I'm going to take a slightly contrarian position to the general thrust of the comments here. I don't believe that "all Republicans love Trump" - not at all. He's a demagogue who has an extremely devoted following of people who have either gullibly fallen for his shtick or are just far-right politically. And that puts other Republicans - the folks MAGA-types like to call "RINOs" in a tough spot.
My belief is that there are plenty of moderate Republicans - including people in office right now - who would love to see Trump go away (whether that means prison or dead, doesn't really matter - whatever takes him out of the picture). But these people are in a tough position. If you're a Republican voter are you going to vote for Biden? Or any other Democrat? Or do you hold your nose and vote for Trump? Third-party isn't going to get it done and we all know that. I mean, all the RFK Jr talk revolves around whether his candidacy draws more votes from Biden or from Trump. No one thinks he can actually win.
If you're a candidate for, let's say the House, and you know you'll have a hard time winning your district if you alienate the MAGA folks, do you stand on principle, be honest and say "I don't like Trump and here's why" or do you pretend to back him (or at least stay as non-committal as possible)... just so you can get elected? These are politicians, so we probably can guess the answer there.
Ultimately I think the idea that all but one of the non-Trump candidates should get out. They won't, but it would present a chance to actually see if the Republicans are as bent on Trump as the Democrats believe they are. Right now all the Republicans who don't like Trump have a slew of people to choose from and it simply splits the "opposition" vote. Would a viable non-Trump candidate (and I agree with Nate that it's probably Haley or maybe DeSantis) actually be able to win some primaries in a one-on-one with Trump? My guess is yes. There are also probably some respondents who say Trump simply because he's leading. Why say I support Haley when she has no chance? Easier to go with the herd. Which of course feeds the narrative that Republicans love Trump.
If there were a Democrat who was also a very popular far-left demagogue, I suspect the Dems would have a similar problem. And in a way they do: because Biden's the incumbent, few Democrats would have the cojones to outright say he shouldn't run and back it up by challenging him the way Ted Kennedy did with Carter in 1980. Only RFK Jr did that this time around, and he got so little traction he went independent.
To me it seems difficult to find evidence of moderate Republicans anymore though. The policies coming out of red states are alarming. I don't know what the House is going to do under the new speaker so we'll have to see. A lot of people left the Republicans over the last eight years, but a lot of people have left the Democrats since then too. Does moderate mean the exact same policies but just not Trump? Idk.
What is an example of a red state policy you find "alarming"? There are certainly things I dislike or don't prefer, but nothing that keeps me up at night.
Taking away women's bodily autonomy would be the top one. And they've been willing to go after other rights (speech, travel, etc.) in service of that too. The censorship in public education, and other attempts to gut it, are another. Expansion of gun rights as the solution to every public safety problem. Trying to make it harder to vote despite zero evidence of fraud. Just a lot of deeply illiberal policies, with many more being proposed. And for the record, the best criticisms of Democrats are when they behave illiberally. So far I haven't found the left fringe to be as dangerous as what's coming from the right, but that could theoretically change. The structural advantages conservatives have in our system means they don't need to get as big a vote share to get full control, which means they don't need as much of the middle, so it would make sense that they could be more extreme. It is interesting though that each side claims the other poses an existential danger of authoritarianism to the country.
People have a principled argument against a portion and think it’s murder. You disagree. Fine. It’s not about “controlling women,” but whatever. You already have the bumper sticker memorized.
But then you instantly go on about “controlling specs and travel.” What fucking planet are you on? Does your tinfoil hat pick up FM stations, too, or just Rachel Maddow’s fever dreams? 😅
Well, they just completely took over the house with their minority so it's not really worth discussing the nuance now. One of the top 20 most powerful people in the world is an election denier because the Trumpers through a hissy fit so hard the Republicans gave them the keys instead of working with Democrats.
According to this article* the death rate for wealthy, elderly Americans is 19% less than the national average. Given that 77 year old men in the US have a 4.9%** chance of dying that would give Trump about a 4.0% chance of dying before the nomination. Nate quoted Ron's chances at as high as 8% so it is probably less likely for him to die than lose the nomination but not by all that much.
