Donald Trump Isn't Incoherent, Just Delusional

So, speaking as one who follows a lot of anti-Trump accounts, a frequent comment is that Trump is totally incoherent.

I don't agree. Yes, he tends to ramble. Trump has always tended to ramble, so that is nothing new. And it is a mistake to overstate Trump's incoherence. If you follow closely, it is not too difficult to discern what Trump is saying.

In fact, Trump opponents should keep the Biden debate in mind. Not only was it Biden who sounded completely incoherent in the debate, but Trump proved that he still has enough discipline to sound reasonably sane. That is a suggestion that is nutty rantings are largely an act put on for the Party faithful who like them, that he is able to turn off when they are not welcome.

The problem is not Trump's rambling style -- it is still possible to follow his train of thought. Nor his seeming nuttiness. He can turn that on and off as called for.

The real problem is the content of Trump's speeches. Namely he appears to sincerely believe things that have no basis in reality. We are in danger of electing a completely delusional President. Let's look at some examples.

Hannibal Lector

Yes, it is weird to keep talking about, "The late, great Hannibal Lector." However, his meaning is clear enough. When Trump raises Hannibal Lector, it is always in the context of illegal immigration. He says that other countries are emptying their prisons and mental institutions and insane asylums on the US. He then says that an insane asylum is a mental institution on steroids, the sort of place that held Hannibal Lector.* The point is clear enough. Trump is claiming that hoards of Hannibal Lectors are being unleashed on the US.

None of this has any basis whatever in reality. Yes, there are more people coming into this country than we can process and we really do need better border control. There is room to debate how many people we should admit in an orderly fashion, but then need to get control and make admission orderly is clear. But there is no evidence whatever that other countries are emptying their prisons and mental institutions on us, or that crime is reaching unprecedented heights in the US (it isn't) even as it falls everywhere else. And the suggestion that there are hoard and hoards of people as violent and dangerous as Hannibal Lector pouring across our border is just plain nuts.

Sharks and Electrocution



Go ahead and listen to his rant on sharks. Yes, it wanders some, but the point is clear enough. Trump is saying that government is forcing the replacement of gasoline boats with electric boats, and that electric boats are impractical because they will sink under the weight of the battery and the boat owner will have a choice between electrocution and being eaten by sharks!

Of course, this has no basis in fact. Gas boats are still being manufactured. Electric boats exist. They have actually been around since the 1880's. Serious comparisons exist between electric and gas boats. The general consensus -- electric boats are quieter, cleaner, and lower maintenance. Gas boats are more powerful. Most consumers opt for power. Nor is there much danger of electrocution unless you are between the terminals. In short, Trump's rant is rambling but comprehensible. It also has no basis in reality.

My suggestion -- electric boat owners should take Kamala for a cruise and Trump to join them. He will either have to accept and be shown up as a liar or decline and be shown up as a coward.

Child Care

Trump's opponents are having fun with his "jumbled' answer, but, again, the meaning is clear:  

But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly – and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care. That – it’s going to take care – we’re going to have – I – I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country. Because I have to say with child care – I want to stay with child care – but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just – that I just told you about.

In other words, he thinks that his tariffs will generate so much revenue that they will easily pay for any childcare shortages.  Once again, this is completely divorced from reality.  First of all, Trump refuses to understand that a tariff is simply an import tax which raises the prices of imports and therefore pinches people's budgets.  Nor are they the cash cow that Trump believes.  Kevin Drum has an estimate that if Trump puts a 20% tax on all imports and imports to not shrink as a result net revenues would be about $600 billion -- a third of our current deficit.

Of course, the goal of these tariffs is to reduce imports.  Trump appears to believe that if we reduce imports enough, it would spur enough growth to pay for everything and possibly even to create a post-scarcity economy.  Needless to say, that is completely insane.

Look, the debate is coming up on Tuesday.  Trump is pulling ahead.  I hope Harris is able to show Trump up for just how seriously out of touch with reality he is.  I hope his behavior drives the message home to voters just how dangerous he is.

But the fact is, Trump is a better debater than we like to think.  There are advantages to a debater who is completely untethered by the facts.

____________________________________________
*Many Trump opponents have suggested that he is confusing political asylum with an insane asylum. I have no idea on that one.

The Real Meaning of "When They Go Low We Go High"

 A lot of people have mocked Michelle Obama for saying, "When they go low, we go high."  This has been dismissed as hopelessly naive and utopian.  Indeed, Michelle has been accused of not following her own advice at the Democratic Convention.

I am not convinced.  There is another way of understanding the remark.  Most people seem to assume that there are three possible responses to attack ads, all of them bad.

The first is to ignore the attack as beneath response.  That has the disadvantage of looking like an admission that the accusation is true, or why are you letting it go unanswered.

The second is to deny the accusation.  The problem, of course, is that that only serves to amplify it.  That is the point behind the apocryphal story that Lyndon Johnson wanted to accuse his opponent of committing unspeakable acts with farm animals, just to force him to deny it.

The third alternative is to hit back, hard.  This is the one usually seen as the most effective -- when they go low, we go lower.  It is effective -- the reason there is so much attack advertising in politics is that it works. The result is the both campaigns compete to go lower and lower.  The one who goes lowest usually wins, but the overall result is to make voters despise both candidates and reinforce cynicism about the whole process.

I think that what Michelle Obama is saying is that there is a fourth alternative, a sort of political jiujitsu that turns the attacker's attack back on himself.  Ronald Reagan perfectly exemplified the technique when he responded to attempts to portray him as a dangerous extremist by chuckling and saying, "There you go again!"  It proved highly effective.

Barrack Obama was also a master of the technique.  He knew just how to drive his opponents crazy and then shake his head at their antics.  If an opponent wallowed in the sewer and invited him to come down and fight, Obama would say, "Wow!  It must really stink down there!"

A more recent example is Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock's famous ad.  Rather than making any detailed attempt at refutation, it shows him walking an impossibly cute dog, while saying showing a whole serious of headlines finding that attacks to be false out out of context.  "But I think Georgian's will see her ads for what they are," he says, throwing a bag of dog poop into the trash.  "Don't you?"  The dog barks agreement.  

Kamala Harris is showing some signs of understanding this technique as well.  The question is whether it will matter.  The latest poll shows Trump pulling ahead.

More Seriously: The Politics of Inclusion

 

Seriously, though, there is a point her.  My point is that Kamala Harris is working hard at the politics of inclusion and may be pulling it off.

