What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

I mean Douthat wrote an entire book about this a decade ago:

Respectfully that doesn't address the issue at all.  What exactly has the GOP done in the past 10 years to promote successful marriages or "vibrant civic and religious institutions"? Trump isn't telling people to frequent their local Elks Club, he is telling them to attend his Numerbergish reality show rallies.

The GOP certainly hasn't promoted cultural solidarity, in fact Trump has gone hard core for a policy of cultural division and conflict. Unless "cultural solidarity" is code for everyone accepting traditional white primacy

Seems to me that it is Douthat pushing an "elistist" set of nostrums that has no connection to how Americans actually engage in political life. Social scientists geeks have been fretting about declining civic engagement ever since Robert Putnam published his Bowling Alone paper 30 years ago. Its clear now that regrettable or not, it's a secular trend that happens regardless of party of in power and I know of no major political movement in America to make any real attempt to address it.

[The Minsky Moment]

What now passes for conservative "civil engagement" is separately but collectively watching Fox News and then tweeting/facebooking about it in a social media bubble.  Douthat is living in an imaginary 1950s fantasyland.

[Syt]

Social scientists geeks have been fretting about declining civic engagement ever since Robert Putnam published his Bowling Alone paper 30 years ago.

Interesting; I read the other day that membership in political parties in the Germany has declined by 50% in the last 30 days (the only party to actually grow during the time period and hasn't been newly founded is the Greens).

You see it particularly in rural town and district assemblies where the "established parties" are often behind behind voter groups, i.e. hyperlocal political associations that don't have party status.

[Sheilbh]

Respectfully that doesn't address the issue at all.  What exactly has the GOP done in the past 10 years to promote successful marriages or "vibrant civic and religious institutions"? Trump isn't telling people to frequent their local Elks Club, he is telling them to attend his Numerbergish reality show rallies.

The GOP certainly hasn't promoted cultural solidarity, in fact Trump has gone hard core for a policy of cultural division and conflict. Unless "cultural solidarity" is code for everyone accepting traditional white primacy

I'm not arguing that Trump is following Douthat's model or that Douthat's right. I'm just saying this is a guy who spent ten years (at the peak of the Paul Ryan's a useful/interesting wonk moment) arguing that the GOP needed to focus on policies that support families and and helping create or re-inforce community bonds, and that there's a difference between being pro-market and being pro-business. I think it's unfair to say - it's all very well for Douthat to criticise Stepvens, he's not proposed an alternative. I think he has been for at least the last decade.

I mean more broadly I suppose where I agree with him is that the Republican party including their leadership or elites over the last 30 years are to a very large extent responsible for Trump. And they're not really grappling with what they did that maybe contributed to Trump's success (was this always there - were they always riding the tiger of a Trumpian base just hoping no-one would take advantage, or was this more of a hostile takeover - did they maybe hollow it out?) or how that affects what the Republican party should look like (is it worth saving, can it be saved?).

Obviously I've not read the book, it's just come out, but this is a pattern I'd notice in terms of New Labour memoirs there are some that give no indication that following them we'd get SNP-dominated Scotland, Corbyn and Brexit from the heartlands of the party and maybe they had some responsibility for it. There are other memoirs that are, I think far more productive, because they're quite self-reflective on the mistakes they made, the disconnect people were feeling etc.

Seems to me that it is Douthat pushing an "elistist" set of nostrums that has no connection to how Americans actually engage in political life. Social scientists geeks have been fretting about declining civic engagement ever since Robert Putnam published his Bowling Alone paper 30 years ago. Its clear now that regrettable or not, it's a secular trend that happens regardless of party of in power and I know of no major political movement in America to make any real attempt to address it.

I actually think that the whole Bowling Alone is now being challenged and it's just whether the nature of engagement or doing things together has changed over the last 30 years (which it definitely has). I think there's an argument that this is another type of inequality because I think some areas we're more connected/engaged with each other than ever before it's just not equally distributed.

