Although Trump is expected to make a comeback in the 2024 election, the New York Times published an article titled 'Trump Shows Signs of Defeat' on November 17, suggesting that Trump is sowing the seeds for his future failure. The author of the article is the paper's columnist David French. Excerpts from the article are as follows: It’s happening fast. Trump is sowing the seeds of his political demise. He has appointed corrupt, incompetent, and extreme officials to many of the most critical positions in his cabinet, which is a direct threat to the nation's welfare and a political threat to Trump and his populist allies. To understand the reason, it is key to remember a basic fact about Trump's political career.

To this day, in the two elections he has won, he is the only alternative to the unsatisfactory status quo, and in the one election he lost, he was the unsatisfactory status quo. If he cannot govern the country properly, his populist party will fall apart before any real restructuring begins. One of the most maddening aspects of the 2024 election is that many voters see Trump as a very normal political candidate; while Republicans who support 'Make America Great Again' (MAGA) see Trump as a unique figure.

A large number of voters feel that discussions about Trump have become too intense in both directions. If you, like most Americans, do not closely follow the news, it is easy to understand why you would view Trump in a more traditional light. An analysis of Trump's campaign ads by Politico shows that 'since early October, the most frequently aired ads during his campaign have been about inflation, healthcare, and social security—claiming that Harris would make seniors, who are already struggling with high prices, 'pay more in social security taxes,' while 'illegal' immigrants would benefit.

"This is normal, traditional political messaging. Trump's ads attacking Harris for her past support of taxpayer-funded gender reassignment surgeries for people in prisons and immigration detention centers are also a call to the mainstream, trying to label Harris as extreme. One challenge facing American politics is that although many Americans are involved in presidential elections, only a very small number of voters remain active. The concerns of these two groups are not the same and can even be quite different. Most people care about issues that directly affect their lives—prices, crime, peace. If people feel unsafe on the streets, or are struggling to make ends meet, how much concern is there about democracy? In contrast, those who closely follow politics are a minority, but they pay attention to issues that are more abstract or niche for most people. Because most voters drop out after voting, politicians almost only listen to the opinions of the most active few.

For example, my colleague Ezra Klein once wrote an article about the influence of 'groups' (referring to progressive activist organizations) on the Democratic Party's governance. They demand politicians focus on issues that might be important but are often only of concern to a few. This dynamic leads to a tug-of-war in many administrations. On one hand, a small number of activists demand the government pay attention to their favored causes; on the other hand, the majority of political pragmatists grab the candidate's arm with one hand while pointing to the 'the issue is the economy, stupid' sign with the other. Then, every few years, the majority of political pragmatists re-engage, judging whether politicians have addressed issues of prices, crime, and peace. And for that small number of activists, whether their demands are met or not, they will be ruthlessly punished—though political realists may also agree with their demands. Trump's situation is different. He is troubled by his and his supporters' dissatisfaction. Activists and political pragmatists are not engaged in a tug-of-war to attract the politician's attention; rather, it is the political pragmatists who are under siege from the other two sides. This is the clear direction of Trump's first term.

At first, he was surrounded by serious people. But those serious people told him no. They tried to curb his worst instincts. So they were purged. Throughout the campaign, Trump communicated two messages. On the airwaves, he convinced millions of Americans that they were voting for the Trump of January 2019, when inflation was lower and the border was reasonably controlled. At rallies, he made those who wanted to 'Make America Great Again' believe they were voting for the Trump of January 2021, who was free from establishment control and determined to destroy everything. But his fundamental problem is this: his inner desires and the dissatisfaction of his supporters ultimately clash with the demands of the majority; the more he pursues his own priorities, the more he will revive the opposition. His political career will end with an unpopular politician. The reasons go beyond ideology (many of his nominees are extremists) or scandals (for instance, Kennedy, Hegseth, and Matt Gaetz are all implicated in sexual scandals). At the end of the day, it comes down to competence: can you perform the job we ultimately hire you for? Yes, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted issues within the Department of Health and Human Services, but can hiring someone who claims 'no vaccine is safe and effective' really improve the healthcare bureaucracy? Is someone who claims 'COVID-19 attacks white people and black people' qualified for this job? One can't help but wonder how long a populist movement can sustain itself in the face of a surge in preventable childhood diseases. Hegseth is a host at Fox and has never managed any organization of significant size. Gaetz is a political gadfly with almost no professional experience. The same question remains, setting aside ideology and scandals, are they capable of leading the two largest and most important bureaucracies in America? If Trump had proposed an effective national crime control strategy during his campaign, would anyone think Gaetz is the best candidate for that job? Yet Trump insists that Gaetz is the best choice for Attorney General.

# As one of Trump's advisers said to the press, "No lawyer can meet Trump's demands, and they don't speak like Gates." The adviser also said, "Others see the Attorney General as a person to apply for judicial appointments; they talk about their boastful legal theories and constitutional axioms. Only Gates says, 'Yes, I'm going there to start chopping heads.'" Kansas Senator Roger Marshall defended Trump's nomination, saying, "Trump was elected to disrupt this place." That is Trump's thinking. That is the thinking of MAGA. But MAGA should be careful. If Trump's cabinet choices can only bring him chaos, then the question will not be whether voters will condemn MAGA again, but how much damage will be done before MAGA fails again.#BabyMarvinf9c7值得拥🈶