Mediaboss Marketing

BOSTON (CBS) He blew it.

In 2016 Donald J. Trump caught the imagination of just enough voters in the right states to win the presidency for a range of reasons, distaste for Hillary Clinton and disgust with the domestic economic toll of globalization among them. And there was also the hope that a successful businessman might bring a fresh perspective to the job, including more concern with the bottom line and more respect for the paying customers.

Four years later, he has alienated just enough voters in the wrong states to lose, amid palpable distaste for him personally and disgust with the toll of the pandemic he tried to spin away. The bottom line is in shambles, his disrespect for the customers exposed.

This slow-motion car crash started with a fundamental misunderstanding. Trump was a genius self-marketer, not a successful businessman, as his lifelong trail of bankruptcies and commercial failures show. Successful businessmen do not aggressively alienate a majority of their market, as Trump and his itchy Twitter finger did so compulsively.

When I interviewed Trump supporters in a Billerica diner as the 100-day milestone of his presidency approached in early 2017, they all identified the tweeting as unnecessary and a potential problem. Was it ever. A 2019 New York Times analysis found more than half of Trumps tweets were attacks on foes real and imagined; they repeatedly caused problems for the Justice Department lawyers defending his actions in court. Your average Billerica Joe and Jane grabbing a turkey club on their lunch break had considerably more brains and sense than the leader of the free world.

Correction: the free worlds foremost reactionary. Even if one generously extends credit to him for the tax cuts, defense spending and judicial appointments hustled through by Congressional conservatives, Trump rarely lead in the sense of steering toward a meaningful policy vision.

Immigration reform? Separating families, caging kids and throwing up poorly-built border walls scratched an itch but cured no problems.

Foreign policy? Squeezing more dough out of NATO and eliminating the unlamented Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi dont make up for the abandonment of the Kurds, the alienation of longtime allies and enabling the rise of Russian and Chinese influence.

Growing the economy and keeping us safe? Whatever progress he could plausibly claim was trashed by the mind-blowing fiasco of Trumps pandemic mismanagement, the most appalling unforced error of an administration replete with them.

No one blamed Trump for the outbreak. All he had to do when it arrived was walk into the briefing room and say we face a tough fight against a difficult enemy. It wont be easy, but we can win if we all stick together and make shared, temporary sacrifices. Im going to do everything in my power to mobilize all our resources for this fight. Working together as Americans always do when were under attack, we will prevail. Now, heres Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx.

But no. COVID-19 wasnt a disease, it was a political attack on him, a new partisan hoax designed to disrupt his re-election. He knew more about how to fight it than the experts. Task force briefings were openings for him to grab free airtime and spew political spin, not crucial opportunities to inform and protect the public.

The CDC recommends wearing masks? He couldnt see himself setting an example by doing so because it didnt match his self-image of sitting in the Oval Office, behind that beautiful Resolute Desk when meeting with presidents, prime ministers, dictators, kings queens.

What sort of vainglorious nonsense was this? Nothing unexpected. Its beyond ironic that the man who coined the term fake news capped a career of relentless make-believe with a pretend presidency. From the bogus claims about the inaugural crowds right up to the evidence-free charges of vote fraud being laughed out of courtrooms across the country, Trump buried his shot at growing his base beyond the groupies under a mountain of b.s. and egomania.

Despite it all, he might have won again had the coronavirus and Joe Biden not intervened. The most important political event of the campaign was appropriately on leap day, February 29, when South Carolina primary voters brought the Biden campaign back from the dead.

Can you imagine where wed be today if Bernie Sanders were the nominee? We just saw how the ludicrous smears of socialist and being anti-cop stuck to Biden to an alarming degree among some voters. Black voters in South Carolina astutely saw Biden as the only competitive choice when their white counterparts in Iowa and New Hampshire didnt get it. Perhaps some of them even took their cues from Trump, who shot himself in the foot by making it clear with his Ukraine conspiracy fantasies that Biden was the candidate he feared most.

