Bob Somerby objects to my headline saying that Donald Trump "is losing it":
We're sorry, but no. Donald Trump isn't "losing it" at the present time. He plainly lost it long ago, but our politically hapless blue tribe doesn't seem to know how to convince enough voters of that fact, and so we've decided to go with a big pile of ridiculous bullsh*t.
Two things. First, Trump really is deteriorating even compared to his previously sorry state. Second, this is poetic license. Sure, Trump lost it long ago, but "Trump continues to have lost it" isn't much of a headline, is it?
Beyond this, there's a political purpose here. It's fairly obvious that our biggest problem is that people aren't scared enough of Trump. Think of it this way. Half the Republican base is MAGA fans who actively like Trump's message of retribution and revenge. They're untouchable. But there's another half that like Trump's policies but not his message. They say this all the time. The problem is that they don't take it seriously. They think, with some justice, that Trump is a blowhard and none of the bile that he spews is serious.
So they fear Democrats and their endless identity politics, and they fear Biden's obvious appearance of oldness, but they don't fear Trump. That has to change. There's not much to be done at this point about either Biden's appearance or the wilder precincts of liberal wokeness, so the only way to defeat Trump is to make center-right voters more scared of him than they are of Democrats. I'm not precisely sure how to do that, but one way is to keep banging on what he says until swing voters take it seriously and realize they really can't put the country in his hands again.
So that's what we need to do, even if it's not precisely accurate to say that Trump is only now losing it. One way or another, Trump's moderate fans need to start fearing him the way they should.
As to the effectiveness of this line of attack, note that in addition to the hard core MAGAs who actually agree, fully, with what Trump says, there is a statistically significant number who actually LIKE the fact that he says all sorts of crap and doesn't actually do all of it.
The reason is that they also fear the (to them) current state of things where someone could actually be, for example, fired from a job for something they said. Look at our own Leo1088 who is triggered by the possibility that there are enforceable limits to what can be said in academia. You know Leo is a trump fan on this point.
The look up to Trump as a guy who gets to say whatever the F he wants, including inviting Russia to invade Europe, and that Nicky Haley is Nancy Pelosi. They love it, and I think they wish that they could go back to the days where they, also, can say all sorts of stuff.
This is often boiled down to white privilege, and it certainly is (and was) a big part of white privilege, but it unfortunately shaves down considerably the people who would be afraid of Trump.
someone needs to combine the 'annoying orange' with trump's voice
Someone please explain to me why I should give this BS one particle of my attention.
I can't. I think you should just scurry along and not trouble your beautiful mind any more than you already have. You seem to need another nap.
WHOOSH! I didn't think anyone could possibly miss that 'BS' was 'Bob Somersby' ... but somehow you managed.
It was much less obvious to others than it was to you.
You mean less obvious to you, of course. Shrug. It's not as if people haven't riffed on his initials before, you know. But you do ungracious you 😉
Oh, and don't think we didn't notice how much you don't want to talk about what a worthless waste of bits, BTW; you want him, you can keep him.
No, it really was less obvious to others than it was to you. That's not exactly a mortal sin, but you might consider taking the observation with a spoonful of charity and goodwill.
ScentOfViolets never heard of charity and goodwill.
She's a troll. Her only purpose here is to maliciously attack other commenters.
To receive charity, you've got to be willing to give it. Did these two wights do so? No, no they did not. The proper response would have been something to the effect of "Hey, I did not catch that", or "I did not see one coming!"
Also, note that someone else did the very same thing below:
with no pushback. So no, these people were looking for a snark and got bit instead and it's on them. I'll wait for your comment chiding these two for being too quick to jump to conclusions before I draw any conclusions about whether you're operating in good faith.
For the past few days lots of folks on the D side have watched with shock while Biden got pilloried in the press for calling Egypt Mexico by mistake and for his careless handling of "classified" information in a hatchet job report by the special counsel.
Meanwhile, Trump invited Putin to invade our allies in Europe.
What got more attention in the media? The Biden stories, by a wide margin. There's a complete panic about Biden's ability to function as president.
No wonder the public seems to be worried more about Biden.
Perhaps the key weakness of Democrats is expecting the media to report the dangers to the country with some sort of common sense and dedication to the truth. That's folly. For one thing, media is overwhelmingly slanted toward Republicans. I don't mean just Fox. I mean the NY Times and NPR. The Times hasn't gone after a GOP president since Nixon. It's a Republican paper when it comes to politics, and that's been clear since the early days of Bill Clinton.
Waiting for the media to tell your story is how Democrats lose. Democrats need to attack. Media loves conflict. Give them real conflict. They'll cover it. Why haven't Democrats gone after Trump for his remarks with the focus and intensity they deserve? That goes for Biden and every D in Congress.
"I may forget a name or two but I'll never forget who are friends are. Donald Trump wants Putin to invade Europe. I want the free world to stand together and put thugs like Putin back in his place."
Things like that, and more. Make Trump's radical and anti-democratic ramblings a topic of attention. Don't let anyone forget it. Don't joke about it. Get serious.
Yeppers. Anybody whose eyes are more than halfway open should know by now that just about every national/MSM news outlet has been in the tank for Republicans for, well, decades.
Concur. We need less whining about the media not calling out Republicans as Fascists and more Dems publicly calling out Republicans as Fascists. And less scurrying for cover when someone says it's uncivil.
Too many professional Dems are too comfortable. Republicans who are comfortable include more cutthroat sociopaths, and Republicans also have a lot more hungry Brownshirt revolutionaries. Dems need a sharper edge. Biden's good at governing and good at stiletto politics, and it isn't yet time for hot-summer-evening knife-fights, but I don't think Dems can nice-guy our way to victory this time.
We'll see. Turns out Biden is pretty good at politics generally ...
Where's Clifford Odets when you need him?
YES and YES. I've been wondering where the Democrats in Congress are. Ok, they needed to work with that tiny group of Republicans who worked with them to pass the infrastructure bill, etc. but nothing else can be accomplished now because Trump won't allow it. It's time for Schumer and Pelosi and others to start calling out those silent Republicans that Romney called out but wouldn't name. Let's hear those unreported comments from McConnell and Graham and others about what they really think about Trump, the ones said behind closed doors and off the record. They all know exactly what Trump is but their cowardice can no longer be allowed to hide behind some weird sort of Senate manners. Schumer should be getting quoted on the Senate steps twice a week about the failures and lies of his supposed colleagues on the GOP side of the aisle.
Mr Harbin says it all.
Can you please convince Matt Yglesias of this?
If anyone still thinks the NY Times plays it straight you should read this post — “ What's Up With The New York Times?” by Parker Molloy
Molloy posts a tweet by NYTimes economics reporter Talmon Joseph Smith describing how none of his highly educated friends at a recent dinner party had any idea what Biden’s CHIPS, IRA or ARP acts accomplished. Smith put all the blame for this on BIden’s team. When someone responded “..you are literally an economics reporter” Smith’s defense was to say he wasn’t their PR man.
https://www.readtpa.com/p/whats-up-with-the-new-york-times?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
For a long time I have strongly suspected that political journalists at the Times and other mainstream media have avoided reporting news about the positive accomplishments of Democratic policies because they are afraid righwingers will accuse them of having a liberal bias.
The Lincoln Project seems to have a pretty good grip on how to do it. Currently, there's a vast deficiency in "messaging" capability on the Democratic side. They don't communicate well. The Ivory Tower High Left is worst of all: "Occupy Wall Street"? "Defund the Police"??
This has to change. Other than that, I have no solutions.
Democrats clearly have a lot of strengths but "messaging" is not one of them. They still think the media will do the job for them. They need to do it themselves. The stakes could not be higher. Democrats need to wage an information war against the dangerous nonsense coming nonstop from the other side. They need to attack Trump, attack Maga, attack complicit Republicans. And never stop.
They will have to do it in spite of the media.
If they do it, the media will follow. It may take them a while, but when somebody hands them DRAMA and CONTROVERSY, plus the pre-written copy describing it, and then drops in some "inside information" on the side and promises more to come, the media will trot along behind like hungry little doggies.
I strongly disagree. Botch Biden and Harris been giving a lot of speeches in recent months which the media hasn’t covered or has barely covered. I have even heard mainstream journalists mock Biden’s use of the term “Bidenomics” to describe his radically different — at least compared to governments in recent decades — and very successful approach to growing our economy. These same journalists still use the term “Reagonomics” in an admiring way. They are also are quick to complain about the debt run up under Biden but completely ignore the fact that Reagan exploded the national debt or that we could easily get it under control if we just let the Bush and Trump tax cuts expire.
The media constantly covers issues using the Republicans’ preferred frame. For example immigration is almost exclusively covered as a crisis. I have seen a couple of exceptions recently. Catherine Rampell of the WaPo has an article up today that shows how immigration has been a major key to our recent growth:
“ The surge in immigration is a $7 trillion gift to the economy”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/13/immigration-economy-jobs-cbo-report/
Krugman has also been posting about the key role immigration has played in reducing inflation. But Rampell and Krugman are the exception.
Jud Legum has documented how what the media chooses to focus drives the narrative and public perception. After Hur’s report the Washington Post has run a whopping 33 articles about Biden’s mental fitness; NY Times has run 30. In contrast the WaPo ran only 9 stories after Trump kept confusing Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi and The NY Times only 4. Then the Times has the nerve to run an article “explaining” why the age issue hurts Biden so much more than it does Trump.
Even worse those same outlets have devoted far less attention to Trump saying he would tell Putin to do whatever the hell he wants to NATO countries.
The Lincoln Project is also a well funded small closed ecosystem, whereas the Democratic Party is a loose coalition of all sorts of people and groups. There is no Central Control office within the Democratic Party with the power and resources to stop anyone calling themselves a “Democrat” from saying or doing whatever they want. FWIW, I don’t recall a single nationally elected Democrat being a part of Occupy Wall Street or Defind The Police. (I’m also not sure why occupying Wall Street is seen as a bad thing, but I guess average Americans absolutely love Wall Street… except of course when it’s doing things like destroying Main Street or embracing the woke or anything else that people say they hate about corporations.)
Here's the Nazi takeover story you could scare someone with,
Trump allies training MAGA 'shock troops' to take over government: report,
https://www.rawstory.com/project-25-trump/
That is the kind of story the mainstream media ought to be obsessing over, not using the excuse of a blatantly partisan Special Counsel report to obsess over Biden’s mental fitness.
A responsible media would have by now something like a weekly column of "Trump progress towards dictatorship", documenting how it goes. Something like what Kevin does here:
https://jabberwocking.com/the-real-donald-trump-is-losing-it/
but better organized, and including artciles like the one CLD linked.
It is surprising that even leftist media (e.g. Mother Jones or rawstory.com themselves) don't have something like that.
Poll finds Nazi rhetoric has broad appeal,
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-gop-fascist-rhetoric-broad-appeal-poll-1234966157/
>> Half the Republican base is MAGA fans who actively like Trump's message of retribution and revenge. They're untouchable.<<
Just thought I’d point out that this is exactly what Hillary Clinton was talking about when she referred to this group as “deplorables”. She was telling her campaign workers to not waste their time trying to convince these people, but to concentrate their efforts on the other half Kevin refers to who perhaps could be convinced.
Clinton was pilloried for saying that, though she was basically right that about half of Republican voters loved (and continue to love) Trump disinformation.
Hillary was also pilloried for talking about "a vast right wing conspiracy," which of course existed then and still does. Look how many people helped Trump claim the 2020 election was rigged and tried to block confirmation that Biden won, including 147 members of the House and several senators.
Then there's the ironically named Federalist Society, the NRA, Russian trolls, FOX Propaganda, and useful idiots like Jill Stein and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Dems need to up their game.
"Clinton was pilloried for saying that, though she was basically right"
Right or no, it was boneheaded politics to say it (akin to when Romney was recorded essentially saying that half the country were moochers who would never vote for him)--insulting large swaths of the country (again, whether or not said swaths deserve it!) is a dumb move when the people you need to convince are ones that like to think of the President being the president for the whole country, and not just their party.
Making Trump a repellent figure could be effective. I guess "scared" would work but it seems like that requires a policy angle. Can Trump's pettiness, light sadism, vulgarity, and peculiar physical presence, be harnessed to that effect?
Federal ban of all abortions after 4 weeks
New restriction on gay marriage
ICE following an executive order to deport all "illegals"
A President applauding when Russian invades Poland and China invades Taiwan
Defunding of the EPA to near nothing
All federal employees turned into political appointees
You want more?
The third one sounds good. But, no, not the others.
In 1968, Nixon and Wallace combined for 57% of the popular vote. Trump got 46.1% in 2016, then with the power of incumbency was able to get 46.8% of the vote in 2020. You and BS don’t ever address that Trump’s getting those type of voters a half century later. There’s a built in minimum baseline for a candidate using a racist appeal to authoritarianism working in combination with a MSM built to create a horse race no matter the discrepancy in the quality of the two major party candidates. There’s not anywhere close to the number of voters that are open to voting for a Democrat that you claim no matter what the voters “tell” you or a pollster. They are mindful of using the key words to remain in polite society. They just have better manners than the mindless MAGA voters that want to upset the rest of society before they burn it down.
I think getting out the vote is more important.
At this point, 98% of voters have their opinions baked in. Spending hundreds of millions to flip the 2% of voters who are flexible at this point, would not be an efficient use of money.
Trump's own words scare people. You don't need to do more than send postcards of his own words over his angry face, every two weeks to people who voted for Biden last cycle. Target your ads to your voters, not to people who are either undecided or might flip.
Save the rest of your money for GOTV operations to offset the GOP attempts to disenfranchise Biden voters.
There are still millions who can flip between elections - and did, from Obama to Trump to Biden. These shifts were not all turnout. A lot of people are not followers of politics and of course do not really understand the issues. The economy is still a possible decider - if it turns very bad before the election the ins will likely be out.
Democrats can't rely on the media to get their message, at least at this time when the media are looking for the daily headline, regardless of whether it is really important for the election. The media may get more serious later as editors have to take the consequences of a Trump win seriously.
But Democrats will have to do a lot of direct advertising to bypass the MSM. They will have to cover all the media with ads. They don't have an infinite amount of money, so this ad blitz will have to come fairly late. It's still too early for this. Maybe there should be return of the daisy-plucking ad from 1964.
WRONG there aren't millions of voter flipping between parties like a trout out of the water. There are voters who choice to show up and vote and voters who choose to stay home or leave that part of the ballot blank. This changes the makeup of those who voted in any given election year.
I have a somewhat contrary view. I think, as others have noted, that the message "Be scared of Trump!" actually makes him look awesome and strong, and lots of casual voters actually find that admirable in some weird way.
My feeling is that it is better to highlight his stupidity and ignorance, of which there is plenty of evidence. It's all true! Highlight the long list of previous "best people" he hired who then later characterized him as a "moron" who "doesn't read" and doesn't "understand policy," etc. Paint a picture of his first term featuring hundreds of underlings who had to scramble to PREVENT him from doing things he wanted to do in order to stave off disaster day after day. Is that what we want in the White House? Shouldn't the president be the smartest, wisest, best-informed person on the team rather than a clueless nincompoop who has to be blocked from acting by desperate aides? How lucky were we that experienced people stopped him at the right times? How can we count on that again?
I think this is a much more effective political path, showing him as a dummy who doesn't know what the hell he's doing, and doesn't even know how dumb he is, rather than as a towering evil menace to be feared.
You have a point there. If most of the talking heads start remarking how dumb his latest comment was, it'd press directly on his weak points. "Well, that was a dumb idea to encourage Russia to attack our allies. This is why the man has no real friends."
I don’t know; already in 2016 there was fairly frequent mention of his multiple bankruptcies, and during the campaign he was being sued for $25M in the Trump U fraud. He ran a casino into the ground — a casino!. The Faithful never cared.
I agree with this. I think that it's much better (and more accurate) to portray trump as some sort of weird raccoon-faced and destructive imbecile than to present him as scary. Saying Trump is scary makes him look strong and his opponents weak by implication, since they are frightened of him.
I sort of wish Haley would start talking about how if Trump is so great, how come he can't close the deal on the nomination yet? (while noting that maybe it's unsurprising since he didn't even write that book about dealmaking), musing about how his lack of achievements as president points to serious Trump performance issues. Mock the man--he can't take it, and it'll goad him into looking even more like an unpleasant ass that the swing voter doesn't want to deal with for four years.
I think, as others have noted, that the message "Be scared of Trump!" actually makes him look awesome and strong, and lots of casual voters actually find that admirable in some weird way.
That's like saying telling people to be scared of drunk drivers makes drunk drivers look awesome and strong and even admirable in some weird way. Uh huh.
The appeal of authoritarians, in a nutshell, is that they (claim to have) the ability to get things done. So saying “be scared of Trump” probably helps him appeal to voters who are looking for an authoritarian leader, whereas if those voters can be made to see how ineffective Trump was, that would undermine his support.
That doesn't necessarily mean saying “be scared of Trump” is a bad strategy, because voters who want an authoritarian leader may vote for Trump regardless. I’m just explaining why it will help Trump with some voters.
The question is by how much and will it be a net gain or loss of voters to do so. Because I can tell you right now that I personally know (some) people who will root for the drunk driver when given that message. These are more or less the same people, BTW, who defiantly will _not_ wear their seatbelts _because_ of PSA's telling them otherwise. Does that mean we should stop telling people that driving without seatbelts is dangerous?
It's the difference (and maybe just a semantic one, but still) between saying X is "dangerous" and saying X is "scary."
Drunk drivers and Trump alike are stupid, reckless, and dangerous, but it conveys something different to say they are frightening.
Are you claiming that PSAs saying that drunk drivers are frightening would have had the opposite of the intended effect?
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. Firmly.
"[T]he only way to defeat Trump is to make center-right voters more scared of him than they are of Democrats."
Absolutely right. This is called "driving a wedge into your opponent's coalition." It doesn't mean you can't also play some defense (disavowing a few massively unpopular positions held by some on, or attributed to, your side, e.g., "defund the police"). But if all you have is defense, and no offense (no wedge), you will lose.
Nor is this some symptom of contemporary haplessness that's peculiar to "our tribe." It is in fact one of the most basic jobs a political party has at election time. It is, for instance, the exact strategy Lincoln used against Douglas (Northern) Democrats--forcing their leader to take defensive positions that Lincoln knew, in the context of the ultra-polarized politics of the late 1850s, the extremists who dominated the Southern Democracy, and hence the Party, would absolutely refuse to tolerate.
Look up "Lecompton Constitution" and "Freeport Doctrine" for the intricate historical details, and then read the speeches that make up Lincoln's relentless pursuit of that wedge, from the Peoria speech of October 16, 1854 right through to the Cooper Union address of February 1860. He hammered on that wedge like John Henry.
Then check out what happened at the Democratic National Convention(s) of 1860. Those were the fruits of all that relentless pounding.
I agree. The Republican Party is already fractious; it’s a trend to be encouraged. Their Congresscritters now have to explain why they voted against their number-one priority, border control, and if you’re explaining, you’re losing. GOP officeholders are out of step with a substantial number of their voters on abortion, as well. Every Democrat needs to badger her/his opponent on the issue, make them take a position, or waffle. Neither option will help a candidate with a party that is deeply divided on early-term cutoffs, and exceptions for rape, incest, and fetal abnormalities incompatible with survival.
Badgering does seem to be the most effective mode of discourse these days, alas.
I'm convinced most Democrats never read what Trump Republicans write about their intentions. Perhaps they're embarrassed to have Breitbart or Gateway Pundit or the New York Post in their browser cache should a colleague ever borrow their computer. But it means so many obvious lines of attack against Trump Republicans never get exploited. It's infuriating.
For example there's this story by a Trump insider about the likely makeup of a future Trump cabinet. If that doesn't terrify readers, nothing will. But I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere at all.
https://amgreatness.com/2024/02/06/the-second-trump-cabinet/
I linked to that story (thank you), and it reads like parody. A who's who of fools and flunkies from Trump's first go-around, up to and including his appallingly inept counsel for his defamation suit loss. If The Onion had produced it, I would have laughed at its hilarious improbability, but spot-on satire of MAGA-think. But it wasn't the Onion, and the guy is *serious*. And he also claims to be so close to Trump he know who Trump plans to name his VP.
Maybe just link to that article in every post by Democrats in every forum they join?
Lots of good ideas and commentary here, but I tend to agree with Citizen99, though I am taking a much harder approach...
"You're actually going to vote for Mr Trump?" I asked this past Satuday to my electrician when we were doing some work. He indicated...Yes
I commented, Well, it is certainly your right to be an Evil Person, I'm not here to stop you, but that's what you will be.
He became visibly upset, angry, confused at my incivility, as pleasant as my voice was.
You'll also be killing your little girls, but that's your business....but let's finish pulling some wire in this apartment, politics probably doesn't belong here when we are playing with electricity.
Forgive me....but fuck 'em, fuck their tender sensibilities...I have terminated some decade long friendships over Mr Trump...I don't care....I call them Evil because they are....and since my extended family is evangelical Christian, being Evil is something they don't like.
Fuck 'em.
Best Wishes, Traveller
Edit: I don't recommend this for anyone else...yet, this is my way....I think I'm being honest.
Ah the well known success of Sidewalk Preacher Convincing Mode of berating people to conversion.
Always so successful. .... in their own minds, mode of self-satisfaction.
Given how often (including here!) you fall into the nearly identical, Internet Comments Preacher Convincing Mode of berating people, you must understand the appeal though, right?
Ironing score of 9.5.
Sez the thirty-something boy who lives in his mom's basement. In Idaho.
I don't know if I have the nerve to go with this with AN ELECTRICIAN who is WORKING ON MY HOUSE.
Thats all.
For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. — H.L. Menken
So much is going wrong today that I’m unsure what single change could a difference. But I feel confident that calls for more fear (or more anger) won’t help.
Fairly self-evident if one wishes to look at comparatives (e.g. UK Labour rebound on dumping Corbyn)
* downplay your own talk of stuff that is driving away the median voter in the key voting constituencies - don't base you demarche on your urbane educated urban core where you are racking up wasted votes.
* play up the Scary Parts of the opposition ** that are IDed as scary to that audience**
* add in some carrots that are IDed as well as attractive to such targets (not what you necessarily think is attractive to them, what they have strong attraction [as in heavy polling attraction])
Drum has rather helpfullly over the years focused on this subject of strength of support.
Uni Dorm Room Activist politics of shame and harranguing while appealing to the Brahim Left as flattering themselves in moral superiority have not shown great power of conversion - although attractive for the Bourgeousie Left for the self-flattery. Old school Trade Union organiser convincing is needed, finding the hooks for the sign-ups on the margin.
Trump has demonstrated to be generally easily provoked into unhinged harrangues, linking the unhingedness to threat to those people (you can flatter yourselves in moral superiority for your greater empathy entre-vous) and the economic benefit of sanity - unhingedness is generally a bad product.
"Democrats and their endless identity politics"
Democrats want to include everyone.
Republicans want to exclude everyone who isn't straight, white male.
Which one of these sounds like "identity politics" to you.
I just can't find the fear. Trump and republicans are annoying and hateful and all sorts of other things, but they don't inspire fear in me.
Clearly none of these fine folks are afraid of him either.
So why did they lean toward Mr. Trump? As you’ll read below, almost all the voters (who range in age from 22 to 64) were most worried about the economy and how their groceries and other bills were too costly. Some were also deeply troubled by the crisis at the southern border, and some were concerned about the Israel-Gaza war and disliked U.S. aid to other countries. The participants’ comments indicated that most did not feel they were in good hands with Mr. Biden or trust that they would be, using words like “senile,” “unfit” and “disingenuous” to describe him. And while the group viewed Mr. Trump negatively, some people suggested that the country was on its toes more with him in office.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/13/opinion/independents-biden-focus-group.html
So there you go! There is nothing to fear. I'm going to vote for Biden and all democrats because I think these people are nuts, but they aren't scary.
Perhaps if you were Ukrainian you would see things differently.
What you have failed to take into account is that the first Trump presidency wasn't all that scary because there were people around him who prevented him from doing all the scary stuff he wanted to do. The next time, they will make sure there are no such people around. Everyone will be picked based on their loyalty and they will sniff out any do-gooder "moles" who will try to burrow their way into the government by faking loyalty.
Some of my wingnut relations, though not all of them, are very off Trump because of the way he undermines the rule of law and our alliances.
To them this destabilizing character is anti-conservative. They will never vote for Joe Biden, or any other Democrat, but they can be persuaded to stay home on election day.
Fundamentally disagree. Blaming Democrats for the fact that 70mm+ Americans want exactly what Trump is selling has got to stop. Put the blame on the voters, period. Make the best case for why Biden is the better choice and how Trump is terrible, but stop blaming the party for the popular awfulness.
Unlike Kevin, I think "Trump continues to have lost it" would be an great headline. Much like "young couples continue to have babies" would be more intriguing than "young couples have babies".