Slate Half-Explores Trump's Felony Problem

What do I think of President Reagan? The best answer to give would be: But I don't think of him... -- Ayn Rand

***

Recalling the "Shy Trump hypothesis" -- a 2016 attempt to explain how Donald Trump was elected against the run of polling predictions, Slate considers polling data about the question of whether Donald Trump would lose votes in the event he is convicted at one of his trials.

The article notes that while this hypothesis didn't hold up, it nevertheless raises the implicit question Will the voters who say they'd desert Trump if he were convicted really do so?

The piece follows on by nitpicking in many words: how Clinton's impeachment affected whether people thought he should resign, whether voters are paying any attention to Trump's legal problems, and whether they might have forgotten what they dislike about him.

I don't think much of or support either candidate, and this all looked like so much hand-wringing on the part of a partisan hack who'd have to find something else to write about if the Democrats had only chosen someone less ancient and unpopular to run against such an ancient and unpopular opponent.

I'm guessing the author isn't a big-picture guy. (Image by Alan Diaz, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.)

For about 1300 words, this piece myopically speculates from polling data and yet misses three huge factors with much greater and direct bearing on the question of whether Trump's legal troubles will affect the election. First, since both parties have set things up to eliminate any deliberation in the process of choosing a candidate, there is already a binary choice between two terrible options. Is the left's partisan media so blinded by hatred for Trump that they don't see how awful Biden is, and can't conceive of others being equally blinded by hatred for Biden?

Second, while Biden's foibles don't excuse Trump's, there is zero mention of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal or Biden's classified document incident. Many people are aware of both, and might understandably conclude that they have a "choice" between two felons/national security risks.

Third, while I think Trump should stand trial for election tampering in Georgia and his role in the events of January 6, I think the civil trial in New York is a gross abuse of government on top of being politically motivated. I doubt I am alone in this, and I am concerned that if this perception doesn't already mar public confidence in the propriety of trying the two serious matters I just named, Trump will find a way to make sure it does.

(In my uninformed opinion, I think if the Democrats were serious about their constitutional obligations, they would have been much quicker to establish that Trump was an insurrectionist (or not) on legal grounds, and found a way to hasten legal proceedings in that matter and the election tampering in Georgia. As it stands, they appear to be trying to time things to spoil Trump's election attempt. They are playing into his hands.)

The article disclaims many circumstances of the election are unprecedented on its way to throwing the bone of hope to Democrats and others opposed to Trump. That is wishful thinking at best, and I see too many circumstances that are ripe to make Trump's unfitness for office look irrelevant to many voters.

-- CAV