How Much Would a Conviction Hurt Trump?

As a general election campaign between Joe Biden and Donald Trump gets increasingly likely, people are starting to wonder whether Trump's upcoming criminal trials might affect the election results. There are two ways this could happen. First, even though the federal trials won't be televised, the reporting of them will blot out all other news the first few days of each trial and dominate the news for the rest of the trial. The Georgia RICO trial is likely to be televised because Georgia law states that the judge gets to decide if he or she wants it to be televised and the judge in the RICO case, Scott McAfee, has a long history of allowing television cameras in his courtroom. The news will have witness after witness after witness testifying under oath that Trump did things that are illegal. For some people, the testimony may be the first time they have heard compelling evidence that Trump broke the law.

Second, Trump could be convicted of one or more felonies before the election. For some people, voting for a convicted felon could be a bridge too far and they might just refuse to vote for him. Even if these people stay home on Election Day or vote for a third party, if enough Trump supporters in swing states decide not to vote for him, it could cost Trump the state.

Pollsters understand this and are starting to ask about it. Asking: "If you heard testimony that Trump broke the law would it affect your vote?" is probably too vague and meaningless since many people can't imagine what that testimony would be like. On the other hand, questions about an actual conviction are more concrete and more likely to get an accurate answer. So pollsters are starting to ask about the effect of a conviction.

The main conclusion is that a very large number of Trump supporters would stick with him, even if he is convicted. But in swing states, even a small loss of supporters could be enough to flip the state. A Siena College poll of the swing states last month, for example, showed that a conviction would flip the aggregate vote from Trump +4 to Biden +10, a 14-point swing. That's the difference between President Trump and President Biden.

Other pollsters have asked similar questions with mixed results. An Ipsos poll that included Robert Kennedy Jr. had Trump winning by 2 points but in a head-to-head Trump-Biden poll it was a tie. But when Ipsos asked if the respondent would vote for Trump if he were a convicted criminal, 59% said they wouldn't. This is a poor question. Ipsos should have just asked the horse race questions again, but now assuming a conviction.

A Vanderbilt University poll of Tennessee voters shows Trump's support dropping from 45% to 37% as a result of conviction. That wouldn't be enough to flip Tennessee but that would certainly guarantee Biden wins in all the swing states.

Let's keep going. A Quinnipiac University poll showed that 38% of the voters were committed to Trump absent a conviction but that dropped to 32% if he were a convicted felon on Election Day.

Finally, a Wall Street Journal poll showed the least effect of all. Without a conviction, Trump would win the popular vote by 4 points and with a conviction he loses it by 1 point.

These polls all asked the questions in different ways, but they all showed that a conviction would matter. Also, none of them factored in the possible devastating effects of testimony by insiders. Suppose Kenneth "The Cheese" Chesebro, Mark Meadows, and Rudy Giuliani all got on the witness stand and basically said: "Trump knew he lost the election but wanted to stay in power at all costs, so we knowingly and intentionally conspired to steal the election any way we could." Would that move the needle? We don't know and can't know because people can't imagine that happening. But it could happen as the various players try to save their own necks.

But these questions are all irrelevant if Trump succeeds in delaying all the trials until after the election.

Politico's Steven Shepard is not convinced that a conviction might matter so much. The Hollywood Access tape, the Stormy Daniels scandal, and so many other things that pundits thought would be the end of Trump weren't. His base is so devoted to him that maybe nothing matters anymore. Shepard is aware of the polls cited above, but notes that the questions were poorly formulated in some of them and they weren't actual state polls listing all the candidates likely to be on the ballot. Shepard also notes that while many Republicans say Trump should not run if he is convicted, when they enter the polling booth and the names on the ballot are Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and a couple of minor party or independent candidates, raw partisanship may rear its ugly head and they may vote for the person with the (R) after their name, everything else be damned.

As time goes by, pollsters are likely to sharpen their questions, but for so many people, the possibility of Trump actually being convicted is so unimaginable, it is hard to draw solid conclusions until there are a lot more data and some quality focus groups. (V)

Poll: Trump Is Leading Haley in New Hampshire by Only 15 Points

A new CBS/YouGov poll shows that Nikki Haley has made huge progress in closing the gap with Donald Trump in New Hampshire. Here are the results:

This is the first time any of the Trump challengers have been above 20% anywhere. Could Haley beat Trump in New Hampshire? Maybe, if all the other challengers would kindly drop out. But that is not going to happen. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is quite oblivious to the fact that he has no chance of winning the GOP nomination or the White House. Hell, he doesn't even seem to know that his campaign is coming apart at the seams (see next item). He's not going to drop out until after New Hampshire, possibly not until after Super Tuesday, when it may all be over.

Chris Christie has too big an ego to drop out. He is smart enough to know he can't win the nomination. In fact, he doesn't even want it. He just wants to stop Trump. But you can't beat somebody with nobody. If Christie could stuff his ego in a box and lock it, he could drop out and endorse Haley. Probably nearly all of his 10% would go to her, putting her at 39%, only 5 points below Trump. At that point, some of the voters who support DeSantis because they dislike Trump might switch to Haley, making it a real horse race.

Vivek Ramaswamy is not going to drop out until Trump has clinched the nomination because he is not running for president. He is running for Secretary of Commerce in the Trump administration. By staying in and defending Trump at every opportunity, he increases his chances of a job in the Trump administration. Asa Hutchinson is already irrelevant.

In Iowa, Trump is at 58% with DeSantis at 22% and Haley at 13%. A landslide win for Trump in Iowa could affect New Hampshire, though. One problem with such a large lead in Iowa is that if Trump is predicted to win 58% in Iowa and he gets only 50%, it will be reported as "Trump didn't do so well." Of course, there is also the possibility that the vote-counting app fails again, as it did in 2020, and no one knows who won until 2 weeks later.

One other interesting note is that the poll also asked a few other questions. In New Hampshire, Haley is much more likable at 55% than DeSantis (37%), Ramaswamy (36%), Trump (36%) or Christie (24%). How could Ramaswamy, one of the most despicable politicians since George Wallace, get to 36%? Haley is also seen as by far the most reasonable in New Hampshire at 51%, vs. 37% for DeSantis and 36% for Trump.

The difference between Iowa and New Hampshire can be summarized in another question. In Iowa, 26% of the voters want abortion to be legal whereas in New Hampshire it is 57%. That's because half the Republicans in Iowa are evangelicals. In New Hampshire it is far smaller. However, in some ways the two states are similar with 85% of Iowans and 80% of New Hampshirites wanting to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. (V)

DeSantis Campaign Is in Tatters

Federal law limits donors to giving any candidate a maximum of $3,300 per election, where a primary election and a general election are considered two elections. In contrast, donors can give any amount they want to one or more super PACs that support a candidate. However, the law says that super PACs have to operate independently from political campaigns and are not permitted to coordinate with them. For example, it is illegal for a candidate to tell anyone managing a super PAC what kinds of ads on what kinds of subjects he would like. To some extent, this system has sort of worked, mostly because the people running (or funding) super PACs (like, say, Charles Koch) know what they want, run their own polls, and can pretty much operate without adult supervision.

Super PACs have to report their donors, but wealthy people can get around this easily. They can set up a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. These groups do not have to report their donors but they have to spend half their money on "social welfare" in a general sense. Running ads warning people about the evils of wokeness would qualify as long as no candidates or elections were mentioned. A 501(c)(4) can donate to a super PAC and then the super PAC has to report that it got a donation from "Citizens Opposed to Wokeness" without any information about where that group got its money. The 501(c)(4) can spend the other half of its money on direct political ads. This is how dark money gets funneled.

