Other thought about political impact: this probably helps Trump with the age/ability contrast. Continuing to campaign after taking a bullet (albeit not a particularly damaging one) is going to enhance concerns that Biden doesn’t have the energy/stamina to be president.
Another way it'll help trump with the indies is induce them to see his conviction as part of a pattern of persecution instead of as overdue (if somewhat imperfect) justice.
Independents were already split. But the argument that democracy is more threatened by the party in power using state apparatus to imprison their opposition now has a new wrinkle: not only are they trying to imprison, but also to assassinate.
Anyone on the fence on this particular issue (and there are always people on the margin) could be tipped into Trump camp.
Why is the expectation always that the right must take the high road, while the left gets corporate sponsorships for a summer of fiery, but mostly peaceful (barf), protests?
Don’t forget the Steve Scalise shooting and attack on Rand Paul. Attacks against the right get memory holed. Attacks on the left? We never hear the end of it.
In case anyone is still in doubt, the media is the enemy of the people. The American nation must come together and unite, but where would that leave rich people profiting off of conflict?
And the demonstrations against Justice Kavanaugh at his home, while his wife and children were there (in violation of a Federal law prohibiting demonstrations outside the home of a Federal judge).
Nate Silver didn't say there was any expectation that the right must take the high road. Only that taking the high road would increase his electability chances.
The high road is always the expectation when it comes to public figures. This case in particular shows why as the alternative to the high road have some pretty dark possible paths.
Nate, you know full well what stochastic terrorism is. You know that Biden, Democrats, and the media have ramped up the rhetoric to hysterical levels. That this is an unprecedented election, that democracy is on the ballot, that Trump is a new Hitler, that he must be stopped /at any cost/. If one is pushing these extreme lines (some of which you've pushed too), one is pushing mentally ill young men into committing crimes this. Liberals understood this when Gabby Giffords was shot, and it's disgusting to see them clutch their pearls and declare how appalled they are now it's their turn to be at fault.
Give me a break. Both sides do it. People get shot, including kids at school and they don’t have secret service agents walking around with them.
How many right wingers are responsible for the massacre of Hispanics in El Paso, “they're replacing you with their voters”. Meanwhile most Hispanics don’t vote and those that do split 60/40.
Look at how the right wing write about Illhan Omar or AOC. Look at how they described Obama. Get over it! The only person responsible for the shooting is the shooter.
Motte and Bailey tactics. Democrats shrieked hysterically when Gabby Giffords was shot after Sarah Palin put out campaign literature with a target sign over target seats.
She’s definitely right about “both sides”. Political debate in America is turning into a cesspool. Some on the left have contributed and people like you are contributing as well. In case you’re wondering I’m out. No major party will get my vote.
It's also confusing that those that claimed Trump is the new Hitler are now declaring that their hopes and prayers are with Hitler, err Trump, and wish him a speedy recovery.
Only politicians are sending their thoughts and prayers and I can’t recall any of them calling Hitler. I’m not wasting my thoughts or prayers on that clown. Waste of a good prayer.
This is my position. I feel like a parent with a 24 year old (the Democrats) and a 13 year old (Republicans) in the back seat, and when I tell them to cut it out the 24 year old is like "he started it".
Which,
a) I don't care.
and b) How about as the adult involved you don't stoop down to their level?
It is embarrassing for the supposed adults in MSM/academia and the Democratic party constantly use the excuse "the Republicans/MAGA/Trump/Deplorables do it too" for their behavior.
Your policies are shit isn't the main thing you are offering that you are the adults in the room? Instead you sound like children pointing fingers at other children.
He was shot by a right wing extremist with an AR 15. Which party has been coddling up to the gun lobby and refuses to do anything? Which party does ads of their candidates shooting guns or takes Christmas pictures of the whole family with them? This has nothing to do with Democrats.
He wasn't shot by a right-wing extremist. The kid was an Antifa-linked Democrat donor who like millions of Democrats temporarily registered as a Republican in order to vote for Nikki Haley against Trump in the primary.
Do you happen to have proof for 'Antifa-linked'? All I've seen is that he donated $15 to ActBlue when he was 17 and was a registered republican who had voted in the 2022 midterm (and not since then, including any primaries).
It may end up not being true, but I didn't make it up. If it does end up being untrue it'll probably be because of the prankster (@jewgazing on Xitter) who pretended to be Crooks.
In order to vote for Nikki Haley against Trump in the primary, one would have to have voted since 2022, which the shooter did not do. And you conveniently ignored the fact that one party is 100000x more pro gun than the other.
The belief that citizens should or should not be able to defend themselves from attackers is an irrelevant straw man in this argument. Your desperation to change the subject is sad.
“Antifa-linked” lmfao log off and step into the real world you lose all credibility trying to call the other side nutjobs when you delve into conspiracy theory nonsense.
All we know is that he registered Republican for the 2022 primary and that he sent a very small contribution to a left-wing organization. So it cuts both ways. Everyone ought to admit that the only really material thing we know is that he wanted to kill Trump.
Right wing extremist? He contributed to Act Blue. What evidence do you have that he was a "right wing extremist"? That he registered Republican for the Pennsylvania primary in 2022? That he belonged to a gun club? In fact, none of his classmates knew much about him at all because he kept to himself. So you don't know; you surmise because it fits your preconceptions.
He didn't, as it happens—another media canard. He wondered thoughtfully to a friend, at a time when no one knew how Trump would turn out, if he might end up being America's Hitler. He since answered his own question in the negative, recognising that Trump—for all his many faults!—is far from a Hitler. Trump mostly governed as a moderate Democrat from the 90s, very much in the vein of a Bill Clinton, albeit more liberal and progressive on things like gay rights. That the Democratic Party has radicalised dramatically since the 90s is hardly Trump's fault.
Completely possible to hold two thoughts simultaneously:
I am horrified by the assassination attempt;
I would prefer not to have Trump re-elected.
As per Face The Nation this morning, Dems that were planning to approach Biden yet again this week have, bc of yesterday’s shooting, have decided to stand down, supposedly to “avoid more chaos.”
I’m sorry, but I simply cannot square the two. I don’t think the assassination attempt has any bearing on Americans’ overwhelming sentiment that Biden should step aside. Why do the Dems seem intent on limping to defeat?
It’s clear they don’t have a critical mass to force Biden out and one way or another the subject was going to get changed, though I think most imagined it would be the convention and VP selection.
Part of the whole logic of benefiting from replacing Biden is that he would be, on some level, willing to allow it. If he can’t be convinced, then the options are really bad if you’re a Dem insider. They would have to kamikaze the party to get a different nominee, which defeats the purpose.
Trump is a fund-raging machine, there’s more money to be made as an opposition party to an extremely polarizing president than there is in trying to run things with the weakest possible head of state.
I hear that, and I agree, but their pussyfooting completely undercuts every argument they’ve made about Trump’s existential threat to democracy. And it reveals them to be feckless cowards - not that that’s a huge surprise - but it’s still shocking to watch the party throw 70% of their fellow Americans under the bus out of concern for how it affects their own corrupt careers ….
I do find the hypocrisy from the left on rhetoric interesting. They blame Trump for inciting a riot (Jan 6) based on his rhetoric (where he instructed people to march peacefully to the capitol), but Biden constantly claims Trump is a threat to democracy and people’s freedoms and then says to donors it’s time to put Trump in the bullseye. That’s far more inciting and yet no one in the media will condemn Biden.
It's legitimate to criticize Trump for degrading Democratic norms IMO but the accusations that his election will be like Hitler's Machtergreifung in 1933 are hysterical and could contribute to violence.
Well he has said he will focus on retribution, he has said he will appoint only cabinet officials who are going to do nothing but his bidding, he has said he will fire 50,000 civil service people and turn Civil service back into a patronage thing. These are things Trump has said.
Do you think we should just ignore these things and pretend he didn't say them?
He didn't say he'd focus on retribution. That's classic BlueAnon misinformation. He said that if he acted like Biden he could focus on retribution, but that he's better than that so he won't. So the mainstream media only showed the first bit and clipped out the end. So NPCs who download their beliefs from the MSM think he said he'd focus on retribution. As I say, classic BlueAnon.