But in the end, this moment isnt about Biden. All he did was make this race a referendum on Trump, as it had to be for the Democrats to win.

And with their verdict, along with all the other reasons, the solid majority of Americans who voted for change sent a message with their choice. A message, fittingly enough, summed up concisely by the president in one of his latest tweets:

STOP THE FRAUD

Read more from the original source:
Keller @ Large: This Moment Isnt About Biden, Its About The Downfall Of Trump - CBS Boston

In Niz-Chavez v. Barr, the Supreme Court rekindles its on-again, off-again relationship with the stop-time rule, a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act that forecloses access to cancellation of removal, an important form of discretionary relief for noncitizens in removal proceedings. This case, which will be argued on Monday, marks the third time since 2018 that the court has tangled with the stop-time rule, with previous rendezvous in Pereira v. Sessions and Barton v. Barr. Niz-Chavez builds upon the Pereira litigation, and will require the justices to examine, once again, how notice of removal proceedings intersects with the stop-time rule.

Cancellation of removal operates as a type of forgiveness provision in U.S. immigration law, allowing noncitizens who satisfy certain eligibility criteria to secure permanent resident status, provided the positive equities in their case outweigh any negative factors. The INA sets forth two forms of cancellation removal, one for permanent residents, and another for nonpermanent residents. Each form of cancellation of removal includes a requirement linked to the length of the noncitizens stay in the United States: seven years of continuous residence for permanent residents, and 10 years of continuous presence for nonpermanent residents. To further limit access to this important remedy, the INA outlines specific occurrences that stop the seven- and 10-year clocks. Section 1229b(d) provides, in relevant part, that

any period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence in the United States shall be deemed to end when the alien is served a notice to appear undersection 1229(a) of this title

Section 1229(a)(1), in turn, clarifies the meaning of the term notice to appear, as follows:

In removal proceedings written notice (in this section referred to as a notice to appear) shall be given in person to the alien specifying the following:

The statute then enumerates seven pieces of information that must be conveyed, lettered A through G. Among the required components is information about the nature of the proceedings, the charges against the noncitizen and corresponding statutory provisions, the right to representation by counsel, and most relevant to the present case, [t]he time and place at which the proceedings will be held.

The lowercase notice to appear mentioned in the INA has a tangible counterpart in immigration practice: Form I-862 Notice to Appear, commonly referred to as an NTA. For many years, the Department of Homeland Security has made a practice of issuing NTAs that lack information about the time and date of the hearing. Instead, NTAs frequently list both as to be set, and the immigration court subsequently sends a hearing notice with the actual date and time. This practice led to the litigation in Pereira, in which the petitioner argued that an NTA lacking date and time information could not trigger the stop-time rule and therefore render him ineligible for cancellation of removal. In an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court agreed, holding that [a] putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizens removal proceedings is not a notice to appear under 1229(a), and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.

While the Pereira court underscored the critical importance of time and date information, it did not explicitly address whether the government can trigger the stop-time rule if it serves the required information via multiple documents for example, an initial NTA lacking the scheduling information, followed by a hearing notice.

Enter Agusto Niz-Chavez, a Guatemalan national who fled violence in his home country and arrived in the United States in 2005. Niz-Chavez built a life in the United States and is the primary supporter of his three U.S. citizen children, two of whom have health-related challenges. After being pulled over for a broken tail light, Niz-Chavez was referred to immigration authorities. In March 2013, he received an NTA lacking date and time information; about two months later, in May 2013, the government sent Niz-Chavez a hearing notice.

Once in removal proceedings, Niz-Chavez sought to apply for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge ruled, pre-Pereira, that the March 2013 NTA triggered the stop-time rule and thus prevented him from accruing the required 10 years of continuous presence. While the case was pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals, Pereira was decided, but the board ruled that the two-step approach (NTA + hearing notice) was sufficient to trigger the stop-time rule. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the boards decision, and as the case made its way to the Supreme Court, a circuit split emerged on whether the notice required in Section 1229(a) must be served via a single document in order to trigger the stop-time rule. Most of these appellate decisions analyzed Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, a 2019 en banc decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals holding that multiple documents can together comprise the required service of the NTA.

