Why Trump’s mouth and Democrats’ money keep landslide dreams out of reach

New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin recently endorsed Donald Trump for president but with a caveat: Trump should be “heading toward a landslide” due to his opponent's failed policies and ineptitude, but the race remains tight because of Trump’s intemperate language. “His use of nasty, childish insults instead of arguments is part of an inexplicable pattern that turns off many voters,” Goodwin noted. “Day after day he calls opponents and critics dumb, stupid, lunatics, crazy, and idiots. Women are the most frequent targets.”

“If you were an undecided voter, especially a woman, would Trump calling Harris or Liz Cheney dumb or ‘stupid’ make you vote for him — or against him?”

For the Democrats and the left, Trump’s main problem is not his insulting language but his refusal to allow them to run things as they please.

I fully share Goodwin’s revulsion for some of the childish insults Trump throws at his opponents. Like Goodwin, I wish he would abandon this practice. I'll still vote for Trump, despite his speaking style, which annoys me as much as it does many critics. However, I also think this defect has little to do with why this election remains so close. More decisive factors are at play.

One, Democrats have a significantly larger war chest for this campaign, thanks to the generous backing of Hollywood moguls, corporate boards, and the Soros family, who are heavily financing Democratic candidates across the country. Republicans can't come close to matching these astronomical donations. Some previously secure Republican candidates, like Ted Cruz, have run out of campaign funds in their races. Cruz, for example, is struggling against his far-left opponent, Colin Allred. Allred, a congressman from Houston, has received $30 million in just three months, almost entirely from out-of-state Democratic donors.

Two, the corporate left-wing media overwhelmingly supports the Democrats. It's worked hard to defame Trump while promoting Kamala Harris’ hollow “politics of joy.” Over 90% of the information from these so-called purveyors of “facts” is biased toward the Democrats and the left. It hardly matters what the presidential candidates say or do; the media’s bias is evident in how it shapes the narrative for the public.

A large portion of the American electorate — roughly four in 10 — aligns with the left and is likely to vote for its candidates, regardless of how politely or impolitely competing candidates express their views. A Reuters poll shows that 41% of likely voters do not consider the illegal immigrants who have entered the country under the Biden-Harris administration to be a public threat.

What influences ideologically divided voters are the candidates’ positions on issues such as LGBT rights, Black Lives Matter, abortion, and asylum. Western countries have long displayed social and ideological divisions, and these splits have little to do with the tone of political rhetoric. American journalists, including Republican ones, tend to believe that “most of us are somewhere in the center.” While this may have been true during the Eisenhower era, there is little compelling evidence that it still holds today.

What proof exists that the impeccably polite JD Vance appeals to suburban women more than his outspoken running mate? Both candidates perform poorly with this group, unlike the culturally leftist, verbally stumbling Tim Walz, who attracts overwhelming support from progressive women. No evidence suggests that right-of-center candidates, whose speaking style Michael Goodwin and I appreciate and enjoy, would perform better than Trump among groups that reject his views.

Even more relevant, I don’t notice those who claim to be offended by Trump’s offensive language expressing the same revulsion for inflammatory language from the other side. Having spoken to gaggles of Harris voters, I haven’t heard any of them complain about how the Democratic Party and its media lackeys go after their Republican enemy.

Why is it that suburban women and chic professionals only hit the roof when Trump speaks but are not in the least offended by, say, Rep. Dan Goldman’s (D-N.Y.) call to “eliminate Trump”? In an effort to clean up Goldman’s enormity, Reuters assures us that it was spoken before the first assassination attempt on the former president. I’ve no idea how that makes Goldman’s statement less toxic or morally acceptable. Moreover, 28% of Democrats polled by Barron’s last month said that it would have been fine with them if Trump had been killed.

Even if Trump sounded like the mellifluous Vance or the well-ordered Ron DeSantis, that would not result in giving him a landslide. The growing political and cultural polarization in this country is unlikely to vanish even if Trump became a more tactful politician. For the Democrats and the left, Trump’s main problem is not his insulting language but his refusal to allow them to run things as they please. What is even worse for his enemies, this hated figure might win back the presidency in a few weeks.