For the sake of argument, let's presume that the President did make comments along the lines of what's been represented.
I count myself among the President's staunchest supporters—this community veritably teems with them—but what some of the more aggressive voices around here seem to be discounting is the fact that many of the President's more reluctant supporters are indeed taken aback by his flippant comments in this instance.
For example, the President's characterization of majority White countries like Norway as positive immigration examples, coupled with his disparagement of majority Black countries like Haiti as negative examples of immigration—sh-tholes, apparently—was indeed unfortunate.
Even though the President didn't formally highlight race with his comments, they certainly provided an opportunity for his Enemies—and even some of his more impressionable and sensitive supporters—to form that impression.
Therefore, any such comments—even if truthful—were also gratuitous and ill-advised, amounting to an unforced error. The President antagonizing his Enemies is a routine occurrence, of course, but giving pause to his more tentative supporters—potentially alienating them—is something which should be assiduously avoided.
I'm one of the President's biggest cheerleaders around here—I get accused of it all the time—but while I understand what he was trying to say in this instance, the unassailable fact remains that his comments were "inartful", to say the least.
It's not wise to flippantly dismiss the effect the President's comments might have had, whether on existing supporters or potential supporters—both of whom may now be less inclined to give the President a fair hearing at some point in the future.
The President—if he made these comments—erred in doing so, and should have apologized for his inartful tone, in light of the backlash which has occurred—a backlash not merely isolated to his detractors.
You really think we don’t know that there are snowflake Republicans who are taken aback that a US president used a four letter word in the Oval Office? And that these same snowflakes will not vote for him because of this? Yes, we know that. But some of us are smart enough to know that without examining twitter timelines with all the intensity of a rabbi studying the Talmud. That’s Rummy Chick territory and we all know what happened to HER.
Thank you for your eloquently worded post. The die hard supporters will support him, but there are others who voted for him who are independent/moderate/Dems/establishment Republican who are not as die hard and are more willing to abandon him over some of this stuff. We have to know where he is losing support to win elections.