What now passes for conservative "civil engagement" is separately but collectively watching Fox News and then tweeting/facebooking about it in a social media bubble.  Douthat is living in an imaginary 1950s fantasyland.

It's been a long time since I read his book but that was actually his point. Republicans live in a 1950s fantasyland of nuclear families, who part of the local bowling club etc etc. Democrats live(d?) in a 1950s fantasyland of well-paid secure jobs, with decent pensions and strong unionisation. Basically one was in a fantasy of 50s social politics and the other 50s economic politics. Douthat's argument, which I don't agree with, was that those two were linked and you couldn't get the economics if unless you were implementing measures to support families and you couldn't get the social results without a strong, equitable economic base - in terms of measures I think it was lots of things like tax credits, support for childcare costs etc.

[Valmy]

Of course the 1950s had incredibly high taxes as well 

[The Minsky Moment]

Of course the 1950s had incredibly high taxes as well 

High taxes, very high infrastructure and national R&D spending and stricter monopoly regulation at home, captive markets overseas.  1/3 of the world was walled off in Communist autarky, 1/3 was war-ravaged European countries rebuilding under American guidance, 1/3 impoverished plantation economies struggling through decolonization.

That world can't be recreated with a few more dollars in kiddie tax credits.

[Sheilbh]

Of course the 1950s had incredibly high taxes as well 

High taxes, very high infrastructure and national R&D spending and stricter monopoly regulation at home, captive markets overseas.  1/3 of the world was walled off in Communist autarky, 1/3 was war-ravaged European countries rebuilding under American guidance, 1/3 impoverished plantation economies struggling through decolonization.

That world can't be recreated with a few more dollars in kiddie tax credits.

Right. And even that was a bridge too far for the "sensible" conservatives running the GOP over the last few decades - because it's always 1986 and there's no issue that can't be solved with tax cuts.

[Syt]

Of course the 1950s had incredibly high taxes as well 

High taxes, very high infrastructure and national R&D spending and stricter monopoly regulation at home, captive markets overseas.  1/3 of the world was walled off in Communist autarky, 1/3 was war-ravaged European countries rebuilding under American guidance, 1/3 impoverished plantation economies struggling through decolonization.

That world can't be recreated with a few more dollars in kiddie tax credits.

Right. And even that was a bridge too far for the "sensible" conservatives running the GOP over the last few decades - because it's always 1986 and there's no issue that can't be solved with tax cuts.

It makes complete sense. "Let's cut taxes, so the extra money people/corporations keep stimulates the economy which leads to more taxes, that we can then cut!"

[Valmy]

A plan that has failed, with disastrous results, three times. I fully expect them to try it again if given the chance.

[The Minsky Moment]

1981 was the year of the Stockman supply side tax cut that went awry. 1986 was the year of bipartisan tax reform, the last time that happened sadly.

[merithyn]

G.O.P.-Led Senate Panel Details Ties Between 2016 Trump Campaign and Russia

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/senate-intelligence-russian-interference-report.html

A nearly 1,000-page report confirmed the special counsel's findings at a moment when President Trump's allies have sought to undermine that inquiry.

WASHINGTON — A sprawling report released Tuesday by a Republican-controlled Senate panel that spent three years investigating Russia's 2016 election interference laid out an extensive web of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Russian government officials and other Russians, including some with ties to the country's intelligence services.

The report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, totaling nearly 1,000 pages, provided a bipartisan Senate imprimatur for an extraordinary set of facts: The Russian government undertook an extensive campaign to try to sabotage the 2016 American election to help Mr. Trump become president, and some members of Mr. Trump's circle of advisers were open to the help from an American adversary.

The report drew to a close one of the highest-profile congressional inquiries in recent memory, one that the president and his allies have long tried to discredit as part of a "witch hunt" designed to undermine the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's stunning election nearly four years ago.

Like the investigation led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who released his findings in April 2019, the Senate report did not conclude that the Trump campaign engaged in a coordinated conspiracy with the Russian government — a fact that Republicans seized on to argue that there was "no collusion."

