From Rejection to Reelection: What Changed?

I don't want to rehash my thoughts on the unresolved questions surrounding the 2020 election results. However, there are questions worth exploring without necessarily having to dive directly into the big question. If Joe Biden won the election in 2020, and we have no real evidence to prove otherwise at this point, Joe Biden's election was essentially a rejection of Trump, right?

Without any evidence to suggest otherwise, that's all we can go with. Despite Trump's numerous achievements—unless you ask Democrats, who are deeply riddled with Trump Derangement Syndrome—there was apparently something about Trump that didn't sit well enough with voters to give him a second term.

Until now, of course. Trump's reelection was clearly a decisive rejection of Biden. Or at least, voters rejected his agenda. Biden conceded his nomination to Harris after that abysmal debate performance, which confirmed what the right had been saying all along that the left vehemently denied.

Joe Biden was suffering a serious mental decline.

And what was the agenda laid out by Kamala Harris on the campaign trail? Basically, it was Joe Biden part two with some extra liberal policy thrown in for good measure.

So, one has to ask. What just happened here? How did we come full circle?

Did Trump's stage presence or demeanor change? No. Did he offer different policies than those in his first term? No. Is his vision for America different this time? No. Are the prospects for America's future different than they were at the end of his first term? No. 

So, if it wasn't good enough then, why did voters sing his praises so decisively now? What changed? Aside from Biden's abysmal term in office, which sent the country backwards 40 years with skyrocketing gas and energy prices, inflation through the roof, and the world at war. What happened?

Did voters see the light and have a change of heart? Did we suddenly realize a colossal mistake? When we look back at Biden's election, we're not talking about small numbers. He received 81 million votes, the highest number of votes a president has ever been elected with in American history. In that context, voters' rejection of Trump was equally on a historical level we've never seen before.

Granted, it makes his comeback quite remarkably historic as well, all things considered.

It would be one thing if Trump's presidency would have been laden with disasters and failures. But that wasn't the case. So, are we to presume Trump was rejected simply because people didn't like him, despite his highly successful policies? Is that why people came out to vote in such high numbers?

Let's not discount the fact that Trump's popularity did not wane. In fact, it grew by 11 million votes. That's right. Trump got 11 million more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016—a feat that, for any president before him, would have guaranteed a second term without question.

I will grant that in the beginning, we may have had doubts about Trump's running again. For a while Ron DeSantis seemed to be the Knight in Shining Armor to save us. But his popularity quickly waned, and before you knew it, Trump was front and center again. 

This, despite all the added baggage thrown into the muck pile by the media, the left, and the courts, indicting him with anything they could find, trying to slice and dice him the court of public opinion, even convicting him. 

Trump's reelection almost forces us to believe, once again, something the left has vehemently denied. That the election was stolen. Trump never wavered from that belief. He continued to say it on the campaign trail, even telling the American people to make sure 2024 was too big to rig. And as the American people watched the Trump drama unfold before their eyes, it almost seems to suggest, considering his win, that more people agree with Trump about the possibility of a stolen election than disagree with him. 

Something was up. Even if we can't point directly at what that something was. It's there. Lurking in the shadows. Especially when you consider that, again, Trump never lost popularity once throughout any of this. 

He got 62.9 million votes in 2016. He got 74.2 million votes in 2020. And he won with 77.2 million votes in 2024. Regardless of what the truth is here, the only question I have is, how did Biden ever win in the first place against a man whose support has only been on an upward trend since day one?

Really. I am truly asking. What changed?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

One of the REAL Reason Trump's Skipping the Debates

Normally, and under normal circumstances, I'd lambaste someone for not attending any presidential debate, regardless of the side. While I don't think debates are the end all to be all, I do think that they are important to better understand our candidates and what they are running for or on.

Hell, I watch democrat debates all the time simply because I have always felt that in order to disagree with a democrat candidate, I need to know exactly what it is I disagree with. I don't have that answer if I choose not to tune in simply because I assume I will disagree with everything they have to say.

