Trump won his election by a decisive electoral college victory. The president would want you to read that first sentence and stop right there. But of course we know the story is more interesting than that. And no, I’m not talking about the fact that the Democrat contender outpaced Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%).
No. What makes the story truly interesting, is the fact that voter turnout in 2016 dipped to nearly its lowest point in two decades. A whopping 18.7 million less votes when compared to the turnout of 2008, when nearly 64% of voting age citizens cast a ballot.
But curiously, Republican turnout has remained virtually unchanged throughout the last elections except for a small drop. Trump’s victory wasn’t decided by a rush of new voters. There weren’t “Trump Democrats” in the rust belt. The president won because Democrats didn’t show up to vote, while Republicans did. Is that simple.
But Democrats are very likely to show up in bigger numbers the next time around. That’s because being on the losing side of an election has a way of energizing the base of a party. We don’t have to look too far back to see just how much traction conservative groups like the Tea Party gained under the Obama administration, and how lively the anti Obamacare protest were. Lively perhaps being too nice of a word.
Newfound passion for political activism from the left can rightfully be attributed to a loss of complacency from the no-longer majority ruling party. But we also can’t underestimate the amount of voters who are likely to rush to the polls in 2020 for no other reason than to vote against Trump. I call this the Mayweather effect, after the larger-than-life-boxer’s cunning ability to attract record sold out crowds, most notably from folks who are there hoping to see him lose.
By the way Mayweather is still undefeated.
Sure you can disagree with me on that last point. But what is undeniable is that Trump’s win was a direct result of low voter turnout from the left. And for Trump that is a very shaky foundation.
With that said, why is no-one stating the obvious: Just why in hell would Trump condemn any sort of Russian interference in our Democratic process when he might very well need their tactics again very soon?
Let me phrase this another way: Why would we be so foolish as to expect Trump… the man who is being accused of being aided by Putin himself, to turn around and criticize the Russian dictator. I say “foolish” only to stay in friendly terms with my editor.
If you watch anything Trump related on cable news (with the exception of Fox and Friends of course) this is all mostly about an American president who trusts an adversarial dictator, and former KGB agent over his own intelligence agencies. Or that Trump is an insecure/narcissistic old man looking for any and every way to avoid admitting that there is an asterisk next to his election win.
I say that’s bullshit. Narcissist he might be, but of course Trump knows our intelligence is correct.
There is something very suspicious about our president constantly going out of his way to praise the Russian leader. To watch Trump in real time, inexplicably causing himself so much political pain for Putin’s sake is as suspicious as watching a kid suddenly doing all of his siblings’ chores. You can’t help but wonder what dirt one has on the other.
Trump needs Putin again, and making sure the Kremlin doesn’t have buyers remorse might become a priority on the president’s agenda. How the administration goes about accomplishing that is the terrifying part.
All I can say is…
special counsel Mueller, please hurry the fuck up.