What to do about Donald—Part III

​ In early December 2020, just after it had become clear that former Vice President Biden had been elected to serve as our nation’s 46th president, I wrote an article entitled “What To Do About Donald?” wherein I pondered what legal action, if any, Biden should take against Trump for the numerous deleterious actions he had taken while president. Our nation was then struggling with the Covid pandemic and Biden needed the cooperation of Republican members of Congress in order to overcome the virus and pull our nation’s economy out of the depths to which it had fallen. President Biden was beset with public pressure, as well as pressure from within his own inner circle of advisors, to hold Trump accountable for his numerous misdeeds. They argued that such action would assure that others elected to the nation’s highest office would not be tempted to flout the notion that “No man is above the law.”

​​ Even after Trump instigated the January 6th attack on the Capitol, neither Biden nor his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, showed any interest in pursuing either criminal or civil litigation against Trump. They held to that position even after the Senate failed to convict Trump in the impeachment proceeding brought against him arising out of the attack on the Capitol. Instead, Biden deemed that a public airing of his predecessor’s actions would better serve the public interest and would not inflame partisan antagonism which would undermine his legislative agenda. By refraining from legal action he would also carry on our nation’s 233-year history of not seeking retribution against a prior president.

​​ Last December I wrote “What to Do About Donald – Part II” which addressed the problems facing the Republican Party posed by Trump’s announced intention to again run for president. Trump had not only failed to win the popular vote in the 2016 election, but had lost the 2020 presidential election by 7 million votes. On top of that, his efforts to champion his loyalists in a few dozen of the 2022 elections had produced similarly disappointing results. Perhaps even more disturbing to his Party’s officials, Trump had been named as a defendant in four criminal proceedings and a handful of civil lawsuits. While few were happy about the prospect of nominating an habitual liar and a proven “loser”, they were again faced the same problem that had confronted them in 2016; namely, that Trump controlled the allegiance of a large percentage of Republican voters.

​​ In that article, I suggested that the Republicans officials should simply allow their voters to decide Trump’s fate and concentrate their efforts on winning down-ballot races. As anticipated, Trump easily prevailed over a small group of opposing candidates and was set to challenge President Biden. By late June, however, it miraculously appeared that sticking with Trump would again work out as Biden had performed poorly in his debate with Trump. With Biden’s campaign on the ropes, the Republican National Convention was filled with optimism over the possibility of again controlling the White House. Trump was also jubilant over the possibility of again occupying the Oval Office and having the ability to quash his two federal criminal prosecutions.

​​ Much to Trump’s dismay, however, Biden chose to terminate his campaign in favor of his Vice President, Kamala Harris. Most Americans knew little about Harris, only that she was a black woman who had been chosen to be Biden’s VP to balance his ticket. As such, she appeared to be a poor match for the pugnacious Trump and that appraisal was echoed in the polls which depicted her as an even weaker candidate than Biden.

​ Trump, however, found this switch upsetting as he clearly preferred to run against Biden. He had convinced himself (and his MAGA supporters) that he had won the 2020 election by millions of votes. Moreover, Biden had been unable to stop the flood of those seeking asylum at our southern border and had allowed inflation to quickly rise to over 9%, placing stress on the family budgets of working class Americans. He revealed his preference to run against Biden in a message he posted on his Truth Social website beseeching Biden to reconsider his decision and resume his campaign. While you can’t always believe what Trump says (nor should you), this was totally unlike his usual bravado. There was clearly something about this switch that Trump found deeply troubling.

​​ Prior to Biden’s tapping Harris to run in his stead, her “favorability rating” (i.e., the percentage of Americans viewing her favorably minus the percentage of those viewing her unfavorably) was minus 17. This was hardly a good position to start from, especially considering that she only had a little over three months in which to introduce herself to American voters and convince them that she was a better choice than Trump to succeed Biden. What was it about Harris that upset Trump? He had successfully run against Hilary Clinton, so running against a woman, particularly a black woman, could not have been what troubled him.