Historically, the functions of the campaign and the super PACs have been different. The campaign managed the candidate's appearances, travel, contact with the media, staff, and usually the ground war. The super PACs ran ads on television, radio, and the Internet. Ron DeSantis didn't like this arrangement. His first campaign manager, Generra Peck, picked some DeSantis allies and had them set up a super PAC called Never Back Down. Then DeSantis transferred $82 million from his gubernatorial campaign to Never Back Down (because he wasn't allowed to transfer it to the campaign).

As compared to the usual model, however, DeSantis had a very different setup in mind, one that operated on the very outskirts of legality. Both the campaign and super PAC employed the same law firm. The firm and its board were full of close DeSantis allies. So far this is iffy, but legal. If DeSantis called up one of the lawyers to say: "I would like to emphasize how I tried hard in Florida to defund the public schools and use the money to fund private charter and religious schools and would like to do that nationally. Is that legal?" The lawyer might then say: "If Congress passed such a law and you signed it, I think it would be legal if no religion was favored over others." Then the next time that lawyer spoke with the CEO of the super PAC, he might describe the conversation he had with DeSantis. Two weeks later the super PAC's ads about how DeSantis wants to help charter and religious schools might appear. DeSantis would be happy since his message would be getting out and it would all be legal since he hadn't made a single phone call to anyone at the super PAC and was prepared to show his phone records to prove it.

That is edgy enough, but DeSantis went way beyond that. He wanted the super PAC to do many things that campaigns normally did, including paying for events, candidate travel, field offices, and much more. He basically wanted to integrate his campaign and super PAC into a coherent whole, just with different people at the top of each one. The legality of this is extremely iffy, but the FEC is basically toothless.

On Saturday, the whole thing fell apart. Jeff Roe, the main architect of the whole plan, resigned from Never Back Down. His departure was announced 4 hours after The Washington Post article linked to above (which describes all the backbiting going on in DeSantisland) went live. He tweeted that it was the Post's fault he was leaving because it was exposing all of DeSantis' dirty laundry to the world. Roe followed the organization's CEO, president, and chairman of the board, all of whom were dumped 2 weeks ago. The super PAC found a DeSantis ally, Phil Cox, to run the show for the moment, but the chaos over there is complete now. This doesn't happen with happy campaigns that are upbeat and expect to win.

One big donor was furious and said: "The super PAC model of winning a presidential primary, I think, is staggering, if not on the ropes. And if you're going to have a successful presidential primary campaign you need to be able to raise hard dollars." Others said the purge was DeSantis firing the pros so he could replace them with loyalists. When the Post contacted the new chairman of Never Back Down, Scott Wagner, he said: "We don't have time to indulge false narratives from those with ulterior motives." The Post's "ulterior" motive, of course, is reporting on what is actually going on in DeSantisland.

Roe is no DeSantis diehard. He runs a consulting firm, Axiom, that will work for whichever Republican is willing to pay the most. He is a veteran consultant, having worked for dozens of campaigns going back to Rick Perry's ill-fated presidential campaign in 2012. It was definitely not Roe's fault that Perry couldn't remember the names of the three cabinet departments he wanted to abolish. Nor is it Roe's fault that DeSantis is simply not a very good candidate. While having good consultants can help a campaign, in the end, "candidate quality" matters. A lot. (V)

Melania Is in Full Campaign Mode

Melania Trump hates politics, campaigning, and publicity. We don't know if she likes her husband, although we do know that when he was living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in D.C. she was mostly living with her parents and son in Potomac, MD, 15 miles northwest of the White House. But all of a sudden she popped up at an event on Friday and got a lot of attention. The event was at the National Archives—you know, the agency whose classified documents her husband stored in his bathroom and refused to give back, despite the Archives requesting them many times. As you may recall, this refusal to give the Archives back its property got him indicted in Florida.

Melania was invited to speak at the Archives by the Archivist of the United States Colleen Shogan, an appointee of Joe Biden. She spoke to a group of 25 immigrants who were there to formally become U.S. citizens. She talked about how she immigrated to the U.S. and was naturalized in 2006, just as the attendees were being naturalized on Friday. She called the naturalization process "arduous." She also said that after taking the Oath of Allegiance, she felt a sense of belonging.

Given her husband's hatred of immigrants (except possibly his wife), Melania Trump's former adviser Stephanie Winston Wolkoff found her appearance at a naturalization ceremony quite repulsive. Wolkoff called it a publicity stunt. Given that the Iowa caucuses are now less than a month away, Melania's appearance surely will help smooth the sharp edges off her husband's position on immigration, turning a normally nonpolitical act into a political one. The Customs and Immigration Service has a long manual concerning the protocol at naturalization ceremonies, including instructions for inviting speakers. The preferred categories are civic leaders, government leaders, military leaders, members of Congress, judges, and DHS officials, but there is an escape clause allowing anyone else the USCIS deems appropriate. These people should be chosen due to their outstanding contributions or notable activities. It is not clear exactly what her outstanding contributions have been. (V)

Appeals Court is Skeptical about Meadows' Plea to Move to Federal Court

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has been indicted in Georgia for racketeering, along with Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and more than a dozen others. Meadows desperately wants the case moved out of state court and into federal court, in part because in a state trial in Fulton County the jury pool will be heavily Democratic, whereas a federal trial would pull jurors from the suburbs as well, so more Republicans would be in it. His problem is that he is accused of violating a state law, not a federal law. The act in question relates to his setting up (and participating in) the infamous phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) in which Trump demanded that Raffensperger "find" another 11,780 votes for him. Election interference is a state crime, not a federal crime.

Meadows lost round one of his attempt to get the trial moved to federal court because the acts he is accused of relate to Trump's reelection campaign, and were not part of his official White House duties. If the acts in the indictment are not part of his job description, then there is no reason for a federal trial. Acts related to Trump's reelection campaign could not possibly be related to his official duties, because the Hatch Act bans federal employees from engaging in campaign activities while at work.

On Friday, a federal appeals court heard oral arguments in Meadows' appeal. The three judges didn't seem impressed. Even if Meadows' acts did relate to this official work, which the lower court ruled they did not, there is still a problem: A 234-year-old law that says when federal officials are charged with crimes relating to their official duties they are to be tried in federal court. However, the law does not say that it applies to former officials, only current ones, which Meadows is not. Judge William Pryor noted: "It might well be that Congress could rationally assume there's a heightened reason for removal where you're dealing with a current officer, because it involves ongoing operations of the federal government. And that heightened concern might not exist, where you have a former officer, because it doesn't involve the ongoing operations of the government." If the appeals court rules against Meadows, he could try to go to the Supreme Court, but it doesn't have to take the case. (V)

Democrats Are Going to Squeeze the Biden 17 on the Impeachment Vote

Every Republican voted to start formally investigating Joe Biden for a possible impeachment, despite zero evidence that he committed any high crimes or misdemeanors. Not carrying out the opposition's policies is not a crime or an abuse of power. But oh boy, are the 17 House Republicans in districts Biden won going to hear about their votes. Their Democratic challengers are going to hammer them over and over on the vote. And the nice thing about a vote is that it is an "aye" or "nay" thing, unlike a position on some issue where there may be wiggle room. Either you voted to investigate Biden or you voted against it. This vote could well be the thing that flips control of the House by sending many of the Biden 17 to the unemployment office. Here's how The Hill illustrated the problem:

Neal Kwatra, a New York Democratic consultant said of the Republicans: "They're gift wrapping an issue for Democrats to prosecute against them in 2024. Most of these guys were off-year wins and have never had to defend these seats in a presidential election year."

New York has six of the Biden 17 and California has five. Both states are loaded with qualified state senators, assembly members, mayors, and others who will duke it out in the primaries, but once a candidate is chosen, the vote to investigate Biden for no reason other than "Trump wants to get even" is going to play a big role. Voters who support Biden—and they form majorities in these districts, by definition—aren't going to like that.

