Despite his off putting character Trump ran Biden close. So will the Republicans stick with Trumpism or reject it?
I don't believe Trump, himself, would likely win again, but a right-wing, anti-establishment populism can.
I believe it was Trump's fake populism that was largely responsible for his winning in 2016 (against the second worst - in least liked polling - Presidential candidate in U.S. history - Hillary Clinton, a corrupt, establishment corporatist/centrist Democrat). Yes, there was the racism, religion, and economic conservatism coalition, but I did not find that strong enough to win in the post-Obama era. Rather, Trump won over a lot of independents and former Obama voters (up to 9 million+ by some estimates) by appealing to their economic needs. Of course, it was all fake and talk of draining the swamp turned into drowning D.C with the swamp, as he brought in more Goldman Sachs alum into key government positions than all previous Presidents combined. His macho trade talk turned into a losing trade war (our trade deficits got larger) and fake "Great Bean Deals" (with Mexico and China). China largely agreed to buy commodities they already needed and were depleted of, due to the trade war's effects, and not some large surplus-generating agreement. The Trump corporate tax cuts that brought the nominal and effective corporate tax rates down to 21% and 8%, respectively (the lowest in U.S. history), mostly led to corporations buying back their own stock and creating one of the largest stock market bubbles in U.S. history (depending on which metrics you use - CAPE/Shiller PE or market cap-to-GDP - it can be said to be more overvalued than the 1929 pre-Great Depression crash and/or the 2000-01 Dot Com bust). Hiring more workers and investing more in R&D? Pssshhhhhh, yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiight. Greedy corporations would rather go for short-term gains and allow their execs to cash out with stock buybacks. A $1-2 trillion infrastructure project to boost the economy and repair our broken roads, create new roads, improve our electrical grid, and create safer water sources? Nothing. Crickets. That super brief 3% nominal GDP growth was off-set by $1.5 trillion in deficit spending (most in U.S. history) - this was pre-COVID spending. There was no organic growth. It was historic record-high, debt-driven "growth."
A low U6 unemployment (which includes those under-employed and discouraged vs. the U3) rate is about all Trump could really legitimately boast about on the economic front. But, as he, himself, said when running against Clinton, this is also a fake number. The real unemployment rate, he speculated and referenced some vague source on was about 30% to up to 42%. That's because you're no longer counted if you stop looking for work or cannot find any after one year. Labor force participation is considered a better metric by some and it was at a multi-decade low for much of Trump's Presidency, meaning people gave up even looking for work. This improved a bit in 2019, but was still nothing to brag about.
I think a bona fide populist with a strong grassroots backing could win and be the favorite in future elections. We've had fake populists like Trump and Obama, because of how money in politics works (even if they really wanted such an agenda, they cannot do it if they're accepting corporate or big donor cash). Bernie Sanders was the only candidate (who I voted for in 2016 and and 2020 in the primaries) who was a true blue, real deal populist without corporate corruption.
The winning candidate going forward - regardless of party affiliation - will most likely have a populist message (whether real or fake). Running on same old establishment politics is done. Obama's two terms and policy position polling is proof of that (albeit, he was a corporatist and fake populist). Trump, then, cemented it. Populism is the way to win.
-AF
----------
formerly: wlcgeek; keegclw; and GodLovesU - Hopefully, fourth time's a charm when it comes to remembering login info.!