The parties briefing before the court engages with questions of statutory interpretation, legislative history and agency deference, while considering the on-the-ground impact of their positions. Niz-Chavez repeatedly emphasizes that Section 1229(a) uses a singular statutory term a notice to appear and contends that this choice of language evinces unambiguous congressional intent to require notice via a single document. And since an NTA is often described as a charging document, Niz-Chavez notes that a comparable legal filing (of, say, a complaint or brief), would likewise occur via a single document. The governments primary counter-argument, mirroring the 6th Circuits rationale in Garcia-Romo v. Barr, is that terms like a manuscript or a file might reasonably refer to written documents submitted in multiple parts. In response, Niz-Chavez raises the specter of a stitched-together Frankenstein notice, which would undermine the purpose of a single NTA that presents a complete picture of the removal proceedings.

The parties each contend that legislative and regulatory history is on their side. According to Niz-Chavez, the legislative history accompanying the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which introduced the concept of a notice to appear, reveals an intent to abandon a two-step practice that allowed an order to show cause (the predecessor to the NTA) to be filed separately from a hearing notice. Instead, Niz-Chavez argues, Congress designed the NTA to be a single form with all of the required information, with the goal of avoiding disputes about proper service. Niz-Chavez also highlights language from the preamble of a post-IIRIRA proposed immigration rule, which unequivocally stated that the NTA must include the time and place of the hearing. Yet despite this language, the regulation that was ultimately issued permitted a two-step process, requiring time and date information on the NTA only where practicable. According to the government, the enactment of this regulation undercuts Niz-Chavezs narrative, and is consistent with a reading of the legislative history that does not specifically proscribe notice via multiple documents.

The government casts Niz-Chavezs argument as an elevation of form over function, noting that a notice to appear is defined in Section 1229(a) as written notice, which can arguably be provided via more than one document. The parties also dig into neighboring provisions in the INA, marshaling language and legislative history to support their respective interpretations. Here, too, the government attempts to disaggregate the uppercase Notice to Appear the actual document served from the statutory concept of a notice to appear, which, in their view, could take the form of various written notices.

A significant portion of the briefing examines whether deference to the decision in Mendoza-Hernandez is required under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which generally prohibits courts from second-guessing an agencys reasonable interpretation of ambiguous laws. Advocates have consistently sought to chip away at Chevron deference in the immigration context, and Niz-Chavez offers another vehicle to make that case. According to Niz-Chavez, the Board of Immigration Appeals insufficiently explained its about-face in Mendoza-Hernandez, abandoning contrary precedent while failing to engage with the statutory text and history. While Niz-Chavez casts the boards decision as unreasonable, the government disputes that characterization with a detailed explanation of the boards reasoning. The parties also spar about whether Chevron deference should be afforded more generally in immigration cases, with the government emphasizing that deference is consistent with the political branches primary role in immigration matters.

The parties and various amici also debate the practical consequences of the two-step approach endorsed by the government. An amicus brief submitted by former immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals argues that NTAs lacking date and time information occupy a no mans land in the immigration system, and can lead to errors in recordkeeping or faulty service. This, the former officials argue, necessarily complicates the work of immigration judges, who must conduct time-intensive inquiries into the propriety of service. Amici also rebuke the immigration court system for issuing NTAs with dummy dates and times after Pereira, and note the troublesome outcomes resulting from this practice, including missed hearings and orders of removal. The government offers that orders of removal premised on improper service are subject to reopening under the INA, and invokes the possibility of executive branch overreach in favor of noncitizens, suggesting that an agency seeking to wholly undermine the stop-time rule might choose to stop placing time and date information on any NTA.