"I am your warrior, I am your justice,” Trump said in a nearly 90-minute speech, most of it focused on perceived political enemies and slights. “For those who have been wronged and betrayed … I am your retribution."
Eh, I think there is at least a little difference between mere radicalizing rhetoric and someone who, in addition to that then assembled a crowd who (whether at his behest or no) immediately went down the road and tried to violently interfere with government. Not that radicalizing rhetoric in either case is good (it's not, and stochastic terrorism is definitely a thing), but there is plenty of daylight between the two actions to draw a line of distinction that only one crossed.
Trump’s comments on Jan 6 are like the 10th worst thing he’s said. He has repeatedly said we won’t have a country if Biden wins again. The fear mongering from the left and right has been at least equal this campaign.
You mean that people should be peaceful? I love the delusion Jan 6 hysterical people have about that day. Tell me how many people died that day? Good test on your knowledge of the event.
What the shooting of Trump tells us is that it's time to turn down the temperature. No, Trump isn't a fascist trying to put black people into slavery or prosecute women who have abortions for murder. He is NOT a "threat to democracy". Every Democrat, including Joe Biden, has to think about how a nut would take repeated statements that to save America, we must at all costs prevent Donald Trump from returning from the White House (never mind that he never even tried to do the things they say he intends to do when he had four years to do it, including two years when he had Republican majorities in both houses). They have to think about how hysterical speeches by the Senate Majority Leader threatening Supreme Court Justices led to demonstrations in front of the Justices' houses and at least one attempt to murder a Justice.
But Republicans have to turn down the temperature, too. Joe Biden doesn't want to take every parent's authority over his or her children away and hand it to the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association. He doesn't want to hand America over to the Chinese. There is no proof that election fraud cost Trump the 2020 election. (No--that such allegations are unproven doesn't mean they're false, but it does mean you don't start doing things like breaking into the Capitol on that basis.)
Just as Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer didn't intend murder attempts on Donald Trump or Justice Kavanaugh, Donald Trump didn't intend rioters breaking into the Capitol screaming that the Vice President should be hanged. But the fiery rhetoric on both sides encouraged all of that. Stop! Just Stop!!! We disagree on things like defense and foreign policy, domestic spending, abortion, the rights of homosexuals and transsexuals, the security of the border, and other issues. But we decide thing at the ballot box--not with frivolous prosecutions and lawsuits, not with riots, not with election chicanery (either the sort that would let people who shouldn't vote or the sort that would keep people who should vote from voting), but by the votes of citizens properly identified as such cast without hindrance.
STOP!!! before someone IS killed by someone who thinks he's saving America from fascism or communism.
I agree with a lot of this, but I do think it’s fair to use the term “threat to democracy” to describe someone who attempts to subvert the outcome of a free and fair election (eg through alternative slates of electors).
Yeah, the guy literally tried to get the Georgia Secretary of State to forge votes for him. If that can't be considered a threat to democracy I don't know what is. That by no means merits an attempt on his life, but it's still the truth today as it was yesterday.
Yes. And Al Franken went out to "find" as many votes after Norm Coleman had won in Minnesota, and Christine Gregoire the same in Washington against Dino Rossi. We're not talking about urging fraud. We're talking about urging the secretary of state to look everywhere in case any votes were missed--exactly what the Franken and Gregoire campaigns did.
As far as alternative slates of electors. Florida's Secretary of State had certified the election returns in 2000. Al Gore had a slate of electors ready to go if he won in the Supreme Court. Was he a threat to democracy? And how about when rival slates of electors showed up in 1876? Was Tilden a threat to democracy? Or Hayes? No one suggests that Gore, Tilden or Hayes was a threat to democracy.
What IS a threat to democracy is an administration that files lawsuits to keep opponents off the ballot--not just Trump, they were trying to keep RFK off the ballot and, I believe, Dean Phillips. A threat to democracy begins dubious prosecutions and bogus lawsuits against its chief political opponent. (Compare the Democrats' court action with what Putin has done with his political opponents--which also brings to mind the whole Russia hoax perpetrated and paid for by the Clinton campaign in 2016 that tied up the Congress for the next two years until Mueller reported that there was no evidence of the so-called "collusion".
"Threat to democracy" invokes thoughts of Trump unleashing an Einsatzgruppen type thing on his political enemies, dismissing congress, etc. I agree it's technically correct but the terminology is designed to inflame. Part of turning down the temperature is getting rid of the baileys.
If continuously denying the results of every election he loses (the 2016 Iowa caucuses, 2020 election) to the point his rhetoric inspires actual violence (a certain date in 2021) doesn’t pose a threat to democracy in your eyes, what does?
you mean like Al Gore challenging the Florida outcome in 2000? Or Christine Gregoire and Al Franken EACH challenging not only the original outcome of their elections but the results of the first recounts? Play by one set of rules or shut up.
Everyone you mentioned accepted the results of their loss after recounts were finished. Trump’s been claiming his loss was fraudulent for 4 years now. Don’t pretend they’re the same.
Republicans aren't the ones trying to assassinate political figures (see also the 2017 Congressional Baseball shooting by an enraged Bernie Bro, and the guy from California who got stopped before he could try to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh in a home invasion). Republicans aren't the ones throwing massive riots and burning down city centers.
Paul Pelosi got bludgeoned by a druggie kook with wack-a-doo political opinions all over the shop; I don't think he can be fairly attributed to either side.
Gabbie Giffords was shot by a schizophrenic obsessed with numerology. No political motive was ever established for the shooter, who was a paranoid schizophrenic with no political history on either side but a long-standing personal obsession with Giffords.
I don't deny that fringe elements on the right are dangerous. But I absolutely deny that the GOP has engaged in "mob violence," or even all that much "violent rhetoric."
JD Vance saying with certainty at this point that the Democratic rhetoric led to this is irresponsible because we don't have all the facts, we don't know why he did this. But his underlying point that the Democratic message of Trump=Hitler is hysterical and could contribute to something like this is correct.
Nate, it looks to me, and I think you may have acknowledged this, that your overall forecast tracks more with the betting markets than yours and others' predictions based solely on polling. If this is so, I'm wondering how accurate the betting markets were in 2020 - were they better or worse than polls-only predictions?
Thank you, Nate. Really a very insightful analysis, especially given the freshness of the assassination attempt and the complex factors in play. I think just on a visceral level, the image of Trump standing up with blood from a gunshot wound streaming down his face, raising a defiant fist, and starting a crowd chant--even as he surely knew there was a chance he was exposing himself to another shot--will be an indelible image. It will in general take the wind out of his opponents sails; more specifically, it will make it much harder to demonize him before the election.
Note that I say this with no sense of satisfaction at all--I thoroughly despise Trump and would much prefer more or less anyone else, including a senile Biden, win the election. But between Biden's debate fiasco and now this, it does seem Trump is now holding a very strong hand.
It’s refreshing to see someone aligned with my side of the political spectrum actually being honest about the state of the race instead of trying to ignore the basic facts to create an over-confident partisan spin.
The problem is that those other people probably get their news from places like CNN and MSNBC where the headline read “Trump falls after loud noises”. Their inability to even remotely present truth is astounding.
Let's not confuse the scrolling byline from the first few minutes with the ultimate reporting by those organizations. Neither of those two are pretending the president wasn't shot, and no one watching them would come to that conclusion. (Granted I don't watch either of them, but a cursory Google search shows them both adequately and accurately reporting the event by now).
Most people just read the headline. It’s therefore incumbent on journos to make their headlines accurate and truthful. The fact that they don’t is worthy of condemnation.
I really can’t stand Trump and still won’t vote for him but I came to same opinion in 2020. Basically Trump does something and everyone freaks out and the media paints it in the worst possible way.
Left leaning causes take over neighborhoods with guns, block people in building and light them on fire, and throw Molotov cocktails at police… and they have done a great job of having a mostly peaceful protest.
If anyone wonders why misinformation is so hard to dispel and conspiracy theories so widely believed I would point to this as the cause.
Throw in the obvious failure to accurately report in Biden’s mental state and the blatant attempts to shut down alternate opinions regarding things like the origin of COVID and it’s amazing we do t have more crazy conspiracies.
