Anti-trump republicans + undecideds + independents + democrats ought be enough to get Biden in. BUT the messaging from his campaign is woefully weak. He needs to adopt the Lincoln Project model.
Nowhere has Biden called Trump a rapist, or a fraud, or insurrectionist. No mention of 400++ million in penalties. Even Gary Tuckman at CNN threw softball questions at his focus group in SC. TAKE THE GLOVES OFF and deliver messages themed on the Trump Crime Syndicate. OBTW where’s Melania? Anyone reading this agree??
I have felt the mostly positive messaging from Biden's camp has not been balanced enough. I think there needs to be positive messaging, however, it should be better balanced with the reality messaging. And voters should be reminded in every speech/conversation/sound bite the 2020 election was the cleanest and most accurate in history, to offset a little every time Trump claims the 2020 election was stolen.
The key here is..that EVERYONE who doesn’t want to experience a second Trump administration must vote, and most particularly in “swing states”. We simply cannot allow the electoral college to hand a victory to the criminal citizen Donald J Trump.
Trump does look sort of weak for a quasi-incumbent. He has enough of a vote share in the GOP to own the party...but even with seemingly every elected GOP official endorsing Trump, almost no officials endorsing Haley, and the media (correctly) declaring the primaries over, Haley still managed just under 40% of the vote on Saturday. That 40% that supported Haley really doesn't want Trump. Maybe most of those Haley voters come home in the general election and pull the lever for Trump when it's Trump vs. Biden. But maybe they sit the election out or vote for Biden instead. It's potentially a huge problem for Trump.
Finding a way to make the RFK jr., West, and Stein supporters understand the danger in electing Trump would also help. This is not the year to be casting a protest vote.
Why do you say that only RFK will make it to the ballot? Jill Stein was just cleared to run on the green party ticket in Wisconsin. That alone could be a problem. And I don't know why she won't be on ballots elsewhere.
I don't know of any support for your view. She got on enough ballots in past to make a difference. As noted, even her recent success to get on ballot in WI could be a problem.
I was also curious about some of the spin coming out of South Carolina, that essentially 40 percent of voters voting against someone essentially running an incumbent primary was a really bad sign, but I'm not sure whether that's valid or wishcasting.
40% of Republican voters (and likely some independents and Democrats may have reregistered as Republicans for the primary; more on that later…) NOT voting for Trump isn’t “wishcasting”: it’s a FACT that has happened repeatedly in the Republican primaries! You can’t ignore the simple statistical fact that there are a LOT of Republican voters that are looking for alternatives to Trump. Period.
And of COURSE we can’t let this clear good news distract us from the job ahead in November: we’ve got a LOT of work to do to make certain that we get EVERYONE out to vote and that if we do, we have a very good shot at winning this.
I think Chris gives WAY too much credence to the “polling averages” from RCP and FiveThirtyEight, as MANY political writers I read here say that there are a lot of “junk” polls, ie highly partisan polls with small sample sizes and questionable algorithms & methodology, that skew their averages toward Trump.
And lastly, even if the 40% of the Republican primary voters that want some one other than Trump also included independents and Democrats, think about that: there was enough motivation for those voters to “send a message” to Donald J Trump that they went through the extra work of reregistering as a Republican in order to make their voices heard. That kind of enthusiasm, come November, is a GOOD thing. As Simon Rosenberg at Hopium Chronicles says, I’d rather be us than them!
Robert Reich has a column about a very similar topic: Dumpy won against Nikki Haley about 60% - 40%, but losing 40% of the vote when he's essentially an incumbent running for reelection is not very impressive. Reading Chris's column and Robert Reich's column have started my Monday off very nicely. Next will be Kareem's column, and that's always uplifting.
Thanks Chris, as always. It does appear that Trump has some weaknesses but am not convinced that it will make a difference. I am sure that 2016 is part of the reason, as no one thought he could win. It will be a very very close race and we need to get out and vote 💙 but am afraid that some will sit out, as they did in 2016. We can not be over confident and stay home, too much is at stake. I have talked to people and some are saying that they will vote but resigned to the fact that Trump will win. Biden needs to get out and not only prove he is capable of being POTUS once again, but come out strong with messaging and go after Trump, as well.
These poll-vs-result observations are the opposite of what happened in 16 and 20, where Trump OUTperformed polling, based on what we think were “shy Trump voters”. The Hillary campaign polled WI, PA and MI and saw that their candidate was ahead in all. Oops! So perhaps a different dynamic is at play this year?
