“As for Donald Trump, I have yet to meet anyone who who [sic] voted against him because he was a poor fiscal steward.”
Trump, who I didn’t vote for in 2016, did vote for in 2020, and will again in 2024, is the main change in American politics that explains why deficits, debt and entitlements go unchecked.
Because these are the main issues where Trump is just like the Democrats.
Prior to Trump, Dems had the benefit of the GOP being the (relatively) responsible party, the adults in the room. So they could be more irresponsible on deficits and debt, and know that the GOP would keep things from getting out of hand.
But your quoted line above, while pretty much 100% technically true for general elections (it is of course definitively false for primaries, as you well know), is misleading.
Because the Dem alternatives to Trump have all been MUCH. MUCH. WORSE. when it comes to debt. Because their spending policies are at least as bad, and the rest of their economic policies are anti-growth, while Trump’s in aggregate are pro-growth.
I am not sure what you mean here: "But your quoted line above, while pretty much 100% technically true for general elections (it is of course definitively false for primaries, as you well know), is misleading." He was a poor fiscal steward, but that is not the reason people give for voting against him. And whether a Dem would be worse is not germane as the voters have shown they are more than happy to NOT punish presidents for poor fiscal stewardship.
“ the voters have shown they are more than happy to NOT punish presidents for poor fiscal stewardship.”
First of all, while you again refuse to acknowledge it, in primaries it is not always true. Many of the votes for Haley in the primaries were because of Trump’s record on spending.
But even if we stipulate only general elections for President, just because it is true that voters in aggregate didn’t throw someone out exclusively or even primarily because of poor fiscal stewardship, a portion of the reason both Ford in ‘76 and Carter in ‘80 didn’t win indeed was for their poor fiscal stewardship, as high inflation is definitively poor fiscal stewardship.
If your thesis rests entirely on the fact that most presidents get reelected, then you can claim “voters have shown they are more than happy to NOT punish presidents for”, let’s see, lying about balancing the budget (Reagan), disgraceful personal behavior (Clinton), not keeping their commitment to restrain the use of the military overseas (W), repeated use of the government against their political enemies (Obama). Yes, in aggregate, voters reelect presidents; there is an incumbency advantage, based surely at least in part on preferring the “devil you know”.
I claim that your original sentence is misleading in part because in the case of GOP candidates up for reelection since 1980, in the general election they were up against someone who almost surely would have been a worse fiscal steward.
In terms of Trump, whether or not YOU personally have met anyone who didn’t vote for him because of his record on fiscal stewardship I claim you cannot know. There are multiple reasons someone doesn’t vote for a candidate. You have only the 2023-2024 primaries to go on, and I doubt seriously that you asked each of the people you met who didn’t vote for Trump in a primary whether or not fiscal stewardship was any factor at all.
Don’t get me wrong: I accept as true the unfortunate thesis that *overall* Americans don’t care that much about deficits and debt and unfunded liabilities. And Dem politicians haven’t breathed a word that it’s even an issue for 30+ years now, and surely for the last 20. Trump in his quest to get elected decided to take a page out of the Dem playbook and demagogue entitlements (the biggest factor by far in fiscal stewardship) and didn’t mention spending cuts. And it worked for him.
But that doesn’t mean that there are no Paul Ryan / Jack Kemp Republican voters out there who do make their decisions on that basis. Had the primaries still mattered when they got to my state, I would have voted for DeSantis instead of Trump, and one of my top reasons indeed was Trump’s stance on spending and entitlements.
So while I guess you’ve not met me in person, now you can no longer say you don’t know a voter who’d vote against him because he was a poor fiscal steward.
To conclude, though, my point that your statement is misleading *this* general election cycle is because in saying it in the run up to the general election, after the primaries are over, you are *implying* that Trump would be a worse fiscal steward than border czar Kamala.
Any reasonable look at the records shows that Harris-Biden were worse fiscal stewards than Trump, and anyone with a brain understands that Harris-Walz would be worse fiscal stewards than Trump-Vance.
This is why I said that even if your statement is technically true, it is misleading.