You never want to say 'this time is different' but it also seems like we're building up massive tension on a fault line and are due for a major earthquake. Neither Biden nor Trump looks remotely electable, and yet there's no plausible narrative of how anyone else ends up as president. If Biden wins I don't think Republicans will tolerate it; they barely did the last time and they're barely concealing intent to revolt now. If Trump wins the Republican plans for governing are more radical than anything we've seen in our lifetimes and I'm skeptical human rights, civil rights, the rule of law, and democracy, survive it.
So the question for data journalism is, is there a more robust way to ask these questions, since I'm not interested in replies of 'lol, cry lib'. What datasets should we be looking at, what precedents do we have? In other words is there a way to test my hypothesis that we are in an extreme outlier?
Both seem likely. I don't think it's wise to assume Republicans are bluffing. Many of them believe they are in existential danger, and that motivates the way nothing else does.
Republicans found the glitch in democracy. Just create so much noise that people opt out. It's the same thing the cults do. Make it so your on group is clearly insane and the normal folks run away and the ones who self select will do literally anything you tell them. It's just shocking that a third of all people are willing to join this cult that has said every lie and despicable thing possible.
Trump way ahead in the Republican primaries is one thing. Trump also running neck and neck (or even slightly ahead) with Biden in general 2024 polling is the more interesting phenomenon.
Yeah I'd really like to hear Nate's take on that. I know he says it's too early, but I'm still curious his ballpark odds for the presidential and congressional outcomes.
If I were him I'd point out that it is far too early to view these polls as having anything resembling predictive power.
But they do say something about the current cultural moment I think. I don't think the polls say anything about Trump's odds of winning but I would argue that they suggest that he is _viable_. And for a guy facing a ton of criminal charges and who has been vilified by the opposition as a tyrant, dictator, threat to democracy, etc. that has all sorts of interesting implications.
Yeah I don't think we've seen anything like this in our lifetimes. I think Biden's struggles are 'normal' politically. Voters tend to flock to the alternative, but in this case the alternative is very different from what it's ever been. To me that suggests a systemic failure becomes likely.
Biden's struggles are normal in the sense that when current conditions are bad the public blames the incumbent. But the ways in which those conditions are bad now are historically unusual and, I would argue, significant.
We'll probably disagree here. I see inflation giving voters economic anxiety, I see two major wars in the world, and I see lots of refugees at our border. I understand voters feeling a sense of instability, and looking for some kind of strength to fix it. But I think that's happened before. The stark division in our country, if that's one of the bad conditions, we haven't seen since the civil war. But beyond that, I know there are other narratives held by conservatives which I am not yet convinced are sufficiently supported by facts on the ground. The public will decide I guess. I'm looking to what the median voter (median in the sense of where the election is decided, not the 50/50 split) is thinking, not what the base on either side is thinking. That is, do the median voters think it's historically unusual or unprecedented? Not sure they do, but maybe I'm wrong.
1) The trouble overseas corresponds with the end of American dominance as the globe's sole superpower after the fall of the Soviet Union. The world is entering into a new era of great power competition.
I think it's fair to characterize the new era as "Cold War II". If you think that's "happened before" since there was a "Cold War I" I think that's technically correct but I would still argue that it has real historical significance.
2) Crime rates increased from around 1960-1990 and then decreased from about 1990-2020. It's a small data set but I wonder if we are looking at something like a 30 year cycle, which would imply another couple of decades of rising crime rates and all the attendant repercussions on society.
3) The last time inflation was this bad was the 1970's and it took two recessions to sort it out. Again, it's happened before but not for decades.
Do you want a list of articles from journalists and commenters griping about how the charges are weak sauce? The idea that the press is a monolith is as flawed as the idea that it's impartial.
Obviously Trump's most likely to win the GOP nomination. But I think DeSantis' chances are being underestimated. There's a decent chance that he'll overperform in Iowa and New Hampshire and then use the momentum to make it a two-man race.
Despite his flailing campaign, DeSantis continues to rack up endorsements from local GOP elected officials in the early states. That combined with on the ground presence may help him do better than expected.
And a reminder again—DeSantis killed more Americans than Osama Bin Laden by attacking public health officials. He also tortured detainees at Gitmo…it’s crazy that Republican voters are even flirting with a guy like DeSantis although I understand why the establishment wants him to be their candidate.
