Ron Brownstein/Atlantic:
Trump’s Base Isn’t Enough
The president needs the voters who approve of his record on the economy but disapprove of him overall. His racist attacks this week only hurt that cause.
That choice may reflect the convergence of inclination and calculation. Trump’s instinct is to center his politics on cultural and racial conflicts that pit Americans uneasy about the nation’s changing identity against those who welcome or accept it. But Trump also faces clear evidence that he may be unable to build a winning coalition with just the voters satisfied with his performance in office. That’s evident even with an economy that’s booming, at least according to measures like the low unemployment rate and the soaring stock market.
The latest such evidence comes in a new study released today by Navigator Research, a consortium of Democratic research and advocacy groups. The report, provided exclusively to The Atlantic, examines a group that many analysts in both parties believe could prove to be the key bloc of 2020 swing voters: Americans who say they approve of Trump’s management of the economy, but still disapprove of his overall performance as president. And it shows Trump facing significant headwinds among that potentially critical group, partly because of the divisive language and behavior he’s taken to new heights, or lows, since last weekend—tweeting about the congresswomen and encouraging his supporters to attack them as well.
That tile ought to be a bumper sticker. Trump needs more than his base. That is a political fact. And there is a sliver that’s persuadable. [But you know that because I’ve told you.]
As for the Never Trumpers who get mixed reviews here, don’t push away votes. If you think you don’t need them, fine. Accept their vote and make it a landslide. Just don’t throw PoC under the bus to get there.
NBC:
'Never Trump' Republicans went Democrat in 2018. Are they gone for good?
Mocked as irrelevant after Trump's election, voters who leaned Republican in prior races handed Democrats huge wins in suburban districts.
Kristin Olsen, who until 2016 led the Republican caucus in California’s state assembly, surveyed the wreckage of the recent midterms in her state and came to a bitter conclusion: "The Grand Old Party is dead," she wrote in an op-ed.
Olsen, 44, told NBC News that Republicans had already struggled to adapt to a changing state, but the “division, hostility, vindictiveness, and lies” coming from President Donald Trump’s White House was a knockout punch.
“It was the straw that broke the camel’s back for many, many, many Republican voters,” she said….
Figures like Olsen, who identified as Republican but opposed Trump in 2016, were often mocked as irrelevant after his victory. Polls showed Republican voters united behind his presidency, despite nagging opposition from retiring GOP politicians and a handful of conservative pundits.
But the midterm wave, where Democrats won close to 40 seats and romped in the suburbs, seems to have included a lot of voters who look like Olsen.
“It was the revenge of the Never Trumpers in the House,” said David Wasserman, an elections analyst for Cook Political Report and an NBC News contributor and senior analyst with the NBC Election Unit.
Georgia posted this yesterday but I am reposting because it is spot on:
John Harwood/CNBC:
GOP vote on Trump’s ‘go back’ comments was an effort to absolve him — and themselves — on racism
- With their votes this week, House Republicans absolved President Donald Trump of racism in calling for four non-white lawmakers to “go back” to other countries.
- They also voted to absolve themselves, their party and the voters who elected them – like the ones Trump inspired to chant “send her back” at a rally Wednesday in North Carolina.
- Analysts across the political spectrum typically cite raw fear as why GOP leaders don’t challenge Trump over behavior that outrages most Americans.
WaPo:
ESPN’s Dan Le Batard rips President Trump, derides network’s no-politics policy
“There’s a racial division in this country that’s being instigated by the president, and we here at ESPN haven’t had the stomach for that fight.”
With those words, Dan Le Batard launched into an impassioned monologue Thursday. The host of popular ESPN TV and radio shows ripped into both President Trump in the wake of “Send her back!” chants at a rally the night before, and his own network, which has been advising its on-air personalities to refrain from political commentary.
Le Batard, 50, was speaking on his radio show when he noted that he was the son of Cuban immigrants and said, “What happened last night, this felt un-American.”
You know it’s not working when the spin doctors are out with the family rehab stories (CBS):
Trump took heat from Melania and Ivanka over racist chants at rally
Mr. Trump on Thursday disavowed the chants of "send her back" and said he tried to stop it. "Well, number one, I think I did, I started speaking very quickly," he said.
But the video tells a different story. The president stands in silence for nearly 15 seconds, looking around the arena. When Mr. Trump resumed his speech, he made no mention of the chant, which started after he attacked Rep. Ilhan Omar. The rally left Republicans once again answering for the president.
