Main page    Dec. 19

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page

New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

Pew Poll: 7 in 10 Republicans Are Now OK with Trump as Their Party's Nominee

There are quite a few reasons that someone, even a Republican, might not want Donald Trump to be the GOP standard bearer in 2024. And certainly, there was much optimism earlier in the cycle that he might just be knocked off by someone, maybe Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). But now, a new poll from Pew reveals that Republican voters are yielding to the reality that it's going to be Trump '24.

A slight majority of Republicans, 52%, identify Trump as their favored candidate. That number has been relatively stable over the last year or so. However, another 19% now say that they will be satisfied with Trump, even if he's not their first choice. That makes 71% who are happy with, or at least OK with, Trump '24. That's the highest number he's gotten this cycle. By contrast, only 64% would be satisfied with DeSantis, 48% with Nikki Haley, 36% with Vivek Ramaswamy and 18% with Chris Christie.

Why is the party coalescing around Trump right now? We have a couple of theories. The first is that his would-be opponents have clearly shown themselves to be pretenders, rather than contenders, who seem only to be running for second place (which probably means that they are running for first place in 2028). The second is that the best chance for Trump to lose the nomination would be primary and caucus voters giving him the thumbs down. Well, ballots are just a few weeks from being cast, and he's still dominating the field. In short, taking these two things together, he's become inevitable, which means it's time for Republican voters to reconcile themselves to that.

As a sidebar to our main point, we recognize that the previous paragraph implies that Trump '24 won't be derailed by one or more criminal convictions. Well, let's make it explicit. We don't think the RNC has the fortitude to remove him, regardless of how correct that choice might be. Further, he's going to appeal any adverse judgment, so Ronna Romney McDaniel & Co. will be able to say "Hey, he's not officially a convicted felon yet."

And now back to the main point. The point of no return for Trump and the GOP in 2024 is pretty clear, and is pretty close to being upon us. But what is the point of no return for Joe Biden and the Democrats in 2024? He's going to win all the caucuses and primaries (except maybe New Hampshire); there's no doubting that. If he leaves the presidential race, it will be because he voluntarily chooses to do so. And the expiration date on that possibility probably doesn't arrive until the Democratic convention, in August.

So, there are basically only weeks until "someone other than Trump" becomes a near-impossibility. But there are many months until "someone other than Biden" becomes a near-impossibility. There is therefore considerably less pressure on Democrats, right now, to reconcile themselves to the reality of Biden '24, and to decide whether they will come home or not.

What we are getting at here is the possibility—entirely speculative, mind you, and virtually impossible to prove empirically—that Trump's current success in the polls is partly, or primarily, due to the Republicans being further along the line when it comes to "acceptance." Republican voters have come home; Democratic voters not quite yet, so Trump looks to be stronger than he probably is. Or, more accurately, Biden looks to be weaker than he actually will end up being.

We had an item last week about how modern approval ratings are wonky, and another yesterday about the potential impact of a Trump conviction or convictions. Tomorrow, we'll have an item about the economy. The overall theme is this: It's still so early in the cycle, and there are so many moving parts, and so many unknowns, that horse-race polling numbers just don't mean very much right now. (Z)

Immigration 2024, Part I: It's NOT the Economy, Stupid

We know from history that the state of the economy affects a lot of votes, but there is another factor that seems to be rivaling it, and not only in the U.S., but in much of the world: migration. Politico took a look at migration as an issue in multiple countries:

In short, millions of people in poor countries want to move to richer countries, in some cases due to persecution at home, but often just in search of a better life. Vast numbers of people in the recipient countries do not want them and are electing governments that promise to keep them out and maybe even send them home. Will that work? If you think that can't be done, that is probably because you are not familiar with Operation Wetback, carried out during the Eisenhower administration. It consisted of 300 jeeps, cars, buses, and seven airplanes that were used to deport over 1 million people to Mexico, in some cases by simply driving into the Mexican Sonoran Desert, pushing the migrants out of the vehicles, and then heading home. (V)

Immigration 2024, Part II: Trump's Language Is Getting Even Darker

At a rally in New Hampshire over the weekend, Donald Trump whipped up a crowd with language straight out of Nazi Germany. The "vermin" bit is old hat now. He also has added the idea that migrants are "poisoning the blood" of the U.S. This appears to be part of his new stump speech. On Sunday in Reno, NV, he falsely claimed that migrants are coming from prisons and mental institutions. He also said he would invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to remove migrants from the country. Trump also has taken to quoting Vladimir Putin about the "rottenness" of American democracy. He hasn't actually waved Mein Kampf at the crowd and quoted Hitler directly, but there is still time left.