"The impact of events like these may be highly uncertain"
Somewhat less uncertain when voters have to choose between the defiant leader pumping his fists in the air a minute after being shot vs the pathetic shell holding on to his wife to descend the 3 steps from the debate stage that made him a household name.
"The choice is clear"
Since Trump's political opponents have been salivating in public about having him killed, starting with Kathy Griffin's mockup of Trump's severed head in 2017, it would seem reasonable that this shooting was committed by Trump's political opponents.
The House has announced an investigation into how the Secret Service performed; surely this will include an explanation of why the Secret Service did not secure a rooftop only 150 yards away from the candidate, an easy shot with 5.56mm ammo, even for me.
An additional source for investigation will be why the administration refuses Secret Service protection to RFK Jr.
Any Democrat picking up the nomination now is likely to go down to defeat and, with the unforgiving nature of US politics, unlikely to be nominated ever again. Easy to calculate risk and reward for that one.
I think that’s reflected in the betting averages in RealClearPolitics that have shown the probability that Biden gets the nomination skyrocket from 30% to 60%
On the last point, the probability of any individual ending up President is considerably higher if they are nominated by the Democrats this year than that same individual hoping for some future nomination, even if that probability is a fair way under 50%. If there's an ambitious Democrat out there that is hoping to be President one day and was offered the nomination, it would not be rational to turn it down.
I don't see that: if a prominent Democrat like Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer had to run an improvised campaign now or wait until 2028 to run a well planned campaign starting with the primaries, the latter might be more viable.
The thing is that even someone who can run a well-planned and funded campaign in 2028 can't today expect more than say 5% probability at best that they'll end up winning the primary - and only _then_ do they get to contest the general election in a currently unknown political environment. (Would you take today any worse than 20 to 1 on your money that Newsom ends up winning the 2028 primary, ignoring inflation effects? I sure wouldn't!)
I don't see the 5% probability of winning the primary: there are likely to be only 2-3 top contenders, like Hillary vs Obama in 2008, so at least one of them has 33-50% chance of winning the primary.
The Republican primary had only 3 serious candidates: Trump, Haley and DeSantis.
Lots of minor candidates take part in the primary but they're easily dismissed.
They tend to shake down to 2 or 3 top contenders, but in a year without an incumbent they usually seem to start off with something like 10-12 candidates with a serious chance. Newsom, Whitmer et al don't know today if they'll be one of those top 2 or 3 - four years is an eternity in politics and there'll be a whole new crop of other Governors, Senators and so forth with money to burn and ego to spare vying for the nomination as well.
I was surprised at his NATO press conference, the only substantive question asked was what Biden would do to weaken the alliance between China and Russia. The only answer was he might talk to Putin, a minute later followed by maybe not.
Kissinger could, and did, write volumes on how to do that and pulled it off in the 1972 opening to China.
Definitely Trump, who had the foresight to push through the Abraham Accords, the toughness to sanction China's 4th largest tech company, ZTE, because it cheated on Iran sanctions and who increased US defense spending and scared our NATO partners into increasing theirs too.
Nope, Trump only threatened to leave if they didn't raise their defense spending, which they did.
European NATO countries combined have s GDP comparable to the US but the US accounts for over 70% of defense spending.
When German troops go to a military exercise in Norway with broomsticks on their vehicles instead of machine guns, as they did two years ago, they're not spending enough.
China must still remember how Trump's sanctions on ZTE, its 4th largest tech company, brought it to its knees and forced it to comply with Iran sanctions. Not a leader to be trifled with.
In general, I agree that Democrats would be much better off with any other nominee, including Kamala. But I wonder if it's going too far to say that everything that strengthens Trump is "all the more reason to gamble on an option with higher upside." If switching costs were zero and Biden could magically be persuaded to step aside gracefully without protest, that might be true.
But at this point, it's clear that efforts to get rid of Biden will have a political cost because it involves, at a minimum, publicly pressuring Biden to do something he clearly does not want to do. Some segment of the party really likes Biden and will be unhappy and demoralized to see him pushed out unwillingly--which could depress turnout on the democratic side, hurting down ballot races. It also involves essentially admitting that Democrats who claimed that edited videos of Biden were misinformation (and attacked Robert Hur's report) were lying or misinformed, setting up easy Republican attack lines. Pretending like Biden is still good now and just has some bad days, however implausible, at least has the benefit of consistency.
If Democrats could be reasonably confident that pushing Biden out would result in a much stronger nominee, who could win against Trump, it might still be worth it, even if overthrowing Biden is difficult and politically costly. However, the actual situation before yesterday was that Trump was heavily favored against Biden and only slightly less favored against Harris (the most likely replacement). If he's even further strengthened, at some point, don't we have to ask whether the juice is worth the squeeze? Is a belated internecine war in the Democratic Party worth it, if the most that can hope to accomplish is replacing a doomed Biden run with a doomed Harris run? At some point, maybe the best they can do is to just admit that the White House is lost and try to get donors who won't support Biden to redirect their funds to compete aggressively in House and Senate races.
This is only true if every Democrat and every media pundit is lying about “democracy being on the ballot”. If they're telling the truth, you must do literally anything to increase even meager odds of stopping him.
But everyone seems to understand implicitly that the Democrats are lying. Everyone, that is, except for mentally ill young men—and Democrats' stochastic terrorism almost paid off yesterday.
You don’t have to be mentally ill or even unintelligent to believe in a partisan delusion. Liz Cheney went on left wing media like CNN and said that there may never be another election if Trump is elected. She may have been lying to sell her book and the hosts that didn’t challenge her assertion might remain silent since it helps their guy OR maybe some of them actually believe this partisan delusion. I honestly don’t know for sure at this point. A lot of these journalists have been so heavily indoctrinated in left wing ideology by the elite colleges that they attended, perhaps that has supplanted basic logic and common sense.
Liz Cheney stood still and the Republican party moved out from under her.
I respect her principled stance then, but she’s wrong now about the fall of democracy. It’s quite a bit more durable than its opponents would have you believe.
Also a maybe not a great take that Trump doesn’t like elections. He clearly loves them and would have elections every year if he could.
Or maybe they conclude this because Trump and his henchman tried to overturn The 2020 election. And Republicans are already working on overturning the 2024 election should Trump not win. I kind of see a pattern here. Do you?
It feels like you're committing one of the statistical sins that Nate and Maria have warned against, of equating a (say) 15% chance with a 0% chance (the latter being how I interpret "doomed"). If the underlying state of the race is close enough and has enough variance that switching takes you from a 15% chance to a 25% chance, that's great and you should take that improvement every time.
(I massively discount the negative value of an "internecine war", I don't think there's much evidence that voters actually care about that sort of thing)
Of course, I used “doomed” to refer to something with a low probability of success, not literally a 0% chance. Seemingly doomed campaigns do sometimes come back from the dead.
The main point is that switching involves a political cost. Replacing Biden with Harris only improves the odds slightly; to really shake up the race you’d need someone like Whitmer or Newsom. But overthrowing both Biden and Harris entails big political downsides. For example, it could alienate black voters at a moment when the Democratic Party has seen its support among other minority groups (Latinos) fall dramatically. Trump could capitalize on the move and perhaps make real inroads among black working class voters who don’t like that Biden/Harris were pushed aside. If so, that could put the black vote “in play” to a greater extent in elections to come. If the replacement candidate ends up losing to Trump anyway, then dems would have alienated a critical voting bloc for nothing.
To be clear, that particular scenario is not necessarily what I would judge most likely. It’s just to illustrate that there are real and meaningful costs and risks involved in replacing Biden, so Nate’s column is wrong (or at least imprecise) to suggest that everything that makes a Trump win likelier is all the more reason to replace Biden. At a certain point, the chances of winning the White House become so small that it’s just not worth the cost and risk involved, and you’re better off focusing your efforts on other races.
If Trump really is an existential threat to democracy, if he's a latter day Hitler (see the New Republic cover), then killing him is completely justifiable. (NOTE TO SECRET SERVICE: I AM MAKING A RHETORICAL POINT HERE!!!)
The question I have is whether the Biden camp can continue with that line of attack in the aftermath of the shooting (see reports that they suspended all advertising and campaign activity). If not what is their new argument?
Secondly, I suspect strongly that the shooter is closer to John Hinckley than Gavrilo Princip. Reports are already emerging that he was a bullied outcast in high school. That doesn't mean that most people won't assume that there is a political component to the shooting. The Trump campaign has an unprecedented opportunity to shape the narrative since their convention starts tomorrow. If they're smart they'll blame the "democracy in danger" advertising and mention the actual shooter as little as possible.
In terms of impact on the election, I don't think it's irresponsible to speculate that a) this will probably drive turnout of Trump's base to higher levels (assuming that's possible) and b) it could easily cause the low propensity voters who apparently align with Trump now to start paying more attention to the election.
"If Trump really is an existential threat to democracy, if he's a latter day Hitler..."
You are overplaying your hand here.
A president who acted as Donald Trump did following the election of 2020 has fully invited the political charge of being a threat to democracy. Like most political charges, there's a lot to unpack, there's a lot to debate, there are deeper issues, but there is nothing inherently unfair about this political rhetoric. Truly, someone who resorts to those tactics rather than the courts has invited this response.
On the other hand, calling him Hitler is beyond the pale, and since most Americans wish someone had just killed Hitler, yeah....
imho, pairing the two and acting as though they are pretty much equivalent strikes me as aggressive partisanship and nothing more
Newsweek put his face, as Hitler, on their cover. Joy Reid on MSNBC literally called him "a new Hitler." After SCOTUS's recent ruling on presidential immunity, it was a near-universal left talking-point that Biden could order Trump's assassination and have it be legal. Even the post-assassination commentary (e.g. David Frum's Atlantic piece today) is still calling Trump a "would-be dictator."
That's either recklessly priming the pump for someone to take a shot at Trump, or blatant lying for political advantage. Actually, probably it's both.
'If they're smart they'll blame the "democracy in danger" advertising and mention the actual shooter as little as possible.'
If they're trying to maximise their electoral chances, yes. Depending on other things they may value like the stability of the country and preventing further political violence, there may be better options available than assigning blame politically for this. Even if it your proposed stance might be partially or completely true.
I would also point out that it's not just one side. If I'm right the shooter was just crazy and his motives will be incoherent.
But Biden, by delivering an address where he deplores the attempt, calls for civility, etc. will be de facto casting the shooting as political in nature.
One effect that has already showed up is to let Republican's brand any intense criticism of Trump, no matter how well-grounded in reality, as dangerous incitement to violence. This extra constraint will make it harder to campaign against him. Biden in particular doesn't have the agility to work around new constraints. It's still true that Trump promises to be "dictator on day one", to round up millions, and to replace the civil service with political appointees etc but focussing on that may get harder. Focusing more on policy issues such as Social Security, healthcare, and abortion may help.
"One effect that has already showed up is to let Republican's brand any intense criticism of Trump, no matter how well-grounded in reality, as dangerous incitement to violence"
Remember the Dept of Justice memo, early in Biden's term, advocating that parents complaining at school board meetings could be branded as domestic terrorists?
because criticism of Trump’s authoritarian tendencies is the same as trying to fill local schools with homophobic nonsense. You just posted 3 entirely unrelated things, and attempted to play them off as a coherent comment that actually added something to the discussion.
Trump's authoritarian tendencies: end big-tech/state censorship
"fill local schools with homophobic nonsense": like boys wearing skirts, using the girls bathrooms and raping real girls, as happened in the prominent Loudon, VA case.
Evidently quite a few people liked the comment, presumably because it added to the discussion and brought home 7 years of violent Leftist discourse that goes unchallenged. Unlike the violent discourse that addresses bearded people in dresses as "Mr"
if you think 15-year old boys wearing skirts for fun at school is one of the biggest problems facing a country choked with poverty, addiction, and gun violence you are very sadly detached from the struggles everyday Americans face.
Nate fails to mention the indelible image of Trump rising out of the Secret Service scrum seconds after the last shot was fired, defiant expression and blood streaming down his face, pumping his fist and shouting, “Fight!”. An awful lot of people saw Trump’s coolness and bravery in the face of that immediate threat to his life. Now look across the aisle to see frail, doddering, confused Biden who needs help negotiating a flight of stairs. This event will have a major impact on the election and Trump will be the beneficiary.
First, he could not have known that quickly that the shooter was dead or that there weren’t more shooters. Second, to describe a full thickness ear wound from a rifle bullet, millimeters from his skull, as a “cut” on his ear shows a woeful lack of knowledge and seriousness on your part.
Your attempt to minimize a wound from a rifle bullet to ANY part of a person’s head is nothing short of gaslighting. The photos appear to show a perforation of the ear, but even if it’s less than that this was as close to a fatal injury as you can get without that actually occurring. Also, everyone saw how quickly Trump got up and raised his fist and this was anything but a safe and secure crime scene. Trump was both cool and brave in the face of an immediate threat to his life. Sorry these things aren’t apparent to you.
Other thought about political impact: this probably helps Trump with the age/ability contrast. Continuing to campaign after taking a bullet (albeit not a particularly damaging one) is going to enhance concerns that Biden doesn’t have the energy/stamina to be president.
100% this. Already plenty of memes flying around of Trump standing up after being shot (grazed) in contrast with Biden falling up stairs.
One candidate takes a bullet, the other takes a nap.
Another way it'll help trump with the indies is induce them to see his conviction as part of a pattern of persecution instead of as overdue (if somewhat imperfect) justice.
Independents were already split. But the argument that democracy is more threatened by the party in power using state apparatus to imprison their opposition now has a new wrinkle: not only are they trying to imprison, but also to assassinate.
Anyone on the fence on this particular issue (and there are always people on the margin) could be tipped into Trump camp.
Why is the expectation always that the right must take the high road, while the left gets corporate sponsorships for a summer of fiery, but mostly peaceful (barf), protests?
Don’t forget the Steve Scalise shooting and attack on Rand Paul. Attacks against the right get memory holed. Attacks on the left? We never hear the end of it.
In case anyone is still in doubt, the media is the enemy of the people. The American nation must come together and unite, but where would that leave rich people profiting off of conflict?
There's your answer.
You're not even a good troll. 2017 called, they want John Mistress to get new lines.
Zzz, boring. Rage-baiting trolls are so, so old.
And the demonstrations against Justice Kavanaugh at his home, while his wife and children were there (in violation of a Federal law prohibiting demonstrations outside the home of a Federal judge).
Nate Silver didn't say there was any expectation that the right must take the high road. Only that taking the high road would increase his electability chances.
Since trump, there is no expectation, or even hope, that the right will take the high road
Well, they just did. Maybe it's time you people stop yelling at your fantasies and join the rest of us back in reality.
I don't know if Trump has considered taking the high road once in his life. Remember January 6?
You mean when Trump told people to stay peaceful then go home, and they did?
The high road is always the expectation when it comes to public figures. This case in particular shows why as the alternative to the high road have some pretty dark possible paths.
Nate, you know full well what stochastic terrorism is. You know that Biden, Democrats, and the media have ramped up the rhetoric to hysterical levels. That this is an unprecedented election, that democracy is on the ballot, that Trump is a new Hitler, that he must be stopped /at any cost/. If one is pushing these extreme lines (some of which you've pushed too), one is pushing mentally ill young men into committing crimes this. Liberals understood this when Gabby Giffords was shot, and it's disgusting to see them clutch their pearls and declare how appalled they are now it's their turn to be at fault.
Give me a break. Both sides do it. People get shot, including kids at school and they don’t have secret service agents walking around with them.
How many right wingers are responsible for the massacre of Hispanics in El Paso, “they're replacing you with their voters”. Meanwhile most Hispanics don’t vote and those that do split 60/40.
Look at how the right wing write about Illhan Omar or AOC. Look at how they described Obama. Get over it! The only person responsible for the shooting is the shooter.
Motte and Bailey tactics. Democrats shrieked hysterically when Gabby Giffords was shot after Sarah Palin put out campaign literature with a target sign over target seats.
Shame on you. What horrible human being would sit here and fan the flames on this day in history.
Careful what you ask for, lady. You may just get it.
Fine. Thoughts and prayers for his ear.
She’s definitely right about “both sides”. Political debate in America is turning into a cesspool. Some on the left have contributed and people like you are contributing as well. In case you’re wondering I’m out. No major party will get my vote.