CBS News learned that Mr. Trump spoke to several members of his inner circle about how to react to the chant. He weighed the pros and cons of softening his tone, worried supporters would not like it.
CBS has learned that chanting didn't work and looked bad, so here are the family members who tell us they didn't like it.
Andrew Egger/Bulwark:
Send Her Back! Send Her Back!
The danger here—besides the obvious repulsiveness of the chant itself—is that this accelerating culture of political transgression is like a ratchet that can only turn one way. For a critical mass of conservatives, it is a sign that a given act is actually praiseworthy and brave if it draws condemnation from the despised left-wing media. “Send her back” is a chant that might make some cringe today—but once it’s been digested by the media cycle and the battle lines drawn, and it’s been repeated at rally after rally, it will become, in the minds of Trump’s fans, just another handy weapon for triggering the pearl-clutching libs.
At which point it will be stale. And they’ll need a new, more baldly indefensible, transgression. And so on, and on, and on.
There is, of course, one way that a cycle like this can be deescalated: the president himself could try to tamp it down. Watch the clip of the moment on Wednesday and you can see that Trump, in real time, isn’t sure quite how to respond. It’s his own energy they’re throwing back to him, but he doesn’t revel and cavort in this interaction, as he often does. Instead he just waits it out and proceeds as though nothing had happened. You don’t have to squint that hard to see him issuing a mild rebuke after the fact: Hey team, listen, nobody understands how you feel about Ilhan Omar better than me, believe me—but still, let’s try to keep the racism on Twitter, where people can’t take video of it, okay?
Amy Walter/Cook Political Report:
Suburbs Were the Battleground of 2018. Why Are Both Sides Doing Everything They Can to Alienate Them in 2020?
There's plenty of evidence (like, say the 2018 midterms) that voters are ready to turn the page from Trump. But, if Trump can make the election a choice instead of a referendum, he has a chance to succeed. No, he can't make it a referendum on "the Squad" (as much as he's trying to make that happen). We know that Trump lacks the discipline to keep the debate and conversation on policy. He wants to make it personal. But, he can push the debate onto the terrain where he's most comfortable — culture, race, immigration — and force Democrats to make unforced errors.
The voters who supported Democrats in 2018 — and who remain wary of Trump today — said one Democratic strategist — 'would prefer to vote against Trump." But, this person said, they also "aren't giving their vote away" to just anyone. Furthermore, says this Democrat, the idea that Democrats have an either/or choice in 2020: pick an establishment candidate to win over suburban/white working class voters or pick an outsider to rally younger voters and voters of color, is a false narrative. "There is nothing we can do to win suburban voters," this Democrat said, "that will turn young people off. Trump is the best motivator."
NBC:
2020 Democrats who want a 'public option' don't always want the same thing
Depending on the plan, a public option could be a small fix to the system or a fast-track to "Medicare for All."
One fundamental divide is who will be served by a public option. Is it a last resort for people who can’t get insurance elsewhere? Or is it a potential first choice for everyone?
On the “last resort” end of the spectrum is Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., who is running on a bill called “The Medicare-X Choice Act” that he co-authored with Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.
The bill would create a new “Medicare-X” plan to be sold on the Affordable Care Act's exchanges, a marketplace for plans that provides subsidies to customers who don't get comprehensive insurance through their work. It would start out in rural areas with few private plans and then spread nationwide over several years. Small businesses could eventually buy “Medicare-X” for their workers as well.
"It's really focused on filling in the gaps that exist," Bennet told NBC News in an interview.
Biden’s new public option plan is similar in this regard. It would be available to individuals who buy coverage through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplace and give people on employer plans more flexibility to switch to a public option.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is “Medicare for America,” a bill by Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, has embraced their legislation on the campaign trail while the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, has promoted a broadly similar plan.
Counterpoint on 2020 from Nate Cohn/NYT:
Trump’s Electoral College Edge Could Grow in 2020, Rewarding Polarizing Campaign
Re-election looks plausible even with a bigger loss in the national popular vote.
It is important to emphasize that it is impossible to nail down the president’s standing in Wisconsin, or any state, with precision. But Wisconsin is the pivotal state in this analysis, and a one-point difference there could potentially be decisive.
One reason that such a small swing in Wisconsin could be so important is that the Democrats do not have an obviously promising alternative if Wisconsin drifts to the right.
Not likely, but plausible, if everything goes wrong.