1. The 2016 Election and Trump’s Ascension
The 2016 election seemed as a no brainer event for most analysts, while the Republican presidential primaries were the closest to a freak show, led by no other than showman mogul Donald Trump himself.
Obama legacy included economic recovery from the worst crisis of the U.S. recent history (2008’s subprime), declining unemployment, some sort of universal healthcare, the head of Osama Bin Laden on a silver plate, and a disappointingly conventional American president, far from the image of an extreme liberal that the right and alt-right so willingly tried to impose, and the far-left liberals tried to believe.
In this scenario, it was implied that most people considered a third Democratic Party mandate a reality, even several republicans. Nonetheless, the image of the Clintons, especially Hillary is still a bitter pill to swallow to these days, even among some Democrats, so millennials did not step into the campaign as they did during Obama years, leading to a lower voter registration.
As brilliantly pointed by the Central Comedy’s comedian Roy Wood Jr., “spoiled” millennials couldn’t measure the consequences of their lack of engagement, since they wanted no other than an impossible “New Obama”.
Yet, Hillary had the election practically set on during her last debate with Donald Trump, on which most political analysts considered a “hit & run” event for the Democrats.
2. The Republican Primaries
On the Republican side, the party presidential primaries were a bloodshed, with a total of 17 major candidates on the race, a very open contest with no clear front-runner.
Trump’s foolhardy attitude and polarizing stances generated numerous controversies on the news that clearly promoted the Trump phenomenon as a joke, because love him or hate him; his “election show” was very good for the media. Trump knew that and exactly how to use it.
Many of the other candidates pursued the “anti-Trump” image by opposing his buffoonish rhetoric and policies stances on immigration, foreign affairs, and healthcare. Ohio governor John Kasich, was considered the moderate Republican option, and remained in the nomination race close to its end, despite being viewed as having little to no chance of winning.
Trump won by a large margin and many candidates openly supported the new contender.
3. 2016 Election & Trump’s Victory
An allegedly rock-solid victory for the Democrats suffered five major blows, being the fifth one decisive to take away their election for good.
The first one was the push back of the average voters against the wave of liberal agenda that dominated the United States. As I previously mentioned, Obama was the straightforward model of a conventional American president, but just his persona (biracial, raised by a single mother, self-made, a ‘cool’ ‘smooth’ personality) was enough to boost the morale of liberals and their agenda all over the World.
On this more than polarized scenario, the ultraliberals, now more aligned to an extreme left socialist view, tried to push as hard as they could (in several occasions, in a non-democratic manner) their agenda, including controversial support against free speech, very particular views on racism, cultural appropriation, political correctness, social constructions, authoritarianism, and several other themes.
Not only had this liberal thought rose a massive push back from the average, generation X, middle class voters, as it also encouraged the rise of the opposite spectrum of the political agenda, the alt-right.
The second point comes from the first, the Ashamed Vote (different from Shy Vote).
Trump’s attitude and polarizing stances made many voters very uncomfortable, however, most saw him as a response to the reinforcement of the “left-socialist” agenda, also as a solution to what was recurrently seem as fight against fundamental American values. This voter was frequently shown as undecided, swing or unregistered in the pre-election polls.
Many of those saw their millennial offspring graduate in Liberal Arts, a choice that rose almost 100 percent in 15 years, to realize that a part of them ended-up jobless after graduation, deep in debt, self-proclaimed socialists, blaming the “system” and their parents for their failures, and burning American flags during veterans’ day protests.
As swing voters, they were not openly supporting Trump, and despite the better economic situation of the country, they saw in Hillary the continuity of the attacks to American values.
The third point was the Facebook issue. Facebook was openly used to bias the election in many ways, which lead Mark Zuckerberg to a congressional hearing that forced him change the way the social network does its business.
It also lead to a long investigation of the involvement of Russian operatives in order to undermine the American electoral process and help Trump elected. The Mueller investigation did not directly involve president Trump, but showed that somehow America’s former cold war enemies had a strong participation in the process.