FL could have had a Covid death rate similar to NC’s had DeSantis been more aggressive mitigation measures in 2020 and kept them longer in 2021…and NC has just as strong an economy as FL.
You are a lost cause—YOU DON’T ADJUST FOR AGE!!!! Florida has awful numbers…but you most likely believe Bush kept us safe even though 9/11 happened on his watch.
Surely they’re waiting to see if he ends up in prison first? You wouldn’t want to be the candidate who dropped out just before Trump was forced to leave the race.
Yeah but what situation, including a conviction, could force him from the race? He's established himself as a martyr with the base, and the more legal trouble he's in, the more he needs to be in the race because it's his only way out. I don't see the Republican party fracturing into two over it because that would only ensure a Democratic victory, and antipathy to Democrats is what most unites them, far more than anything else.
Is there any realistic way he gets convicted of anything before 11.05.24 though? Our legal system gives defendants almost endless ways to slow down and delay proceedings.
The federal coup trial is scheduled for Mar 2024, and prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith's office estimate it'd take 4-6 weeks to make their case. Assume same amount for the defense, 1-2 weeks for the jury to rule, it'd be decided in June 2024.
I often reference the old podcast ShitTown when I talk to my liberal friends about how anyone could support Trump. There are a lot of disaffected people out there, who are disaffected for legitimate reasons because the system *does* *not* *work* for them; it's set up for people of means, not wage-earners (especially low wager-earners). America's a great place to make money when you have money. It's *really* hard to hike up the hill, though. So, sure, burn it all down.
The problem is, the Republican Party and Trump in particular are not the saviors in this situation. Quite the reverse, actually, as was evidenced by the massive tax cut for corporations and wealthy people that was passed and their steadfast opposition to social welfare programs and any effort to control global warming. Neither are the Democrats necessarily, but the Democratic Party is at least responsive sometimes to its actual constituents. 2016 reminded me a lot of 2000 - who cares, they're both the same! - but we saw what happened with that. And 2020 and 2024 are kind of feeling like 2012 to me - backlash! fight the power / Tea Party stuff. Except as then, the backlash is against the wrong people. (It's also a lot weaker).
Trump’s strength in the debates in 2016 was counterpunching…and really his campaign in 2016 was based on a critique of the GOP platform which in essence is counterpunching. So Trump saw a husk of a political party ripe for a hostile takeover because its platform was so distorted by Bush/Cheney in the aftermath of 9/11. Republicans in Congress elected Liz Cheney into leadership in January 2021 and now they have elected a guy that got his start in politics fanning the flames of the culture wars in order to help Bush/Cheney…the GOP is a lost cause but unfortunately it exists and the right wing echo chamber is great at what it does which is why this next election will be close.
They’re hoping for the field to winnow. . . and by the looks of it, it is. Mike Pence has now dropped out and will probably endorse whoever appears strongest against Trump. Tim Scott probably isn’t going to qualify for the next debate. Last I checked, Chris Christie isn’t even selling campaign merch, which is a pretty big indicator that he isn’t running a serious campaign. Vivek only appeals to people already committed to Trump, and will probably drop out to curry favor with him.
So that leaves DeSantis, Haley, and Trump as the only major contenders. If either DeSantis or Haley drops out after the first few states, the rest of the party could coalesce behind one of them. It’s a long shot, but it’s not impossible. That’s basically how Biden beat Sanders in 2020.
Wait...you're saying there's a primary race happening now?
I'm going to take a slightly contrarian position to the general thrust of the comments here. I don't believe that "all Republicans love Trump" - not at all. He's a demagogue who has an extremely devoted following of people who have either gullibly fallen for his shtick or are just far-right politically. And that puts other Republicans - the folks MAGA-types like to call "RINOs" in a tough spot.
My belief is that there are plenty of moderate Republicans - including people in office right now - who would love to see Trump go away (whether that means prison or dead, doesn't really matter - whatever takes him out of the picture). But these people are in a tough position. If you're a Republican voter are you going to vote for Biden? Or any other Democrat? Or do you hold your nose and vote for Trump? Third-party isn't going to get it done and we all know that. I mean, all the RFK Jr talk revolves around whether his candidacy draws more votes from Biden or from Trump. No one thinks he can actually win.