The Biden 17 are already working on waffling. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) said there is not sufficient evidence to impeach Biden. Actually, there is no evidence at all. Then why did he vote to start the process? All of the Biden 17 are going to try to walk back their votes and talk about "innocent until proven guilty." But Democrats are just going to beat people like Lawler over the head with their votes. Biden won Lawler's district, which is D+3, by 10 points. Lawler's got a big problem now, especially in a presidential year. Some Republicans are going to try to split hairs and say: "I voted to start the investigation but I might later vote against impeachment if the evidence is insufficient." We suspect that many Democrats are going to say: "Your representative voted to try to impeach the president" because many voters don't know the difference between a procedural vote and a straight-up-or-down vote on impeachment. Trying to argue "process" is going to be a tough sell with Democrats. And most of them are in their first term, so they don't have years of goodwill built up.

So why did the GOP leadership force these vulnerable members to self-immolate? The base hates Biden because he is a Democrat. What he does as president doesn't matter. If the Biden 17 were allowed to vote their district, the motion would not have passed. Those votes were needed as there are only 221 Republicans in the House. So the leadership had to turn the screws on them (e.g., say that a "no" vote meant no help from the NRCC in 2024). They got their resolution through, but the price may be high if they lose a dozen of those races in 2024.

Republicans are not even unified on their attempt to embarrass Biden. Yesterday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said on Meet the Press: "If there were a smoking gun, I think we'd be talking about it." Graham doesn't believe there is anything to the investigation. He added: "They have to prove that President Biden somehow financially benefited from the business enterprises of Hunter Biden." (V)

Republicans Face an Agonizing Choice in OH-09

As you know, every House race will matter in 2024. The margins are that small. In OH-09, Republicans have a shot at ousting Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), because OH-09 is an R+3 swing district in northwestern Ohio. However, to do this, they need a solid candidate because Kaptur has been elected to the House 21 times already and is now the longest-serving woman in either chamber in all of American history. She is a pro-life economic populist with a conservative disposition. This is a good fit for her Toledo-based working-class district.

So do the Republicans have a strong candidate who could break Kaptur's streak? Well, no. In 2022, J.R. Majewski (R) ran against Kaptur and lost by 13 points. He is very Trumpy and controversial. For example, he lied about serving in combat in Afghanistan. Stolen valor does not go over well in working-class districts like OH-09. Nevertheless, he is running again.

Given Majewski's poor track record and lies, Ohio Republicans don't think he can win so they want someone else. They found their man in former state legislator Craig Riedel (R). That was humming along until an audio recording surfaced in which Riedel commented on Donald Trump by saying: "I think he is arrogant. I don't like the way he calls people names. I just don't think that's very becoming of a president." He also said he wouldn't vote for Trump.

When the news broke, Riedel endorsed Trump and ran an ad saying that he endorsed Trump. Only he didn't run it in Ohio. He ran it in Palm Beach, FL, in the hopes that Trump would see it. Majewski then tweeted: "I don't have to run ads 1000 miles away from my district in Palm Beach to prove that I am a Trump guy."

So the choice looked like a guy with a stolen valor problem vs. a guy who doesn't like Trump. Republicans are frantically looking for someone else—especially a rich person who has no baggage and can self-fund against a popular 21-term incumbent. And they have to find their someone fast, because the filing deadline is Wednesday.

Ohio politicians who had endorsed Riedel are now trying to backtrack. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), chairman of the NRCC, said: "We're obviously having conversations with people on the ground. I don't know what the next steps are." Unless a white knight with at least $1 million to blow on a long-shot race against a proven winner shows up by Wednesday, the Republicans will be stuck with either Majewski or Riedel. Majewski is probably not viable in the general election due to the stolen valor problem. Riedel might be viable in the general election because his sin—not liking Trump—might not be a problem with Democrats. But in a two-way primary, the Trumpist, Majewski, would probably win the GOP nomination and then go down in the general election again. (V)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger