Peter Thiel Is Bullish on Bitcoin, the Heartland and Trump

Your argument assumes that Trump has both the knowledge to determine what policies would result in positive net change in the heartland and the power to get then in place. Even with the same party in control of Congress, President's don't always get what they want, and moreover politicians are quite often wrong in their assessment of what policies will produce the results they prefer.

And that’s even before considering that politicians often have interests in policy other than reelection, and reelection is often secondary and instrumental to those signs rather than primary over them.

We're more than 25% through Trump's first term, so there's no need to rely purely on speculation of what policies he will "almost certainly advance"; you can just look at what policies he HAS advanced. And, frankly, I don't really see anything there that would benefit the heartland. His supporters might argue that the tax cuts will do so, but

(a) those follow closely a model that was already tried in Kansas, and, to say the least, Kansas has not thrived under them. (b) even IF they were a success, it's hard to see how they would benefit the heartland MORE than the rest of the country.

I don't disagree with your analysis that making the heartland prosper would greatly benefit Trump's 2020 chances, but you're assuming a rational and capable actor here. Evidence so far would rather suggest that he's exactly the short-sighted, corrupt, and lazy person that many people thought he was all along.

> Someone should distill out what his reasoning is.

I'm not huge on Trump (primarily, I find him inefficient at policies, and too prone towards a privacy-second approach, and find most of his social views reprehensible), but I think to some extent it's understandable why some people think he was better than the alternative, especially when taking into consideration media bubbles. I took on an experiment during the elections of exposing myself solely to media supportive of different candidates, and it's quite odd how quickly a person can get into a mindset of comradery with almost all of the non-social conservative candidates.

The media outlets that you're subjected to as a follower of a politician can easily sway you into being absolutely enamoured with a person.

For example, pre-election day, /r/The_Donald was a fairly odd place. Not odd in that it was overly hostile and hypermacho, but in that it was very supportive of almost every type of supporter.

If your main source of news was from that subreddit, for example, Trump was quite heroic sounding - they sliced his speeches to highlight a person of which loved all people, just hated the extent of how extreme the world was getting in regards to social justice.

If your main source of news was from a more liberal outlet, the opposite happens - he's racist, homophobic, vitriolic and evil. Even if he does something they support, like advocating for guns to be taken away, he gets crucified.

The supporters on the conservative side tended to see this, compare it to their own version of things, and consider that there's no winning with the liberal side. The liberal side, again, does the opposite.

* * *

With Hillary in particular, she had far from a clean record, and arguably a less clean one than Trump did at the time, and does currently politically.

For example, Trump is making the ACA fail hard and fast, instead of the slow drawn-out death it would have under Clinton. That's less stagnation, more turning over the rocks and letting the earthworms crawl out.

And of course you've got basic stuff like court appointees, his are way better if you're conservative or libertarian.

I can't remember the source, but I seem to recall an interview where a major point for Thiel was just the simple potential for disruption.

[edit] Point made, I suppose.