Given the similarities between this case and Pereira, the outcome in Niz-Chavez is likely to turn on whether the justices believe the logic of Pereira applies equally to this question and compels a ruling in favor of Niz-Chavez. At the same time, the court must also assess whether the government truly needs the flexibility inherent in a two-step process that is, whether the logistics of enforcement and removal operations necessitate the practice, or whether it simply enables executive branch inefficiency. The Pereira court opined that the government should have the technological wherewithal to include date and time information on NTAs, but it remains to be seen how the justices will weigh this underlying policy question. Whether premised on statutory, historical or practical grounds, the courts ultimate decision will affect not only the functioning of agencies, but the lives of thousands of noncitizens seeking relief in removal proceedings.

Posted in Niz-Chavez v. Barr, Featured, Merits Cases

Recommended Citation: Jayesh Rathod, Case preview: How must the government serve notice of removal proceedings?, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 6, 2020, 4:22 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/case-preview-how-must-the-government-serve-notice-of-removal-proceedings/

Go here to see the original:
Case preview: How must the government serve notice of removal proceedings? - SCOTUSblog

EL PASO, Texas (KTSM) On Wednesday, the Border Network for Human Rights convened local thought leaders and advocates to discuss the potential effects on border communities and immigration policies pursuant to the elections and ongoing public health crisis.

This is a defining moment, says Fernando Garcia, executive director at the Border Network for Human Rights.

Whatever the result, politics is not going to be the same. It is not only the soul of a nation but what an American is supposed to be, he continued. In the last four years, weve seen unprecedented situations at the border: children in cages, people rejected, walls erected in our neighborhoods.

Garcia spoke on issues that he says are indicative of the federal governments desire to militarize the border and criminalize migrants and refugees.

Wed like to think thats not the character of our country, said Garcia, that immigrants are not criminals, but assets.

Whatever the results, it is our duty and the American way to pass comprehensive immigration reform to allow immigrants to live in this country with dignity, Garcia continued.

Diocese of El Paso Bishop Mark Seitz addressed the pervasive senses of anxiety, frustration and desperation that many are feeling while states work to tally the votes.

Were choosing a President not a Savior, said Seitz, reminding the community of its duty to protect the vulnerable and those in need.

Seitz underscored the many challenges migrants and refugees have faced prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the zero tolerance policy established in March designed to halt immigration into the U.S. from the Mexican border.

There are no practical methods for people who need to cross the border to gain legal access into the U.S., argued Seitz.

The welcome mat has been removed and replaced by a wall, he said.

Issues of racism domestic and foreign were buttressed by efforts to examine and change these systems in El Paso.

Pastor Michael Grady, who serves on the El Paso Accountability Task Force, says its the task forces mission to uncover systemic racism in the Borderland, speak truth to power and demand accountability to meet the needs of those served by the El Paso Police Department.

We must have law enforcement who is not prejudiced, but rather are dedicated to serving those who have been left out, the disenfranchised, said Grady.The thing to bring us together is not the law its empathy.

Despite an overwhelming sense of confusion and bleakness, community leaders urge El Pasoans to be proud of the organization and mobilization of voters.

You went out there to vote during the middle of a pandemic, despite the dangers and the hurdles, said Cemelli de Aztlan, a network weaver at the El Paso Equal Voice Network.

I read a thousand El Pasoans are going to die by December from COVID-19 and the election doesnt change that, she said.But you went out there with your sanitizers and your masks and you voted.

Latest Headlines

Read the original:
Local leaders discuss election outcomes on immigration policies and the Borderland - KTSM 9 News

Colorado knows where it stands after sending a strong rebuke to President Donald Trump and making it clear that we are a solidly blue state in terms of both representation and policy matters. But as a nation, we are in crisis drowning in division and floundering for a way forward. Colorados rejection of Trump, and the installation of a second moderate senator, could be a life-line if wed only grab it.