(1) I accept as true the unfortunate thesis that *overall* Americans don’t care that much about deficits and debt and unfunded liabilities;
(2) [yes, there are] Paul Ryan / Jack Kemp Republican voters out there who do make their decisions on that basis; and
(3) Yes, "There are multiple reasons someone doesn’t vote for a candidate." and often it is not even reasons---it's feelings.
But, sadly, these Ryan/Kemp voters are a not a majority that votes out poor fiscal stewards occupying the White House.
And, to be clear on a few points:
(a) No, I am not "*implying* that Trump would be a worse fiscal steward than border czar Kamala." My column was about sitting presidents, and that cross-national research study related to incumbent executives. (Check out that study if you haven't already!)
(b) Trump's defeat in 2020 was not because lots of voters felt he was a bad fiscal steward and voted him out. No, Mr. Trump arrived at the White House with a very thin electoral margin then proceeded to do enough things that alienated some voters. He also had COVID-19 and a hostile media that further peeled off voters.
We do indeed agree on all you wrote above except a).
The time to “punish” Trump for poor fiscal stewardship was the primary, not the general election (or the 2020 election) against those who are indisputably worse. But you leave this key point out completely.
When a piece comes out 3 months before the election, especially when it leaves out all mention of Biden-Harris being even worse financial stewards, but you note that the non-incumbent Trump was a bad financial steward while making no mention that Biden-Harris (his successor) has been clearly worse, you are indeed implying that a reader who cares about such things should not vote for Trump.
Ha! The article was focused on the multi-decade tendency of poor fiscal stewards in the White House to not get booted, which stands in contrast to the fate of lousy executives in other countries. It takes some awfully creative interpretation to construe what I worte to mean, "Nah, don't vote for Trump." Indeed, if one wants to hunt for implications then the more plausible reading would be: Trump was not booted for being a bad fiscal steward. Ergo, if you think Biden has been a bad steward, then vote for Trump.
.
My sense is that Harris may well lose in part due to inflation, which was fueled partly by Bidenomics. But we will have to see what the voters do and what the polls tell us about their reasoning.
“As for Donald Trump, I have yet to meet anyone who who [sic] voted against him because he was a poor fiscal steward.”
Trump, who I didn’t vote for in 2016, did vote for in 2020, and will again in 2024, is the main change in American politics that explains why deficits, debt and entitlements go unchecked.
Because these are the main issues where Trump is just like the Democrats.
Prior to Trump, Dems had the benefit of the GOP being the (relatively) responsible party, the adults in the room. So they could be more irresponsible on deficits and debt, and know that the GOP would keep things from getting out of hand.
But your quoted line above, while pretty much 100% technically true for general elections (it is of course definitively false for primaries, as you well know), is misleading.
Because the Dem alternatives to Trump have all been MUCH. MUCH. WORSE. when it comes to debt. Because their spending policies are at least as bad, and the rest of their economic policies are anti-growth, while Trump’s in aggregate are pro-growth.
I am not sure what you mean here: "But your quoted line above, while pretty much 100% technically true for general elections (it is of course definitively false for primaries, as you well know), is misleading." He was a poor fiscal steward, but that is not the reason people give for voting against him. And whether a Dem would be worse is not germane as the voters have shown they are more than happy to NOT punish presidents for poor fiscal stewardship.
“ the voters have shown they are more than happy to NOT punish presidents for poor fiscal stewardship.”
First of all, while you again refuse to acknowledge it, in primaries it is not always true. Many of the votes for Haley in the primaries were because of Trump’s record on spending.
But even if we stipulate only general elections for President, just because it is true that voters in aggregate didn’t throw someone out exclusively or even primarily because of poor fiscal stewardship, a portion of the reason both Ford in ‘76 and Carter in ‘80 didn’t win indeed was for their poor fiscal stewardship, as high inflation is definitively poor fiscal stewardship.
If your thesis rests entirely on the fact that most presidents get reelected, then you can claim “voters have shown they are more than happy to NOT punish presidents for”, let’s see, lying about balancing the budget (Reagan), disgraceful personal behavior (Clinton), not keeping their commitment to restrain the use of the military overseas (W), repeated use of the government against their political enemies (Obama). Yes, in aggregate, voters reelect presidents; there is an incumbency advantage, based surely at least in part on preferring the “devil you know”.
