If the election is a negative contest of "vote against Trump" vs. "vote against the rioters," Trump is likely to win more places than he loses, and the anti-riot vote is less likely to stay home in disgust. Then we probably get another fun debate about the Electoral College.
Trump's probably sitting at his worst point in the polls right now, between lingering lockdown hangover and the riots. The thing is, the riots are going to erase a LOT of the lockdown hangover. The lockdown just lost much of its potency as an anti-Trump political force.
Also erased, although they don't quite realize it yet, is the Democrats' ability to run as "return to normalcy" candidates. The political wing of the city-burning rioters will have near-zero ability to convince persuadable middle-class voters that THEY'RE the Normalcy Party.
DNC Media's stubborn determination to lump looters and terrorists in with "protesters" will hurt the Dems here. They've created this public idea that it's all one big "protest." Well, people who are afraid to speak out against that "protest" will not be afraid to VOTE against it.
Trump's fortunes tend to rise and fall with the economy, but if this is a largely negative "vote against" election, the riots are making it harder to blame him for economic troubles. It's just too obvious that the damage has been deliberately inflicted by his opponents.
And if he chooses to pursue it, Trump is FAR better positioned than any Democrat to actually DO SOMETHING about the purported cause of the riots. They'll prattle about $20 trillion reparations schemes or whatever. He can propose real public employee reforms, including police.
If it's a mostly negative election, the Dems really need to worry about the "I don't like Trump but I'll take him instead of letting MY town become Minneapolis" voters. They could pop up in some surprising demographics and regions, and will be hard to detect with polls. /end
