How learning challenged is #45?

[homegirl]

Our “president” is incapable of learning. That’s why he referred to the tanks in his show as “Sherman tanks”. It’s debatable whether he is genuinely capable of understanding anything complex or nuanced. I don’t believe he is. Harder to beat? He lost the popular vote by 3 million votes and won the electoral college vote by less than 100,000 votes spread over three states. He has never broken 50% in the polls, despite a relatively good economy. Who will vote for him in ‘20 who didn’t vote for him last time? If their coal jobs didn’t come back, if their soybeans haven’t been bought, if their Carrier plant, or their GM plant has closed, if they paid more in taxes, will they all vote for him again? Some significant portion of his voters must be tired of his failures, his lies, his stupid comments. He doesn’t need to lose many of them. He does not have any margin for error with his base; he does not have any interest in appealing to people who haven’t supported him already; his act is stale, repetitive, predictable. It’s becoming tiresome and annoying even to people who liked it in ‘16, ‘17 &’18. It’s not going to get better, because he’s not capable of updating it. Can he win again? Yes, of course. There are millions of American who were willing to vote for a “downright moron”. There are millions who will gladly do it again. But if there is to be a good future for this country, there will be millions fewer willing to make that mistake in ‘20.

[Thomas Hurt]

1. IMHO, he is a malignant narcissist...it is not that he can't learn....

it is that he thinks he doesn't have to learn because he is already the smartest guy gal in the universe.

[guillaumeb]

2. We know that he cannot read.

We know that he cannot speak intelligently about any subject.

We know that his parents put him in a military style school because he could not learn in a regular school.

He uses the same few phrases and constructions in every conversation.

And informed voters are aware of this, but Trump's appeal is to the racists, the angry, the greedy, and his many fellow uninformed American voters who will vote based on their anger, and greed, and racism.

[Brother Buzz]

3. He's really, really good at math....

Even when he's wrong

[lpbk2713]

4. He says he's smarter than his generals.

And if that's true we're in a world of shit.

[unitedwethrive]

5. Even those who believe that the Russian interference was negligible in 2016

have to admit that since it hasn't been in any way challenged or stopped, the hurdles to beating the Rs this time are huge. He doesn't still doesn't have the majority, but he has something far better.

[KentuckyWoman]

6. He isn't stupid

but he is lazy, entitled, selfish and thinks he's smarter than everyone who ever was or ever will be.

He's not intelligent, not at all. But is he smart enough to learn from his mistakes.
prenups
cover his own ass (lawyer's in jail not him)
6 bankruptcies, still rich.
etc
etc
etc

[demtenjeep]

7. My 70 year old brother voted for him and will NOT vote for him this time-he had to pay 9,200 in taxe

Now, I don't know how my brother ever voted for him in the first place. He is a Union Machinist man. Worked for Beechcraft all his life and our father would roll over in his grave. I guess in his shop a lot of idiots listened to lush.

But, my brother retired and ended up owing 9 thousand in taxes and the tax prep rarer was able to explain it was the result of the 1% tax cuts. My brother woke out of his fog

[kurtcagle]

8. H.L Mencken's quote comes to mind

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."

OTOH, there is also the truism that "Generals always fight the last war."

This is not because generals are stupid or short-sighted. Rather, the last war was also the most current war, and as such may better reflect realities than older encounters would.

Trump won for several reasons. Hillary Clinton ran a poor campaign, had too much baggage, a strong primary contender and was coming off of Obama fatigue. Trump, or his campaign team, was smart enough to realize that she was vulnerable in the Midwest, and whether or not the Russians helped (I believe they did) he was able to use a combination of brashness, surprise and media savviness to push those dominoes over. This played into Trump's strengths as an impresario.

On the other hand, Trump has never been an administrator, never been in a position where he couldn't get his way with the spending of enough money, and never had to truly play politics. He's bad at it, which is why he continues to resort to campaign rallies that more and more frequently resemble the rallies that Hitler held, but with far smaller crowds, rather than actually governing. He knows his only real chance to get re-elected is turning on the charm, but as the OP points out, people voted on the basis of promises that he's been unable to fulfill.

Pelosi has some hard decisions to make. Impeachment is warranted, but at this point it is a toothless solution that may in fact stimulate enough Republican voters to come out just on the basis of "it's the Dems doing this". On the other hand, impeachment is also something that may drive more Democrats to the polls, but whether enough will in Red areas to make a difference is difficult to say.

Trump is about average intelligence, maybe a touch above or below, but that only means that he's probably not mentally agile enough to do the job well. However, it also means that he can talk to "ordinary" people in a way that is hard for the highly intelligent to do well, and Trump is very adept at using anti-intellectual resentment to his favor. Remember, by definition, half of all people are of below average intelligence.

The 2020 election will not be the 2016 election, nor the 2018 election. I think the Democratic presidential field will be whittled down to four by January, and by the convention I fully expect to see either a Biden/Harris or Harris/Warren ticket with Biden/Warren or Warren/Harris in descending order (I don't see Biden choosing to be anyone's VP this go around, and while I love both women I think that Harris is just a better campaigner than Warren). Sanders will be out by March, if not sooner.

I also think that Harris/Warren is a very distinct possibility if Biden's support fades and the one that Trump would be hardest pressed to beat. Biden is great, but he's gaffe prone. Harris has a strong enough record that she has less baggage, and the more racist Trump becomes, the more appealing Harris is, especially to more conservative voters who still might vote against Trump or be worried about being tarred with the racist brush.

So, yes I'd like to think that some, hopefully many, of the voters that put Trump into the white house have changed their turn, but I think its a mistake to underestimate Trump when he's in his element, which is campaigning.

[lunatica]

9. Too bad you just had to trash Hillary with regurgitated lies.

That’s when I stopped reading your post.

[kurtcagle]

12. I voted for Hillary

However, I think that she ran a terrible campaign. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. She is an able administrator and I think she would have been a good or even great president, but Hillary has always been a weak campaigner, she made some serious missteps (the deplorables being probably the most egregious) and she let the goal of being the first female president blind her to trends in the Midwest that ultimately were her undoing. Yes, the media was unfair, but that should have been a given.

[lunatica]

13. I rest my case

She won with 3 million more votes than Trump.

But you conveniently forget that.

[stopdiggin]

10. good insight

I agree with about 95% of your opinion. Almost all of your prediction. Thanks. I do have one outstanding quibble. "means that he can talk to "ordinary" people in a way that is hard for the highly intelligent to do" I personally find the mans speech to be incoherent. Do ordinary people really communicate like this? If I had a student whos' thoughts were similarly expressed ...