The Squad are genocidal anti-semites who have platforms made of hatred.
did you say that when Gabby Giffords was shot? Or were you one of those blaming conservatives?
It's also confusing that those that claimed Trump is the new Hitler are now declaring that their hopes and prayers are with Hitler, err Trump, and wish him a speedy recovery.
Yes! Can't wait to hear their condemnations of Stauffenberg lol
What is the New Republic saying? They’re the ones who did that cover.
Only politicians are sending their thoughts and prayers and I can’t recall any of them calling Hitler. I’m not wasting my thoughts or prayers on that clown. Waste of a good prayer.
"can’t recall any of them calling Hitler"
They said Trump is Hitler, send their thoughts and prayers for Trump. The rest follows from the reflexive property of the equality relation.
Is math racist?
Which politician called Trump Hitler? Show me the source. Unless you're lying. Is the truth racist against rednecks?
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/19/biden-trump-hitler-00132367
No where in there does any politician call Trump Hitler. Did you read the article or just Google Trump Hitler and return the first link?
The Right: “If Biden wins, we won’t have a country in four years!!!”
The Left: “If Trump wins, democracy in America will end!!!”
Both Sides: “omg waaah waah! The other side is using harmful rhetoric!”
I feel like a parent driving a minivan with two kids in the backseat who refuse to shut up and insist the other one started it.
This is my position. I feel like a parent with a 24 year old (the Democrats) and a 13 year old (Republicans) in the back seat, and when I tell them to cut it out the 24 year old is like "he started it".
Which,
a) I don't care.
and b) How about as the adult involved you don't stoop down to their level?
It is embarrassing for the supposed adults in MSM/academia and the Democratic party constantly use the excuse "the Republicans/MAGA/Trump/Deplorables do it too" for their behavior.
Your policies are shit isn't the main thing you are offering that you are the adults in the room? Instead you sound like children pointing fingers at other children.
He was shot by a right wing extremist with an AR 15. Which party has been coddling up to the gun lobby and refuses to do anything? Which party does ads of their candidates shooting guns or takes Christmas pictures of the whole family with them? This has nothing to do with Democrats.
He wasn't shot by a right-wing extremist. The kid was an Antifa-linked Democrat donor who like millions of Democrats temporarily registered as a Republican in order to vote for Nikki Haley against Trump in the primary.
Do you happen to have proof for 'Antifa-linked'? All I've seen is that he donated $15 to ActBlue when he was 17 and was a registered republican who had voted in the 2022 midterm (and not since then, including any primaries).
Don't recall where I saw it reported, sorry.
Yeah no shit, because you made it up!
I see you immediately failed in your resolution to boycott all my comments.
Yeah, because you made it up.
It may end up not being true, but I didn't make it up. If it does end up being untrue it'll probably be because of the prankster (@jewgazing on Xitter) who pretended to be Crooks.
In fact, I don't see much real proof that he was political either way. Obviously, shooting at someone the Left flat-out hates might suggest something.
In order to vote for Nikki Haley against Trump in the primary, one would have to have voted since 2022, which the shooter did not do. And you conveniently ignored the fact that one party is 100000x more pro gun than the other.
The belief that citizens should or should not be able to defend themselves from attackers is an irrelevant straw man in this argument. Your desperation to change the subject is sad.
And you ignore that one party hates Trump and the other doesn't.
“Antifa-linked” lmfao log off and step into the real world you lose all credibility trying to call the other side nutjobs when you delve into conspiracy theory nonsense.
All we know is that he registered Republican for the 2022 primary and that he sent a very small contribution to a left-wing organization. So it cuts both ways. Everyone ought to admit that the only really material thing we know is that he wanted to kill Trump.
Yes.
Right wing extremist? He contributed to Act Blue. What evidence do you have that he was a "right wing extremist"? That he registered Republican for the Pennsylvania primary in 2022? That he belonged to a gun club? In fact, none of his classmates knew much about him at all because he kept to himself. So you don't know; you surmise because it fits your preconceptions.
Trump's VP pick, JD Vance, called Trump "America's Hitler" in 2016.
He didn't, as it happens—another media canard. He wondered thoughtfully to a friend, at a time when no one knew how Trump would turn out, if he might end up being America's Hitler. He since answered his own question in the negative, recognising that Trump—for all his many faults!—is far from a Hitler. Trump mostly governed as a moderate Democrat from the 90s, very much in the vein of a Bill Clinton, albeit more liberal and progressive on things like gay rights. That the Democratic Party has radicalised dramatically since the 90s is hardly Trump's fault.
It's probably unfair to dunk on Vance's American Hitler comments. He hasn't changed his mind about Trump. Vance changed his mind about fascism.
Completely possible to hold two thoughts simultaneously:
I am horrified by the assassination attempt;
I would prefer not to have Trump re-elected.
As per Face The Nation this morning, Dems that were planning to approach Biden yet again this week have, bc of yesterday’s shooting, have decided to stand down, supposedly to “avoid more chaos.”
I’m sorry, but I simply cannot square the two. I don’t think the assassination attempt has any bearing on Americans’ overwhelming sentiment that Biden should step aside. Why do the Dems seem intent on limping to defeat?
It’s clear they don’t have a critical mass to force Biden out and one way or another the subject was going to get changed, though I think most imagined it would be the convention and VP selection.
Part of the whole logic of benefiting from replacing Biden is that he would be, on some level, willing to allow it. If he can’t be convinced, then the options are really bad if you’re a Dem insider. They would have to kamikaze the party to get a different nominee, which defeats the purpose.
Trump is a fund-raging machine, there’s more money to be made as an opposition party to an extremely polarizing president than there is in trying to run things with the weakest possible head of state.
I hear that, and I agree, but their pussyfooting completely undercuts every argument they’ve made about Trump’s existential threat to democracy. And it reveals them to be feckless cowards - not that that’s a huge surprise - but it’s still shocking to watch the party throw 70% of their fellow Americans under the bus out of concern for how it affects their own corrupt careers ….
I do find the hypocrisy from the left on rhetoric interesting. They blame Trump for inciting a riot (Jan 6) based on his rhetoric (where he instructed people to march peacefully to the capitol), but Biden constantly claims Trump is a threat to democracy and people’s freedoms and then says to donors it’s time to put Trump in the bullseye. That’s far more inciting and yet no one in the media will condemn Biden.
It's legitimate to criticize Trump for degrading Democratic norms IMO but the accusations that his election will be like Hitler's Machtergreifung in 1933 are hysterical and could contribute to violence.
Well he has said he will focus on retribution, he has said he will appoint only cabinet officials who are going to do nothing but his bidding, he has said he will fire 50,000 civil service people and turn Civil service back into a patronage thing. These are things Trump has said.
Do you think we should just ignore these things and pretend he didn't say them?
He didn't say he'd focus on retribution. That's classic BlueAnon misinformation. He said that if he acted like Biden he could focus on retribution, but that he's better than that so he won't. So the mainstream media only showed the first bit and clipped out the end. So NPCs who download their beliefs from the MSM think he said he'd focus on retribution. As I say, classic BlueAnon.
This is the problem: you've seen the short, edited clip of the tape, and therefore believe that you've seen the full context.
"I am your warrior, I am your justice,” Trump said in a nearly 90-minute speech, most of it focused on perceived political enemies and slights. “For those who have been wronged and betrayed … I am your retribution."
Was Kathy Griffin inciting when she posted a mockup of Trump's severed head?
https://www.tmz.com/2017/05/30/kathy-griffin-beheads-donald-trump-photo-tyler-shields/
Probably not, she is a Democrat.
Eh, I think there is at least a little difference between mere radicalizing rhetoric and someone who, in addition to that then assembled a crowd who (whether at his behest or no) immediately went down the road and tried to violently interfere with government. Not that radicalizing rhetoric in either case is good (it's not, and stochastic terrorism is definitely a thing), but there is plenty of daylight between the two actions to draw a line of distinction that only one crossed.
Trump: go kill politicians.
Biden: Trump is a dangerous person who tells his rabid fans to go kill people in an effort to destroy our democracy.
Yep, I see your point, totally the same thing.
Trump never said that….stop lying.
Again nonsense. People lie about what Trump says all the time. Also I love the vague "strongly implied". And 500 other times you say? Very convincing.