Trump also repeated his notion of being a dictator, but only for one day. At first it might have been a joke, but apparently his supporters like the idea and he keeps going back to it. It's probably not a joke; he is using a well-worn technique to parry questions about this in advance, by calling Joe Biden a threat to democracy.

Why is Trump becoming crazier and crazier? On CNN's State of the Union this Sunday, Chris Christie said: "Donald Trump realizes the walls are closing in. He's becoming crazier. And now he's citing Vladimir Putin as a character witness, a guy who is a murderous thug all around the world." Christie added that Trump is sending dog whistles to people who feel under stress and is blaming it on people who don't look like them. (V)

Immigration 2024, Part III: Abbott's Approach Is Getting Even More Aggressive

While Donald Trump channels Adolf Hitler, Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) seems to be channeling... Donald Trump. You know, build a big wall, who cares about federal law, scapegoat Mexicans, things like that. Yesterday, Abbott signed two bills that impose a gaggle of harsh new anti-immigration policies statewide.

Most notably, the signed bills make it a violation of Texas law for an undocumented immigrant to enter the state, and allow state judges to have such individuals ejected. In addition, Texas law enforcement officials are empowered to arrest anyone suspected of entering the state illegally. The bills also set aside $1.5 billion for border patrols and for the construction of new barriers along the border.

The problems here are plain. To start, the new laws are an engraved petition for law enforcement to engage in racial profiling. On top of that, border enforcement is the prerogative of the federal government and not the states. Not only does the Constitution make that clear, but there are also international treaties and laws that the U.S. is bound to observe, while Texas might not be so careful.

Given these issues, Texas is sure to lose in court once the inevitable challenges are filed (something that will probably happen today). The law that allows racial profiling is very similar to an Arizona law that was largely struck down 10 years ago. The law that allows for state-run barriers and patrols? Well, Texas just got smacked down on that point about 6 months ago. Abbott & Co. can't possibly think that they have a real chance of making this stick.

And so, that means that, like much of what happens in Texas politics these days, this is just political theater. The Republicans are working hard to show the country that "we take immigration seriously, and the Democrats do not." Joe Biden is going to have to walk a very fine line. As we make clear above, immigration is shaping up to be a key issue in 2024, and right now Biden and the Democrats are seen as "soft" on that particular subject. The President is going to have to get "harder," at least some, in part to get funding for Ukraine, and in part to counter the GOP attacks against him. At the same time, he cannot suborn the borderline vigilantism of the Texans, nor the Hitleresque rhetoric of Donald Trump. Again, it's going to be a fine line.

That said, we wonder if it's possible Republicans might take this too far. Senate Republicans are already running scared from Trump's speeches this weekend. Perhaps they have remembered that there are tens of millions of Latino voters in this country, and that some of them may be won over—or driven away—by Trump. Or perhaps they know that one of the Democrats' main attack lines in 2024 will be "vote Democratic if you like democracy, Republican if you prefer fascism." That line gets much easier for the blue team to sell if the leader of the Republican Party is channeling history's most notorious fascist. (Z)

Conservatives Are Fighting Back on Abortion Initiative Measures

Pro-choice groups are trying to get constitutional amendments on the ballot in at least nine states in 2024. These initiatives tend to drive up turnout, especially among young voters. Conservatives and Republicans are afraid of these measures and are now fighting back. They are running TV and digital ads, holding events, and even knocking on doors to try to convince people not to sign petitions that would put amendments on the ballot making a right to an abortion part of the state Constitution. They are also trying to get secretaries of state to refuse to put the amendments on the ballot or to write up false (and negative) summaries of them.

Fundamentally, anti-choice groups understand that they cannot win at the ballot box, as elections in Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio have shown. They fear that their massive victory with the Dobbs decision is being undone one state at a time, even in red states. They know that voters, even in red states, want abortion to be legal, so their strategy now is to prevent the voters from having a say.

Some of the arguments are at least plausible. Steven Aden, of Americans United for Life, said: "Because we believe that abortion is truly about the right to life of human individuals in the womb, we don't believe those rights should be subjected to majority vote." If you actually believe that a clump of cells inside a woman is a human being, then it makes sense to argue that its life should not be subject to majority vote. Some are more blunt. Kristi Hamrick, of Students for Life, said: "Just because someone shoves a clipboard in your face, you don't have to sign."

Missouri state Rep. Brad Hudson (R) knows that the PR campaigns telling people not to sign petitions are probably going to fail since most people support the right to an abortion. So he wants to rig the game. He wants to change the process for getting a constitutional amendment passed to foil those nasty voters who want to pass an amendment that he personally dislikes. That's why he was elected to the state legislature, right? To make sure his personal opinion overrides what the voters might want. That's known as LEADERSHIP. His plan is to require majorities not only statewide, but also in half of the state's congressional districts. That way the people in the rural districts could override what the people in the teeming cities want.

