3 ms·

Considering that Trump owes his presidency to the midwest/rust belt, it doesn't take a genius to see that the heartland will see improving conditions going forw

Considering that Trump owes his presidency to the midwest/rust belt, it doesn't take a genius to see that the heartland will see improving conditions going forward. Trump will almost certainly advance policies that will benefit the heartland as that's his only chance of winning in 2020.

dragonwriter 9y ago
Your argument assumes that Trump has both the knowledge to determine what policies would result in positive net change in the heartland and the power to get then in place. Even with the same party in control of Congress, President's don't always get what they want, and moreover politicians are quite often wrong in their assessment of what policies will produce the results they prefer. And that’s even before considering that politicians often have interests in policy other than reelection, and reelection is often secondary and instrumental to those signs rather than primary over them.
- saint_fiasco 9y ago
  They don't have to be right in the assessment, they just have to make it look like they tried real hard and any failures are not their fault. For example steel tariffs are meant to benefit Trump voters (at the expense of the rest of the country). If it turns out they don't actually benefit Trump voters, he still gets points for being the only one willing to try. It's similar to the security theater that the government uses to fight terrorism. It doesn't matter if it doesn't work, because being seen trying and failing gives more points than not doing anything.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > They don't have to be right in the assessment They do to support the prediction that “it doesn't take a genius to see that the heartland will see improving conditions going forward”, based on Trump's political need for heartland votes. I agree with you that things don't actually have to get better for Trump to get votes if he can sell it as something else blocking his efforts, but that just further undermines the claim I was responding to.
    - saint_fiasco 9y ago
      I understood that comment with an emphasis on "see" improved conditions. As in, the change might only be in perception.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  > our argument assumes that Trump has both the knowledge to determine what policies would result in positive net change in the heartland and the power to get then in place. Also, it assumes that Trump desires a second term or actually believes what he says. As evidenced by his recent schizophrenic behavior on gun control, the biggest threat to "Trumpism" is Trump.
microtherion 9y ago
We're more than 25% through Trump's first term, so there's no need to rely purely on speculation of what policies he will "almost certainly advance"; you can just look at what policies he HAS advanced. And, frankly, I don't really see anything there that would benefit the heartland. His supporters might argue that the tax cuts will do so, but (a) those follow closely a model that was already tried in Kansas, and, to say the least, Kansas has not thrived under them. (b) even IF they were a success, it's hard to see how they would benefit the heartland MORE than the rest of the country. I don't disagree with your analysis that making the heartland prosper would greatly benefit Trump's 2020 chances, but you're assuming a rational and capable actor here. Evidence so far would rather suggest that he's exactly the short-sighted, corrupt, and lazy person that many people thought he was all along.

dragonwriter 9y ago

Your argument assumes that Trump has both the knowledge to determine what policies would result in positive net change in the heartland and the power to get then in place. Even with the same party in control of Congress, President's don't always get what they want, and moreover politicians are quite often wrong in their assessment of what policies will produce the results they prefer. And that’s even before considering that politicians often have interests in policy other than reelection, and reelection is often secondary and instrumental to those signs rather than primary over them.

saint_fiasco 9y ago
They don't have to be right in the assessment, they just have to make it look like they tried real hard and any failures are not their fault. For example steel tariffs are meant to benefit Trump voters (at the expense of the rest of the country). If it turns out they don't actually benefit Trump voters, he still gets points for being the only one willing to try. It's similar to the security theater that the government uses to fight terrorism. It doesn't matter if it doesn't work, because being seen trying and failing gives more points than not doing anything.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > They don't have to be right in the assessment They do to support the prediction that “it doesn't take a genius to see that the heartland will see improving conditions going forward”, based on Trump's political need for heartland votes. I agree with you that things don't actually have to get better for Trump to get votes if he can sell it as something else blocking his efforts, but that just further undermines the claim I was responding to.
  - saint_fiasco 9y ago
    I understood that comment with an emphasis on "see" improved conditions. As in, the change might only be in perception.
LyndsySimon 9y ago
> our argument assumes that Trump has both the knowledge to determine what policies would result in positive net change in the heartland and the power to get then in place. Also, it assumes that Trump desires a second term or actually believes what he says. As evidenced by his recent schizophrenic behavior on gun control, the biggest threat to "Trumpism" is Trump.

microtherion 9y ago

We're more than 25% through Trump's first term, so there's no need to rely purely on speculation of what policies he will "almost certainly advance"; you can just look at what policies he HAS advanced. And, frankly, I don't really see anything there that would benefit the heartland. His supporters might argue that the tax cuts will do so, but (a) those follow closely a model that was already tried in Kansas, and, to say the least, Kansas has not thrived under them. (b) even IF they were a success, it's hard to see how they would benefit the heartland MORE than the rest of the country. I don't disagree with your analysis that making the heartland prosper would greatly benefit Trump's 2020 chances, but you're assuming a rational and capable actor here. Evidence so far would rather suggest that he's exactly the short-sighted, corrupt, and lazy person that many people thought he was all along.