question is do you let the market, combined with environmental concerns of course, take it on a slow decline while keeping energy costs lower, or do you step on it's throat to accelerate it's decline, bringing job losses, higher energy costs, and increased demand for tax revenue to subsidize replacement energy with it?

The only part we can control is the regulation aspect. It's pretty clear this administration opted for the latter approach, and that Hillary intends to keep the foot there (or at least did until she tried to pretend her quote didn't mean what she clearly said).

With that said, I totally agree with your "pretty please vote for me" representation of why Trump is saying what he's saying. At most, he may ease up on the foot at their throat, because he can't change the ultimate decline of coal.