that really cut to affordability.
Two, in 2028 please let’s focus on electing someone who has very strong and proven executive ability. In other words, a skill set of getting things done. And who hires Cabinet officials who get things done. Of all likely Dem candidates, all score high on decency and commitment to Dem principles, so there’s no need to make it a race on who’s the most socially progressive.
I think we have one chance at this. If we elect another president who has all the best intentions, and great ideas, very decent, but those great ideas just wait around for the next president to undo, we’re sunk. Similarly, if cabinet officers are intellectual, articulate, but action-free (Garland, Blinken, Buttigieg, Haaland, Becerra, Mayorkas, Lander. Cardona), Dems revert to the “talks a good game” party.
"There was a school of pundits who...argued that if you talked up the economy, voters would feel better about the economy, and your poll numbers would improve....When political rhetoric runs headlong into reality, reality wins every time."
I will politely disagree, in that this is true if a pol tries to peddle good news in the face of a bad or difficult reality, but it *does* work in the reverse: how many voters believed the lies of "Haitians eating dogs and cats," or, "Portland is being destroyed"?
Perhaps fear sells, while happy denial talk doesn't.
Maybe Dan was referencing only the economy, one of those issues where the voter has first-hand knowledge to compare to the message a politician is sending.
The thing is, only "reality" affects Democratic voters. And even then, we had a legitimately good economy by every metric last year, and 40% of Biden voters wouldn't believe it. Trump's go-to tactic is repeating lies until people think it's true, and it's working enough that only 35% of Trump voters believe affordability is a problem (and probably those that do, blame Biden).
We had aspects of a good economy. But we had also had 3 years of unchecked inflation. Which Biden and his team at first tried to explain away as transitory, then argued about, then denied, then ignored. Exactly what Trump is doing. And it was as maddening in 2024 as it is now.
If you were a working class voter last year, and you had been stretching the same paycheck as costs steadily rise, for 3 years, you were primed to vote for the guy who says he’ll fix it over the guy who dismissed your feelings of deep concern for that same three years.
I thought Susie Wiles was supposed to be a decent strategist.. But maybe she’s just another craven sycophant looking to enrich herself at the expense of any principles she might have had?
I have met Suzie a few times. She started her career in Jacksonville, FL in a mayoral race, then chief of staff to the winner. My impression (and sort of the local vibe) was that she is genuinely talented as a campaign strategist or manager. Very much an asset and someone who can turn a campaign around quickly. Able to assert control and keep people in line and on message. But out of her depth as a chief of staff.
Notice that she seems to see the antidote to Trump’s current problems (bad economy, bad immigration enforcement, corruption at scale, plus he’s a piggish. insane asshole) in terms of campaigning. Not addressing the problems themselves.
She probably has very limited ability to address the policy missteps and is undoubtedly unable to transform Trump into a decent human being.. all the more reason she should want to keep his appearances to a bare minimum.
I think she is a decent strategist, and I'm in the minority that I don't see this Trump roadshow as the surefire disaster everyone else thinks. Last year, Trump traveled the country ranting about shark attacks and Hannibal Lecter, and he won more voters than his first election. There's something people are hearing in his gibberish that I just can't.
Maybe try eating the bleach tablets or the hydrochloroquine..
If Democrats don’t use the “Affordability is a hoax, a con job” line in every single rally and speech, it will be the greatest political malpractice since, since, I don’t know.
Don’t rule it out. Political malpractice was the Biden administration’s entire playbook.
But that by itself is a weak message unless it's paired with a policy remedy (i.e. "Tax the Rich, Medicare for All, etc.). And the problem is that there really isn't much to be done about high prices that aren't "socialist" remedies: Either pass price caps on goods and commodities, or subsidize corporations to lower their prices; either option is unpopular.
Break up monopolies or collusive near monopolies in meat packing, dairy, energy sales. Provide tax breaks for builders of starter homes, and enact federal rules that make it hard for local governments to veto single and multi-family housing starts. Pressure colleges and universities who receive federal funds to freeze tuition for three years. Perhaps refuse federal student loans to schools that don’t roll back tuition costs by a fixed amount. Excess profit tax for oil companies and refineries. Child care refundable tax credit. Increase the pitiful handful of medicines that Medicare can negotiate prices on.
Thank you, Mr. Pfeiffer. Sounds like susie wiles has lost a few brain cells, too. You never know what is going to come out of djt’s mouth when he is awake.
I'm not as hopeful as you for the following reasons:
1) Only 37% of Republicans think affordability is a big problem right now, and only 20% of Republicans believe the economy is Trump's responsibility.
2) Republicans are still more loyal to Trump than Democrats ever are to their candidate. When the economy actually was doing better by every metric last year, 40% of Democrats thought our economy was bad; we can't have that fracturing in our base.
3) Voters, especially low-information swing voters, just believe Republicans are better on economic issues, so they're more likely to believe Trump when he says the economy is great than they did when Biden said the economy was great (and it actually was).
Does Trump understand that the example he likes to use to defend his trade policy implies that his tariffs have brought prices so high that two or three dolls now cost what thirty-seven dolls used to?
As Bugs Bunny would say: "What a maroon!"
Please Dems …
Don’t over-complicate this. There are so many
impactful things to say that are simple and true.
Don’t forget to add “and his loyal Republican Party”.
Because those are the people we have to beat in 2026.
And don’t be afraid to say that this decades-long Republican project to make the rich richer and the rest of us poorer will continue until we elect people brave enough to take on the money and power that has corrupted our politics.
Dan, I hope you’re right. Trump’s handling of the economy reminds me how he first tried to handle COVID. Can’t talk your way out of it.
Yes by all means put Trump on the ballot. Dan made a point about republicans keeping Trump off the ballot in some of the recent special elections. Trump is turning into bad business very quickly for the Republicans. Watching them squirm between the rock and a hard place gives me great joy!
Things aren't bad enough yet. But (unfortunately) they will be soon. Even if the Court bails him out on tariffs, I am confident the WH will continue them somehow. And Dems really need to find a way to ramp up Epstein. Been way too quiet.