It’s The Economy, Donald

Many are starting to notice something I’ve dropped a few posts on recently, namely that Trump should forgo most of his typical talking points and focus on the economy. In this case, it is Rob Carver at the Fiscal Times

At this point, Donald Trump has only the thinnest of reeds to cling to in his effort to prevent his campaign from sinking out of sight. It’s not the fantastical claim that he’s going to capture the African-American vote. He’s not; especially not if he keeps doing things like this. It’s not the myth of “missing voters” who will magically appear to carry him to victory in November. And it’s certainly not the ongoing effort to convince voters that, against all evidence, Hillary Clinton is secretly battling a deadly illness.

It’s the economy, stupid.

Trump is the candidate of the frustrated and the angry who feel that they have been left behind by a country and an economy that simply doesn’t look the way it used to. And the news Friday that the Commerce Department had downgraded the already dismal second quarter GDP numbers from an annualized 1.2 percent to 1.1 percent is the sort of thing that, if he had the self-control to avoid unnecessary distractions, he would be hammering on night and day.

Once again, what Americans care about foremost are bread and butter issues. How is the health of the economy affecting themselves and those they know. What’s their pay look like. Does their company sound safe? What’s their cost of living. Everything else, no matter how important it seems at the time (seriously, while the Colin Kaepernick sitting during the national anthem seems huge, does it matter, or is it just a distraction?). This is what people want to know about.

In fact, when it comes to fixing the economy, economists across the political spectrum are remarkably agreed on the question of whether or not Trump is the man to do it. In a brutal article published Friday, The Wall Street Journal surveyed 45 economists who have served on the White House Council of Economic Advisers under one of the past eight presidents. Not a single one of them said that they would support Trump.

But for Trump, the blessing of the elites doesn’t matter. Economic uncertainty is like fertilizer for the worries that he is trying to plant in the minds of voters, and if his new campaign team has any sense at all, they will be advising him to play up the state of the economy in his public appearances and to play down the ridiculous promises about his ultimate victory with minority voters.

Instead of making those appeals to minority voters (note: he still hasn’t made an appeal to Conservatives specifically yet), he should talk about the economics that affect them, and everyone. In all fairness, his recent speech about the state of blacks did touch on a lot of the bad economic numbers that plague black communities. Obviously, that wasn’t covered by the oh-so-neutral media. Trump should give speeches that do not include Other Things, distraction things, talking about himself things, that allow the media to focus on things other than the economy.

Trump plans on giving a “yuge” immigration speech on Wednesday (if it doesn’t get cancelled again) in Arizona to lay out (supposedly) his full plan. While some care about this a lot, and most are interested in this issue, it is not a win-the-general-election issue. It’s not going to move the needle beyond Trump’s base.

If Trump is going to talk about any issues, they need to be put specifically in terms of the economy. People want to know what a Donald Trump presidency will do for their wallets. He needs to tell them, and contrast that with what a Hillary economy will look like.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

11 Responses to “It’s The Economy, Donald”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Neither candidate fully addresses what is happening to the American working classes.

    Trump’s economic policy positions to date will make conditions worse for the working classes. Not better.

    Clinton’s do not go far enough.

    To do what needs to be done just review Senator Sanders’ prescriptions – he was the one candidate who addresses the needs of the non-elites.

    Regarding his campaign, you’re probably correct that Trump should hammer the economy, but he has no idea how to improve things. Protectionism, tax cuts for corporations and wealthy, yuuuuge tariffs, “deregulation”, massive deficits, massive deportations (or not?)…

  2. john says:

    Teach Americans are generally pleased with the way things are going. The Dems haven’t been this far in front in years.
    The GOP Congress is despised, but you are saying that everything is the fault of Obama
    Well that is NOT the way most Americans feel.
    Instead of always blaming the “libs” for everything maybe you should turn that critical eye towards your own party and see why it has no mass appeal. And its base is dieing off
    HAHA
    Teach you are younger than the median age of the GOP
    You may well last long enough to see the GOP become an endangered species

  3. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host quoted:

    In fact, when it comes to fixing the economy, economists across the political spectrum are remarkably agreed on the question of whether or not Trump is the man to do it. In a brutal article published Friday, The Wall Street Journal surveyed 45 economists who have served on the White House Council of Economic Advisers under one of the past eight presidents. Not a single one of them said that they would support Trump.

    For Donald Trump, that all 45 economists with government connections said that they couldn’t support him is a win, not a loss.

    That is the whole basis of Mr Trump’s campaign, that he’s an outsider who is going to do things dramatically differently.

    One thing that I used to do on my now-sadly-neglected blog was to note how economic figures disagreed with what the economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal said would happen. It wasn’t a case of the economists guessing wrong about the future, but getting things wrong about what had happened in the past. How, I asked, could we have any confidence in what the economists said would happen, when they couldn’t even get right what had already happened.

  4. drowningpuppies says:

    How, I asked, could we have any confidence in what the economists said would happen, when they couldn’t even get right what had already happened.

    Kinda like the climastrologers?