I claim that your original sentence is misleading in part because in the case of GOP candidates up for reelection since 1980, in the general election they were up against someone who almost surely would have been a worse fiscal steward.
In terms of Trump, whether or not YOU personally have met anyone who didn’t vote for him because of his record on fiscal stewardship I claim you cannot know. There are multiple reasons someone doesn’t vote for a candidate. You have only the 2023-2024 primaries to go on, and I doubt seriously that you asked each of the people you met who didn’t vote for Trump in a primary whether or not fiscal stewardship was any factor at all.
Don’t get me wrong: I accept as true the unfortunate thesis that *overall* Americans don’t care that much about deficits and debt and unfunded liabilities. And Dem politicians haven’t breathed a word that it’s even an issue for 30+ years now, and surely for the last 20. Trump in his quest to get elected decided to take a page out of the Dem playbook and demagogue entitlements (the biggest factor by far in fiscal stewardship) and didn’t mention spending cuts. And it worked for him.
But that doesn’t mean that there are no Paul Ryan / Jack Kemp Republican voters out there who do make their decisions on that basis. Had the primaries still mattered when they got to my state, I would have voted for DeSantis instead of Trump, and one of my top reasons indeed was Trump’s stance on spending and entitlements.
So while I guess you’ve not met me in person, now you can no longer say you don’t know a voter who’d vote against him because he was a poor fiscal steward.
To conclude, though, my point that your statement is misleading *this* general election cycle is because in saying it in the run up to the general election, after the primaries are over, you are *implying* that Trump would be a worse fiscal steward than border czar Kamala.
Any reasonable look at the records shows that Harris-Biden were worse fiscal stewards than Trump, and anyone with a brain understands that Harris-Walz would be worse fiscal stewards than Trump-Vance.
This is why I said that even if your statement is technically true, it is misleading.
So we agree on these two central points:
(1) I accept as true the unfortunate thesis that *overall* Americans don’t care that much about deficits and debt and unfunded liabilities;
(2) [yes, there are] Paul Ryan / Jack Kemp Republican voters out there who do make their decisions on that basis; and
(3) Yes, "There are multiple reasons someone doesn’t vote for a candidate." and often it is not even reasons---it's feelings.
But, sadly, these Ryan/Kemp voters are a not a majority that votes out poor fiscal stewards occupying the White House.
And, to be clear on a few points:
(a) No, I am not "*implying* that Trump would be a worse fiscal steward than border czar Kamala." My column was about sitting presidents, and that cross-national research study related to incumbent executives. (Check out that study if you haven't already!)
(b) Trump's defeat in 2020 was not because lots of voters felt he was a bad fiscal steward and voted him out. No, Mr. Trump arrived at the White House with a very thin electoral margin then proceeded to do enough things that alienated some voters. He also had COVID-19 and a hostile media that further peeled off voters.
Cheers!
Thx.
We do indeed agree on all you wrote above except a).
The time to “punish” Trump for poor fiscal stewardship was the primary, not the general election (or the 2020 election) against those who are indisputably worse. But you leave this key point out completely.
When a piece comes out 3 months before the election, especially when it leaves out all mention of Biden-Harris being even worse financial stewards, but you note that the non-incumbent Trump was a bad financial steward while making no mention that Biden-Harris (his successor) has been clearly worse, you are indeed implying that a reader who cares about such things should not vote for Trump.
Just as timing matters, omissions matter, too.
Ha! The article was focused on the multi-decade tendency of poor fiscal stewards in the White House to not get booted, which stands in contrast to the fate of lousy executives in other countries. It takes some awfully creative interpretation to construe what I worte to mean, "Nah, don't vote for Trump." Indeed, if one wants to hunt for implications then the more plausible reading would be: Trump was not booted for being a bad fiscal steward. Ergo, if you think Biden has been a bad steward, then vote for Trump.
.
My sense is that Harris may well lose in part due to inflation, which was fueled partly by Bidenomics. But we will have to see what the voters do and what the polls tell us about their reasoning.