But I side with Trump on his decision not to participate, and it is not because I also happen to be a Trump supporter.

The question is, what substance would we expect to get out of Trump's participation? What could we learn about his plan for America? What could we learn about his thoughts on Ukraine and issues facing us regarding the border? About taxes. About the economy? About inflation?

The simple answer is, we'd learn nothing at all. Because those questions would not be the types of questions anyone would be interested in asking him. It would all be about the false indictments and bogus impeachments and the make-believe January 6th insurrection.

Not a single question he'd be asked would advance his campaign or offer us a better consideration of what he wants to do or will do if he were to be reelected.

Even when it comes to Fox News debates, no one ever bothers to put a real conservative on the panel. They always opt for the lefter leaning hosts. Chris Wallace in one of the 2020 debates all but tried to throw Trump under the bus and frankly trampled all over him disgustingly.

And that's me saying that despite my very real take-away from those 2020 debates that Trump did an extremely poor job at them. But I have been critical of Trump many times in the past for various antics. But it never wavered my thoughts about his presidency, which I think is important.

I continue to be displeased with some of his antics as I think it detracts from the real issues we face and his real answers as to how we solve them, and as I have said time and time again, sometimes his own antics leave him in a spot to make those antics the focus rather than the substance of his message.

People need to hear his message.

But that goes right back to why he's dismissed himself from the debate stage. Even if he does attend the debates, his message will be moot. Because again, no one will ask him about the message. What Trump would essentially be agreeing to by attending the debates would be to accepting an invitation to a literal non-comedic roasting which would focus entirely on things that matter very little to the American people.

In an odd way you could make a comparison here to a jury trial and the right decision many lawyers often make not to put the accused on the stand. Optics. Or the possibility of bad optics which would do more harm than good in defending their case.

In other words, while the optics of Trump's not attending the debates, in the eyes of some, is bad optics in and of itself, the fact is that if he were to attend, the optics may well likely be much worse.

Part of the problem is what debates have really become. Hosts are chosen essentially by what side the particular media outlet has decided they want to support and advance. And so, the questions themselves are often geared toward driving a particular narrative rather than getting to the heart of the important questions.

Trump has also realized this from the 2020 debates specifically. Even if his performance, by my measure, was horrible, I also had to honestly step away and ask myself, was his performance driven by just Trump being Trump, or was it driven by the manner and types of questions he was being asked?

The media has been rife with so much bias anymore that one might even rightly question whether or not debates are even an important part of the question of who is best to lead. As I said before, I have found them to be helpful in order to better understand where candidates are coming from. But is that really true anymore?

The real question is, does it hurt him? I don't know the answer to that. I will say that so far it doesn't seem to have done any damage at all, and in fact, may even be helping him tremendously. The closest second in the race is Ron DeSantis and by every measure he's so far behind Trump right now that in most cases we'd have already decided he stands no chance.

So, the likelihood that Trump will indeed be the GOP nominee appears to be almost imminent. Which is perhaps another reason Trump has decided to bow out of the debates. It's already been decided and so why bother with the debates at all? Just focus on the campaign and reaching out directly to the people who are interested in his message and be able to freely offer the message he wants to deliver instead of the message the media would rather be heard.

Did you know that The Springboard has a YouTube channel? Check it out for discussions of money, investing, business and other related things. You can also follow The Springboard on his Facebook page.

Biden Can Win 'Overwhelmingly' Against Trump in 2020?

OKAY, SO OLD UNCLE JOE IS A LIKEABLE GUY. Albeit, based on a number of pictures that have made their course across the Internet, he's also a bit of a creepy old guy. In other words, as horrible as it may sound, keep him away from the kids and the damsels in general.

But, the question is can he win the presidency?

According to ex-DNC chair Ed Rendell, he seems to think so. In his words, "Biden is just the guy the country is looking for."