The fifth and pivotal point was the former FBI director James Comey testimony. Hillary Clinton has been accused of using a private e-mail server for official public communications during her mandate as the Secretary of State, instead of using the official State Department e-mail accounts maintained on secure federal servers. During the investigations, the FBI found over 100 e-mails containing classified information, including 65 emails judged “Secret” and 22 as “Top Secret”, with an additional of 2,093 e-mails not marked classified, retroactively classified as so by the State Department.
This was largely used by the Republican campaign against the Democrats, with Trump nicknaming his opponent “Crooked Hillary” to criticize the episode. However in July, Comey announced that the FBI investigation had concluded that Clinton had been “extremely careless,” but recommended no charges to be filed. As no clear damage was demonstrated, the e-mail controversy started to lose its strength, as Hillary grew consistently in the polls.
It is not clear what motivated Comey to come to public again only a few days before the election to notify the Congress that the FBI had started looking into newly discovered e-mail evidence, but at that time, it was deliberated as a movement to help Trump (hypothesis proven unfounded).
That and the Russian WikiLeaks helped Trump to turn important votes at battleground states, as many saw Clinton as a part of the “rigged system” that soaked American politics, with the Republican considered an outsider.
Comey later testified before the Senate, saying that it “makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election,” but that he would not change his decision. Incredibly, Comey reinforced the Russian probe investigation against the Trump campaign, which led him to be fired on early May 2017, months after Michael Flynn also being fired.
Trump presidency showed the first signs of what it was about to be, when the new elected president nagged the general election as fraudulent, as he did not win the popular vote (lost by 2.1 percentage points for Hillary), only the electoral vote.
Another sign was his inauguration attendance, when an estimated 300,000 to 600,000 people attended the public ceremony, 1/6 to 1/3 of Obama’s inauguration, but Trump constantly insisted that his set the record, even though photographic evidence showing otherwise.
4. Volatility begins. A new Era
The budgetary characteristics of the American government make the first year of a presidential mandate essentially a continuation of the previous one. On a first time mandate, it creates a series of impediments to reverse policies, so a strong support in both houses is necessary to make things work, especially, to keep campaign promises.
Up to the second half of 2017, Trump was still testing ground on unknown territory, but still, set the record of executive orders (55), although his criticism when president Obama used the same instrument.
As his very first memorandum, Trump cancelled the TPP, Trans-Pacific Partnership, a milestone for the international trade that would gather round 40 percent of the global GDP, joining Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. This would most certainly isolate China and weaken the efforts to reduce the gap between the first runner-up and the United States in a global economic leadership.
The current Trade War events would be substantially different if China was to fight against this joint market, but the first year of Trump’s mandate was focused on trying to extinguish Obama’s legacy whatsoever, particularly those strategies that could have worked.
After year one, Trump aimed the international trade and what he believed was the unfair treatment the U.S. were receiving from other countries. The embryo of the Trade War started then the U.S. implements ‘global safeguard tariffs’, by placing a 30 percent tariff on all solar panel imports, except for those from Canada, (worth $ 8.5 billion) and a 20 percent tariff on washing machine imports (worth $ 1.8 billion).
In March, he signs a memorandum to impose tariffs on several Chinese goods; to restrict investment in key technology sectors; and to file a WTO case against discriminatory licensing practices from China. One day later, imposes a 25 percent tariff on all steel imports (except from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and South Korea) and a 10 percent tariff on all aluminum imports (except from Argentina and Australia).
The China retaliation in April 2018 ignites the Trade War as we know today.
5. Picking Fights
From March 2018 on, Trump has been the strongest source of volatility for the economy and financial markets.
We must say one thing about Trump: he is following ipsis litteris his campaign promises, and although several ones could not be fulfilled, he is somehow determined to keep them.
On the promise to end ObamaCare, Republicans in Congress failed multiple times during the first year to repeal it. Trump even hesitated on this campaign promise after the failure, stating, “I think we’re probably in that position where we’ll just let Obamacare fail”.
