Trump won't lose it. Harris-Walz will win it.

"Will Donald Trump Blow Another Election?"

That was the exasperated headline of a Wall Street Journal editorial this week that revealed a sense of hopelessness among establishment Republicans about their party's presidential nominee. Also exposed was a seemingly growing division between the establishment and the base, which, if real, would be an excellent beginning of a fatal dissonance in Trumpism.  

"GOP voters" are responsible for the "risk" of Trump's third run, said the editorial board. It did not overtly accuse the base of stupidity, although the implication hung heavy. There were younger and better candidates, "but primary voters wanted to nominate Mr. Trump ... who they came to believe had his second term stolen." They came to believe — an indictment of mass gullibility.

Nevertheless, "the problem is the candidate," wrote the editors, somewhat contradicting their condemnation of those who made the candidate the nominee, the original sinners. Then another j-accuse! [[Trump's] passionate followers ... don’t want to hear a discouraging word." What they don't want to hear is "political reality," that they, the primary voters, are too small a base to reelect him.

Worse, Trump's campaign "is reminding [other] voters why they didn’t vote to re-elect him in 2020." There the editorial board is spot on. But in terms of the party's most basic problem, were the editors asking the right question? Will Donald Trump blow another election?

They based their query on what is likely the wrong premise — that this is "another presidential race he should win." The election ought to be a cinch for Trump, they asserted, because "the economic and security fundamentals are teed up for a Republican victory."

The basic problem, however, is that their assumption is wrong. It could be that their exasperation with the base and creeping hopelessness about Trump stem from a vague awareness about just how wrong they are. The Dems have the advantage. 

Absent the electorate's (unwarranted) unhappiness with President Biden's economy, Harris-Walz has nearly 100 days to reset public sentiment — already in rapid motion. Contra the Journal's editors, the economy is on solid ground, and it's unlikely to seismically shift downward before November. Furthermore, interest rates will begin to fall — mortgage rates already have — and inflation's control will become more evident.

The key development behind locking in electoral shifts on the economy and away from Trump is the sense of joy and fresh hope that Team Harris has brought to the presidential contest. With Kamala's infectious, upbeat approach to politics and policy and Everyman Walz branding the economy's good health with humor and practical wisdom, Democrats have a sublime shot at converting the public's gloom into the nominees' optimism.    

By "security" the Journal meant "the chaos at the border." But again, Harris-Walz has time to work on the public's memory and misguided assessments; time enough to remind voters repeatedly that it was Trump who killed a tough border bill in Congress, that he guaranteed the chaos, that he wanted the chaos.

This cannot be stressed enough, so I'll say it again: The key to Democrats' success is not only that by and large the electorate detests Trump. Rather, voters very much want to give Harris and Walz a chance — to participate in their joy and rekindle hope. After all, Americans by nature are an optimistic people. And the new team is returning those fundamentals to the political scene. 

What the Journal's editorial board claimed are ripe openings for Trump are instead what Kamala Harris has going for her. And in closing I'll note that history won't forget that it was President Biden, to borrow from the editors, who "teed up" a Democratic victory.

Comments

[Anne J]

So who are they more frustrated with? Trump or his voters? Or is it because they weren't being honest about the economy and the border and it caused them to contradict themselves?

What I am appreciating is how team Harris is rightly chalking up higher prices to corporate greed. And now companies like Disney are showing lower earnings because, as has been true for decades, they were always overpriced and now they have complicated the whole park visiting experience.

And if I'm being honest, I don't really care what happens with the stock market. That's not the real economy, just rich people's economy. If Elon Musk loses several billion dollars he's still the richest dork on the planet.