History Predicts Trump Re-Election

                     ***Trigger Warning.   Alert.   Trigger Warning***

The following blog post may cause disturbed or panicked ideation by people with sensitivities to political misfortune. Readers who prefer to read only affirmations of Democratic victory should use discretion.

Winning in 2020 will be an uphill battle. Democrats are underdogs. 

I publish this Guest Post below because I think Democratic readers need the warning. 

The Senate is protecting Trump because he is strong, not weak. He is delivering for Republicans. He is giving abortion opponents the judges they want, the wealthy the tax cuts they want, businesses the regulation cuts they want, and he has open contempt for the woke coastal and college town elites that Republicans think sneer at them.

As long as we can avoid a recession, a debt crisis, or a big new war, Trump can make the claim that he is a safe steward of the country. (I personally expect both a recession and a debt crisis, but not by November, 2020.)

Meanwhile, Democrats are divided and will stay divided. The Democratic big tent needs to contain both progressives and reformers, both whites and blacks, both advocacy group vanguards and cultural conservatives, both people who have made it into the middle class and people who are struggling to get there. The Trump attack machine will widen the tears in the tent.

It isn't that Democrats will like Trump. It is that by election day some big group of Democrats will be damned if they will vote for their nominee. 

Thad Guyer is an attorney with a practice specializing in representing whistleblower employees. His international practice has him currently in Vietnam, which gives him some distance from the liberal echo chamber that he would be in, were he living in his home territory in some college town or coastal metropolis.

Thad Guyer Guest Post:

“Root Cause Analysis of a Trump 2020 Win” 

When calamity strikes “root cause analysis” is used to figure out why. Although we like to tell ourselves that Trump is one of a kind, historians chronicle presidents with comparable outrageous abuses and debauchery. Every president since ratification of the 22nd Amendment's two term limit (like Trump) has won reelection where the prior president (like Obama) was (A) of the opposite party (unlike Bush 1 who succeeded Reagan in his own party), and (B) served all 8 years (unlike Carter following Nixon resignation).  See, Upclose with Peter Sage, “Pray History Does Not Repeat Itself”, January 11, 2019. Click  


Here is my root cause analysis explaining that history. 

(1) The American Tendency Toward Continuity of Leadership:  There is an Anglo-American tendency from the monarchy onward to perpetuate the term of strong leaders indefinitely. Although it was not until FDR appeared ready for a fourth term that the 22nd amendment’s two-term limit was adopted, fear of that tendency prompted calls in1876 to legislate “the universal concurrence” since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson that power turn over after eight years. Americans strongly disfavor short term presidents but to guard against our own worst tendencies, we have developed a firmly entrenched cultural norm that presidents should serve two terms, no more, no less.  

(2) Accomplishing the Goals of the Victorious:  Two terms promote (a) completion of the economic and political agenda that got the president elected in the first place, (b) a feeling of reaffirmation of the “right decision” of the “victorious” who elected him, (c) elimination of the risk inherent in changing administrations, and (4) perpetuation of the “deals” and regulatory privileges of the corporate, political, and religious power elites upon which the administration’s successful agenda has been based. 

(3)  The Power of Incumbency:  Studies show that every national politician has an 80%-plus likelihood of reelection. This is due to a combination of unmatchable fundraising, name recognition, the American tendency of continuity, and damage done to challengers in their own primaries. Trump will have a $1 billion war chest, the most developed political online and social media machine ever developed, no GOP challenger, and a bruised and battered Democratic rival who will have been our nominee for only 110 days between the convention and election day.  Trump by contrast will have been the GOP nominee for almost 4 years, with 10 reelection rallies in 2017 alone starting 30 days after his inauguration.

(4)  Infighting of the Challenging Party:  As the successful party celebrates its first term, the losing party is typically absorbed with political autopsies and blame between its various constituencies. The losing candidate (Hillary Clinton) and her advisors are denounced, the party apparatus (DNC) is accused of incompetence if not corruption, and a struggle for “the soul of the party” (the base) creates intense disunity while the incumbent is basking in lockstep singleness a purpose. Historically Democrats nominate candidates to the left of the mainstream suffering the most humiliating losses against incumbent GOP presidents branded as authoritarian and racist (Nixon and Reagan). History suggests that either Sanders or Warren--our most ideological candidates-- will be the nominee in our emotionally charged reaction to Trump. 

The failed impeachment combined with likely fatal damage to Biden over his son’s Ukraine scandal may also be factor—i.e., the irony of Trump being impeached for trying to damage Biden but the impeachment itself doing him in. Fierce identity politics and charges of racism, sexism and white privilege are also prominent in our party.  So assume Trump is reelected, what will your root cause analysis look like?