In order to materialize it, Republicans limited support for open enrollment, eliminated the individual mandate, proposed allowing small businesses to buy health insurance together, encouraged the sale of short-term health insurance plans, tightened the rules for consumers seeking coverage, while loosening them for insurers, destabilized the contraceptive mandate, and gave states more control over Medicaid programs.
In several cases, like short-term health insurance, Medicaid severely restricted short-term plans, but since they are not subject to Obamacare’s sometimes pricey directives, being more affordable for millions of people, Republicans decided to encourage, being a real benefit for the population.
The promise to build a wall to keep “bad hombres out” of the United States has been one of the most controversial, since during the campaign, Trump promised Mexico would pay for it, what has actually never happened. It was also flooded by accusations of racism and mismanagement, considering it would hardly stop Mexicans from entering the U.S. through the border.
Controversy is the key word for Trump, a far-from standard American president, so let us sum up the series of events:
- • The TPP withdrawal;
- • Wall with Mexico;
- • Several Shutdowns and Phony National Emergencies to try to fund the Wall;
- • Love-Hate Relation with North Korea and Kim Jon Un;
- • Trade Wars growing costs for American companies (GM, HD, Carrier);
- • Charlottesville “both sides have bad people” (the other side were Nazi sympathizers);
- • The USMCA replacing NAFTA (GOOD);
- • Attempt to repeal Medicaid, with some improvements;
- • United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement;
- • Massive Tax Cut; (good & bad)
- • Exploding Fiscal Deficit;
- • Failure of US-Iran nuclear talks and Massive Saudi Arms Sale;
- • The Russian collusion and the Mueller report;
- • James Mattis’ resignation and the Syria/Russia situation;
- • Manafort’s arrest;
- • Military parades;
- • NATO Insults;
- • To phase out the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals);
- • The Porto Rico lethargic response;
- • Non-Government Controversies:
- · Dodging to turn over tax returns;
- · “Grab by the Pussy”, “Horseface”, “Fat”, “Ugly”, “Dogs”;
- · Trump University;
- · Stormy Daniels;
- · John McCain and insults to war heroes;
- · “Extremely Stable Genius”, “Very Large Brain”;
- · The “Self-Written” health report;
- · Golf Courses and Mar-a-Lago trips;
- · Massive dismissal of several supporters.
6. The Mueller Report, Collusion, Russia Probe, and the First Attempts of impeachment
When Trump unceremoniously fired FBI director James Comey, it raised questions over Russia meddling and the independence of the bureau’s investigation into associations between the Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives in the 2016 presidential election.
Dubbed as a ‘Nixonian’ movement, there were strident demands from many Democrats for a special prosecutor to be appointed to supervise the Russia inquiry. Soon after, the DoJ appointed former FBI head Robert Mueller as special counsel to head a federal investigation.
Quickly, in a series of tweets, Trump claimed, “This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history! With all of the illegal acts that took place in the Clinton campaign & Obama Administration, there was never a special council appointed!”
It took almost two years, and it is divided into two separate parts – one concerning Russia’s efforts to help Trump win the presidential election, and other on whether Trump obstructed justice as a sitting president.
Mueller concludes that the Kremlin interference in the U.S. election was in “sweeping and systematic fashion”, which included a social media operation run out of Russia.
The report also cites the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails by Russian military intelligence from Moscow, when the e-mails were then given to WikiLeaks that released them in July and October and November 2016.
Attorney general William Barr claims total exoneration, by citing some doctored parts of the report, saying there was not an ‘active’ criminal-level conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Moscow operatives. However, Barr handpicked the report, and the part especially mentioned by him says in its full form:
“Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from the a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
In July, congressional representative Al Green called for Trump’s impeachment based on the Mueller report findings, being his second call in one year, with more than 120 House Democrats publicly supporting the impeachment inquiry.
At that moment, Democrat leadership, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remained resistant to Green’s plans, by taking a more conservative approach.
The attempts for new impeachment inquiries vanished after Mueller’s testimony sent a clear message that this was the worst approach for the Russia situation. For the Democrat disappointment, after seven-hours of House committee hearings, Mueller did not overstate the report he published three months earlier.