Wrong again John. If you provide evidence of what you claim, I will consider it. If it supports what you say I'll change my mind. No bad faith here.
Of course so far you have provided no such evidence either of your claims about Trump or of me lying. Try again.
Trump’s comments on Jan 6 are like the 10th worst thing he’s said. He has repeatedly said we won’t have a country if Biden wins again. The fear mongering from the left and right has been at least equal this campaign.
You mean that people should be peaceful? I love the delusion Jan 6 hysterical people have about that day. Tell me how many people died that day? Good test on your knowledge of the event.
Thanks, Nate. Another cogent and well-argued analysis.
What the shooting of Trump tells us is that it's time to turn down the temperature. No, Trump isn't a fascist trying to put black people into slavery or prosecute women who have abortions for murder. He is NOT a "threat to democracy". Every Democrat, including Joe Biden, has to think about how a nut would take repeated statements that to save America, we must at all costs prevent Donald Trump from returning from the White House (never mind that he never even tried to do the things they say he intends to do when he had four years to do it, including two years when he had Republican majorities in both houses). They have to think about how hysterical speeches by the Senate Majority Leader threatening Supreme Court Justices led to demonstrations in front of the Justices' houses and at least one attempt to murder a Justice.
But Republicans have to turn down the temperature, too. Joe Biden doesn't want to take every parent's authority over his or her children away and hand it to the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association. He doesn't want to hand America over to the Chinese. There is no proof that election fraud cost Trump the 2020 election. (No--that such allegations are unproven doesn't mean they're false, but it does mean you don't start doing things like breaking into the Capitol on that basis.)
Just as Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer didn't intend murder attempts on Donald Trump or Justice Kavanaugh, Donald Trump didn't intend rioters breaking into the Capitol screaming that the Vice President should be hanged. But the fiery rhetoric on both sides encouraged all of that. Stop! Just Stop!!! We disagree on things like defense and foreign policy, domestic spending, abortion, the rights of homosexuals and transsexuals, the security of the border, and other issues. But we decide thing at the ballot box--not with frivolous prosecutions and lawsuits, not with riots, not with election chicanery (either the sort that would let people who shouldn't vote or the sort that would keep people who should vote from voting), but by the votes of citizens properly identified as such cast without hindrance.
STOP!!! before someone IS killed by someone who thinks he's saving America from fascism or communism.
I agree with a lot of this, but I do think it’s fair to use the term “threat to democracy” to describe someone who attempts to subvert the outcome of a free and fair election (eg through alternative slates of electors).
Yeah, the guy literally tried to get the Georgia Secretary of State to forge votes for him. If that can't be considered a threat to democracy I don't know what is. That by no means merits an attempt on his life, but it's still the truth today as it was yesterday.
Trump didn’t do that…stop lying
“I need you to find 12,000 votes” brother it’s ON TAPE 😂
Yes. And Al Franken went out to "find" as many votes after Norm Coleman had won in Minnesota, and Christine Gregoire the same in Washington against Dino Rossi. We're not talking about urging fraud. We're talking about urging the secretary of state to look everywhere in case any votes were missed--exactly what the Franken and Gregoire campaigns did.
As far as alternative slates of electors. Florida's Secretary of State had certified the election returns in 2000. Al Gore had a slate of electors ready to go if he won in the Supreme Court. Was he a threat to democracy? And how about when rival slates of electors showed up in 1876? Was Tilden a threat to democracy? Or Hayes? No one suggests that Gore, Tilden or Hayes was a threat to democracy.
What IS a threat to democracy is an administration that files lawsuits to keep opponents off the ballot--not just Trump, they were trying to keep RFK off the ballot and, I believe, Dean Phillips. A threat to democracy begins dubious prosecutions and bogus lawsuits against its chief political opponent. (Compare the Democrats' court action with what Putin has done with his political opponents--which also brings to mind the whole Russia hoax perpetrated and paid for by the Clinton campaign in 2016 that tied up the Congress for the next two years until Mueller reported that there was no evidence of the so-called "collusion".
Out of context. I bet you also think Trump called nazis very fine people. Stop lying!
How to view Trump as a god:
Step 1: overexaggerate everything good he does
Step 2: outright deny anything bad he says or does as “fake news” or “taken out of context”
You literally can’t lose following these 2 simple rules!
"Threat to democracy" invokes thoughts of Trump unleashing an Einsatzgruppen type thing on his political enemies, dismissing congress, etc. I agree it's technically correct but the terminology is designed to inflame. Part of turning down the temperature is getting rid of the baileys.
If continuously denying the results of every election he loses (the 2016 Iowa caucuses, 2020 election) to the point his rhetoric inspires actual violence (a certain date in 2021) doesn’t pose a threat to democracy in your eyes, what does?
you mean like Al Gore challenging the Florida outcome in 2000? Or Christine Gregoire and Al Franken EACH challenging not only the original outcome of their elections but the results of the first recounts? Play by one set of rules or shut up.
Everyone you mentioned accepted the results of their loss after recounts were finished. Trump’s been claiming his loss was fraudulent for 4 years now. Don’t pretend they’re the same.
Stacey Abrams would like a word. Democrats were introducing her as the governor of Georgia for *years* after she lost.
I would like to introduce you to this video.
https://youtu.be/iRYB6N8fBKQ?si=tYQJ4CyS0dLJlJBn
Republicans aren't the ones trying to assassinate political figures (see also the 2017 Congressional Baseball shooting by an enraged Bernie Bro, and the guy from California who got stopped before he could try to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh in a home invasion). Republicans aren't the ones throwing massive riots and burning down city centers.
Both sides-ing is entirely inappropriate here.
Did you forget the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot??
Or Paul Pelosi getting bludgeoned with a hammer. Or the shooting of Gabbie Gifford.
Paul Pelosi got bludgeoned by a druggie kook with wack-a-doo political opinions all over the shop; I don't think he can be fairly attributed to either side.
Gabbie Giffords was shot by a schizophrenic obsessed with numerology. No political motive was ever established for the shooter, who was a paranoid schizophrenic with no political history on either side but a long-standing personal obsession with Giffords.
What has either of these to do with Donald Trump other than your own hatred of Trump?
Exactly as much as this has to do with Biden.
The one that resulted in five acquittals because it was ginned up by the feds?
and Trump had what to do with this?
I don't deny that fringe elements on the right are dangerous. But I absolutely deny that the GOP has engaged in "mob violence," or even all that much "violent rhetoric."
“The second American revolution will be bloodless if the left allows it to be.” - direct quote from the head of the Heritage Foundation the other day
They were right. The left has already made things bloody as of Saturday. The point is the left perpetrates political violence far more than the right.
JD Vance saying with certainty at this point that the Democratic rhetoric led to this is irresponsible because we don't have all the facts, we don't know why he did this. But his underlying point that the Democratic message of Trump=Hitler is hysterical and could contribute to something like this is correct.
I’m assuming JD also includes his 2016 self.
I think he would yes
Nate, it looks to me, and I think you may have acknowledged this, that your overall forecast tracks more with the betting markets than yours and others' predictions based solely on polling. If this is so, I'm wondering how accurate the betting markets were in 2020 - were they better or worse than polls-only predictions?
Super curious here as well.
Thank you, Nate. Really a very insightful analysis, especially given the freshness of the assassination attempt and the complex factors in play. I think just on a visceral level, the image of Trump standing up with blood from a gunshot wound streaming down his face, raising a defiant fist, and starting a crowd chant--even as he surely knew there was a chance he was exposing himself to another shot--will be an indelible image. It will in general take the wind out of his opponents sails; more specifically, it will make it much harder to demonize him before the election.
Note that I say this with no sense of satisfaction at all--I thoroughly despise Trump and would much prefer more or less anyone else, including a senile Biden, win the election. But between Biden's debate fiasco and now this, it does seem Trump is now holding a very strong hand.
It’s refreshing to see someone aligned with my side of the political spectrum actually being honest about the state of the race instead of trying to ignore the basic facts to create an over-confident partisan spin.
Another take is that people inclined to vote against Trump because he incites violence now may conclude that there’s also violence with both sides.
The problem is that those other people probably get their news from places like CNN and MSNBC where the headline read “Trump falls after loud noises”. Their inability to even remotely present truth is astounding.
