‘Trump looks good for reelection’: political analysts discuss 2020 race

The panelists included Lori Cox Han, far left, Megan Carvalho, left, Adam Robak, middle, John Thomas, right. Brian Calle, far right, was the moderator. MIA FORTUNATO Photo Editor

Presidential scholars, political analysts and campaign strategists reflected on the 2020 United States presidential primary election results at the Election Analysis and Postmortem: Perspectives from the Left, Right and Center event March 4. The event was hosted by The Center for Freedom of Expression and Media Integrity.

The panel discussed political topics, such as the likelihood of a female president, the divide of the Democratic Party and the high chance of reelection of President Donald Trump.

The panel consisted of Lori Cox Han, Adam Robak, Megan Carvalho, John Thomas and was moderated by Brain Calle, the executive director of the center. Robak, a digital and communications director, and Carvalho, a political director, work as campaign strategists for J & Z Strategies, a firm that specializes in local, state and federal campaigns across the United States. Han is a Chapman political science professor and Thomas is an on-air commentator for Fox News, political analyst for KFI AM 640 and Republican campaign strategist.

Before Senator Elizabeth Warren officially exited the democratic primary race March 5, the odds of electing a female president in the 2020 election cycle were nonexistent according to Han, who is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on electing a woman president.

“Elizabeth Warren no longer has a path forward and there is talk about her endorsing Bernie Sanders to consolidate the progressive side of the party,” Han said. “If Democrats don’t put a woman on the ticket this year, they deserve to lose in this political environment.”

Despite preaching diversity and inclusion, the Democratic Party does not represent it, stated Thomas who claimed to be the “lone Trump supporter” at CNN.

“I could always count back from 10 until they would call me a racists, misxygeous, homophobic,” Thomas said. “You insert the insult because I am a white, male, Republican and that (Republicans) don’t elect women and are not woke. Yet the Democrats had a huge field and they could have nominated Julian Castro, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris. The list goes on, but no they didn’t. It was between three really old white guys and now it’s basically two.”

Tom Perez, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair, has also killed off diversity in the Democratic Party by implementing the small donor threshold for the November debate stages, according to Thomas. The small donor threshold forced Democratic candidates like Cory Booker and Julian Castro to “spend absurd amounts of money” for donor acquisition online, occasionally having to spend $60 to $70 for a one dollar donor.

With tremendous amounts of energy and large grassroot campaign support, Sanders would be more successful than Democratic candidate Joe Biden when running against Trump, Han said.

“(In Sanders’ campaign) there is excitement, there is movement and it’s issue oriented,” Han said. “With Biden last night, I didn’t hear one policy, one position, one program and no ideas. You can be out on the campaign trail and yell ‘What’s the deal, what’s the deal’ over and over again, but there is no agenda there.” As of March 8, Sanders won the California Presidential Primary and received 186 delegates, according to The Associated Press. However, Biden has proven successful in gaining 148 California delegates despite a financially broke campaign and ceasing to air campaign commercials on Feb. 29, according to the panel. iii“If you want to know what the Democratic Party is about, when you listen to Bernie Sanders, whether you like his view of the world or not, you know what he is about and his supporters know that,” Han said. “With Biden, I don’t know. This is a candidate who sometimes doesn’t know where he is and what office he is running for.”

The current divide of the Democratic Party has strengthened President Donald Trump’s chance of reelection, according to Han.

“If I had to put money on it right now and a lot of things can happen, I think Trump looks good for reelection,” Han said. “Not necessarily because he is Trump, but because the Democrats have not put up a viable option and I don’t see any clarity.”

Questioning the influence and status of the current president, a student from the audience asked Thomas if he believed that kids should aspire to behave like Trump.

“I feel like if I acted and used the words and demeaning way that President Trump tweets to others, a recruiter would never hire me,” the student said. “Do you support that? Is that a presidential quality that we should see after moving forward?”

When selecting a president, Thomas looks for qualities like economic growth and deregulation and doesn’t encourage role models to come from politicians.

“I don’t look towards my politicians to be my role models. I drive my morals from other places, not politicians,” Thomas answered the student.

The United States needs to reconsider the meaning of “presidential” and society’s tendency to place president’s up on a pedestal, according to Han. Although Trump is not the inspirational figure that former President Barack Obama was to many, it has forced people to rethink what it means to be presidential. The chances of having an inspirational president are low because the nature of the profession doesn’t thrive on those qualities demonstrated through past “despicable” presidents.

“You think Trump is the worst president we’ve ever had? I’m here to tell you he’s not,” Han said. “One of the most heroic presidents of all time, John F. Kennedy, I want you to compare his personal life to Donald Trump. Right?”

The panel discussed how the ESPN effect in politics has prohibited candidates from presenting their political stances.

“The plurality of voters in this country are actually neither Democrat or Republican,” Han said. The news media serves the needs of the extremes and it serves the needs of how the parties are so hyper-partisan. It’s always winners, losers, us versus them, red versus blue. We never get the information that we need as citizens.”