Even unsuccessful, this first and strongest attack left a scar on Trump’s presidency that appeared to be healed by the successful performance of the American economy.
7. It’s the Trumponomics, Stupid!
In the face of several choices that could potentially damage the American economy, Trump’s mandate has gained notoriety for a series of positive figures. Obviously, controversy is also the result of the way the he leads the economy, since many analysts also believe, considering all odds, that without the noise the economic performance could be even better.
The annual growth rate in U.S. GDP has been largely strong, but not as “huge”, “amazing”, or “Some of the best economic numbers our country has ever experienced are happening right now” as president Trump usually claims.
For 2019, the data shows a 3.1 percent growth for the first quarter, slowing to 2.1 percent in the second. Further back, there were times during the 50s and 60s when GDP growth was even stronger, so today’s figures are far from “best economic numbers the country has ever experienced”.
The trade war, fears over the pace of the global economy, and rising tensions in the Middle East have disturbed markets recently, which led the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, as clearly stated by the chairman Jerome Powell in several occasions after the FOMC meetings.
However, two figures are quite important in this scenario: Jobs and Inflation.
In both cases, the principles of the Phillips Curve are constantly challenged by the persistent improvement of the salaries and job figures, without necessarily resulting in inflation, as the theory suggests.
Unemployment in the U.S. is largely below what is considered the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment or NAIRU, which “by default” would result in more inflation. Fed’s has had difficulties since measures of core inflation were still restrained and longer-run inflation expectations remain stable.
That would not actually be a problem, when one fully understands the mechanisms behind such a price stability, but the case now is that even policy makers are not aware of the mechanisms that form this new reality, almost like theorizing the Shoe Event Horizon.
Janet Yellen, former chairwoman for the Federal Reserve recently said: “The Fed is, I think, thinking hard and about to undertake a public review of strategies and tools to think about how they can address the problem, if at all. It’s not a simple question.”
Fed is afraid that, for any reason whatsoever, the Phillips Curve suddenly starts “to operate again” as if it is acting like some sort of stuck gear mechanism with a broken cog.
For now, the most meaningful achievement of the Trump mandate is the employment situation. African American, Hispanic American and Asian American unemployment reached the lowest levels ever recorded, with 5.5, 4.2 and 2.1 percent respectively. General unemployment reached one of the lowest levels at 3.7 percent, a close miss to 3.5 percent in November and December 1969.
Wages did not follow the same premises. Average hourly earnings growth did continue throughout 2018, following a general upward trend, which began during Obama’s era, reaching 3.4 percent in February this year, but slowing to the current 3.23 percent. In an early basis, wages increased by 1.5 percent in August against the same period of 2018, according to official data. Core inflation reached 1.8 percent.
Household income has also been growing, but at a slower rate in the past two years and last year, it has reached an average $63,179, not far from 2017.
Key Aspects of the unemployment in the United States includes a very low discouragement, part-time employment, and cross-base data that makes data seem superlative. Still, unemployment is significantly low.
Only very recently, part time jobs for economic reasons dropped to pre-subprime crisis levels, 4.350 million workers and for non-economic reasons reached its all-time high at 21.573 million workers in the latest official employment data. To some extent, it explains the lack of pressure on wages and in some measure, on inflation, due to the uncertainties of this particular kind of employment.
However, this same positive labor performance is not adherent to most economic performance indices. ISM Manufacturing PMI are in a downward trend since its peak in August 2018, 60.8 points, to 47.8 points, below the lowest recent level of 48 points in January 2016. Service PMI, despite being above the expansion level, is also at a downward trend at 51 points.
Industrial production yearly change is also at the low end, from a peak in the same period in 2018, while annual retail sales figures have just reached the 2-year average.
Consumer sentiment and expectations indices are still in the same average since the 2014 peak and Case Schiller/S&P 20-city home price index is at its lowest annual result, 2.03 percent, only compared to 2012 data that was in an upward trend.
The deterioration of several of these data has a common initial point at the trade war, as it affected costs for American manufactures in several ways, starting with Mexico and Canada taxation, suppliers of raw and intermediate goods.