Traditionally, Republicans have openly or subtly conveyed a message of exclusion.  Yes, they take care to include Black and Hispanic speakers to show that all races are welcome, but the constant message of "authenticity" and "real America" cannot help but convey a message that some "technical citizens" are inauthentic and not "really" American.  Who this refers to is somewhat intentionally left vague.  

Democrats, by contrast, present a message of inclusion -- which nonetheless has a tendency to exclude.  To some extent, this is the result of being a less cohesive coalition that the Republican base.  Democrats necessarily have to give assurances to all members of their coalition that all are welcome.  This can have the effect of telling people outside the coalition that they are not welcome.  And, yes, Democrats have made their efforts to overcome this.  Barrack Obama catapulted to national stature with his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention in which he said:

The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

And when he ran for President, Obama sought to reassure people outside the coalition by choosing Joe Biden, generally agreed to be an Authentic Real American, for Vice President.  Somehow it never convinced skeptics that he was anything but an out of touch elitist -- or worse.

So Kamala Harris is making her own bid.  She has chosen Mr. Super-Whitey from the Midwest for Vice President.  Walz flaunts the persona to assure voters on the fence that if you are Mr. Super-Whitey from the Midwast who coaches football, served 24 years in the National Guard, thinks tacos are made from hamburger and seasoned with black pepper and a hot dish is made with mild green chilies, taco sauce, chili pepper and paprika, you are an authentic real American who is welcome in our party.  And if you are the daughter of Indian and Jamaican immigrants from California who makes homemade fries seasoned with home grown rosemary and thyme -- well you are just as real American and just as welcome in our party.

In further news today, Trump is ahead in the latest poll.

Does Kamala Harris Put Dijon Mustard on Her Homemade Fries?

 

Apparently, Kamala Harris's husband back in 2019 revealed her French fry recipe.  Apparently it involves double-frying them in peanut oil and duck fat and seasoning them with home grown rosemary and sage. 

"As if I needed another reason to do all I can to elect her," gushed one fan.  "WE ARE NOT GOING BACK," proclaimed George Conway, showing a picture of McDonald's fries by comparison.  Which is funny, because I can distinctly remember the day when any candidate would have gone to great lengths to conceal such a shameful secret.  Harris also stopped by a high end spice shop to buy "Creamy Peppercorn Dressing Base, Fox Point Seasoning, Trinidad Lemon-Garlic Marinade, Turkish Seasoning, and Tuscan Sunset Salt Free Italian Seasoning," and the worst Fox News could find to say was that the chain where she shopped was overtly political in its opposition to Republicans.

You don't believe me?  Seriously, look up Dijongate.  The right wing worked itself into a tizzy when Barrack Obama ordered Dijon mustard on his hamburger.  Obama did not do himself any favors by trying to conceal his preference.  And a general uproar ensued over Obama's elitism in using fancy mustard.  And now a Democratic candidate is making homemade fries, double fried in peanut oil and duck fat and seasoned with home grown rosemary and sage?!?  To which I can only ask, does she put Dijon mustard on them?

I Don't Care if Trump Loses His Mind. I Just Want Him to Lose the Election.

 

George Conway, the Lincoln Project, and others are looking for more and more ways to torment Donald Trump until he completely loses his mind.  They use terms like "narcissistic injury" and "decompensation," but the ultimate goal is clearly to drive him around the bend. 

I have problems with this.  First of all, it's not nice to make someone lose their mind, even if that person is Donald Trump.

Second, and more important for our country's future, the goal here should not be to make Donald Trump lose his mind.  It should be to make him lose the election.  Trump's tormentors are forgetting this distinction.

Presumably they would say that making Trump lose his mind if the most effective way to make him lose the election.  I am not so sure.  After all, he has been ranting about Hannibal Lector and sharks and who knows what else for months without any serious political consequences.

If the goal is to make Trump lose his mind as a means to making him lose the election, at a minimum, he will have to lose his mind in public.  And somehow, no matter how nutty he acts, all it seems to provoke in response is a collective yawn.  Personally, I think he could jump up and down and squawk like a chicken and most people would just shrug and say, "That's Trump for you."

Second of all, would it matter?  I am with Bill Maher, who said he would vote for Biden's head in a jar of blue liquid ahead of Trump.  Presumably there are any number of people on the other side who would vote for Trump jumping up and down and squawking like a chicken over any Democrat.  

I am Gobsmacked That the Republicans Were So Gobsmacked

 

Let us concede that the Democrats, in swapping out candidates so late in the game, took quite a radical action and it was somewhat understandable that Republicans were thrown for a loop. 

What surprises me, though, is that Republicans still have not recovered from it.  Apparently they had no Plan B, which is surprising.

I can understand that they might believe Biden would not withdraw voluntarily.  Biden himself was doing his best to create that impression.  But if Republicans truly believed that Biden was as frail as they claimed, did it not occur to him that he might be involuntarily removed by events beyond his control?  

In the most extreme scenario, he might die.  Failing that, he might have a clearly incapacitating medical event.  Or the Cabinet might invoke the 25th Amendment.  Even if one assumes these things are unlikely, they were not so far-fetched that a sensible campaign would have disregarded the possibility.  A Plan B seems like so much common sense.

I can only assume that Republicans assumed that Joe Biden's removal as candidate would have been followed by a power struggle to be his successor that would have torn the Democratic Party apart.  If Republican planners wanted to be generous, they might even have assumed this was the reason why Biden would never voluntarily step down.

Why the Pro-Hamas Crowds Pickets Democrats -- The Same Reason Ultra-Maga Harasses Republicans

 

There has been talk about why the pro-Hamas protesters showed up in force in Chicago and tried to disrupt the Democratic convention while leaving Republicans alone.  After all, Republicans are clearly more obedient to Israel and less friendly to the Palestinian cause than Democrats.  But really this is no different than why ultra-MAGA harasses and threatens Republican, but not Democratic, law makers.

An important caveat is in order here.  We have at least some idea who these pro-Hamas protesters are because they show up in person.  Their leadership appears to be Palestinian, while the rank and file are mostly college students and generic progressive activists seizing onto the cause of the day.  Most of the pressure the far right exerts against Republican officials takes place out of the public eye, by threats by email, phone and the like.  As such, it is not clear who are making the threats -- militia members, such as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, or Three Percenters, or just the more hard core MAGA "normies."  