Let's not confuse the scrolling byline from the first few minutes with the ultimate reporting by those organizations. Neither of those two are pretending the president wasn't shot, and no one watching them would come to that conclusion. (Granted I don't watch either of them, but a cursory Google search shows them both adequately and accurately reporting the event by now).
Most people just read the headline. It’s therefore incumbent on journos to make their headlines accurate and truthful. The fact that they don’t is worthy of condemnation.
The claim isn't that the headlines are fine, the claim is that they updated with a few hours, and there are 4 months before election day.
I never said that was Caleb's claim. I'm making my own claim, one you didn't address at all.
If it someone hadn't already been able to conclude that left radicalism incites violence based on:
(1) the 2017 bernie-bro congressional baseball mass-shooter,
(2) the pro-choice guy who flew from CA to try and assassinate Justice Kavanaugh,
(3) the liberal guy who beat Sen. Rand Paul,
(4) the 2016 guy who tried to grab a police officer's gun to assassinate Trump,
(5) the riots and killings during the summer of 2020, including a political assassination of a conservative activist by antifa in Portland,
(6) the crazy anti-conservative trans school shooter in Nashville,
(7) the attacks on Trump rallies by black bloc and other left groups in 2016, etc.
then I don't know why this near miss would do it for them either.
I really can’t stand Trump and still won’t vote for him but I came to same opinion in 2020. Basically Trump does something and everyone freaks out and the media paints it in the worst possible way.
Left leaning causes take over neighborhoods with guns, block people in building and light them on fire, and throw Molotov cocktails at police… and they have done a great job of having a mostly peaceful protest.
If anyone wonders why misinformation is so hard to dispel and conspiracy theories so widely believed I would point to this as the cause.
Throw in the obvious failure to accurately report in Biden’s mental state and the blatant attempts to shut down alternate opinions regarding things like the origin of COVID and it’s amazing we do t have more crazy conspiracies.
This is pretty much my take as well.
"The impact of events like these may be highly uncertain"
Somewhat less uncertain when voters have to choose between the defiant leader pumping his fists in the air a minute after being shot vs the pathetic shell holding on to his wife to descend the 3 steps from the debate stage that made him a household name.
"The choice is clear"
Since Trump's political opponents have been salivating in public about having him killed, starting with Kathy Griffin's mockup of Trump's severed head in 2017, it would seem reasonable that this shooting was committed by Trump's political opponents.
https://www.tmz.com/2017/05/30/kathy-griffin-beheads-donald-trump-photo-tyler-shields/
The House has announced an investigation into how the Secret Service performed; surely this will include an explanation of why the Secret Service did not secure a rooftop only 150 yards away from the candidate, an easy shot with 5.56mm ammo, even for me.
An additional source for investigation will be why the administration refuses Secret Service protection to RFK Jr.
Any Democrat picking up the nomination now is likely to go down to defeat and, with the unforgiving nature of US politics, unlikely to be nominated ever again. Easy to calculate risk and reward for that one.
Indeed. I think your last point means the Dems are stuck with Biden, and the Dems are going to lose.
I think that’s reflected in the betting averages in RealClearPolitics that have shown the probability that Biden gets the nomination skyrocket from 30% to 60%
https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/democratic-nomination
On the last point, the probability of any individual ending up President is considerably higher if they are nominated by the Democrats this year than that same individual hoping for some future nomination, even if that probability is a fair way under 50%. If there's an ambitious Democrat out there that is hoping to be President one day and was offered the nomination, it would not be rational to turn it down.
I don't see that: if a prominent Democrat like Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer had to run an improvised campaign now or wait until 2028 to run a well planned campaign starting with the primaries, the latter might be more viable.
The thing is that even someone who can run a well-planned and funded campaign in 2028 can't today expect more than say 5% probability at best that they'll end up winning the primary - and only _then_ do they get to contest the general election in a currently unknown political environment. (Would you take today any worse than 20 to 1 on your money that Newsom ends up winning the 2028 primary, ignoring inflation effects? I sure wouldn't!)
I don't see the 5% probability of winning the primary: there are likely to be only 2-3 top contenders, like Hillary vs Obama in 2008, so at least one of them has 33-50% chance of winning the primary.
The Republican primary had only 3 serious candidates: Trump, Haley and DeSantis.
Lots of minor candidates take part in the primary but they're easily dismissed.
They tend to shake down to 2 or 3 top contenders, but in a year without an incumbent they usually seem to start off with something like 10-12 candidates with a serious chance. Newsom, Whitmer et al don't know today if they'll be one of those top 2 or 3 - four years is an eternity in politics and there'll be a whole new crop of other Governors, Senators and so forth with money to burn and ego to spare vying for the nomination as well.
Did you see how feeble the PoTUS looked hobbling from the podium after speaking about Trump? It was literally sad.
Feeble in body and feeble in mind:
I was surprised at his NATO press conference, the only substantive question asked was what Biden would do to weaken the alliance between China and Russia. The only answer was he might talk to Putin, a minute later followed by maybe not.
Kissinger could, and did, write volumes on how to do that and pulled it off in the 1972 opening to China.
Which Prez do you want Xi worried about?
Definitely Trump, who had the foresight to push through the Abraham Accords, the toughness to sanction China's 4th largest tech company, ZTE, because it cheated on Iran sanctions and who increased US defense spending and scared our NATO partners into increasing theirs too.
Nope, Trump only threatened to leave if they didn't raise their defense spending, which they did.
European NATO countries combined have s GDP comparable to the US but the US accounts for over 70% of defense spending.
When German troops go to a military exercise in Norway with broomsticks on their vehicles instead of machine guns, as they did two years ago, they're not spending enough.
China must still remember how Trump's sanctions on ZTE, its 4th largest tech company, brought it to its knees and forced it to comply with Iran sanctions. Not a leader to be trifled with.
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/whats-trumps-position-on-nato/
In general, I agree that Democrats would be much better off with any other nominee, including Kamala. But I wonder if it's going too far to say that everything that strengthens Trump is "all the more reason to gamble on an option with higher upside." If switching costs were zero and Biden could magically be persuaded to step aside gracefully without protest, that might be true.
But at this point, it's clear that efforts to get rid of Biden will have a political cost because it involves, at a minimum, publicly pressuring Biden to do something he clearly does not want to do. Some segment of the party really likes Biden and will be unhappy and demoralized to see him pushed out unwillingly--which could depress turnout on the democratic side, hurting down ballot races. It also involves essentially admitting that Democrats who claimed that edited videos of Biden were misinformation (and attacked Robert Hur's report) were lying or misinformed, setting up easy Republican attack lines. Pretending like Biden is still good now and just has some bad days, however implausible, at least has the benefit of consistency.
If Democrats could be reasonably confident that pushing Biden out would result in a much stronger nominee, who could win against Trump, it might still be worth it, even if overthrowing Biden is difficult and politically costly. However, the actual situation before yesterday was that Trump was heavily favored against Biden and only slightly less favored against Harris (the most likely replacement). If he's even further strengthened, at some point, don't we have to ask whether the juice is worth the squeeze? Is a belated internecine war in the Democratic Party worth it, if the most that can hope to accomplish is replacing a doomed Biden run with a doomed Harris run? At some point, maybe the best they can do is to just admit that the White House is lost and try to get donors who won't support Biden to redirect their funds to compete aggressively in House and Senate races.
This is only true if every Democrat and every media pundit is lying about “democracy being on the ballot”. If they're telling the truth, you must do literally anything to increase even meager odds of stopping him.
But everyone seems to understand implicitly that the Democrats are lying. Everyone, that is, except for mentally ill young men—and Democrats' stochastic terrorism almost paid off yesterday.
You don’t have to be mentally ill or even unintelligent to believe in a partisan delusion. Liz Cheney went on left wing media like CNN and said that there may never be another election if Trump is elected. She may have been lying to sell her book and the hosts that didn’t challenge her assertion might remain silent since it helps their guy OR maybe some of them actually believe this partisan delusion. I honestly don’t know for sure at this point. A lot of these journalists have been so heavily indoctrinated in left wing ideology by the elite colleges that they attended, perhaps that has supplanted basic logic and common sense.