However, new home sales is at a 12 year high, close to the pre-subprime crisis, on the top of the year, compared to 2018 and existing home sales reported an annual growth of existing home sales follow the exactly same path.
These confusing figures led to the also very confusing decision of the Federal Reserve to pause the monetary easing after the most recent cut of 25 bp to 1.75 percent. The return of the Quantitative Easing in the form of the REPOs is also a sign that the Federal Reserve has a hard time judging the real state of the American economy.
Nevertheless, stock markets are still skyrocketing, on a continuous uptrend since 2009, with no clear signs of reversal, even though the intense volatility Trump brings and the Trade War that led on the last December the strongest assets correction since the subprime events.
China is no longer the major foreign buyer of U.S. Treasury bonds, being outshined by Japan in a large margin since last year.
This is Trumponomics.
8. The Present is Puzzling
What is Trump’s current situation? Combining with his explosive personality, the end of 2019 is especially turbulent for the American president.
Up until very recently, Trump used the trade war and the attacks on the Federal Reserve, particularly on chairman Jerome Powell in order to satisfy his support base and grant an easier passage through next year’s election.
GOP’s qualitative surveys reinforced such a rhetoric, so Trump somehow used both situations as a hedge. I.E., if the trade war goes wrong, mostly due to his behavior, he could put the blame on the Chinese. If the trade war is finally solved, but the economy does not react, he could put the blame on the Fed “tight” policy.
Those hypotheses were making their way through Trump’s gibbering, but these were not the only problems he was going through.
As previously mentioned, the trade war is taking its toll for American manufacturing in many ways, since several promises of jobs kept in American soil were broken like Carrier, Harley Davidson, coal plants, GM, and several others.
Despite the labor market strength, manufacturing job losses are only compared to the subprime era, after keeping a positive average creation of 13,000 during Obama years. Since June 2018’s peak with 32,000 jobs created, only compare to march 2012’s 38,000, numbers are only going down, with no real perspective of reversal. The profile of American workforce is going through a major and definitive change since 2008.
These blue-collar jobs cover a significant amount of Trump’s voters, some of them also known as “swing voters”, when both Democratic and Republican candidates receive support without an overwhelming majority.
One state known as a “purple state”, where neither party has a majority, or “battleground state” is Ohio, where General Motors’ Lordstown factory closed on March 6. Trump assured residents that manufacturing jobs would be returning to the region, a promise he clearly could not keep.
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are majorly Democrat states inside the “Rusty Belt”, all affected by the trade policies adopted by the U.S. government in the last two years. All posted majors loses of manufacturing jobs.
Kansas, a strong Republican state lost a Harley-Davidson factory due to tariffs against China and companies who kept commercial ties to China.
At first, most workers believe their jobs would be safe following Trump’s promises. When companies took the offshoring decisions, workers would turn against Europe, China, Canada or Mexico, blaming them for unfair trade practices.
When jobs simply did not return and trade war was more than far from a conclusion, workers started to wonder if this never-ending battle against China was the only reason for their discouragement. It also raised the question if president Trump’s unpredictable attitude was not the reason behind a no-deal.
U.S. demands over subsidies, industrial policy, and intellectual property are considered by many as very reasonable and unbiased, bearing in mind the Chinese practices on each issue. However, Trump’s short-tempered personality leveled down the discussion; bringing the villainy to himself and making China look “less guilty” during the entire process.
A bad move.
He will likely defer another tariff escalation and the result will much probably be a “pyrrhic victory” on both sides in the “phase-1 deal”, since who expected to use U.S. advantage to force real changes to China’s economic model will be clearly disappointed.
The loss of popularity is more visible during the new impeachment attempts, where Democrats are obviously in full support of the process, but Republicans are not all against it, as it would suppose for a Republican president.
The Trump–Ukraine scandal started when a whistleblower revealed that Trump had asked Ukrainian President Zelensky in July 2019 to investigate Hunter Biden and his father, former vice-president Joe Biden, one of Trump’s most likely political opponent in the 2020 presidential election. Trump also discussed these matters with Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr.