But the report showed extensive evidence of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and people tied to the Kremlin — including a longstanding associate of the onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, whom the report identifies as a "Russian intelligence officer."

The Senate report for the first time identified Mr. Kilimnik as an intelligence officer. Mr. Mueller's report had labeled him as someone with ties to Russian intelligence.

Democrats highlighted those ties in their own appendix to the report, noting that Mr. Manafort discussed campaign strategy and shared internal campaign polling data with Mr. Kilimnik, and later lied to federal investigators about his actions.

Democrats also laid out a potentially explosive detail: that investigators had uncovered information possibly tying Mr. Kilimnik to Russia's major election interference operations conducted by the intelligence service known as the G.R.U.

"The committee obtained some information suggesting that the Russian intelligence officer, with whom Manafort had a longstanding relationship, may have been connected to the G.R.U.'s hack-and-leak operation targeting the 2016 U.S. election," Democrats wrote. "This is what collusion looks like."

The assertion was a sign that even though the investigation was carried out in bipartisan fashion, and Republican and Democratic senators reached broad agreement on its most significant conclusions, a partisan divide remained on some of the most politically sensitive issues.

The White House sought to downplay the report, highlighting the Republican' conclusion that there was "no collusion." "This never-ending, baseless conspiracy theory peddled by radical liberals and their partners in the media demonstrates how incapable they are at accepting the will of the American people and the results of the 2016 election," a White House spokesman, Judd Deere, said in a statement. "They should stop wasting taxpayer dollars with partisan witch hunts and actually work to accomplish things for this country."

But the Senate report said that the unusual nature of the Trump campaign — staffed by Mr. Trump's longtime associates, friends and other businessmen with no government experience — "presented attractive targets for foreign influence, creating notable counterintelligence vulnerabilities."

The Senate investigation found that two other people who met at Trump Tower in 2016 with senior members of the Trump campaign — including Mr. Manafort; Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law; and Donald Trump Jr., the president's eldest son — had "significant connections to Russian government, including the Russian intelligence services."

The report said that the connections between the Russian government and one of the individuals, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, "were far more extensive and concerning than what had been publicly known."

Since the release of Mr. Mueller's report, Attorney General William P. Barr and numerous Republican senators have tried to discredit the special counsel's work — dismissing the investigation into the 2016 election as "Russiagate."

Releasing the report less than 100 days before Election Day, lawmakers hope it will refocus attention on the interference by Russia and other hostile foreign powers in the American political process, which has continued unabated.

The report is the product of one of the few congressional investigations in recent memory that retained bipartisan support throughout. Lawmakers and committee aides interviewed more than 200 witnesses and reviewed hundreds of thousands of documents, including intelligence reports, internal F.B.I. notes and correspondence among members of the Trump campaign. The committee convened blockbuster hearings in 2017 and 2018, but much of its work took place in a secure office suite out of public view.

Portions of the report containing classified or other sensitive information were blacked out.

The Intelligence Committee released four previous volumes on its findings over the past year. The first focused on election security and Russia's attempts to test American election infrastructure, and included policy recommendations to blunt future attacks. The second provided a detailed picture of Russia's use of social media to sow political divisions in the United States.

Lawmakers then produced a study of the response by the Obama administration and Congress in the highly partisan run-up to the 2016 election. Most recently, they found that a 2017 intelligence community assessment, assigning blame to Russia and outlining its goals to undercut American democracy, had been untainted by politics and was fundamentally sound despite attacks on it by Mr. Trump's allies.

The committee focused its work on intelligence and counterintelligence matters. It did not investigate attempts by Mr. Trump to hinder the work of federal investigators.

The report arrived in a fraught political moment, particularly for Republican senators on the panel who signed off on it and thus may find themselves at odds with Mr. Trump and other influential figures in their party. Since Mr. Mueller finished his work, Republicans close to Mr. Trump have sought to recast the president as the victim of politically motivated national security officials in the Obama administration.

The Justice Department's independent inspector general has found that law enforcement officials had sufficient basis to open the Russia investigation and acted without political bias.

But two other Senate panels, the Judiciary and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees, are conducting investigations premised on picking apart aspects of the special counsel's inquiry. And though they have not disputed Russia's interference, they have decidedly turned the party's focus away from the actions of a hostile foreign power toward the workings of the investigation it spawned, arguing that Mr. Mueller should never have been appointed and that the F.B.I. should have dropped any inquiry involving the Trump campaign long before he was.

The Justice Department is doing a similar post-mortem. Mr. Barr told a congressional committee last month that he was determined "to get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus 'Russiagate' scandal." He has appointed a criminal prosecutor, John H. Durham, to review the investigation and the actions of intelligence and law enforcement officials trying in 2016 to understand the Kremlin's interference and possible links to Trump associates.

Much of the Intelligence Committee investigation was overseen by Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina, but he temporarily stepped aside as the chairman of the panel in May because of a federal investigation into a rush of stock sales he made before the coronavirus pandemic began rattling the United States. As they watched a similar House investigation over Russian interference splinter under partisan bickering and Mr. Trump attacked Mr. Mueller, Mr. Burr and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the panel, worked steadily to ensure they could come to an authoritative bipartisan conclusion. Mr. Burr voted to endorse the final conclusions.

The findings broadly echo Mr. Mueller's conclusions. His report documented attempts by Moscow to undermine confidence in the electoral process and sway the election toward Mr. Trump by hacking and dumping Democratic emails and engaging in sophisticated manipulation campaigns using social media.

After years of work, Mr. Mueller found dozens of contacts between Trump associates and Russian-connected actors, evidence that the Trump campaign welcomed the Kremlin's attempts to sabotage the election and "expected it would benefit electorally" from the hacking and dumping of Democratic emails.

[The Brain]

Is this correct, DG?

[11B4V]

G.O.P.-Led Senate Panel Details Ties Between 2016 Trump Campaign and Russia

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/senate-intelligence-russian-interference-report.html

A nearly 1,000-page report confirmed the special counsel's findings at a moment when President Trump's allies have sought to undermine that inquiry.

WASHINGTON — A sprawling report released Tuesday by a Republican-controlled Senate panel that spent three years investigating Russia's 2016 election interference laid out an extensive web of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Russian government officials and other Russians, including some with ties to the country's intelligence services.

The report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, totaling nearly 1,000 pages, provided a bipartisan Senate imprimatur for an extraordinary set of facts: The Russian government undertook an extensive campaign to try to sabotage the 2016 American election to help Mr. Trump become president, and some members of Mr. Trump's circle of advisers were open to the help from an American adversary.

The report drew to a close one of the highest-profile congressional inquiries in recent memory, one that the president and his allies have long tried to discredit as part of a "witch hunt" designed to undermine the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's stunning election nearly four years ago.

Like the investigation led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who released his findings in April 2019, the Senate report did not conclude that the Trump campaign engaged in a coordinated conspiracy with the Russian government — a fact that Republicans seized on to argue that there was "no collusion."

But the report showed extensive evidence of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and people tied to the Kremlin — including a longstanding associate of the onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, whom the report identifies as a "Russian intelligence officer."

The Senate report for the first time identified Mr. Kilimnik as an intelligence officer. Mr. Mueller's report had labeled him as someone with ties to Russian intelligence.

Democrats highlighted those ties in their own appendix to the report, noting that Mr. Manafort discussed campaign strategy and shared internal campaign polling data with Mr. Kilimnik, and later lied to federal investigators about his actions.

Democrats also laid out a potentially explosive detail: that investigators had uncovered information possibly tying Mr. Kilimnik to Russia's major election interference operations conducted by the intelligence service known as the G.R.U.

"The committee obtained some information suggesting that the Russian intelligence officer, with whom Manafort had a longstanding relationship, may have been connected to the G.R.U.'s hack-and-leak operation targeting the 2016 U.S. election," Democrats wrote. "This is what collusion looks like."

The assertion was a sign that even though the investigation was carried out in bipartisan fashion, and Republican and Democratic senators reached broad agreement on its most significant conclusions, a partisan divide remained on some of the most politically sensitive issues.

The White House sought to downplay the report, highlighting the Republican' conclusion that there was "no collusion." "This never-ending, baseless conspiracy theory peddled by radical liberals and their partners in the media demonstrates how incapable they are at accepting the will of the American people and the results of the 2016 election," a White House spokesman, Judd Deere, said in a statement. "They should stop wasting taxpayer dollars with partisan witch hunts and actually work to accomplish things for this country."

But the Senate report said that the unusual nature of the Trump campaign — staffed by Mr. Trump's longtime associates, friends and other businessmen with no government experience — "presented attractive targets for foreign influence, creating notable counterintelligence vulnerabilities."

The Senate investigation found that two other people who met at Trump Tower in 2016 with senior members of the Trump campaign — including Mr. Manafort; Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law; and Donald Trump Jr., the president's eldest son — had "significant connections to Russian government, including the Russian intelligence services."

The report said that the connections between the Russian government and one of the individuals, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, "were far more extensive and concerning than what had been publicly known."

Since the release of Mr. Mueller's report, Attorney General William P. Barr and numerous Republican senators have tried to discredit the special counsel's work — dismissing the investigation into the 2016 election as "Russiagate."

Releasing the report less than 100 days before Election Day, lawmakers hope it will refocus attention on the interference by Russia and other hostile foreign powers in the American political process, which has continued unabated.

The report is the product of one of the few congressional investigations in recent memory that retained bipartisan support throughout. Lawmakers and committee aides interviewed more than 200 witnesses and reviewed hundreds of thousands of documents, including intelligence reports, internal F.B.I. notes and correspondence among members of the Trump campaign. The committee convened blockbuster hearings in 2017 and 2018, but much of its work took place in a secure office suite out of public view.

Portions of the report containing classified or other sensitive information were blacked out.

The Intelligence Committee released four previous volumes on its findings over the past year. The first focused on election security and Russia's attempts to test American election infrastructure, and included policy recommendations to blunt future attacks. The second provided a detailed picture of Russia's use of social media to sow political divisions in the United States.

Lawmakers then produced a study of the response by the Obama administration and Congress in the highly partisan run-up to the 2016 election. Most recently, they found that a 2017 intelligence community assessment, assigning blame to Russia and outlining its goals to undercut American democracy, had been untainted by politics and was fundamentally sound despite attacks on it by Mr. Trump's allies.

The committee focused its work on intelligence and counterintelligence matters. It did not investigate attempts by Mr. Trump to hinder the work of federal investigators.

The report arrived in a fraught political moment, particularly for Republican senators on the panel who signed off on it and thus may find themselves at odds with Mr. Trump and other influential figures in their party. Since Mr. Mueller finished his work, Republicans close to Mr. Trump have sought to recast the president as the victim of politically motivated national security officials in the Obama administration.

The Justice Department's independent inspector general has found that law enforcement officials had sufficient basis to open the Russia investigation and acted without political bias.

But two other Senate panels, the Judiciary and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees, are conducting investigations premised on picking apart aspects of the special counsel's inquiry. And though they have not disputed Russia's interference, they have decidedly turned the party's focus away from the actions of a hostile foreign power toward the workings of the investigation it spawned, arguing that Mr. Mueller should never have been appointed and that the F.B.I. should have dropped any inquiry involving the Trump campaign long before he was.

The Justice Department is doing a similar post-mortem. Mr. Barr told a congressional committee last month that he was determined "to get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus 'Russiagate' scandal." He has appointed a criminal prosecutor, John H. Durham, to review the investigation and the actions of intelligence and law enforcement officials trying in 2016 to understand the Kremlin's interference and possible links to Trump associates.

Much of the Intelligence Committee investigation was overseen by Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina, but he temporarily stepped aside as the chairman of the panel in May because of a federal investigation into a rush of stock sales he made before the coronavirus pandemic began rattling the United States. As they watched a similar House investigation over Russian interference splinter under partisan bickering and Mr. Trump attacked Mr. Mueller, Mr. Burr and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the panel, worked steadily to ensure they could come to an authoritative bipartisan conclusion. Mr. Burr voted to endorse the final conclusions.

The findings broadly echo Mr. Mueller's conclusions. His report documented attempts by Moscow to undermine confidence in the electoral process and sway the election toward Mr. Trump by hacking and dumping Democratic emails and engaging in sophisticated manipulation campaigns using social media.

After years of work, Mr. Mueller found dozens of contacts between Trump associates and Russian-connected actors, evidence that the Trump campaign welcomed the Kremlin's attempts to sabotage the election and "expected it would benefit electorally" from the hacking and dumping of Democratic emails.

#[email protected]!

[Razgovory]

But Legbiter said this is Hysteria!  How can this be?

[merithyn]

Given the recent discussion here, I thought this was interesting.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/08/18/all-the-republicans-who-have-endorsed-joe-biden-for-president/#335e549e5089

TOPLINE Though Trump has largely seized control of the Republican party and the loyalty of GOP officials, a number of prominent former GOP officials, and even some of his ex-staffers, have come out in favor of former Vice President Joe Biden.

Former Gov. John Kasich, who challenged Trump for the GOP nomination in 2016, has been one of Biden's most vocal Republican backers, lauding his "experience and his wisdom and his decency" at the Democratic convention on Monday.

Biden has won the endorsements of three George W. Bush's cabinet secretaries; Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel (who also served under Obama), Secretary of State Colin Powell and EPA Director Christine Whitman, who appeared at the DNC alongside Kasich.

Anthony Scaramucci, who served as Trump's White House communications director for just two weeks, endorsed Biden and called Trump "crazy," while former Homeland Security Department Chief of Staff Miles Taylor accused Trump of withholding disaster aid from blue states and claiming "magical authorities" above the law.

Carly Fiorina, a former Hewlett Packard CEO and GOP presidential candidate who was briefly the running mate of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), said she cannot support Trump and that "elections are binary choices," while Meg Whitman, another Hewlett Packard CEO, said at the DNC on Monday that Trump "has no clue how to run a business, let alone an economy."

Four former Republican Senators have come out for Biden: David Durenberger of Minnesota and Gordon J. Humphrey of New Hampshire (both independents now), John Warner of Virginia and Jeff Flake of Arizona, who called a Trump second term "a real danger."

Former Rep. Susan Molinari spoke at the Democratic convention on Monday as well, joining former Reps. Charles Djou of Hawaii and Joe Walsh of Illinois, a former tea partier who challenged Trump for the GOP nomination in 2020 and voted for Biden in Illinois' open Democratic primary in March, calling Trump a "horrible human being" who "must be defeated."

Cindy McCain, the widow of Sen. John McCain and mother of The View host Meghan McCain (who also endorsed Biden) narrated a video for the Democratic convention detailing her late husband's "unlikely friendship" with Biden.

KEY BACKGROUND
Numerous Republican media figures, campaign strategists and government officials have even organized PACs dedicated to supporting Biden, such as Republican Voters Against Trump and, most recently, 43 Alumni for Biden. The most notable among them is the Lincoln Project, whose scathing attack ads on Trump have captured the hearts of anti-Trump resistance-minded Democrats.

SURPRISING FACT
The last living former Republican president, George W. Bush, has said he won't back Trump. Nor will his brother Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida who was mercilessly ridiculed by Trump when they fought for the GOP nomination in 2016. Trump's former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and former Chief of Staff and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly have both expressed opposition to Trump as well, with Mattis calling him "the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try" and Kelly saying he wished "we had some additional choices." Other ex-Trump officials have spoken out against him as well, including Homeland Security advisor Tom Bossert, communications staffer Omarosa Manigault, National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security advisor John Bolton.

BIG NUMBER
5. That's how many sitting Republican senators are weighing voting against Trump, according to Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) has said he will not vote for Trump and may write-in his wife, while Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she is "struggling" with the decision. Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) has also said he will not vote for Trump and is considering a vote for Biden.