​ Trump’s concerns, however, were not irrational. He well understood that he had limited voter appeal. While he still maintained a very strong appeal among MAGA voters, he also incited strong feelings of repulsion among remaining voters. This had been revealed in the 2020 election when “Sleepy Joe” Biden (a four-time unsuccessful presidential candidate) was able to garner the largest number of votes of any prior presidential candidate and achieved a 7 million vote plurality over Trump. This perception was reinforced by the fact that virtually all of the available polling data revealed that he rarely received the approval of more than 45% of those polled. That meant that there were still at least 55% of the potential voters that might vote against him.

​ Trump also realized that his principal advantage over Biden had been the general perception that Biden was in serious physical and (more importantly) mental decline. This was evident from the fact that Biden, who had achieved much during his term as president, had never received the support of more than 42% of those polled. Thus, as long as Biden was his opponent, Trump rightly concluded that he still had a very good chance of prevailing. With 13% of the potential voters unhappy over the possibility of electing either of these two aging candidates, the most likely possibility was that they would either choose not to vote or would cast a protest vote for a third-party candidate, leaving Trump victorious. However, with Harris as his opponent, there was a strong possibility that she would capture a majority of the remaining voters, swinging the election to her.

​ What actually underlies Trump’s likely concerns is not conjecture on my part. In early June, Trump had even said that he might intentionally let Biden win the June 27th debate so the Democrats would not be tempted to replace him. This statement seemed well out of character for Trump who never admits any weakness, no matter how obvious. Was he simply trying to provide an excuse why he might not prevail in that debate? Not likely, even though that certainly would be similar to his statements that he could only lose the 2020 election if the Democrats cheated. Or, was he expressing a true concern over having to face another opponent, or both?

​ Trump’s fear that Harris might prove to be a more formidable opponent than Biden was reenforced by the immediate outpouring of support which she received when Biden stepped aside and endorsed her as his successor. Over the course of the next two weeks, Harris’ favorability rating improved to minus 4 and she is now polling better than Trump nationally and in three of the battleground states (Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania). Moreover, during that same period she raked in over $300 million in campaign contributions and was starting to generate real voter excitement. This is a remarkable change in such a short period.

​ What appears to be most upsetting to Trump were the large crowds that had been attending Harris’ campaign rallies. On August 6th Harris chose Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota, as her vice presidential running mate and they immediately embarked on a series of campaign rallies in five battleground states, drawing crowds in excess of 10,000 attendees at each rally and roughly 15,000 at their rally in Detroit. That so unnerved Trump that he asserted that the crowd at the Detroit rally was a mirage and that pictures of it had been generated by artificial intelligence. This was a patently absurd accusation because it was so easily disprovable. Not satisfied with that comment, he went on to boast that his January 6th rally was larger than the crowd Martin Luther King Jr. had drawn when he gave his “I have a dream” speech, a crowd which was easily FIVE times larger than Trump’s. This unhinged response by Trump prompted Nikki Haley to publicly advise him to stop lamenting over crowd sizes and talk about the policy issues.

​ Other Trump supporters (like Lindsey Graham, Kevin McConnell and Karl Rove) have been giving him similar advice. This past week Trump held a news conference in front of his Bedminster golf club which had been advertised as a discussion of economic issues. He stood in front of two tables laden with grocery items, suggesting that he would be discussing the high cost of food. Instead, he only briefly discussed that subject and then proceeded to explain that, while his staff had wanted him to talk about the economy, he was rejecting their advice. What followed was a series character assassinations, grievances and false statements. Trump reprised this sad performance the following day at a rally held in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

​​ While Trump’s supporters admire him because he is pugnacious and purports to get things done, most Americans detest him because he is, among other things, crude, boastful, self-absorbed and an inveterate liar. In many respects, Trump is his own worst enemy. In part, that’s because he trusts his own instincts over those of his advisers. This explains why he frequently veers off the scripts his speech writers have prepared for him. This behavior would be understandable if he actually immersed himself in the facts before departing from his prepared texts. Instead, he gets most of his information from right-wing television commentators whose views tend to be skewed to appeal to their respective audiences. Accordingly, most of his digressions consist of false statements and insults which make him appear both unknowledgeable and petty.

