Why Trump Can’t Be Prevented From Running

In a recent development, David Axelrod, a former adviser to President Obama, expressed significant concerns about the potential consequences of a court decision that could bar former President Trump from the primary ballot. The decision by Maine’s secretary of state to exclude Trump from the primary ballot was based on his conduct surrounding the January 6 Capitol riots, citing a violation of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause.”

During an interview on CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront,” Axelrod voiced his reservations, stating that preventing Trump from running could “rip the country apart” given the substantial support he still commands. Axelrod emphasized the importance of defeating Trump at the polls rather than through legal maneuvers.

Shenna Bellows, the Democratic secretary of state for Maine, asserted that Trump utilized a false narrative of election fraud to incite his supporters on January 6 and failed to take timely action to stop the ensuing violence, contributing to the decision to bar him from the primary ballot.

Similar legal challenges, such as the one in Colorado, have emerged, and the case in Maine may further fuel Trump’s narrative that Democrats are politically motivated against him. Axelrod noted that Trump’s candidacy itself served as a legal defense strategy, constructing a narrative that portrays legal actions against him as efforts to prevent him from assuming the presidency.

Despite the Maine ruling being appealed by the Trump campaign, Axelrod highlighted the potential impact on voters, suggesting that Trump has gained momentum from legal challenges, turning what was expected to be detrimental to his candidacy into a source of strength. The Trump campaign has strongly criticized the decision as “election interference” and framed it as an assault on American democracy, further intensifying the ongoing political discourse surrounding Trump’s eligibility for the primary ballot.