Former Vice President Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump in Colorado by a 14% margin, a 9% increase over Clintons margin in 2016. In what was once pegged as the top Senate race in the country, former Gov. John Hickenlooper flipped an important senate seat after decisively defeating Sen. Cory Gardner by 10 points.

Democrats expanded their majority in the state Senateto 20 seats of out 35and held their 41-seat majorityout of 65 seatsin the House. The Senate majority could reach 22 seats before all races are settled.

Progressive statewide ballot measures were adopted as well. Colorado passed an amendment to create a new state-run paid family medical leave program in Colorado funded by employee and employer contributions by 14%, repealed the Gallagher Amendment and became the latest state to adopt an agreement among states to elect the president by a national popular vote. And, they soundly defeated a 22-week abortion ban amendment by 18%.

Republicans sole bright spot in Colorado was with the narrow victory of political newcomer Lauren Boebert in the hotly contested 3rd Congressional District, which was previously a Republican seat held by Congressman Scott Tipton.

Regardless of the clear-cut Colorado outcome, the most important question remains: will our democracy and institutions be structurally sound in the aftermath of the election results? We have seen the spoiled fruits of this division play out in Washington and in every corner of our great country.

The close election outcome reflects a country deeply divided with the outcome likely to be litigated as Trump has begun filing lawsuits in order to obtain an electoral advantage and victory.

If the system was working, Congress would have negotiated and passed a much-needed stimulus package instead of rushing through a partisan Supreme Court justice nomination, whose vote could potentially decide the outcome of our presidential election and do Trumps business to overturn Roe and the Affordable Care Act.

If the system was working, our leaders would be working to address systemic racism, social justice reform and pass a police reform accountability package, much like Colorados.

If the system was working, we wouldnt be playing pandemic politics with peoples lives.

America is a powder keg waiting to explode.

This is the reason why stores across the country boarded-up doors and windows and hired extra security as cities brace for election unrest. This is a moment of great uncertainty and deep divisions. Politics is a blood sport, but governing should not be. Americans are tired of the knife fight in the alley. Our country desperately needs to heal these wounds and find a workable path forward.

We have been here before.

One hundred and fifty-five years ago, the Civil War was coming to an end. Abraham Lincoln, a statesman for the ages, delivered his six-minute second inaugural address aimed at healing a divided nation. Lincoln talked about slavery as the true cause of the Civil War and how both the North and South were complicit for this moral offense.

Lincoln then called on Americas better angels for reunification. With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nations wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

America will survive this election, but if we are going to heal our national wounds we need to channel Lincoln through strong, principled leadership from Democrats and Republicans alike.

In Colorado, our state Democratic leaders, who control every branch of government, must not forget about the huge portions of Colorado that are disenfranchised from them and who do not feel represented by state government.

In Washington, our leaders are out of touch with whats best for Americans. Senator-elect Hickenlooper will have an important role to play alongside his once and future colleague, Sen. Michael Bennet. Bennet, who once served as Denver Mayor Hickenloopers chief of staff and played a significant role in persuading Hickenlooper to run for the U.S. Senate.

Bennet was part of a bipartisan Gang of 8 senators who collaborated on immigration reform; he understands the importance of working across the aisle.

Hickenlooper doesnt just talk the talk about collaboration; he brought cities together that didnt get along when he became mayor, and worked to build the nations best economy by collaborating with the public and private sector, moving us from 40th to 1st in job creation.

In his second inaugural address as governor, Hickenlooper aptly summed up his style of governing when he said, I believe there is no margin in making enemies. I believe that if we are willing to compromise and collaborate on what may seem like an imperfect solution, it is far better than if we cling to entrenched positions and work against one another in pursuit of different, allegedly perfect solutions. Progress, even if incremental, is better than gridlock.

There wont be surprises with Hickenlooper. He has always said that nooneparty has all of the answers and that he will follow the facts and science, while consulting his heart and conscience to look for solutions that will benefit the most Coloradans. That recipe has served us well and can be an important bridge to building a powerful legacy in Washington.

For this dynamic duo to bind up the nations wounds of our day, we voters need to let the representatives weve elected know that the partisan blood sport is over; we now expect them to do the governing that we elected them to do and place country over party.

To fail to do so is to lose track of the entire point of democracy that we can self-govern because we can listen and compromise. Lincoln understood that the fight only mattered if it was followed by healing. Do we?

Doug Friednash is a Denver native, a partner with the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck and the former chief of staff for Gov. John Hickenlooper.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

See the original post:
Friednash: Colorado rejects Trump and throws a life-line to the nation - The Denver Post

When polls suggested that President Donald Trump might lose badly on Election Day, some vulnerable Republican senators started tiptoeing away from him particularly on his handling of the pandemic. He also faced criticism for not clearly denouncing a white supremacist group during the first presidential debate.

Now that Mr. Trump has overperformed expectations in the election results, and still has a shot at winning, party officials are circling the wagons. His grip on the party seems as tight as ever. And even if he loses, he will remain the partys leader, at least through the midterms and likely until theres a clear GOP presidential front-runner for 2024.

As a political agenda, Trumpism is part Reagan Republicanism lower taxes, less government regulation, cultural conservatism plus a pivot toward a hard line on immigration and an America First approach to foreign policy. Its also infused with old-fashioned populism.

And its here to stay.

Says veteran political analyst Stuart Rothenberg: The Trump wing of the Republican Party is the Republican Party, and its big enough now such that it would take a stunning blow to get those people to reassess.

Washington

President Donald Trump may lose reelection, but if the nail-biter contest of 2020 has shown anything, its that Trumpism is here to stay.

As a political agenda divorced from the more controversial aspects of his personality and style, Trumpism is part Reagan Republicanism lower taxes, less government regulation, cultural conservatism plus a pivot toward a hard line on immigration and an America First approach to foreign policy. Its also infused with old-fashioned populism, in its appeal to Americans who feel forgotten by the powerful.

As long as President Trump himself remains in the public eye which he is expected to do, win or lose his outsize persona will ensure that his political brand dominates the Republican Party for the foreseeable future.

But the preeminence of Trumpism within the GOP is not just about one mans ability to garner attention and appeal to a significant portion of the electorate. Its also about the deeper currents of thought that he has tapped into and which long predated his fateful ride down the escalator at Trump Tower in June 2015.

For the past 40 years, our political paradigm has shifted from left versus right to front versus back, says Mo Elleithee, director of the Institute of Politics and Public Service at Georgetown University.

Its about people who feel stuck at the back of the line versus those at the front who they feel are keeping them back, he says.

In Mr. Trumps terms, its about fighting the swamp the Washington establishment, of both parties, that he says are in it for themselves, not hardworking Americans.

In recent memory, a series of outsider presidents has come to Washington from Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, all of whom staked claims to addressing concerns of the little guy.

But nobody can match the sheer disruptiveness of Mr. Trump, both in style and policy. The presidents continuing popularity within the Republican base means that he still holds the party in his thrall, regardless of how GOP leaders feel.

The Trump wing of the Republican Party is the Republican Party, and its big enough now such that it would take a stunning blow to get those people to reassess, says veteran political analyst Stuart Rothenberg.

When polls suggested that Mr. Trump might lose badly on Election Day, some vulnerable Republican senators started tiptoeing away from him particularly on his handling of the pandemic. He also faced criticism for not clearly denouncing a white supremacist group during the first presidential debate.

Now that Mr. Trump has overperformed expectations in the election results, and still has an outside shot at winning, party officials are circling the wagons. His grip on the party seems as tight as ever. And even if he loses, he will remain the partys leader, at least through the midterms and likely until theres a clear GOP presidential front-runner for 2024.

Its also possible Mr. Trump will run again for president himself. At the very least, he is expected to maintain a public presence via Twitter, public appearances, possibly his own media venture which would allow him to keep the embers of a potential political comeback burning bright.

For experienced party hands, Mr. Trump is a wonder to behold. In early 2013, Henry Barbour, Republican National Committee member from Mississippi, co-wrote a report on the future of the GOP. Dubbed the autopsy, it aimed to reimagine a more inclusive party, following presidential nominee Mitt Romneys loss in 2012.

Most memorably, the report embraced comprehensive immigration reform, in an effort to recast the party as more welcoming to minorities. At the time, Mr. Trump lashed out against that recommendation: Does the @RNC have a death wish? he tweeted.

The rest is history. He launched his 2016 campaign by railing against unauthorized Mexican immigrants. Build the wall has been a Trump rallying cry ever since.

Certainly, the presidents tone on immigration is not consistent with what we wrote in the report, Mr. Barbour says in an interview. It is what it is.

But, he notes, the president did better Tuesday than he did four years ago with Latino voters as well as African Americans. And he points to a logic in Mr. Trumps approach.

Thats something we missed in the report, Mr. Barbour says. How do we consistently win working-class voters of all backgrounds?

At heart, the future of Trumpism is very much tied to the legions of Americans he has brought into his orbit, including first-time voters some of whom have sat out many elections but are now invested in Mr. Trump and his goals.

Mr. Trump has won many converts, such as Steven Mosley of Alexandria, Virginia, who works in higher education. Four years ago, he didnt vote for Mr. Trump but on Tuesday, he did.

He is the only Republican in my lifetime that actually said he was going to do something and did it, says Mr. Mosley, who points to judicial appointments, moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and defunding Planned Parenthood.

All political parties are coalitions, as is the Trump electorate effectively the Republican Party, minus the Never Trumpers. Not all Trump voters like his brash style but many do, citing his willingness to fight hard and flout norms.

A lot of his base, they love his behavior, says Dick Wadhams, a veteran GOP strategist in Colorado.

Others are willing to vote for Mr. Trump in spite of his style, citing his traditional Republican approach to taxes and regulation.

For now, GOP strategists say, Mr. Trump is the Republican Party. To some Never Trumpers a slice of the Republican elite that cannot abide the presidents persona or values a Trump loss in the presidential race would mean the end of his party control.

Trumpism is a cult, says Rick Tyler, a former top aide to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. And if Mr. Trump loses the election, the cult goes away.

To University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket, Trumpism represents a loyalty to him rather than to any specific ideology. Its an alternative to conservatism.

Indeed, perhaps Mr. Trumps most significant departure from conservatism is his seeming lack of care about the debt and deficit, even before the pandemic.

Other analysts see a certain logic in Trumpism.

Trumpism itself has a much more anti-globalist ideology than traditional Republicanism, says Brandice Canes-Wrone, a political scientist at Princeton University. Its more generous in terms of social insurance; hes not trying to significantly reform Social Security or Medicare, or even indicating any interest in doing that.

She notes that elements of Trumpism adhere to traditional Republican philosophy, including in its conservative judicial philosophy and its approach to taxes and regulation.

Those areas are consistent, Professor Canes-Wrone says. But the anti-globalism and even the kind of strong preservation of Social Security and Medicare and the willingness to spend a lot during the pandemic, you could say anyone would do that. But with Trump, you dont sense the kind of hesitation you might find with a more traditional Republican.

How Mr. Trump would handle a second term a live possibility at time of writing could go a long way to determining the future of the GOP. One important question: How would he behave, given that he would no longer need to campaign, at least for himself?

Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox.

He could take a look at how his own behavior clouded the success of his administration over these past four years, and make the decision to be different, says Mr. Wadhams. Or he could double down and be even more confrontational than he was the first term.

Staff writer Noah Robertson contributed to this report.

Continued here:
Why Trumpism is here to stay - The Christian Science Monitor