  5. Hank_M says:

    Though I see where our host is coming from, I don’t think it’s to Trumps benefit to talk about specifics with regard to the economy. When he’s done so in the past, the democrats with bylines immediately start running stories about how he’ll destroy jobs, plunge the US into a depression….the usual doom and gloom.

    He should keep hammering the real unemployment rate, how the dems are the true party of the 1%, how Wall St owns Hillary, how Barry O has sent the deficit skyrocketing, and how the system is rigged, especially by Hillary herself.

    The high road of talking issues, offering solutions, speaking about policy won’t work, as Hillary has shown repeatedly. This will come down to which candidate scares people the most. And anyone who looks closely into Hillary’s background and history will come to the conclusion she’s unhinged, frail and as corrupt a politician as we’ve ever had.

  6. Liam Thomas says:

    The Wall Street Journal is the epitome of Establishment Politics.

    SHEEPLE bahing loudly at the next election…..all bahing for their candidate…convinced the other guy is a moron of epic proportions.

    The facts are simple everyone posting here has valid and legitimate concerns, opinions and ideas.

    What is missing is POLITICIANS who listen to the people and instead go to D.C. and do nothing all the while blaming the other side.

    They stir up People Like Jeffery and Dana and Teach etc…etc…etc….who then argue, debate and rally behind their given cause……

    All the while these bastard politicans are laughing at you as they collect their checks, cash their offshore accounts and amass wealth and prestige…..

    WHILE YOU ALL DO THE DIRTY WORK FOR THEM.

    WE ARE ALL ENABLERS IF WE DEFEND ANY OF THIS SHIT………seriously guys Ive been in enough countries to see political instability and America ranks right up there with them all……

    The difference is we havent started killing each other yet.

    YET.

  7. Dana says:

    Our host quoted:

    In a brutal article published Friday, The Wall Street Journal surveyed 45 economists who have served on the White House Council of Economic Advisers under one of the past eight presidents. Not a single one of them said that they would support Trump.

    Think about that: to have served under the past eight Presidents, this group would have to have served as far back as President Nixon! You’d have economists who supported higher taxes, economists who supported lower taxes, economists who supported more regulation, and economists who supported less. Out of 45 different economists, you could probably find 57 different positions!

    It is a basic, Economics 101 statement: trade benefits everybody, as economic actors specialize in what they do best. Mr Trump is saying that this doesn’t apply, because the playing fields are unequal, and that he will be more protectionist. If Jeffrey liked Senator Sanders and his populist campaign, there isn’t a much more populist position than protectionism.

    To me, all that the government can do is on the margins, either easing the way for business or throwing up roadblocks, in the form of increasing regulations. At best, Mr Trump might, might! reduce regulations on business, while Mrs Clinton would clamp down even harder.

  8. Hank_M says:

    Dana, Regarding your comment that Trump might reduce regulations on business….Having run businesses, Trump knows full well the regulatory burden businesses face.

    You might also find former Senator and Presidential nominee George McGoverns comments on running a business interesting. http://www.inc.com/magazine/19931201/3809.html.
    As the articles lead-in states: “After a run for the presidency and a quarter century on Capitol Hill, George McGovern left public service and became the owner of a business — a punishingly revelatory experience. If only, he says now, his career sequence had been the other way around.”

  9. Hoagie says:

    To me, all that the government can do is on the margins, either easing the way for business or throwing up roadblocks, in the form of increasing regulations. At best, Mr Trump might, might! reduce regulations on business, while Mrs Clinton would clamp down even harder.

    I used to think that too Dana, but as a businessman who has watched Obama inflict “lawfare” on business in America and use alphabet agencies to do their very best to harm business, especially start-ups, I no longer agree. Clinton will not only continue the lawfare against our small and medium business but I believe increase it to nuclear lawfare. I say that because small and medium business, middle class people and non-minorities are not her constituents and from my experience if you are not a supporter of the left they don’t just ignore you like a normal person would do, rather they have the propensity to do you harm and make a “lesson” out of you. And since small business and the muddle class have no lobbyists to pour money into campaigns or the Clinton Foundation they will be crushed.

    One of comrade Obama’s known comments was “You didn’t build that”. Clintons will be “You don’t deserve to own that”. Remember, she’s the sweetheart who said: “I can’t be responsible for every undercapitalized business in America”. She really believes if the taxes and regulations are raised in such a way they drive people out of business it’s not because of onerous government, it’s because they were undercapitalized.

  10. Trump will do one thing from here until the end of his campaign – continue demonstrating why he was a fringe candidate that won with the help of the media. Please don’t expect even competence from this guy; please don’t expect consistency; don’t even expect common sense. He is not the candidate of sanity. He is the alphabet juggler, the escaped dementia patient, the rich kid for poor folks, the translucent nothingness masquerading as your perfect cure.

  11. Hoagie says:

    InRussetShadows, one of the main differences between democrats and republicans this election cycle is this: We Republicans admit that Trump is a narcissistic idiot but we won’t vote for a person who we believe is as leftist as Stalin. The democrats refuse to admit their candidate is corrupt and a liar and therefore the opinions of democrats is not to be trusted because if they’re willing to lie to themselves you can bet they’re willing to lie to you.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8384 access attempts in the last 7 days.