Anti-abortion AsG (that looks weird, but is probably the correct abbreviation for "attorneys general") in multiple states are challenging abortion initiatives as unconstitutionally vague, confusing, or misleading. They are also trying to set up barriers to certification, require cost estimates, and more.

Some of the arguments from states border on the absurd. Missouri officials have argued that allowing abortions would cost the state billions of dollars in tax revenue not paid by the persons not born. They didn't provide an analysis, however, of each of these people as a profit center. Some of them might require state services, including education, welfare, or even incarceration, that might make them a net loss to the state. Others might get free public education in the state up through graduate school and then leave the state (e.g., people trained as OB/GYNs), resulting in a huge loss for the state.

In short, the anti-abortion side is revving up every possible way to keep abortion measures from getting on the ballots. (V)

It's OK to Be Gay... and Catholic?

The abortion fight is still being waged in pitched fashion. On the other hand, the primary culture wars battle of a generation ago, namely equality for gay and lesbian people, appears to be almost over. Case in point: The Catholic Church will now allow same-sex couples to be blessed by Catholic priests.

Yes, there are some carefully spelled out limits on this. The blessings cannot happen as part of a regular church service or ceremony. And they cannot happen at the same time as a same-sex marriage is performed. But these seem relatively meaningless, to us. For example, how much time does there have to be between the blessing and the marriage service for it to be OK? 5 minutes? 10? An hour? 6 hours? Whatever it is, if you're getting same-sex married AND you really want your spiritual leader's blessing, it's workable.

In part, we suspect this move is a shot across the bow of conservative Catholic bishops in the U.S. who have been critical of Pope Francis for being too liberal. In an unusual move, Francis fired one of them (Joseph Strickland). Now, the others get to swallow hard and fall into line, or else risk sharing Strickland's fate.

Mostly, however, Francis is doing what the leader of the Church is supposed to do, and deciding what priority takes precedence. Half a century ago, conducting services in Latin was driving away parishioners who did not want to master a dead language (i.e., one with no living native speakers) just to be able to commune with God. The Church decided that being welcoming was more important than sticking with a tradition that had no scriptural basis. In other words, better to have 1 billion Catholics, with services in their native tongues, than just 750 million Catholics, with services in Latin.

Greater openness to gay and lesbian Catholics is pretty clearly the same thing; there are a lot of gay and lesbian people out there, and there isn't much of a scriptural basis for excluding them (outside of the notion that sex is only supposed to happen within the bonds of matrimony). One wonders what doctrinal change might happen next. Maybe, someday not too far off, gays and lesbians will actually be allowed to marry in the church, eliminating that one last significant issue. Alternatively, there is considerable historical basis for female priests and very limited scriptural basis for excluding them. So, maybe that will soon come down the pike. (Z)

Meadows Can't Change Venues

This was entirely expected, since the underlying argument was so weak, but now it is official: Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows will be tried in Georgia for trying to interfere with the Georgia election results, as opposed to being allowed to remove his case to federal court. It took just three days from oral arguments to final decision, which tells you how shaky his case was.

There were two problems that Meadows could not overcome. The first is that the right of removal is apropos only in cases where a federal official is acting in their official capacity. Clearly, trying to overturn elections in Georgia is not part of the official duties of a White House Chief of Staff. So, Meadows lost big here.

The second problem is that the right of removal is typically only extended to people who are still in office. Meadows, obviously, is not. He also lost on this point, although the judges were considerably more reluctant. That is to say, the law is the law, but the justices think the law is flawed. To be more precise, the two Democratic appointee judges who helped decide the case wrote a concurring decision in which they implored Congress to change the rules, because the current setup raises the possibility of politically motivated state courts (or state officials) dragging their feet until a federal officeholder is out of office, and only THEN prosecuting them, thus depriving the officeholder of protections that might be entirely appropriate. For example, imagine a Black tax collector for the Port of New Orleans who ends his term on Jan. 3, 1913, and then is charged by the state of Louisiana with crimes conducted while in office on Jan. 4, 1913.

Still, the main issue is that Meadows was not "doing his job" when he mucked around in the Georgia elections, and so it's entirely just that he'll be tried in Georgia, by an Atlanta jury. Good luck, Mark. (Z)

Jim Messina: No Third-Party Candidate Can Win

Jim Messina, Barack Obama's 2012 campaign manager, has written an op-ed for Politico about third-party candidates. Op-eds like this have been written before, but Messina has run actual presidential campaigns and knows a thing or two about them.