It is interesting . In years past, there had been a sense that Trump under-polled b/c people were (rightly) embarrassed about supporting him. At least 2 explanations occur to me re the dynamic you mention: 1) pollsters have skewed their models too far toward Trump voters (ie, over-correction for past errors) or 2) some of Trump's supporters are not habitual voters and , thus, not reliable. As to the second, Tim Miller says that the voters Ds have picked up are reliable and the Trumpers are not. So unlike conventional wisdom , perhaps general high turnout is not good for Ds this year. We need somehow to rally the right troops while letting the wrong ones sleep in
Kudos on a thoughtful analysis. There are many unusual ,& in some instances unique, variables in play this cycle:third party candidates ; a candidate perceived as weakened by age; a candidate plagued by legal/ financial trouble; & a candidate who is a former POTUS . As to the latter factor, Trump is , in essence, the incumbent R candidate. In the 1968 NH primary, McCarthy got a little over 40% of the vote and it was viewed as a major blow to Johnson, who, of course , later dropped out. Trump wins by about the same margin and it is hailed as a major victory. And it is - in the primaries. But the result and the cross-tabs on the exit polling show weakness in a different way. Note 80% of Haley's 40% said they were motivated to vote against Trump. When Haley voters are asked about whether they'd vote for Trump, I've seen numbers saying "no " ranging for 35-50%. In a two person race, that could make the difference. How much will the 3rd parties muck things up? How will Joe hold up during the race? Can Jack Smith get on a trial calendar and convict Trump in time to make a difference? As the old curse goes, "may you live in interesting times."
While I appreciate Chris’s perspective, and I’m glad this posting takes a more critical look at what Haley getting 40% of the vote actually means, I read a really good article this morning from Jonathan V. Last at The Bulwark that really digs *deeply* into the exit polls from SC and provides a really good “lens” to see just how poorly Trump, as more or less the “incumbent”, is actually doing:
Spot-on. My math goes like this:
Anti-trump republicans + undecideds + independents + democrats ought be enough to get Biden in. BUT the messaging from his campaign is woefully weak. He needs to adopt the Lincoln Project model.
Nowhere has Biden called Trump a rapist, or a fraud, or insurrectionist. No mention of 400++ million in penalties. Even Gary Tuckman at CNN threw softball questions at his focus group in SC. TAKE THE GLOVES OFF and deliver messages themed on the Trump Crime Syndicate. OBTW where’s Melania? Anyone reading this agree??
I have felt the mostly positive messaging from Biden's camp has not been balanced enough. I think there needs to be positive messaging, however, it should be better balanced with the reality messaging. And voters should be reminded in every speech/conversation/sound bite the 2020 election was the cleanest and most accurate in history, to offset a little every time Trump claims the 2020 election was stolen.
I do. Fight harder, President Biden.
The key here is..that EVERYONE who doesn’t want to experience a second Trump administration must vote, and most particularly in “swing states”. We simply cannot allow the electoral college to hand a victory to the criminal citizen Donald J Trump.
Trump does look sort of weak for a quasi-incumbent. He has enough of a vote share in the GOP to own the party...but even with seemingly every elected GOP official endorsing Trump, almost no officials endorsing Haley, and the media (correctly) declaring the primaries over, Haley still managed just under 40% of the vote on Saturday. That 40% that supported Haley really doesn't want Trump. Maybe most of those Haley voters come home in the general election and pull the lever for Trump when it's Trump vs. Biden. But maybe they sit the election out or vote for Biden instead. It's potentially a huge problem for Trump.
Agreed! As Simon Rosenberg of Hopium Chronicles says: “I’d rather be us than them”!
Finding a way to make the RFK jr., West, and Stein supporters understand the danger in electing Trump would also help. This is not the year to be casting a protest vote.
Only RFK would make it to the ballot in November. And he draws from both Trump and Biden.
Why do you say that only RFK will make it to the ballot? Jill Stein was just cleared to run on the green party ticket in Wisconsin. That alone could be a problem. And I don't know why she won't be on ballots elsewhere.
The money would not be available for them to be on the ballot nationwide
I don't know of any support for your view. She got on enough ballots in past to make a difference. As noted, even her recent success to get on ballot in WI could be a problem.
I was going to ask you about this, Chris.
I was also curious about some of the spin coming out of South Carolina, that essentially 40 percent of voters voting against someone essentially running an incumbent primary was a really bad sign, but I'm not sure whether that's valid or wishcasting.
40% of Republican voters (and likely some independents and Democrats may have reregistered as Republicans for the primary; more on that later…) NOT voting for Trump isn’t “wishcasting”: it’s a FACT that has happened repeatedly in the Republican primaries! You can’t ignore the simple statistical fact that there are a LOT of Republican voters that are looking for alternatives to Trump. Period.