If you're a candidate for, let's say the House, and you know you'll have a hard time winning your district if you alienate the MAGA folks, do you stand on principle, be honest and say "I don't like Trump and here's why" or do you pretend to back him (or at least stay as non-committal as possible)... just so you can get elected? These are politicians, so we probably can guess the answer there.
Ultimately I think the idea that all but one of the non-Trump candidates should get out. They won't, but it would present a chance to actually see if the Republicans are as bent on Trump as the Democrats believe they are. Right now all the Republicans who don't like Trump have a slew of people to choose from and it simply splits the "opposition" vote. Would a viable non-Trump candidate (and I agree with Nate that it's probably Haley or maybe DeSantis) actually be able to win some primaries in a one-on-one with Trump? My guess is yes. There are also probably some respondents who say Trump simply because he's leading. Why say I support Haley when she has no chance? Easier to go with the herd. Which of course feeds the narrative that Republicans love Trump.
If there were a Democrat who was also a very popular far-left demagogue, I suspect the Dems would have a similar problem. And in a way they do: because Biden's the incumbent, few Democrats would have the cojones to outright say he shouldn't run and back it up by challenging him the way Ted Kennedy did with Carter in 1980. Only RFK Jr did that this time around, and he got so little traction he went independent.
To me it seems difficult to find evidence of moderate Republicans anymore though. The policies coming out of red states are alarming. I don't know what the House is going to do under the new speaker so we'll have to see. A lot of people left the Republicans over the last eight years, but a lot of people have left the Democrats since then too. Does moderate mean the exact same policies but just not Trump? Idk.
What is an example of a red state policy you find "alarming"? There are certainly things I dislike or don't prefer, but nothing that keeps me up at night.
Taking away women's bodily autonomy would be the top one. And they've been willing to go after other rights (speech, travel, etc.) in service of that too. The censorship in public education, and other attempts to gut it, are another. Expansion of gun rights as the solution to every public safety problem. Trying to make it harder to vote despite zero evidence of fraud. Just a lot of deeply illiberal policies, with many more being proposed. And for the record, the best criticisms of Democrats are when they behave illiberally. So far I haven't found the left fringe to be as dangerous as what's coming from the right, but that could theoretically change. The structural advantages conservatives have in our system means they don't need to get as big a vote share to get full control, which means they don't need as much of the middle, so it would make sense that they could be more extreme. It is interesting though that each side claims the other poses an existential danger of authoritarianism to the country.
People have a principled argument against a portion and think it’s murder. You disagree. Fine. It’s not about “controlling women,” but whatever. You already have the bumper sticker memorized.
But then you instantly go on about “controlling specs and travel.” What fucking planet are you on? Does your tinfoil hat pick up FM stations, too, or just Rachel Maddow’s fever dreams? 😅
Well, they just completely took over the house with their minority so it's not really worth discussing the nuance now. One of the top 20 most powerful people in the world is an election denier because the Trumpers through a hissy fit so hard the Republicans gave them the keys instead of working with Democrats.
Nate. Silver. Fans. Demand. Live. Sports. Predictions. Like. 538. Had.
Yes!…and the NFL prediction game.
The most likely way for Trump to lose the nomination is to die before the convention.
Even going to jail wouldn't do it -- that would probably make him *more* likely to win.
According to this article* the death rate for wealthy, elderly Americans is 19% less than the national average. Given that 77 year old men in the US have a 4.9%** chance of dying that would give Trump about a 4.0% chance of dying before the nomination. Nate quoted Ron's chances at as high as 8% so it is probably less likely for him to die than lose the nomination but not by all that much.
*https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790904
**https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
bringing numbers to a vibe fight, I like it!
thanks, this is informative
dying at age 77, i mean
You never want to say 'this time is different' but it also seems like we're building up massive tension on a fault line and are due for a major earthquake. Neither Biden nor Trump looks remotely electable, and yet there's no plausible narrative of how anyone else ends up as president. If Biden wins I don't think Republicans will tolerate it; they barely did the last time and they're barely concealing intent to revolt now. If Trump wins the Republican plans for governing are more radical than anything we've seen in our lifetimes and I'm skeptical human rights, civil rights, the rule of law, and democracy, survive it.