To make matters worse, on October 3, Trump publicly requested for China and Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, during an interview to several reporters. Federal Election Commission (FEC) chair Ellen Weintraub reiterated, “It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.” which is also considered an “Impeachable offense”.
Bearing in mind a foreign national interference, this would be Trump’s “second offense” in the case, considering the Russia medley and what is considered by many Americans as a “clear case of treason”.
Against the Biden family, it was not produced evidence of any alleged wrongdoing but still, Trump support base have spread multiple conspiracy theories regarding Ukraine, the Bidens, the whistleblower, and the foreign interference in the 2016 election. Things got even worse when on October 9, two of Rudolph Giuliani clients were arrested involved in political and business affairs with Ukraine and Giuliani himself is under federal investigation.
Reports also mention that Trump sat on $400 million in security aid to Ukraine to force them to investigate the Bidens and almost lost the tenure of the fiscal year to release it, despite many warnings of the Pentagon to the White House that Trump’s decision would put the Defense Department at risk of breaking the law.
An investigation from Politico report at the end of August launched a House investigation into why the aid was being withheld. Trump was ultimately forced to release the aid on Sept. 11, just days before the end of the fiscal year deadline, and left no time to the Pentagon to spend the funds.
Also according to Politico, in another controversy, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council official supervising Ukraine policy, told House impeachment investigators that he objected EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s requests in a July 10 White House briefing to Ukrainian officials to investigate the 2016 U.S. election and the Bidens.
It challenges Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s denials that he ever heard U.S. requests that Ukraine investigate corruption, since he attended the same meeting on July 10. Perry refused earlier this month to comply with congressional subpoenas pursuing information on meetings and phone calls he took part in involving Ukraine officials. Trump says quid pro quo with Ukraine is “not an impeachable event” and there is ‘nothing wrong’ with it. Outright denial.
Trump is between “the rock and the hard place”. As it happened with Brazil’s impeached former president Dilma during the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, a president popularity can sometimes be measure by the crowd reaction during a major event.
Trump was loudly booed by the crowd at Game 5 of the World Series at National Park on Oct. 27, 2019. He appeared surprised when showered with boos, mouthing “wow” before smiling and applauding. Then fans chanted “Lock him up! Lock him up!” a popular mantra against Hillary Clinton during his 2016 campaign rallies.
He also refused to throw the first pitch, a tradition among American presidents since 1910 by stating, “I don’t know, they’re going to have to dress me up in a lot of heavy armor. I’ll look too heavy. I don’t like that.”
He also had a mixed crowd reaction at the UFC 244 at Madison Square Garden on November 3. Although his entrance was not shown on the big screens, a mix of boos and cheers could be heard among the crowd.
This clear loss of popularity is already reflected in the most recent qualitative polls about Trump’s presidency, and despite a strong support from Republicans. According to the website FourThirdEight, Trump’s disapproval is 54.3 percent and approval 41.4 percent, taking an average of 10 different pollsters.
A major defeat happened when Kentucky Republican governor (now ex) Matt Bevin lost the seat to Attorney General Andy Beshear (D) in a deep-red state, where President Trump holds an overwhelming popularity.
Gallup polling has found that an average of 86 percent of Republicans have approved President Trump time in office and that his GOP approval rating has not dropped below 79 percent in any individual poll. In the history of public opinion polls, no president has faced such “deep and consistent partisan polarization” as Trump has, according to AP.
This is the major support Trump must keep and by changing the trade bellicose oratory to a more conciliatory speech he may reduce global volatility and feed market bulls with a more predictable short-term scenario that can keep the pace of the economy, at least up to the presidential run.
He continues to make punctual attacks against the Federal Reserve and its monetary policy, but even this is now reduced, in order to avoid market volatility.
Trump knows that happy markets lead to a happy economy.
An enduring U.S. expansion lead to satisfied voters, willing to give a second chance, putting Trump on course of re-election in 2020 in the best James Carville fashion, “It’s the economy, stupid”. He might be given the credit for the economic expansion, undoubtedly.