WHILE I APPLAUD ED RENDELL on his analysis, and while I do also believe that BIDEN WOULD HAVE LIKELY BEEN A MUCH BETTER CHOICE THAN HILARY CLINTON AS THE FRONT RUNNER FOR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY in the last election, and MAY have even given Trump less of an edge, the fact remains that despite what the polls suggest, President Trump is still highly popular after one year into his presidency.

Add in the fact that despite what the lamestream news media will tell you, things are actually getting done, and Biden loses handily in 2020. 

And let's face it folks. The news is only going to get better. The fact is that you cannot argue with something very fundamental in the hearts and minds of the American people, and most importantly the AMERICAN VOTER. 

That's their pocketbooks and wallets if you want to know.

FOR ONE THING, THE NEW TAX LAW WILL BEGIN TO SHOW IT'S IMPACT AS EARLY AS FEBRUARY. That is, that's when the withholding tables are changed to reflect the recently passed new republican tax law. People are going to see a boost in their bottom lines come February, and if you think that won't be noticeable you are living on another planet.

Along with that, nobody can deny that so many economic standards are in territories that have not been seen for at least a decade, and I'd argue not in two of them, people HAVE TO ALREADY BE TAKING NOTICE THAT THE ECONOMY IS IN A MUCH BETTER PLACE THAN IT EVER WAS DURING THE OBAMA TERMS.

GDP is up, Hispanic unemployment is at historical lows, and so is the black unemployment rate. Consumer confidence is up. Jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector are making a bit of a comeback, and there are now more incentives than there have been in a very long time not only for American manufacturers to keep their shops open, but ADD OR REINTRODUCE SHOPS, and for some foreign companies, to LOCATE shops here.

Foxconn, which will be breaking ground in the near future in Wisconsin that will employ better than 13,000 people making over $50,000 a year on average, is a prime example of what's to come. They have never operated in the United States before. So this is quite an amazing development to say the least.

AND REALLY FOLKS, THAT'S JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBURG. The fact is that there are going to be many more stories like that now that the corporate tax rate has been lowered to much favorable rates. Add in the reduction in costs for things like transporting those goods across oceans and you have a recipe well poised for success. And believe me, JOBS will follow, and Americans WILL take notice of the increased availability of not just jobs. But good ones that support families in terms of wages.

Furthermore then, what does Joe Biden have to run on? How is he going to support what will be the ever more clear failed economic policies of an administration he was part of, downplay what will be ever more clear SUCCESSFUL POLICIES in economic terms under Trump, and position himself as a strong contender better suited for the White House?

UNLESS SOMETHING DRAMATICALLY BAD HAPPENS BETWEEN NOW AND 2020, I think the only rightful conclusion for Joe Biden's viability in 2020, and for Ed Rendell's analysis is wishful thinking.

But it also highlights a continuing disconnect, in my opinion, of the democrat party from reality. They are still unable to acknowledge the real reasons Clinton lost, and they continue to disregard what are real accomplishments and achievements of the Trump administration. They are really disillusioned. They are living in a fantasy world.

Look. Do I think Biden would make a bad president? I'm not saying that. But I AM saying that I think what we are going to see after the first four years is said and done with Trump in the White House is a highly successful presidency with undeniable and provable results that even the most staunch liberals in the lamestream media are not going to be able to deny, much less cover up or slant in their usual way.

Can Biden win against Trump overwhelmingly in 2020? If I am basing the idea on anything current, the answer is a resounding no. Trump will serve two terms. And those two terms are going to be a successful presidency that will mimic former successes like Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan, and okay...I'll give you Bill Clinton. You can't deny he was a successful president too.

BEYOND ALL THAT, I think based on his age alone, Biden will be a nominee if he decides to run, and I think he just might. But he will never be in the White House again. Trump's going to be too successful, and the clock is not on Biden's side. Just saying.