So the question for data journalism is, is there a more robust way to ask these questions, since I'm not interested in replies of 'lol, cry lib'. What datasets should we be looking at, what precedents do we have? In other words is there a way to test my hypothesis that we are in an extreme outlier?
Are you worried about riots and violence if Biden wins or are you worry about mischief at the State Legislature/House of Representatives level?
Both seem likely. I don't think it's wise to assume Republicans are bluffing. Many of them believe they are in existential danger, and that motivates the way nothing else does.
Were none of you people alive after the 2016 election when people rioted for weeks? JFC
You called it! Now I’m thinking I need to go double the money I had on your basketball bets
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/28/us/politics/pence-drops-out-2024.html
Republicans found the glitch in democracy. Just create so much noise that people opt out. It's the same thing the cults do. Make it so your on group is clearly insane and the normal folks run away and the ones who self select will do literally anything you tell them. It's just shocking that a third of all people are willing to join this cult that has said every lie and despicable thing possible.
How much do other factors like "I wanna be Trump's VP" or "I'm just practicing for 2028" affect when a candidate drops out?
Trump way ahead in the Republican primaries is one thing. Trump also running neck and neck (or even slightly ahead) with Biden in general 2024 polling is the more interesting phenomenon.
Yeah I'd really like to hear Nate's take on that. I know he says it's too early, but I'm still curious his ballpark odds for the presidential and congressional outcomes.
If I were him I'd point out that it is far too early to view these polls as having anything resembling predictive power.
But they do say something about the current cultural moment I think. I don't think the polls say anything about Trump's odds of winning but I would argue that they suggest that he is _viable_. And for a guy facing a ton of criminal charges and who has been vilified by the opposition as a tyrant, dictator, threat to democracy, etc. that has all sorts of interesting implications.
Yeah I don't think we've seen anything like this in our lifetimes. I think Biden's struggles are 'normal' politically. Voters tend to flock to the alternative, but in this case the alternative is very different from what it's ever been. To me that suggests a systemic failure becomes likely.
Biden's struggles are normal in the sense that when current conditions are bad the public blames the incumbent. But the ways in which those conditions are bad now are historically unusual and, I would argue, significant.
We'll probably disagree here. I see inflation giving voters economic anxiety, I see two major wars in the world, and I see lots of refugees at our border. I understand voters feeling a sense of instability, and looking for some kind of strength to fix it. But I think that's happened before. The stark division in our country, if that's one of the bad conditions, we haven't seen since the civil war. But beyond that, I know there are other narratives held by conservatives which I am not yet convinced are sufficiently supported by facts on the ground. The public will decide I guess. I'm looking to what the median voter (median in the sense of where the election is decided, not the 50/50 split) is thinking, not what the base on either side is thinking. That is, do the median voters think it's historically unusual or unprecedented? Not sure they do, but maybe I'm wrong.
1) The trouble overseas corresponds with the end of American dominance as the globe's sole superpower after the fall of the Soviet Union. The world is entering into a new era of great power competition.
I think it's fair to characterize the new era as "Cold War II". If you think that's "happened before" since there was a "Cold War I" I think that's technically correct but I would still argue that it has real historical significance.
2) Crime rates increased from around 1960-1990 and then decreased from about 1990-2020. It's a small data set but I wonder if we are looking at something like a 30 year cycle, which would imply another couple of decades of rising crime rates and all the attendant repercussions on society.
3) The last time inflation was this bad was the 1970's and it took two recessions to sort it out. Again, it's happened before but not for decades.
That is not the testament to impartiality that you think it is.
Plus the willingness of the general public to look past those charges is one of the interesting phenomenon that I am talking about.
Do you want a list of articles from journalists and commenters griping about how the charges are weak sauce? The idea that the press is a monolith is as flawed as the idea that it's impartial.
Obviously Trump's most likely to win the GOP nomination. But I think DeSantis' chances are being underestimated. There's a decent chance that he'll overperform in Iowa and New Hampshire and then use the momentum to make it a two-man race.
Despite his flailing campaign, DeSantis continues to rack up endorsements from local GOP elected officials in the early states. That combined with on the ground presence may help him do better than expected.