9. Impeachment and the Pence Case
House Democrats released the first transcripts from two closed-doors hearings in the Trump impeachment probe. The case is moving at a fast pace, but it does not mean that all Democrats are happy with the process.
Some rep. like Jeff Van Drew are concerned that the impeachment process is becoming too partisan, and that it could rebound if Trump does not end up being removed from office. He says that Trump will use the process in his favor since “He will still be president, and he will still be the candidate, but he will say — and will be correct — ‘I’ve been exonerated’”.
An impeachment investigation could weaken the president Trump before next year’s election and give the White House back to the Democrats, or it could backfire, like President Bill Clinton during 1998 election.
Another Democrat shares similar views. Rep. Collin Peterson says, “This impeachment process continues to be hopelessly partisan. I have been hearing from my constituents on both sides of this matter for months, and the escalation of calls this past week just shows me how divided our country really is right now.”
Democrat leaders, however, pushed back, reiterating that they believe the President’s conduct has forced them to commence impeachment proceedings and that they want to create a crystal clear process.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also said that she wants Republicans to join Democrats in investigating the President’s actions. In the present situation, that is not going to happen. Not enough Republican Senators will back the resolution and without their support, going down this path is a mistake.
Nevertheless, let us imagine for a second what could happen if the Democrats succeed and president Trump is actually impeached. By doing that, Democrats might not be weighing the possible consequences, one of them the U.S. being left on the hands of President Mike Pence.
A Pence presidency could bring back the political normality and many Americans might welcome this newly acquired stability.
No emotional explosions, no controversy, no inflated ego, no tweet storms whatsoever.
The Republican establishment would probably return to the White House, a staff formed by Pence’s old companions from his time as the governor of Indiana and as a congressional representative, several of whom have played roles the Trump administration already.
For liberal Democrats, it could somehow sound even worse than Trump in many aspects, since Pence is a well-known religious evangelical, pro-life conservative. He is a strong supporter of traditional marriage based on his religion beliefs, what could haunt him should he be in the position of running for the White House in 2020.
However, Pence’s monotonous public facade can be misleading. Pence’s image was of a “teavangelical,” using his religion as a weapon and usually voting with the conservatives. As a radio broadcaster, he had spoken out against women and gays serving in the military.
By ambitioning higher flight into politics, he became bothered by that image, which he promptly replaced by the “Technocrat Politician”. In terms of economic views, Mike Pence could be a blessing for the U.S., considering himself a fiscal conservative, but very found to fairly expensive preschool programs, as his wife was preschool teacher.
Pence 2016 run shows him as a pragmatic, deeply ambitious and realistic politician, an anti-Trump in many ways, with long-lasting ties to Republicans in both houses of Congress and a few Democrats.
As a former Tea Party congressman, he is undoubtedly disconcerted by the current fiscal extravagance under Trump and the Democrat Congress. As a new president, he would probably want to control the budget as a genuine Republican.
Under this premise, a supposed president Pence would have to balance his personal and political views with Trump supporters, while the Wall and illegal immigration will continue to be strong campaign issues.
The Trade War would also probably come to an end, being Pence not an isolationist, a tea partier and spent eight years on the House Foreign Relations Committee, but the talks with China could take a more serious turn, as previously mentioned here. Kim Jong Un and Putin would be probably put aside, in favor of deals that are more formal with former allies.
Sounds not so bad, but it is a high political risk for the Republicans.
A party with an impeached President will always sound very bad.
10. 2020 Odds
Trump has many “enemies” on all sides: his erratic personality, dissatisfied establishment Republicans, the media, every single Democrat, especially the progressive left wing, China, Russia, Iran, Europe, you name it.
However, for 2020, several events will play important roles against him and other will play in his favor.
For Trump, despite the series of data showing a somehow decelerating economy, there is an amazing record for the total employment in the U.S., combined with a stubbornly low inflation, with no real perspective of changes in the near future. This is the first positive event.