​ It must also be appreciated that Trump has a very fragile ego and is particularly sensitive to ridicule and remarks that tend to undermine his carefully-honed image as a strong leader. This aspect of his personality also prompts him to demand that he be addressed as “sir” or “Mr. President.” More importantly, he tends to obsess over perceived insults and that obsession invariably compels him to interrupt his thought processes to attack those who have derided, denigrated or otherwise disparaged him. Indeed, he’s prone to launch such attacks in the middle of his addressing wholly unrelated subjects. In addition, the more hurtful he perceives the criticism hurled at him, the more times he will repeat his response to his detractor.

​ It would be political malpractice for the Harris campaign not to take advantage of Trump’s self-destructive tendencies which compel him to put aside whatever he is doing in order to smite someone whom he perceives to have attacked his personae. This could be achieved by simply arousing his ego and insecurities which are his Achilles heels. The stronger his response in relation to the perceived attack on his character, the more mentally unstable he appears. Stated another way, disproportionate responses make him appear unpresidential and wholly unsuitable to serve as our nation’s president. Would he even be prompted to cut off aid to Ukraine if President Zelensky criticized him? Thus, with respect to undecided voters, Trump could be transformed into Harris’ most effective surrogate.

​ This transformation could best be achieved by targeting Trump’s fragile ego with seemingly naive statements or observations. Rather than accusing him of lying or exaggerating the truth (Trump’s stock-in-trade), Vice President Harris could simply characterize Trump’s numerous false statements as products of mere forgetfulness caused by his advanced age. For example, she could suggest that Trump must have been experiencing a senior moment when denied any familiarity with Project 2025. Similarly, she might suggest that he must have been nodding off when John Bolton, his National Security Adviser, had informed him in 2017 that our nation’s infectious disease expert stationed in China had been withdrawn and that the pandemic unit within the National Security Council had been disbanded.

​ Such casual observations have three important ramifications. First, they will serve to distract Trump and frequently cause him to digress to unrelated issues while delivering messages that might further his campaign. Secondly, they send a message to uncommitted voters that Trump’s many false statements are actually signs of his deteriorating mental stability. Lastly, they might actually deter Trump from repeating his false and exaggerated claims which is what he principally relies upon to motivate his voter base.

​​ Part of Trump’s problem is that, without Biden as his opponent, he has few good talking points to address. His planned attack on the manner in which the Biden administration has handled (or mishandled) the immigration issue has essentially been neutralized by his own request that Congressional Republicans refuse to vote for the immigration and border security legislation outlined by Senators Lankford(R-OK), Sinema (I-AZ) and Murphy (D-CT) and publicly endorsed by Vice President Harris. Similarly, the inflation issue has largely been defused by the recent report that annual inflation is now back below 3% and wages are increasing faster than inflation. Equally problematic is that his political agenda, as set forth in the 900+ page document entitled “Project 2025”, is so toxic that Trump has publicly disowned it.

​ This essentially leaves him to accuse Harris of being a “communist” and a “radical”, both time-worn accusations that have no factual support and appeal only to those in Trump’s MAGA base. He has also raised questions as to the legitimacy of Harris’ nomination by the Democratic Party in an apparent effort to give his supporters a basis for claiming her potential election will have been achieved by fraud. This is reminiscent of his infamous claim that Obama was not born in the U.S. Thus, if Trump is starting to sound desperate, he has ample justification.

​​ At this point, Vice President Harris should concentrate on defining herself to the voters (particularly those in the battleground states) by setting forth her political agenda and contrasting it with Trump’s. In doing so, she should assume a positive perspective while emphasizing that her agenda is designed to make America a “more perfect union.” This would be in stark contrast to Trump’s view that the U.S. is a nation in distress that he wants to return it to the bad old days of the “Gilded Age” when our nation was ruled by the rich and powerful for their own benefit.