Trump Always Appeals To Our Darkest Angels, Never Our Better Angels... And Independent Voters In Arizona Are Repulsed

Just before midnight on Friday night, the Washington Post published a piece by Ashley Parker about the American president that would have shocked and astounded any time traveler from back at any point in American history. It was about Trump's vicious, ugly mean streak. she wrote that over the past dozen days or so, the disgusting orange blob "has spewed forth an advent calendar’s worth of cruelty-- new barbs popping out almost daily, like so many tiny bitter chocolates-- underscoring the instinctual nastiness that is central to his brand and casting doubt on claims from his aides that Trump is merely a counterpuncher. In addition to taunting John Dingell as his widow prepared for her first holiday season without her husband of 38 years, Trump also ridiculed everyone from climate activist Greta Thunberg to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Intelligence Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-CA)."

Others in his orbit exhibited similar callousness this week. Sarah Sanders, the former White House press secretary, came under near-universal condemnation Thursday night after sending a tweet that mocked former vice president Joe Biden’s stutter, after he brought it up during a Democratic primary debate. She later deleted, and apologized for, her tweet.

“Trump is the worst within us, and he markets that worst as admirable,” said Stuart Stevens, a Republican operative and frequent Trump critic who was a senior adviser on Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. “He appeals to our darkest angels, not our better angels.”

And that sentiment was at the crux of the powerful and compelling editorial in Christianity Today, Trump Should Be Removed From Office, by Mark Galli, the evangelical magazine's editor-in-chief. He wrote that Trump "has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone-- with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders-- is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused... Unsavory dealings and immoral acts by the President and those close to him have rendered this administration morally unable to lead."

Trump, of course, immediately went on the attack against the magazine. Parker's story pointed out that "by definition Trump is almost always punching down. His targets of derision are not only less powerful than a U.S. president, but many are among the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. He has mocked and attacked, among others, immigrants, minorities, women and a reporter with a physical disability. 'A dead guy or a widow or somebody who has a physical handicap or the wives of a candidate-- the idea that he’s a counterpuncher or a tough guy has been a farce from the start,' said Tim Miller, a Republican operative and frequent Trump critic, who was a senior adviser on Jeb Bush’s 2016 presidential campaign. Stevens said the president embodies the 'classic abusing spouse trope,' blaming the other person for his own behavior. 'The essence of counterpunching is never having to take personal responsibility,' he said."

The president’s behavior also seems to grant permission to some of his supporters to act in similar fashion. At the Michigan rally, whenever Trump mentioned Pelosi, a man clad in a Santa outfit would shout, “Nancy Pelosi is a ho, ho, ho!”

And when the president attacked Dingell, there were surprised gasps, yes, but there were also the attendees who processed that Trump had just attacked a dead congressman from their home state-- and then cheered and whistled anyway.

In many ways, Trump’s casual viciousness is now an inextricable part of his brand, the attribute that many supporters love and that his critics hate.

An August 2016 Post-ABC News poll found that 57 percent of Americans said Trump “goes too far in criticizing other people and groups,” while 42 percent said he “tells it like it is regardless of whether or not it’s politically correct.” That same poll found 79 percent saying Trump does not show enough respect for people he disagrees with, and 58 percent said this is a “major problem.”

A more recent Pew Research survey this spring found similar concerns with Trump’s language. Seventy-six percent said Trump’s comments often or sometimes make them feel concerned, 70 percent said confused, 69 percent embarrassed and 67 percent exhausted.

There is no getting around it: "Trump’s mercilessness has emerged as core to his ethos." So how will it be manifested in the 2020 election cycle? Well, my guess is that the number of Republicans who will leave their team and vote for a Democrat-- even for a corporate conservative Democrat like Status Quo Joe, Mayo Pete or Bloomberg-- is small, probably no bigger than the number of deranged Democrats who find Trump's "ethos" appealing and decide to move in his direction. I expect there may be some disillusioned, old skool Republicans who stay home or abstain from voting for president-- but not in truly significant numbers. The serpent' s tongue had always been seductive and Trump has been very successful in reaching, as he put it himself, the poorly educated.





But where Trump is likely to destroy his own reelection chances-- and the chances of congressional Republicans-- is among independent voters. Take Arizona-- a red state. Arizona has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1952 with the exception of the 3-way race in 1996 when Clinton narrowly slipped in with 46.52% to Bob Dole's 44.29% and Ross Perot's 7.98%. In 2016, Trump struggled, only beating Hillary 1,252,401 (48.08%) to 1,161,167 (44.58%). Next year Arizona will be a major battleground state. Since inauguration day, Trump's job approval has crashed by an astounding 24 points and now stands in negative territory. 46% of Arizonans approval or Trump and 50% disapprove. The movement is not especially among Republicans or Democrats; it's among independent voters. They're sick of him. And his net disapproval among Independent voters is already into the double digits (minus 13).

On Saturday morning, Mike Noble, chief of research for OH Predictive Insights in Phoenix, wrote that independents will determine who wins in Arizona next November. Noble suggests that "GOP officeholders may need to start looking for second careers soon."

Keep in mind that there isn't a lot of ideological distance between Republican Senator Martha McSally and her opponent, ex-Republican Mark Kelly. She's a mainstream conservative-- with a Trump albatross around her neck-- and he's a mainstream conservative with a "D" next to his name. He's likely to beat her in November and go on to be one of the worst Democrats in the Senate, frequently voting with the GOP exactly the way Kyrsten Sinema, another Arizona conservative with a "D" next to her name, does.

Noble points out that Arizona "is one of the closest and most expensive U.S. Senate races in the country," although I don't believe it is as close as he does. Kelly's got this one. Kelly has raked in $13,887,759 so far-- to McSally's $8,354,274. He's already outspending her-- by around three-quarters of a million dollars-- and his campaign war chest overpowers hers but around $4 million.

Polling in February 2019 in a head-to-head matchup between Kelly and McSally showed 46 percent of Arizona likely voters support McSally and 44 percent support Kelly. The latest polling as of December 2019 found that Kelly has a slight edge, although the race is currently a statistical dead heat, with Kelly at 47 percent support and McSally with 44 percent support, with 9 percent still undecided.

...In the Trump era, Arizona is no longer a reliably red state. But November 3, 2020 could show whether impeachment is a bridge too far for Arizona’s middle-of-the-road voters.