And a reminder again—DeSantis killed more Americans than Osama Bin Laden by attacking public health officials. He also tortured detainees at Gitmo…it’s crazy that Republican voters are even flirting with a guy like DeSantis although I understand why the establishment wants him to be their candidate.
This is simply unhinged.
FL could have had a Covid death rate similar to NC’s had DeSantis been more aggressive mitigation measures in 2020 and kept them longer in 2021…and NC has just as strong an economy as FL.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/why-major-study-argues-floridas-covid-death-rate-compares-favorably-to-californias/
You are a lost cause—YOU DON’T ADJUST FOR AGE!!!! Florida has awful numbers…but you most likely believe Bush kept us safe even though 9/11 happened on his watch.
Surely they’re waiting to see if he ends up in prison first? You wouldn’t want to be the candidate who dropped out just before Trump was forced to leave the race.
Yeah but what situation, including a conviction, could force him from the race? He's established himself as a martyr with the base, and the more legal trouble he's in, the more he needs to be in the race because it's his only way out. I don't see the Republican party fracturing into two over it because that would only ensure a Democratic victory, and antipathy to Democrats is what most unites them, far more than anything else.
Vivek Wembanyama
Do you think Trump’s potential conviction affects the model?
Is there any realistic way he gets convicted of anything before 11.05.24 though? Our legal system gives defendants almost endless ways to slow down and delay proceedings.
The federal coup trial is scheduled for Mar 2024, and prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith's office estimate it'd take 4-6 weeks to make their case. Assume same amount for the defense, 1-2 weeks for the jury to rule, it'd be decided in June 2024.
I've heard the judge thinks it's very important to get it done before the election (and she's right) but we'll see.
And there goes Scott. Next up is DeSantis if your streak continues.
I often reference the old podcast ShitTown when I talk to my liberal friends about how anyone could support Trump. There are a lot of disaffected people out there, who are disaffected for legitimate reasons because the system *does* *not* *work* for them; it's set up for people of means, not wage-earners (especially low wager-earners). America's a great place to make money when you have money. It's *really* hard to hike up the hill, though. So, sure, burn it all down.
The problem is, the Republican Party and Trump in particular are not the saviors in this situation. Quite the reverse, actually, as was evidenced by the massive tax cut for corporations and wealthy people that was passed and their steadfast opposition to social welfare programs and any effort to control global warming. Neither are the Democrats necessarily, but the Democratic Party is at least responsive sometimes to its actual constituents. 2016 reminded me a lot of 2000 - who cares, they're both the same! - but we saw what happened with that. And 2020 and 2024 are kind of feeling like 2012 to me - backlash! fight the power / Tea Party stuff. Except as then, the backlash is against the wrong people. (It's also a lot weaker).
Trump’s strength in the debates in 2016 was counterpunching…and really his campaign in 2016 was based on a critique of the GOP platform which in essence is counterpunching. So Trump saw a husk of a political party ripe for a hostile takeover because its platform was so distorted by Bush/Cheney in the aftermath of 9/11. Republicans in Congress elected Liz Cheney into leadership in January 2021 and now they have elected a guy that got his start in politics fanning the flames of the culture wars in order to help Bush/Cheney…the GOP is a lost cause but unfortunately it exists and the right wing echo chamber is great at what it does which is why this next election will be close.
Sorry, 2022 / 2024, not 2020.
2020 was just... unique.
They’re hoping for the field to winnow. . . and by the looks of it, it is. Mike Pence has now dropped out and will probably endorse whoever appears strongest against Trump. Tim Scott probably isn’t going to qualify for the next debate. Last I checked, Chris Christie isn’t even selling campaign merch, which is a pretty big indicator that he isn’t running a serious campaign. Vivek only appeals to people already committed to Trump, and will probably drop out to curry favor with him.
So that leaves DeSantis, Haley, and Trump as the only major contenders. If either DeSantis or Haley drops out after the first few states, the rest of the party could coalesce behind one of them. It’s a long shot, but it’s not impossible. That’s basically how Biden beat Sanders in 2020.
I think Vivek is running for VP. Although he's also raising his profile for a 2028 Presidential run regardless of what happens in 2024.