But the threats are real.  Many Republican office holders are being intimidated into supporting Trump, not just by the threat of a primary challenge but by actual physical threats as well.  Mitt Romney famously pays $5,000 per day in security because of these threats and can recount other Republicans who don't have that kind of money falling into line.  In 2020, Republican state legislatures expressed similar fears when Trump pressured them to appoint alternate slates of electors.  Rusty Bowers (Arizona Speaker of the House) and Brad Raffensperger.  Democratic law makers have not been targets of this sort of threats, although Democratic election officials have.*  And the reason is clear.  These hard core MAGA members believe that election officials are committing criminal fraud and therefore feel free to threaten them.  They expect Republican law makers to be in the tank for Trump and to vote for his certification regardless of election outcomes.  The do not expect Democratic law makers to be in the tank for Trump and therefore do not regard them as traitors for not voting to certify him.  

Or, put differently, ultra-MAGA are not currently seeking to take over the country.  They are seeking to take over the Republican Party as a prelude to taking over the country.

Something similar applies to the pro-Hamas crowd.  They know Republicans are in the tank for Israel and do not expect to have any sway with them.  Their fury is directed at Democrats, who they do expect to sway.  Or, put differently, they see Republican supporters of Israel as mere enemies and Democratic supporters of Israel as traitors.  And they are attempting to take over the Democratic Party, presumably as a prelude to taking over the country.

Of course, there are differences as well.  MAGA has been much more successful at intimidating Republicans into submission than the pro-Hamas crowd has been at intimidating Democrats.  The primary reason for this, I assume is that MAGA is much larger than the pro-Hamas crowd -- large enough to form the majority of a party, versus a minor faction.  

I also suspect that the ultra-MAGA tactic of staying in the shadows -- of making secret anonymous threats or harassing people at their private residence -- is more effective than the highly public and obnoxious actions of pro-Hamas.  If ultra-MAGA took their worst actions in the public eye, I have little doubt they would alienate public opinion enough to undermine their power. But private threats and harassment do not make it onto the public radar screen, and create they impression that there is a violent and authoritarian Left threatening the fabric of our country, with no equivalent on the Right.  The real difference is that the violent and authoritarian Left has been kept marginalized, while the violent and authoritarian Right is integrated into the mainstream.

________________________________________

*Also school board members.  

Why Republicans Are So Weirded Out at Being Called Weird

 

It appears the Republicans are totally weirded out over being called weird.  The obvious question is why.  After all, on the total scale of political invective, "You're weird" is about as mild as it gets. Republicans are used to being called racists and fascists and regularly call their opponents Communists, terrorists, radicals seeking to overturn our country and so forth.  What is the big deal about weird.

One part of it, no doubt, is that Republicans cannot invert the accusation.  If they try calling Democrats weird, Democrats will cheerfully own their weirdness and proudly flaunt any number of harmless eccentricities.  

But I don't think that is all of it. Some people have suggested that "weird" is code for "creepy." There may be something to that, but I don't that that is the main reason "weird" is drawing blood. David Frum suggests that:

"Weird" is code for "expresses obsessive hostility to women, including the women in his own personal life" - and because MAGA Republicans don't get the code, they don't understand why they are losing the argument.

I definitely don't think it is that.  I think that Republicans understand the code very well.  That is why they are so threatened by it.

Quite simply, "weird" is code for "doesn't share the values of ordinary Americans like you and me."  No wonder Republicans are so outraged by the accusation.  It comes right out of the Karl Rove playbook of hitting your opponents where they are strongest.  Because Republicans' great claim to legitimacy has always been that they speak for Authentic Real Americans everywhere, while their opponents are just A Handful of Out-of-Touch Elitists.

The assumption that liberals are, by definition an out of touch elite, has reached such levels that it is now Republican doctrine that one cannot be simultaneously conservative and part of the elite.  No matter how rich, educated, powerful, politically connected, and privileged a Republican, they can never be part of the elite because they speak for the values of ordinary Americans.  Tucker Carlson's father might be an ambassador, director of the Voice of America and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; his stepmother might be an heiress to the Swanson fortune; he might have attended exclusive boarding schools and asked Hunter Biden to give his son a reference, but none of this makes him part of the elite because he is right-wing and therefore shares the values of ordinary Americans.  

Of course, at some level the Republican, um, intellectual leadership (mustn't call them elite) must have known that they do not, after all, speak with the values of ordinary Americans.  After all, they have long been committed -- on paper at least -- to rolling back the New Deal, a project that finds no support among the general public.  But Republican elites thought leaders could take comfort in the thought that the American people were poorly informed, and that if they only understood the peril that Social Security and Medicare were in, they would support, if not rolling them back altogether, at least plans to turn Social Security into a 401-k and voucherize Medicare.

Presumably the first clue that ordinary Americans did not necessarily agree with Republican elites activists must have come when the Supreme Court repealed its protection of abortion and turned the matter over to the states.  It soon became apparent that most Americans wanted abortion to remain legal. 

But Project 2025 has been devastating.  Most Americans may not know exactly what is in Project 2025, but they know it does not represent their values -- and the Republican elite leadership knows it too.

This is potentially a valuable moment for the Democratic Party.  Abortion won one election cycle (2022), but it can hardly be enough to sustain the Democrats for long.  But the discovery that out of touch elitism is not a liberal monopoly -- that there are conservative elites at the Heritage Foundation and elsewhere who do not share ordinary Americans' values -- can be the basis of Democrats' appeal for another generation.

PS:  Here is a clue.  Any political movement that uses "normie" as an insult clearly does not represent the values of, well, normies.  Sooner or later, someone was going to point that out.

Hello, Again

 

So, there has been quite a gap since my last post, even as Biden has dropped out of the election and Harris has pulled ahead.  

I will have to say, it has been hard to post about domestic politics even as the Middle East looks ready to blow up any day.  That makes anything in domestic politics look very much like a fragile construction that could be totally upended at any moment -- much like Trump's lead when Biden dropped out.

It also seems self-centered to view the prospect of all-out regional war from the prism of domestic politics, but I can't help it.  What would be the results of all-out war in the Middle East?  Presumably skyrocketing gas prices and mass riots by the pro-Hamas crowd.  That should be enough to put election out of reach by the incumbent party and hand it to Trump.  

Nor are my fears limited to the US.  In Europe as well, and possibly Latin America, two decades of democratic back sliding are finally beginning to show signs of reversing.  And mass riots by Muslims across Europe could very well reverse the reversal and bring the anti-democratic far right to power.  

And yet all the accounts I follow seem to be focusing on our domestic politics and treating that Mideast as, at most, an afterthought.  So let me do a few domestic posts as well.

Trump's Upcoming Pick for Vice President

 So, apparently Donald Trump now has a list of eight potential candidates for the Vice President slot -- Marco Rubio, JD Vance, Tom Cotton, Tim Scott, Doug Burgum, Elise Stefanik, Byron Donalds, and Ben Carson.

