I'm getting sick of writing about Donald Trump. I wish others (CNN, I'm looking at you) would be, too. As of 1:30 p.m., four of their eight top stories mentioned Trump, while two of three of the "carousel" items mentioned Trump. Trump does X. People react to Trump. Trump reacts to other people's reactions. It reminds me of a Simpsons reference: "Whenever Poochie's not on screen, all the other characters should be asking, 'Where's Poochie?'".
For a long time, Donald Trump has said he can be presidential. In effect, that he has an off switch that he can do at any time. But what the last month has done for a lot of people that he either doesn't have an off switch or will never flick it on. And while I could go in depth on a lot of statements he's made, I want to focus on his most recent because of just how much he is the problem to his own campaign.
In a recent address, he said that maybe Second Amendment folks could do something to keep Clinton from picking Supreme Court justices. His actual words are among the most vague in the world, though: "Maybe there is." His defenders want people to understand it in context, but that's a mixed bag. The sentence before sets up a hypothetical of "If she gets to pick," meaning it's post-election. The sentence after the "Maybe there is" line continues the hypothetical with "that will be a horrible day." So it's almost assuredly that the "Maybe there is" belongs in the post-election hypothetical, but what that insinuates goes unsaid. It's very much in the vein of "There was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her... wherever:" Because it's so vague, you can make your own interpretations of what he means. He didn't say what people think he said.
Going back to the "maybe": A spokesperson called it a joke (like, maybe, asking Russia to hack her emails?), but Trump pointedly hasn't — if he does, then he's admitting the insinuation of assassination and that he was joking about that. He can't do that. Instead, he later said that people jump to the wrong conclusions. But that's the problem, isn't it? If the best case scenario is that he doesn't use specific enough language to prevent people from assuming the worst, that's a problem. So here is a conversation I've had lately: Does Trump know what he's saying/insinuating or not? If you say yes, then Trump is as evil and calculating as anyone in American political history. If you say no, then he's reckless and stupid for not understanding the impact of the words he makes as he runs for a position in which every word makes an impact. Is it better to be smart and evil or reckless and dumb?
And yet, here we are. Here we are with three months until the election and he still has close to 3/8 of voters planning to vote in his favor. If he was Mitt Romney, I think he's making a go of this. I think if he were Generic Republican X, he'd be in a tighter race, perhaps even leading. And that's because...
Clinton's Comments
... Hillary Clinton is making mistakes, too.
More emails show that her State Department had more connections to the Clinton Foundation than we knew. (My opinion: They're not the most damning. The first is: "This donor asked to connect with the Lebanon ambassador." A rich guy would likely connect to the ambassador with or without the Clinton Foundation's help, let's be honest. The second was "This guy needs a job. Got any?" And the response was "Yeah, we can probably find a place for him." I think that's more common than we want to admit.) Anyway, whether you agree with me or find me to be painting Clinton with too rosy a brush, it's an opening.
Further, Clinton held a quasi-press conference last Friday! She never holds open press conferences because she says she's more comfortable in one-on-one settings. Sidetrack: Surprisingly, I'm OK with that as an ex-journalist. It's unusual, but ultimately a person is in control of when and how they engage the media. There's no law saying a candidate has to have open press conferences X number of times. She can have as much or as little direct interaction with the media that she wants. It makes reporters mad, because a) most good reporters want more access/more transparency/just "more" in general and b) some reporters want the attention that comes with your question being the one that "stumps" the candidate or prompts an unforced error. The call for more press conferences is effectively media corps whining.
Anyway, in the quasi-conference, which was really just a few open questions from a minority journalism organization, she fell into the trap of repeating a debunked line about FBI Director Comey and her emails -- that she was "truthful". She should have known what she was saying was merely spin, and it came off pretty quickly like she was just grasping at straws. BUT! I think this was actually wisely timed by her campaign. The statements were made on a Friday (best day of the week to say something stupid, as I've explained before), but more notably on the day of the Opening Ceremonies — no matter what she said, it was going to be overshadowed by the Olympics. If you're going to try the high-wire act, it's best to do it with a safety net.
She's not polished; she's not a great campaigner like Barack Obama or her husband. She's had a lot of errors that a better opponent could capitalize on. But she looks great when she has smart/popular politicians support her, when she has an opponent who can't get out of his own way, and when the GOP isn't all the way behind Trump.
So What?
Bernie Sanders lost because he couldn't convince minorities to vote for him. Donald Trump could be doing worse than that! According to a series of polls, Donald Trump is not only lagging behind Hillary Clinton among African-Americans, he's trailing Libertarian Gary Johnson. Not only is he lagging Gary Johnson, he's also polling behind Green Party candidate Jill Stein! He's fourth among black voters! He's effectively ceded a sizable minority.
Honest question I heard from a friend: Is Trump, by being odious but saying he's pro-life, more of a detriment to the pro-life cause? Further, if many people are willing to support any candidate that says they're pro-life, no matter how wild/reckless/disastrous, does that make the concerns and honest opinions of the pro-lifers easier to write off by the general public? In effect, if pro-lifers are willing to support even a guy like Trump, how do they retain their moral authority? I don't know how to answer that, and am curious to what you all think, because I thought it was a great question.
Summary Judgments
ALL HAIL HYPNOTOAD. *clap* . . . *clap* . . . *clap* • • • Do you have any questions you want to ask a former journalist or for someone who likes politics and history? I'd love to do an "Ask Me Anything" style column sometime. I love researching questions like last week's Third Party History. • • • Sad sports journalism news: The death of John Saunders, who brought a lot of gravitas to ESPN. • • • The kids moved up to the 2-year-old group at day care, and it's been rough at home over that period. They're adjusting, so I know it won't be this way forever, but it's still been a tough week at home. • • • Roland saw a picture on the wall at day care and said, "Daddy!" It was a picture of Jesus. Insert your joke here while I beam and laugh. • • • I'm running again. I've been running 1.25 miles lately until I can feel comfortable with it. Unfortunately, the cross country kids run the same path around the same time, so I feel woefully out of shape by comparison.
No comments:
Post a Comment