Messina notes that third parties have a huge barrier: the Electoral College. To win the election, you need to win multiple states. That means getting more votes than every other candidate in at least a dozen states. He looks at history as a guide. In 1968, George Wallace won five states in the Deep South and 46 electoral votes in a campaign with a clear (very racist) theme: "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" that resonated in those states. He was for something and had a clear goal in mind: keep segregation. Since then, no third-party candidate has won even a single state. No Labels, Robert Kennedy Jr., and Cornel West don't have any clear underlying goal or program. Saying: "I know you don't like the other candidates, so vote for me" just doesn't do the job. To win millions of votes, you have to be for something, not just against the way things are now. You have to say how you will change things.

Immigration could be such an issue (see above). A candidate who said "I will close the border and not let anyone in" might get millions of votes—except that Donald Trump is already saying that. Why would anyone vote for Joe Schmoe to close the border when Donald Trump promises that? Abortion is also an issue that could get millions of votes, except that no matter which side you are on, there is a major-party candidate who supports your view.

The Green Party and Libertarian Party have clearly formulated programs with specific goals. Theoretically, their candidate could win, but in reality they never will. Jill Stein is making her third try on the GP ticket. There is no reason to think she will do any better than the last two times, when she won 0 and 0 states, respectively. The LP doesn't even have a candidate yet and will ultimately pick a complete unknown. These two have the best chances of winning since they are actual parties with organization, ballot positions, and programs. But they never get anywhere.

Messina points out that support in the national polls means nothing. In June 1992, Ross Perot was the leading candidate nationally, with 39% in the polls. He actually got 20% in the end, but no states. And it's states that matter. In September 2016, Gary Johnson polled at 10%. He ended up with 3% (better than Stein's 1%), but he still got 0 electoral votes. It is clear that voters are willing to tell pollsters that they are fed up with the major parties and will vote for a third party, but come November they largely don't do it.

No Labels is trying to raise $70 million and is acting like a political party without registering as such. The legality of this is iffy but it has gotten on the ballot in 12 states so far. It has a wishy-washy program that avoids all the contentious issues like immigration and abortion, saying they would use common sense. With no program and no candidates, they are trying to sucker people who are unhappy with how things are going to take a chance on them. Multiple polls suggest that Democrats are more likely to fall for this than Republicans. Billionaire Republican megadonors, like Clarence Thomas' best friend Harlan Crow, know this and are supporting No Labels in hopes of it pulling enough support from Joe Biden to elect Trump. Other third-party and independent candidates also draw more from Biden than Trump. The definitive study of the 1992 election shows that Ross Perot decreased Bill Clinton's margin by 7 points.

Messina, who is highly knowledgeable (but not highly neutral), concludes that the evidence shows that a No Labels candidate would hurt Biden more than he or she would hurt Trump, especially if the top of the ticket was acceptable to many Democrats. If it is a Republican, say, Larry Hogan, he could draw votes from anti-Trump Republicans. In any event, Messina concludes that there is no way a third-party candidate could win.

One thing that Messina didn't mention but might solve a lot of problems is fusion voting, as in New York and some other states. With fusion voting, a small fringe party runs the same slate of electors as one of the major parties. The votes on both ballot lines for the same electors are added up. For example, the Working Families Party in New York almost always supports the Democrat, but allows progressive Democrats to let off steam by not voting for the Democratic Party, but also not hurting the Democratic candidate. The Conservative Party does the same thing for disgruntled Republicans. With fusion voting, you can make a statement but not throw the election to the enemy at the same time. In the 19th century fusion voting was common but now many states have banned it. Bringing it back would cost nothing and perhaps strengthen democracy by allowing people to express what they want without risking getting the precise opposite. (V)

A December to Rhymember, Part XII: My Kingdom for a Horse Race

Today, a couple of selections about the 2024 Republican presidential "contest." First, from D.C. in Portland, OR:

Haley & Christie, Ron D and the jerk
Hustle and jostle to be runner up
News persons lob softballs; a performative act
Serving their dish of alternative facts
It's a farce, of course, without the four-times indicted
Who stands on his own stage, no rivals invited
When push comes to shove, at the end of the day
And it's finally time, the voters have their say
This comedic tragedy of a pointless process
A pea beneath mattresses missing a princess
A rotting ship long after it sank
Biden will meet Trump; you can take that to the bank.

Adding their two cents is S.E. in Hartsdale, NY:

The GOP Unwell

O come, all ye faithful,
Our gay apparel now we don.
Here comes DeSantis, here comes DeSantis.
Our gay apparel must be gone.

Oh, Haley might
See her star a-rising.
But Trump still leads.
MAGA earth wants their king.

Dashing through debates
Is Ramaswamy's way.
He's not jolly, he's too mean.
He won't have his day.

We wish you a merry Christie
And a helping of fear,
But hark, the herald fails.
It won't be his year.

Up on the polls' top
Sits a would-be king.
O'er the field he goes
Jingle, jingle, jing.

More tomorrow; send your verse here. (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers