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.
For example steel tariffs are meant to benefit Trump voters (at the expense of the rest of the country). If it turns out they don't actually benefit Trump voters, he still gets points for being the only one willing to try.
It's similar to the security theater that the government uses to fight terrorism. It doesn't matter if it doesn't work, because being seen trying and failing gives more points than not doing anything.
They do to support the prediction that “it doesn't take a genius to see that the heartland will see improving conditions going forward”, based on Trump's political need for heartland votes.
I agree with you that things don't actually have to get better for Trump to get votes if he can sell it as something else blocking his efforts, but that just further undermines the claim I was responding to.
Also, it assumes that Trump desires a second term or actually believes what he says. As evidenced by his recent schizophrenic behavior on gun control, the biggest threat to "Trumpism" is Trump.
(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.