The second one is a dissatisfied, uneven, and a divided Democratic base. Primaries are usually a very unpleasant period of any American election and even in the same party, disputes tend to be harsh. However, for Trump’s blessing, this year’s Democratic Party is more divided than ever.
Beto O’Rourke and Bill de Blasio have dropped out the race, being the first meaningful losses for the Dems, but the most likely primary candidates are former Vice-President Joe Biden, Vice Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus Elizabeth Warren, over achiever mayor of South Bend, Indiana Pete Buttigieg, the self-declared socialist United States Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders, and the United States Senator from California, Kamala Harris.
From those, we consider that the front-runners will be either Biden or Warren.
Biden is a moderate centrist, with positive transit in both houses, with a historic passage as Barack Obama’s vice-president. For several analysts, Biden pleases purple states and moderate voters, being also a more ‘palatable’ option for swing voters (white male, and senior candidate), as well as black and Latino voters, for his years with Obama.
The case against him is: the hard time he has to appeal the Democratic base, especially millennials leaning strongly towards the left in recent years; problems to articulate his proposals; and the liability of his son Hunter Biden businesses in the corrupt Ukraine, should he be the potential candidate. Nonetheless, he is the strongest candidate against the seating president.
Warren is more closely aligned to the progressive wing of the Democrats, which includes Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders as potential candidates, but is presented as a self-proclaimed ‘capitalist’. Despite having the most concise set of proposals among all candidates, her plan to spend $52 trillion over ten years for Medicare-for-all by “raising taxes from the wealthy Americans” was confronted by the fact that the combined total wealth of every billionaire in the United States only adds up to $3 trillion.
Regardless of the media flattening responses to the latest debate on October 16, Warren numbers went down on every poll after the event, helping Biden to regain momentum, after weeks of downward trend.
She also cannot gain the support of the most progressive wing of the party, which is openly supporter of a somehow form of ‘socialism’ that scares the potential swing voters, especially from purple states. The socialist core of the party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley says Warren or even Kamala Harris are not progressive enough to gain their support, choosing Bernie Sanders and his cultish sect.
In our opinion, the only feasible candidate, with slight chances to win against Donald Trump is Joe Biden, with a probable vice-president candidate Kamala Harris, in order to satisfy the democratic base.
Michael Bloomberg, Former NY mayor, a centrist and financial market mogul announced the possibility of running the primaries, however he will not probably get the support of a Democratic base that aligns almost 66 percent with socialist ideals.
As well as Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg is clearly one of the most well prepared politicians to rise in the American political spectrum in the last few years, but it would be “too much” for a conservative swing voter base to handle, even in 2020.
They are clearly the case for 2024, bearing in mind this is Sanders and Biden last chance, due to their advanced age.
11. Conclusion
To the extent of the point of view of a Brazilian observer, the American election complexities are relatable in many ways to our local reality.
Trump main assets for a reelection case are the U.S. economic performance; a strong support base; the Republican eagerness to remain in power, despite of him; tons of financial support; and an essentially fragmented Democratic opposition.
Against him are several corruption cases and possible treason; participation of foreign countries in the election process; loss of stamina on several economic indicators; his personality; and the dissatisfaction of the Republican establishment with his trade and fiscal policy.
It somehow brings back the memories of Lula years, up to Dilma’s election.
With the impeachment process firing up, Trump probably jumped the gun on his “planned volatility” tactics and may he suffer some sort of a Fatigue Syndrome, even before the choice of his opponents in April 2020. That is a major risk, especially if markets have no strength to sustain a positive bias up to the presidential election. But again, Trump is completely unpredictable.
For Brazil, despite his isolationist policy, Trump remains the best-case scenario for his closeness to President Bolsonaro and Brazil’s somewhat neutral stance during the US-China trade war.
Would Democrats spare us from Trump’s current protectionist trade policies? We should unquestionably not count on it, considering this the only point of agreement between Trump and Democrats. Actually, Democrats think Trump is not being protectionist enough.
Therefore, Trump is still the best option for Brazil.
Finally, who will win the election?
We really do not know, but if we have to guess, the odds are with Trump.
A Tough Guess