It could be worse.  Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, Steve Miller, and Joe Arpaio are all mercifully absent.  Presumably Trump fears they would cost him votes.

Look, I know it is customary to analyze the potential picks from the candidate's viewpoint and list their pros and cons as potential vote getters.  But I am not going to do that.  The Vice President might have some influence on Trump and might take over if he passes his sell-by date while in office.  So, for the sake of the country, how do I evaluate them?

My somewhat unorthodox approach is that I prefer a knave to a fool. In other words, when candidates say something completely nutty, I would rather have one who knows it is a lie told to fool the gullible rubes than one who actually believes it.  Certainly, many people I respect disagree with me on this point.  And I recognize that the one who is knowingly lying is more morally culpable than the one who truly believes.  But it is also true that the deliberate liar is reality-based on the whole and can be rational when it is in his/her interest.  And the true believer will often cross lines that the liar would not.

Consider the 2022 election.  While the vast majority of Republicans who lost conceded defeat, there were two notable exceptions -- Kari Lake and Solomon Pena.  Lake knew perfectly well that she lost, but put on a show of challenging the results, made speeches denouncing the election as rigged, and sued to overturn the results.  At the same time, she knew perfectly well that the result would fail and did not make a serious attempt to overturn the results.  She was simply being performative.  Pena, by contrast, genuinely believed those stories, made complaints to a wide range of election officials and, when they did not take him seriously, started shooting at their houses.  It seems a safe assumption that Lake would never go so far.

Lou Dobbs also comes to mind.  There is a reason he was the only Fox host fired over the 2020 election.  The others knew perfectly well that they were recounting lies and could stop when the directive came down.  Dobbs believed and had to be fired.  Likewise, Newsmax hoped to outflank Fox on the right, but found it did not have deep enough pockets to withstand the sort of libel verdicts Fox could absorb.  As a result, it had to cancel Mike Lindell, Rudy Giuliani, and others who refused to shut up because they truly believed.

So, with that in mind, what would be my order of priority among the Big Eight?

Knaves but not a fools.

Doug Burgum

1.  Doug Burgum.  Two-term governor of North Dakota and businessman.  Burgum seems to be a basically, sane, normal, decent person whose politics I don't like.  He clearly knows he is lying and makes only the minimum effort necessary.  If he ever did come to power, I think he could be trusted to govern in a rational manner, even if I did not care for it.  The big question is whether the governor of a state with a population under 780,000 is qualified to be President.  To which I can only answer, that Burgum is almost certainly better qualified than Trump.

Tim Scott

2.  Tim Scott.  South Carolina Senator since 2013, formerly House of Representatives, South Carolina legislature and Charleston City Council, served on the Banking and Finance Committees, author of Trump's proposed police reform bill, voted to certify Biden as President.  He appears to be both qualified and rational, and basically normal and decent.  He is also absolutely shameless in the lies he is willing to tell to get the slot.  Like Burgum, Scott really doesn't seem to care that everyone knows he is lying. So why do I prefer Burgum?  Mostly because of his role a a governor.  A governor really has to deal in reality or he/she will not be successful.  We could use more governors running for President for that very reason.

Tom Cotton

3.  Tom Cotton.  Arkansas Senator, one of the Big Three most conservative along with Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, but he broke with them to agree to certify Biden as President, apparently after hearing the take recording of Trump's conversation with Brad Raffensperger.  Also a Russia hawk who voted for aid to Ukraine, definitely reality based, and tough enough to maybe have some sway with Trump and keep him at least somewhat grounded in reality.  So why do I prefer Burgum or Scott, neither of whom shows that kind of toughness?  Well, unlike Burgum and Scott, Cotton does not come across as basically decent.  His enthusiasm for waterboarding and eagerness to declare martial law during the 2020 riots suggest that Cotton is an authoritarian himself, albeit, a more reality-based authoritarian than Trump.  However, I am open to persuasion that Cotton might be preferable to Scott because he is tougher and better able to keep Trump grounded.

Marco Rubio

4. Marco Rubio.  Florida Senator, part of the Tea Party class, contender for President in 2016, voted to certify Biden.  It won't be Rubio for a simple reason.  The Constitution does not exactly say that the President and Vice President must be from different states, but it does require electors to vote for a ticket that includes at least one person from a different state.  This means that if Rubio joined Trump on the ticket, Florida's electors would be disqualified.  In a close election, that just might cost Trump victory, so I think we can rule out Rubio.  Nonetheless, if he were to move to another state, that would be a sort of ultimate act of self-abasement.  Rubio ran as a hawk in 2016, but voted against aid to Ukraine.  In short, he has abandoned his principles beyond what is absolutely necessary for the slot.  Somehow that just strikes me as particularly distasteful, although I am open to persuasion either way whether he might be preferable to Tom Cotton.

Elise Stefanik

5. Elise Stefanik.  House of Representatives from Upstate New York since 2014.  Originally ran as a moderate, elevated to chair of the House Republican Conference mostly so a woman could take Liz Cheney's place when Liz Cheney refused to acknowledge Trump as winner of the 2020 election.  Stefanik has since sought to advance herself by abject deference to Trump.  So what makes her any worse than Burgum, Scott,  Cotton, or Rubio?  Look, I prefer a knave to a fool, but I prefer a lesser knave.  The others at least have some sort of distinction other than shameless opportunism, but Stefanik has built her entire career on that.

Purely a fool.

Ben Carson

6. Ben Carson neurosurgeon, served as Donald Trump's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, noted for bizarre beliefs like that the pyramids were really granaries and not tombs.  Kevin Drum described Carson's previous claim to fame as a neurosurgeon and crackpot and described him as being crazy but not scary.*  To be clear, just because Carson is a fool does not mean he is lacking in intelligence.  He is a literal brain surgeon, after all.  Nonetheless, we have had 46 Presidents of varying quality, and not one was ever qualified to perform brain surgery.  Conclusion:  Being a President and doing brain surgery are two separate and unrelated skill sets and having one by no means ensures the others.  Also, Carson is nutty enough to maybe actually believe about the stolen election.  But he seems like a decent enough guy other than that.

Knaves and fools.

Byron Donalds

7. Byron Donalds.  Elected to the House in 2020, almost certainly not qualified to be President.  But unlike Burgum, who appears to be reality based and willing to listen to sensible advice, Donalds appears to have made a career out of being as outrageous and obnoxious and possible.  This includes saying things like that Black people were better off under segregation and other such bomb throwing.  Unlike Scott, Cotton, or Rubio, Donalds voted not to certify Biden's election, which should itself be disqualifying. Does he actually believe the outrageous things he says?  I am inclined to think that Donalds resembles Trump in being a master of doublethink, about to believe or not believe whatever is most expedient at the time.  And to Donalds, expedient means outrageous.  Differs from the others in that he does not appear to have any interest whatever in governing and solely want to provoke.  Fortunately, Donalds has the same incurable defect as Rubio.  He is from Florida.

8. J.D. Vance.  Ohio Senator, elected 2022.  Combines all the worst traits of a knave and a fool.  Once harshly critical of Trump, now supports him down the line.  And it is hard to tell, but Vance appears to be a true believer who supports Trumpism with all the zeal of a convert.  He is definitely opposed to aid to Ukraine and believes that the working class is not served by the current international order.  (How does the working class benefit from more countries invading their neighbors?).  Vance knows perfectly well that the 2020 election was not stolen and does not seriously argue that it was, but does seriously argue that voters going to the polls and casting their votes for President should be a empty formality and that Congress should be allowed to throw out the election at will. In short, a Trumpist true believer who just might have the intelligence and competence to pull it off.  

And naturally, current signs point to Vance.

_____________________________________________
*He questionably characterized Steve Bannon as scary but not crazy and gave Michael Flynn the dubious distinction of being the only member of Trump's original Cabinet to be both crazy and scary.

On the Debate

 Simple.  It was a pure, absolute, unmitigated disaster.  Biden tried to sound energetic, talked too fast, and just sounded like he was on stimulants.  He glitched several times and did not seem to understand what he was saying.  

Point of contrast: In the Biden-Palin debate in 2008, I got the impression that it was a debate between a candidate with a serious, in-depth knowledge of policy and one who was reciting canned talking points.  This time, Biden came across as the one reciting pre-rehearsed lines.

Up till now I was skeptical about claims of cognitive decline.  He seemed alert an knowledgeable during the State of the Union, interviews, the written notes from the Robert Hur investigation, and so forth.

This one just seems to confirm the absolute worst fears.  A pollster leading a focus group of undecided voters quoted one as saying, "I don't know if Biden can make it to November."  They called on him to resign.  It was that bad.

I think tonight is the night Trump wrapped up the election.  I would not even rule out a Reaganesque landslide.  

We need to work on Plan B NOW!

What if Biden Wins and is Certified?

I have given Trump advice on how to not and say he did.  If Joe Biden manages to win and to be confirmed, would my advice to him be the same?  

Taking into account that Biden is a Democrat and Trump is a Republican, my advice would be substantially similar.  

I would advice both to leave things as they are on the economy and gas prices and take credit for an improving situation.  I recommended supporting a federal anti-carjack statute for Trump, and it would probably work for Biden as well.  Regardless of who is President, I do expect the Gaza war to subside into an occupation and low-grade insurgency.  Regardless of who is President, we need to set up a consistent system for arming Ukraine with Russian money because sooner or later someone is bound to undercut it.

The differences would be in detail, but they would exist.  For instance, I would expect Trump, but not Biden, to federalize law enforcement in Washington, DC.  While I would encourage both to make a deal with the Fed to swap fiscal consolidation for reduced interest rates, I do recognize they will undertake different kinds of fiscal consolidation.  Trump will doubtless focus on preserving tax cuts and letting spending increases expire.  I would expect Biden to let tax cuts expire at the higher levels, keep the increase in Obamacare subsidies, and phase out infrastructure and local government subsidies.  I would expect Trump's immigration policy to consist entirely of increasing border security and cutting asylum admissions, while Biden would increase opportunities to apply for asylum from afar while cracking down on unauthorized border crossing.  Total asylum admissions, work visas, and humanitarian patrols would no doubt be greater under Biden than under Trump even at his most generous.

And, of course, the two men would appoint very different federal judges.  But yes, the real difference under my proposal is in who they would prosecute.
 

The Really Big Question

 

All of this raises one question that I cannot offer even a guess at.

Is this what the Republican Party has become for the foreseeable future, or is Trump a unique pathology?  I really don’t know.

In the lead-up to the 2022 elections, I was very much afraid that Republicans everywhere would follow Trump’s example and refuse to concede defeat.  In that I was pleasantly surprised.  There have been many elections since 2020, and the rule appears clear.  In elections for offices other than the Presidency, candidates other than Donald Trump (with a few exceptions) will concede defeat.*

In general, when Trump is not around, the Republican Party has not wholly lost its civic virtue. Its candidates (with a few exceptions) concede defeat when they lose, and none has successfully overturned an election.  Despite their razor-thin majority in the House, Republicans voted to expel George Santos.  They have accepted a criminal investigation of Matt Gaetz.  They are keeping the lights on and avoiding government shutdowns and debt ceiling breaches.  These are not very high standards, but they are certainly higher that Trump can clear.

So what happens when, as is inevitable sooner or later, a candidate other than Trump runs for President and loses?

To be clear, I don't believe stories that Trump has galloping dementia.  He has always been rambling and tangential.  His ghost writer for Art of the Deal had this to say about Trump in 1987 when he was 41:

One of the chief things I'm concerned about is the limits of his attention span, which are as severe as any person I think I've ever met.. . . . No matter what question I asked, he would become impatient with it pretty quickly, and literally, from the very first time I sat down to start interviewing him, after about 10 or 15 minutes, he said, 'You know, I don't really wanna talk about this stuff, I'm not interested in it, I mean it's over, it's the past, I'm done with it, what else have you got?' 

People have been speculating that Trump has dementia since 2016 and he keeps going.  Nonetheless, it remains true that time is not Trump's ally, that sooner or later he will necessarily age past his sell-by date.

Which means that some time, sooner or later, there will be a Republican running for President who is not Donald Trump.  And presumably sooner or later a non-Trump Republican running for President will lose.  I am very curious whether the party will accept the outcome when Trump is not the candidate, or whether they have completely assimilated the idea that the Presidency is theirs by right, and that they never have to accept the results if they lose.

_________________________________________

*The first sign of this was actually as early as January 5, 2021, with the Georgia runoffs.

So, Am I Being Defeatist?

 

I can already hear a lot of people complain that I am being defeatist here, assuming that a Trump victory is all but assured and asking how to deal with it.  To which I can only answer, yes, that’s what the polls say.  And yes, I know, polls can change, but these ones have been remarkably stable.  Yes, Biden got a little bump after his State of the Union, but it proved fleeting.  Trump appears to be having a reverse bump following is conviction, but that may also be fleeting.  As of right now, a Trump victory is at a minimum at 50% chance, which makes it something we have to plan for.

But it is not just that.  Trump has all the advantage that a cheat has over an honest player.  And Trump is not just a cheat, but by now backed by a whole party of cheats who are pledged not to recognize his defeat as legitimate.  So let’s game out a Biden victory and see just what he has to get past to assume the White House.

First of all, there is a general consensus that Georgia, Arizona and Nevada are out of reach, so any win will come down to Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.  That is good in the sense that all three states have Democratic Governors and Secretaries of State, who can be counted upon to certify a Biden victory if it happens.  Better yet, Pennsylvania and Michigan have Democratic legislatures, so no risk of either state legislature choosing an alternate slate of electors.

That bad news is that Biden will need all three states to win.  The loss of even one will swing the election to Trump, and one can be sure that Republicans will pull out all the stops.  Since Pennsylvania Democrats control the executive and legislative branches in Pennsylvania and Michigan, sabotage will have to take place at the county level, but there are plenty of opportunities. 

In Michigan the matter got dramatic coverage – each county has a board of two Democrats and two Republicans who must certify results, and the state has a similar board.  In 2020, Republicans sought to refuse to certify the counties Biden won.  Can anyone doubt that they will do the same thing this time around, and probably Republicans on the state board will try to certify the result minus the Biden counties.  Naturally, Democrats on the state board will refuse to go along with that, and our media will probably treat these things as equivalent.

I am less familiar with the process in Pennsylvania, but it is easy to imagine Republican counties refusing to certify any results at all in order to prevent state-wide certification.  The remedy in both cases is presumably the same – go to court to seek a writ of mandamus ( court order to do one's duty) to order Republican officials to certify the results.  I do hope the courts do not try to enforce their order with fines or imprisonment.  Republican officials can easily wait till the safe harbor is passed, which loudly proclaiming themselves martyrs and crying political persecution.  A better option is to appoint a special master to do Republican county officials’ jobs for them.  The officials will doubtless still call that dirty pool, but there will be less opportunities to claim martyrdom.

Wisconsin is a different matter.  In Wisconsin, Republicans control both houses of a thoroughly gerrymandered legislature and can choose an alternate slate of electors.  Of course, Democrats now control the Wisconsin Supreme Court and will doubtless declare those electors invalid, but Republicans will hardly care.  Maybe fake electors will still claim to be the real electors in Michigan, although they were criminally prosecuted last time.  The Pennsylvania fake electors avoided prosecution by claiming they were only casting provisional votes if the official votes were invalidated.  But remember, the loss of even one of these states will throw the election to Trump.

But all of this will be secondary.  The real issue will be decided in Congress.  Recall that in 2020, state Republicans quite heroically resisted pressure from Trump and duly certified Biden when he won.  Republicans in Congress were a different matter.  This time, it appears to be the official position of the Republican party that the November election is an empty formality that Congressional Republicans can disregard at will.  Mitt Romney is retiring, so that leaves one Republican in either house who can be counted on to certify a Biden victory – Lisa Murkowski. 

So what if Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin all certify Biden electors?  Well, if Democrats control both houses, they will certify a Biden win.  If Republicans control both houses, they will find an excuse to throw out at least one of the states (probably Wisconsin, where the legislature will have an alternate slate of electors) and declare a Trump victory.  Sure, people can challenge the validity of the vote in the Supreme Court, but does anyone think they will actually invalidate Congress’ actions?

What will be interesting is if there is a split  If Republicans control the House and Democrats control the Senate, or if Republican have a 51-49 majority and Murkowski votes to confirm Biden.  The House has several options under the Twelfth Amendment.  One option is that if the houses cannot agree, the Speaker of the House becomes President under the Presidential Succession Act.  Mike Johnson will become President.  The good news -- under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, his choice for Vice President would have to be approved by both houses.   That would presumably prevent him from naming Donald Trump, which is worth something, but it would still mean that Congress had defeated the will of the voters.

Alternately, the House may declare which slate of electors won in Wisconsin unknowable and say that since neither candidate can be said to have won the “majority of the votes cast” and therefore the matter is cast into the House – which votes by state.  Republicans control the majority of states and can be expected to continue to control the majority of states for the foreseeable future.  The House, voting by states, will naturally choose Trump.  So far as I can tell, there is no way for the Senate to stop them, other than a Supreme Court case that the Supreme Court would presumably refuse to decide.  There would be one drawback here.  In that case, the Senate chooses the Vice President.

If Democrats control the House and Republicans control the Senate, the incentives are reversed.  The decision whether to declare the winner unknowable and throw the matter to the House is decided by a simple majority.  House Democrats could refuse to do that, and the Senate would have no way to force them.  The Senate might declare no winner and attempt to choose a Vice President, but the Twelfth Amendment requires a two-thirds quorum, which Democrats could thwart by walking out.  Once again, presumably the Speaker would become President.  I have no doubt that, faced with the prospect of a President Hakim Jeffries, a small number of Senate Republicans would cave and agree to certify Biden.  (They would, of course, be vilified and face primary challenges). 

So it would appear from this perspective that winning the House is more important than winning the Senate because the Senate is the weaker body in terms of certifying a Presidential election.  On the other hand, the Senate confirms presidential appointments and a Republican Senate would presumably refuse to do so.  That would not be so bad in the case of executive appointments – Biden could presumably stick with the current ones or appoint “acting”  executive officials.  But we have to assume that the number one priority in a second Biden term would be to appoint as many young federal judges as possible, and a Republican Senate would block that.

Finally, needless to say, the Capitol would be under martial law while all this was going on to prevent a repeat of January 6.  It should also go without saying that Republicans would cry foul and denounce Biden as a military dictator, even if he took care to have the National Guard merely surround the Capitol and not enter it.  I am open to persuasion both ways whether martial law would be needed up to the inauguration.  In 2021 it was clearly necessary.  On the one hand, insurrections take time to plan, and would-be insurrectionists appeared to have taken their chance and lost it.  But some last, desperate action to prevent an inauguration could not be ruled out.  This time, Biden is well-entrenched in the White House.   But certainly, there would be no excuse for martial law after the inauguration.  (It was maintained well past what was necessary last time).

And this is what our country has come to!

How Trump Might Not and Say He Did

Probably Trump's most successful and popular option upon being elected would be let's not and say we did.  In other words, voters may say they want major changes, or even to burn it all down, but actually making major changes, let alone burning it all down, is almost never popular.  Despite Republicans' apocalyptic rhetoric, the country is in generally pretty good shape.  Why not make some minor changes and treat them as major.

