Elections are won and lost by a series of events that create impressions on voters, some lasting, others fleeting. The past few days have seen several sub-plots that we find interesting. Here are our top 5:
The first subplot is the impact of China on the election. For a long time, the media has thought that President Trump’s trade war with China would sink the economy, hurt his standing with farmers, and potentially undermine his re-election efforts. In contrast, Trump supporters have suggested that Trump will strike a deal with China prior to the election, boosting his standing as an unconventional deal maker. This week, we saw a new side to Trump as he signed bipartisan legislation supporting the Hong Kong democracy movement. Critics had said that he would not sign the legislation because doing so would hurt the likelihood of a trade deal, but Trump weighed the options and embraced the legislation. The aftermath saw thousands of democracy protesters in Hong Kong waving American flags, holding signs with Trump’s head superimposed on Rocky Balboa, and singing the American anthem. We will have to wait and see the impact on the trade talks with China.
The second subplot is President Trump’s announcement that peace talks are back on with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Trump’s secret visit to the troops in Afghanistan with his wife Melania made for good press (particularly because Newsweek had just published a piece criticizing him for tweeting and golfing on Thanksgiving). However, we see Trump trying to make good on his pledge to bring American troops from America’s longest running war. Just as he has sought to remove American troops from Syria’s civil war, Trump’s instincts are to bring the troops home. Whether he can defeat the military-industrial complex and chose peace over military intervention remains to be seen. Ending the war will have political ramifications. We believe that on balance it would be positive for Trump, but there will be naysayers among the neoconservative movement and it will be interesting to see how the Democratic candidates try to position themselves v. Trump. Will the Democrats support the globalist foreign policy of Clinton – Bush? or will they favor Trump’s less interventionist policies?
The third subplot is the increasing tension between the Sanders and Buttigieg campaigns. Sanders supporters have been pushing back on Buttigieg’s advertisements running in Iowa that take aim at progressive plans for universal healthcare and free college, suggesting that he will give it to 80% of the population but make “millionaire kids” pay their own way. Representative Alexandra Ocasio Cortez called out Buttigieg saying “This is a GOP talking point used to dismantle public systems, & it’s sad to see a Dem candidate adopt it.” Sanders’ backers have also dug up an essay that Buttigieg wrote back in 2000 which won the JFK library high school writing award and helped get him into Harvard. In the essay, the teenager Buttigieg wrote, “Politicians are rushing for the center, careful not to stick their necks out on issues. Most Democrats shy away from the word “liberal” like a horrid accusation.” Then Buttigieg turned to praise none other than Bernie Sanders, saying “Sanders’ courage is evident in the first word he uses to describe himself: “Socialist”.” The Bernie crowd on Twitter has highlighted the irony that Buttigieg is now running to the center and criticizing his former political hero. As one Sanders follower noted, “Pete Buttigieg is a Republican—or whatever he thinks he needs to be to win.” Watch for the Sanders -Buttigieg rivalry to heat up as the progressive wing reacts to Buttigieg not so subtle attempts to push them to the side.
The fourth subplot that we are watching is the collapse of Kamala Harris’s campaign. Today was perhaps the final blow to a once promising front runner who many thought was ready to take over Obama’s mantle and become the first female president. One of Harris’s lead staffers, Kelly Mehelenbacher, resigned saying that “This is my third presidential campaign and I have never seen an organization treat its staff so poorly.” The New York Times also led with a story that portrayed her as an “uneven campaigner” who had run a poor campaign and squandered a tremendous opportunity. It’s remarkable to see the insiders turning on each other more than 60 days before Iowa.
The fifth subplot is the unconventional Bloomberg campaign that continues to pursue an unprecedented strategy of bypassing the first four contests (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada) and focusing on the Super Tuesday campaigns. Bloomberg has launched his initial ad buys blanketing both national TV audiences as well as targeted ads in key states such as California, Florida and Texas. Bloomberg has already begun to draw attacks from the progressive wing. The latest to attack was former congressman Barnie Frank who stated that “There’s a great deal in Mike Bloomberg’s record that is a real problem for very many Democratic voters.”
With approximately 60 days before the first contest, there are lots of subplots to watch!
NewEnglandPolitics.com 