And of COURSE we can’t let this clear good news distract us from the job ahead in November: we’ve got a LOT of work to do to make certain that we get EVERYONE out to vote and that if we do, we have a very good shot at winning this.
I think Chris gives WAY too much credence to the “polling averages” from RCP and FiveThirtyEight, as MANY political writers I read here say that there are a lot of “junk” polls, ie highly partisan polls with small sample sizes and questionable algorithms & methodology, that skew their averages toward Trump.
And lastly, even if the 40% of the Republican primary voters that want some one other than Trump also included independents and Democrats, think about that: there was enough motivation for those voters to “send a message” to Donald J Trump that they went through the extra work of reregistering as a Republican in order to make their voices heard. That kind of enthusiasm, come November, is a GOOD thing. As Simon Rosenberg at Hopium Chronicles says, I’d rather be us than them!
Once people get a sense what a crackpot RFK Jr. is and learn more about him than his last name, his support will plummet.
Robert Reich has a column about a very similar topic: Dumpy won against Nikki Haley about 60% - 40%, but losing 40% of the vote when he's essentially an incumbent running for reelection is not very impressive. Reading Chris's column and Robert Reich's column have started my Monday off very nicely. Next will be Kareem's column, and that's always uplifting.
Meanwhile Biden won 65% AS A WRITE-IN in New Hampshire. And then went on to win on to win 96% in SC.
Dems are not willing to abandon Biden, despite the wishes of Dean Phillips.
Thanks Chris, as always. It does appear that Trump has some weaknesses but am not convinced that it will make a difference. I am sure that 2016 is part of the reason, as no one thought he could win. It will be a very very close race and we need to get out and vote 💙 but am afraid that some will sit out, as they did in 2016. We can not be over confident and stay home, too much is at stake. I have talked to people and some are saying that they will vote but resigned to the fact that Trump will win. Biden needs to get out and not only prove he is capable of being POTUS once again, but come out strong with messaging and go after Trump, as well.
These poll-vs-result observations are the opposite of what happened in 16 and 20, where Trump OUTperformed polling, based on what we think were “shy Trump voters”. The Hillary campaign polled WI, PA and MI and saw that their candidate was ahead in all. Oops! So perhaps a different dynamic is at play this year?
It is interesting . In years past, there had been a sense that Trump under-polled b/c people were (rightly) embarrassed about supporting him. At least 2 explanations occur to me re the dynamic you mention: 1) pollsters have skewed their models too far toward Trump voters (ie, over-correction for past errors) or 2) some of Trump's supporters are not habitual voters and , thus, not reliable. As to the second, Tim Miller says that the voters Ds have picked up are reliable and the Trumpers are not. So unlike conventional wisdom , perhaps general high turnout is not good for Ds this year. We need somehow to rally the right troops while letting the wrong ones sleep in
Great piece.. Hopeful but realistic! Thanks, Chris!
Kudos on a thoughtful analysis. There are many unusual ,& in some instances unique, variables in play this cycle:third party candidates ; a candidate perceived as weakened by age; a candidate plagued by legal/ financial trouble; & a candidate who is a former POTUS . As to the latter factor, Trump is , in essence, the incumbent R candidate. In the 1968 NH primary, McCarthy got a little over 40% of the vote and it was viewed as a major blow to Johnson, who, of course , later dropped out. Trump wins by about the same margin and it is hailed as a major victory. And it is - in the primaries. But the result and the cross-tabs on the exit polling show weakness in a different way. Note 80% of Haley's 40% said they were motivated to vote against Trump. When Haley voters are asked about whether they'd vote for Trump, I've seen numbers saying "no " ranging for 35-50%. In a two person race, that could make the difference. How much will the 3rd parties muck things up? How will Joe hold up during the race? Can Jack Smith get on a trial calendar and convict Trump in time to make a difference? As the old curse goes, "may you live in interesting times."
While I appreciate Chris’s perspective, and I’m glad this posting takes a more critical look at what Haley getting 40% of the vote actually means, I read a really good article this morning from Jonathan V. Last at The Bulwark that really digs *deeply* into the exit polls from SC and provides a really good “lens” to see just how poorly Trump, as more or less the “incumbent”, is actually doing:
https://open.substack.com/pub/thebulwark/p/haley-is-exposing-trumps-electoral?r=1hynaw&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Thanks for this small glimmer of hope. It ain’t over ‘til it’s over!