- Joined
- Dec 12, 2011
- Messages
- 6,301
- Reaction score
- 18,836
- Media
- 147
- Member of
- NRA life, DSC, SCI
- Hunted
- Minnesota, Texas, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, British Columbia, Argentina, Kansas, Macedonia, Australia, Tanzania, Iceland
True, and I've made that argument as well. But as it was pointed out to me, then Trump wouldn't be Trump.I won't really argue with what you're saying here Bob, but it still made no sense for Trump to have said what he did. How much will it hurt him? Maybe a bunch, maybe not, but perhaps just enough to make the difference between losing and winning.
Having said that, two other points I'd make. The way Presidential politics work in this country, first you need the endorsement of your party. And except for the Democrats taking a Politburo approach to their process this time around.... Winning the endorsement meant full on pandering to the base of the party. Or in Trumps case, building his own base and making that the base of the party.
Then typically a candidate must make the switch from pandering to a generally bit extremist base... To appealing to a much more moderate general electorate. In other words, they have to not be true to their beliefs either before or after the party endorsement.
In Harris’s case, she is obviously trying to moderate her stance but no one believes her. Her long track record is too strong to think she can or will change.
As for Trump, he has no long political track record but a very diffinitive 4 year track record of doing arguably much better than his rhetoric indicates. Trump fans would argue he is true to himself and to his supporters.
But yes it would be great if he could avoid those pits he loves to jump into. But that is not him.
There was a great argument that his unpredictable nature is what gives him a massive edge, especially on the World Stage.