Keep in mind that Trump did that quite successfully last time he was elected.  He spoke in dire tones of a country headed toward disaster.  Did the economy look successful?  It was a false prosperity, buoyed up by low interest rates and doomed to fail when interest rates went up as they inevitably must.  Was the stock market doing well?  It was a bubble, about to burst.  Did statistics say unemployment was below five percent?  Government bureaucrats were lying, cooking the books to make Obama look good.

And then Trump was elected and immediately these problems vanished.  All talk of a bubble ended, and stock gains were suddenly real.  Interest rates were appropriately low and should not be raised.  All those unemployment statistics that were fake last month suddenly became real.  I worked for a Trump supporter, and his talk turned from inevitably doom and being glad Democrats would win because they could not escape blame to morning in America in one day.  So it would doubtless be this time. Republicans who see our situation as catastrophic today will suddenly see it as great just as soon as Trump wins.

This is not to deny that the country has problems, just to be clear.  Of course there are problems.  There always have been and always will be.  But consider seriously our situation and just how quickly Trump can wish things away, just by invoking the power of the Great Right Wing Noise Machine.

The Economy:  

Fact:  The economy is growing at a healthy clip.  Unemployment is been below 4% for as long as it was before COVID.  Inflation peaked out at nine percent and is now around 3.5% -- above target, but hardly catastrophic.  No other country has recovered from COVID as quickly as we have.  Prices have not fallen to what they were pre-pandemic, nor will they, regardless of who is in the White House.  Also, the Fed has raised interest rates to combat inflation.  Interest rates are higher than they have been in a generation.  People are used to rates that are, by historical standards, abnormally low, and are feeling pinched as a result.

What Trump can do:  He has already announced that his mere presence in the White House will be so stimulative as to end our economic problems, which is another way of saying he has not plans to do anything at all, other than the usual Republican tax cuts.  Just take credit for the great economy.  The Great Right Wing Noise Machine will join in and soon our economic problems will be forgotten.

Gas Prices:  

Fact:  The US is a net exporter of gas right now and is pumping more oil than ever before. Worldwide oil prices have come down from their peak, but are higher than pre-pandemic (let along during the pandemic!)  There is room to debate why.  I suspect the Russia-Ukraine war (two major oil producers) is a reason.  OPEC may also be price squeezing.  Biden cannot tout this as an accomplishment because Democrats' policy is to move to renewables.

What Trump can do:  He will undoubtedly proclaim "Drill, baby, drill!" and ostentatiously remove all environmental restrictions on oil drilling. I do not know how much this will affect prices.  I think we can safely assume it will not increase production overnight.  He can also brag about how we are producing more oil than ever before and are a net exporter.  That happened before he was elected, but the Great Right Wing Noise Machine won't tell anyone that.  He has come out as strongly opposed to any alternatives to oil and gas, such as solar, wind farms, electric vehicles, etc.  However, it would make imminent sense to quietly maintain subsidies and development of these things.   The reason is obvious.  Oil prices, after all, are a matter of supply and demand.  Prices are high despite our pumping record amounts of oil.  I admit to not knowing how much effect removing environmental regulations will have, but probably not as much as Republicans think.  Meanwhile, creating alternatives to oil and gas reduce consumption and thereby bring down prices.  Just as Biden is presiding over an oil boom and cannot boast about it, Trump could preside over a renewables boom and not boast about it.  So long as it reduced oil demand and kept prices low, why not?

Budget and deficits:

Facts:  The US has been spending more than it takes in since 2001.  So long as interest rates were low, we could afford to borrow a great deal without paying too much in interest.  However, now that interest rates have gone up, so has the cost of borrowing.  The US really does have to trim its budget deficits, or the cost of debt service will eat up more and more of the budget.  The deficit increased by Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts, COVID relief measures, and stimulus measures to get the country going again.  The stimulus worked.  The US economy has recovered faster than any other country, and with no more inflation than anyone else.  

Next year we are facing a perfect storm of deficit reduction.  Trump's tax cuts are set to expire, as is the suspension of the income limit for subsidies on Obamacare, as well as much of the infrastructure and local government subsidies passed as part of COVID recovery.  If all these are allowed to lapse, there will be major deficit reduction, but with significant pain.

What Trump can do:  By sound economic principles, the boom, not the bust, is the time to cut deficits. There is no doubt that taking so much money out of the economy will hurt.  But the hurt can be offset by an expanding private sector, and private sector expansion can be boosted by interest rate cuts.  Assuming the economy is still booming by the end of 2025, and that interest rates are still high (yes, I know, these are assumptions), anyone serious about the deficit make a deal with the Fed -- let all these provisions expire, and the Fed compensates by cutting interest rates.  Of course, no one is really serious about cutting the deficit.  As a Republican, Trump's natural impulse will be to keep his tax cuts and let the spending lapse.  If Democrats control at least one house of Congress, their impulse will be the opposite.  Doubtless some sort of compromise can be worked out.  But the point is, this does not have the same sort of urgency as the fiscal cliff under Obama.  That time, the deficit was about to drop in a still-depressed economy, with interest rates as low as they could go.  This time, there will be much more room to offset.

Crime:

Fact:  Crime spiked with the pandemic and riots. It has since mostly fallen back to the pre-pandemic baseline.  Trump's hysterical ranting about "immigrant crime" is pure fantasy, and nothing is so easy to solve as a problem that does not exist. Only two areas of crime remain elevated:  (1) crime in Washington, D.C., and (2) carjacking.  Carjacking is considered a "keystone" crime that can raise overall rates, so it is troubling.

What Trump can do:  He is proclaiming that he will reduce DC's municipal autonomy and federalize law enforcement to crack down on crime in our nation's capital, which is a realistic option.  Most crime is a state matter and there are constitutional constraints on what the federal government can do. However, given how mobile cars are and their close nexus to interstate commerce, it should be possible to pass some sort of federal anti-carjacking law that passes constitutional muster.  There are probably anti-carjacking bills that would pass even if the Democrats control one or both houses of Congress. Certainly such legislation would be popular.  Sponsor some sort of anti-carjacking bill, sign it with great bravado, and direct federal law enforcement agencies to prioritize enforcement.  Then brag about our declining crime rates.  As for the alleged "immigrant crime," prosecute a high profile case or two and have the Great Right Wing Noise Machine drop the subject.  End of problem!

Immigration:

Fact:  OK, this really is a problem.  It is not as bad as right wing hysteria makes it sounds. We are not being "invaded."  There is no "immigrant crime wave."  Illegal immigrants are not sacking and pillaging our cities.  But immigration rates are overwhelming our capacity to process it. Biden has somewhat reduced the rate with a combination of processing from afar and tightening the border, but it still vastly exceeds what we can handle.  And let's face it.  The US cannot admit everyone who wants to come here.  Some restrictions are necessary.  Biden made a huge forced error in abandoning Trump's "Remain in Mexico" policy with nothing to take its place.  A better option would be to leave the policy and work on making it more humane.  So some sort of tightening of our border is inevitable.

What Trump can do:  He can limit himself to border controls.  Attempting to end all immigration, or all non-European immigration, let along mass deportations will quickly show just how dependent we are on immigrant labor.  Anything approaching the sort of crackdown Trump is proposing will be disruptive and cause severe labor shortages, particularly in construction and agriculture, with predictable results to housing and food prices.  

Foreign policy:

Fact:  This is also a problem, though not a priority for most Americans.  I assume that when Republicans say they are reluctantly supporting Trump as the lesser evil because Biden has been "catastrophic," they are referring to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. It also deals in counterfactuals, so this is less a matter of fact than speculation.

I think it quite likely that the Russian invasion of Ukraine would not have happened if Trump had won the 2020 election. Putin would have seen that he had a friend in the White House and would not have wanted to jeopardize that friendship.  Besides, he would no doubt have preferred to wait until Trump withdrew from NATO, making the invasion much easier to pull off.

The Gaza war is a different matter.  While Biden's policy toward the Middle East differed from Trump's in being less hostile toward Iran and less single-mindedly supportive of Saudi Arabia, he largely followed Trump's approach toward the Arab-Israeli conflict of working to normalize relations between Israel and Arab states while papering over the Palestinian question. Hamas's October 7 attack was largely intended to thwart upcoming normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia.  I seems a safe assumption that Trump would also have sought to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia and seen that his his ultimate foreign policy victory.  It seems most likely that Hamas would have reacted exactly the same way.  Trump hold no influence whatever with Hamas, nor does their death cult seem likely to have been intimidated by him.

What Trump can do:  Most likely, by the time Trump is inaugurated the war in Gaza will have subsided to an occupation and low-grade insurgency. Trump can take credit for that.  As for aid to Ukraine, Trump appears to have decided to treat the issue as a purely financial one, rather than a matter of ideological commitment. Meanwhile, the European powers are frantically scrambling for an alternative to US aid in financing the war.  The best one they have found so far is the use of seized Russian assets to pay for weapons.  Trump seems to approve of arms sales, as opposed to military aid, since it is an opportunity to make money.  He call allow arms sales to Ukraine to his heart's content, so long as they are paid with confiscated Russian assets.  My guess is that the Chinese and North Koreans will also prefer not to jeopardize their friendship with Trump by starting any wars and will be content to postpone any such designs until after his term of office.  Iran is an interesting wild card and just might decide to develop a nuclear weapon, but Trump can always blame that his predecessor not stopping them.

Abortion: We know what Trump is going to do here. As little as possible.  He will leave this issue entirely to the states and let them take the heat on it..

Democracy:  But here is the thing.  There are moderate options that Donald Trump can take, and will undoubtedly will go better if he does take.  But this in no way reduces the threat he poses to democracy.  Quite the contrary, taking the moderate approach on all these other issues simply means following the smart authoritarian's playbook -- don't do anything unpopular unless necessary.  In fact,  pursuing popular policies offers the best cover for attacking democracy.

Can anyone doubt that as President, Trump would pardon everyone convicted of the January 6 election riot and any other crime committed on his behalf, as well as himself.  He can forbid the Justice Department from prosecuting any political ally, no matter how egregious their conduct. I am not all that concerned about Trump using the Justice Department to go after political opponents for the simple reason that there will be too many external constraints.  DOJ lawyers will have to find actual criminal statutes that Trump's opponents are purported to have broken.  Their cases will have to get by a grand jury, motions to dismiss submitted to the judge and, if it actually comes to trial, a jury.  

More dangerous are administrative actions, which have less external constraints.  Trump can harass any individual or organization opposed to him with IRS audits and challenges to its non-profit status.  He can impose a wide range of regulations (I admit to not knowing much about them) in a politically selective manner.  He can approve or disapprove mergers, award or deny contracts based on political considerations and lean on agencies to cook their books to make him look good (see Sharpiegate for a trivial example).  Our media have little government reliance, but he can lean on social media and perhaps use regulatory actions to promote right wing reports.

But probably most dangerous of all are the use of informal enforcement mechanisms by deranged followers.  Trump can tweet information about people who challenge him, including addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses and social media.  He can have the Right Wing Noise Machine amplify his reports.  And deranged followers can deluge anyone who challenges Trump with death threat and actual physical violence.  He can forbid the Justice Department from prosecuting such instances, and pardon the offenders.  He can unleash violence, or at least threats of violence, with a nod and a wink, and never anything direct enough to open him to criminal or civil liability.

And all of this will fly under most people's radar screens.  It won't bother most Americans, after all.  They will see a booming economy (inherited from his predecessor), falling crime (inherited from his predecessor), an anti-carjack bill, and boasting all over the right wing media.  Harassment of political rivals will take place out of the public eye, notices only by serious news junkies.  Even Trump's right wing mobs don't engage in the sort of conspicuous lawlessness you see on the authoritarian left.  They do not engage in mass riots (except on January 6), or occupy buildings, or block traffic.  They target specific individuals, mostly on the phone and online, sometimes at their houses, but always outside the public eye.  

And here is the real dilemma in dealing with a Trump presidency.  If he takes socially disruptive activity, like mass deportations, or attempting to repeal Obamacare, it will hurt his popularity, probably even among the party faithful and make it easier to stand up to him and defeat him, but the damage to the wider society and will be more serious.  If he refrains from such actions, and focuses narrowly on political rivals and subverting democracy, the larger society will go on, undamaged, but the harm to our institutions will be absolutely real and extremely hard to oppose.

Pick your poison.

PS:  And, right on cue, an announcement that OPEC plans to increase oil production in September to compete with increased US production.  Furthermore the International Energy Agency predicts reduced oil prices for the foreseeable future, largely as a result of reduced oil consumption and increased used of alternatives.  I expect falling gas price in September will be too late in the election season to do Biden much too -- it will just look like more political pandering.  But everything looks set to allow Trump to claim credit for reduced prices in a second term, so long as he doesn't blow it by attacking alterntiv