Okay, but why assume that Liz Cheney and the CNN hosts are sane and intelligent? ;-)
Liz Cheney stood still and the Republican party moved out from under her.
I respect her principled stance then, but she’s wrong now about the fall of democracy. It’s quite a bit more durable than its opponents would have you believe.
Also a maybe not a great take that Trump doesn’t like elections. He clearly loves them and would have elections every year if he could.
Or maybe they conclude this because Trump and his henchman tried to overturn The 2020 election. And Republicans are already working on overturning the 2024 election should Trump not win. I kind of see a pattern here. Do you?
How did that “overturning” work out? The answer to that question is where basic logic and common sense come into play.
>This is only true if every Democrat and every media pundit is lying about “democracy being on the ballot”.
I think we all know the answer to that one.
It feels like you're committing one of the statistical sins that Nate and Maria have warned against, of equating a (say) 15% chance with a 0% chance (the latter being how I interpret "doomed"). If the underlying state of the race is close enough and has enough variance that switching takes you from a 15% chance to a 25% chance, that's great and you should take that improvement every time.
(I massively discount the negative value of an "internecine war", I don't think there's much evidence that voters actually care about that sort of thing)
Of course, I used “doomed” to refer to something with a low probability of success, not literally a 0% chance. Seemingly doomed campaigns do sometimes come back from the dead.
The main point is that switching involves a political cost. Replacing Biden with Harris only improves the odds slightly; to really shake up the race you’d need someone like Whitmer or Newsom. But overthrowing both Biden and Harris entails big political downsides. For example, it could alienate black voters at a moment when the Democratic Party has seen its support among other minority groups (Latinos) fall dramatically. Trump could capitalize on the move and perhaps make real inroads among black working class voters who don’t like that Biden/Harris were pushed aside. If so, that could put the black vote “in play” to a greater extent in elections to come. If the replacement candidate ends up losing to Trump anyway, then dems would have alienated a critical voting bloc for nothing.
To be clear, that particular scenario is not necessarily what I would judge most likely. It’s just to illustrate that there are real and meaningful costs and risks involved in replacing Biden, so Nate’s column is wrong (or at least imprecise) to suggest that everything that makes a Trump win likelier is all the more reason to replace Biden. At a certain point, the chances of winning the White House become so small that it’s just not worth the cost and risk involved, and you’re better off focusing your efforts on other races.
A signal they are willing to get serous will be when the media stops talking about Biden’s “age” and actually starts talking about his competence
If Trump really is an existential threat to democracy, if he's a latter day Hitler (see the New Republic cover), then killing him is completely justifiable. (NOTE TO SECRET SERVICE: I AM MAKING A RHETORICAL POINT HERE!!!)
The question I have is whether the Biden camp can continue with that line of attack in the aftermath of the shooting (see reports that they suspended all advertising and campaign activity). If not what is their new argument?
Secondly, I suspect strongly that the shooter is closer to John Hinckley than Gavrilo Princip. Reports are already emerging that he was a bullied outcast in high school. That doesn't mean that most people won't assume that there is a political component to the shooting. The Trump campaign has an unprecedented opportunity to shape the narrative since their convention starts tomorrow. If they're smart they'll blame the "democracy in danger" advertising and mention the actual shooter as little as possible.
In terms of impact on the election, I don't think it's irresponsible to speculate that a) this will probably drive turnout of Trump's base to higher levels (assuming that's possible) and b) it could easily cause the low propensity voters who apparently align with Trump now to start paying more attention to the election.
"If Trump really is an existential threat to democracy, if he's a latter day Hitler..."
You are overplaying your hand here.
A president who acted as Donald Trump did following the election of 2020 has fully invited the political charge of being a threat to democracy. Like most political charges, there's a lot to unpack, there's a lot to debate, there are deeper issues, but there is nothing inherently unfair about this political rhetoric. Truly, someone who resorts to those tactics rather than the courts has invited this response.
On the other hand, calling him Hitler is beyond the pale, and since most Americans wish someone had just killed Hitler, yeah....
imho, pairing the two and acting as though they are pretty much equivalent strikes me as aggressive partisanship and nothing more
Newsweek put his face, as Hitler, on their cover. Joy Reid on MSNBC literally called him "a new Hitler." After SCOTUS's recent ruling on presidential immunity, it was a near-universal left talking-point that Biden could order Trump's assassination and have it be legal. Even the post-assassination commentary (e.g. David Frum's Atlantic piece today) is still calling Trump a "would-be dictator."
That's either recklessly priming the pump for someone to take a shot at Trump, or blatant lying for political advantage. Actually, probably it's both.
https://x.com/newrepublic/status/1810009748697448541?lang=en
'If they're smart they'll blame the "democracy in danger" advertising and mention the actual shooter as little as possible.'
If they're trying to maximise their electoral chances, yes. Depending on other things they may value like the stability of the country and preventing further political violence, there may be better options available than assigning blame politically for this. Even if it your proposed stance might be partially or completely true.
I would also point out that it's not just one side. If I'm right the shooter was just crazy and his motives will be incoherent.
But Biden, by delivering an address where he deplores the attempt, calls for civility, etc. will be de facto casting the shooting as political in nature.
https://x.com/newrepublic/status/1810009748697448541?lang=en
One effect that has already showed up is to let Republican's brand any intense criticism of Trump, no matter how well-grounded in reality, as dangerous incitement to violence. This extra constraint will make it harder to campaign against him. Biden in particular doesn't have the agility to work around new constraints. It's still true that Trump promises to be "dictator on day one", to round up millions, and to replace the civil service with political appointees etc but focussing on that may get harder. Focusing more on policy issues such as Social Security, healthcare, and abortion may help.
"One effect that has already showed up is to let Republican's brand any intense criticism of Trump, no matter how well-grounded in reality, as dangerous incitement to violence"
Remember the Dept of Justice memo, early in Biden's term, advocating that parents complaining at school board meetings could be branded as domestic terrorists?
https://www.tmz.com/2017/05/30/kathy-griffin-beheads-donald-trump-photo-tyler-shields/
because criticism of Trump’s authoritarian tendencies is the same as trying to fill local schools with homophobic nonsense. You just posted 3 entirely unrelated things, and attempted to play them off as a coherent comment that actually added something to the discussion.
Trump's authoritarian tendencies: end big-tech/state censorship
"fill local schools with homophobic nonsense": like boys wearing skirts, using the girls bathrooms and raping real girls, as happened in the prominent Loudon, VA case.
Evidently quite a few people liked the comment, presumably because it added to the discussion and brought home 7 years of violent Leftist discourse that goes unchallenged. Unlike the violent discourse that addresses bearded people in dresses as "Mr"
if you think 15-year old boys wearing skirts for fun at school is one of the biggest problems facing a country choked with poverty, addiction, and gun violence you are very sadly detached from the struggles everyday Americans face.
" 15-year old boys wearing skirts for fun at school "
I never regard rapes committed by 15 year old boys wearing skirts at school, as the case in Loudon, VA, as "fun".
I would hope you don't either.
Nice deflection. It didn’t work. Rape is awful, but using it to justify bigoted political viewpoints is pretty despicable too
Nate fails to mention the indelible image of Trump rising out of the Secret Service scrum seconds after the last shot was fired, defiant expression and blood streaming down his face, pumping his fist and shouting, “Fight!”. An awful lot of people saw Trump’s coolness and bravery in the face of that immediate threat to his life. Now look across the aisle to see frail, doddering, confused Biden who needs help negotiating a flight of stairs. This event will have a major impact on the election and Trump will be the beneficiary.
First, he could not have known that quickly that the shooter was dead or that there weren’t more shooters. Second, to describe a full thickness ear wound from a rifle bullet, millimeters from his skull, as a “cut” on his ear shows a woeful lack of knowledge and seriousness on your part.
Your attempt to minimize a wound from a rifle bullet to ANY part of a person’s head is nothing short of gaslighting. The photos appear to show a perforation of the ear, but even if it’s less than that this was as close to a fatal injury as you can get without that actually occurring. Also, everyone saw how quickly Trump got up and raised his fist and this was anything but a safe and secure crime scene. Trump was both cool and brave in the face of an immediate threat to his life. Sorry these things aren’t apparent to you.