I've given up hope that MAGA voters will ever turn on Trump. He literally could shoot someone in broad daylight and they would just assume he had good reason or that it was fake, if they even heard about it.
I disagree. From my POV the idea that Trump's most ardent supporters are just some cult and that there is no rational basis to their support is off base. In this country elections are a binary decision. Its not enough to make the point that one option is bad, you need to make the case that the other option is less bad. Trump's history is that he properly diagnoses problems and then implements the wrong solutions but that is still an upgrade on the current Dems.
I have been a reliable Dem voter since the 80s but if I were presented right now with a choice between Vance and Newsome I am honestly not sure who I would vote for. If it were a choice between Rubio and Newsome I would almost certainly vote for Rubio.
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can make 80%-90% of the country happy. The country is too ideologically diverse for a single national policy. Vance, Rubio, and Newsom believe they can move the nation towards a unified ideology, but this is a fool's errand. The problem is not just diagnosing problems but believing that there is a national solution for all problems like both Biden and Trump do.
The more we continue on this sea-saw every 4 to 8 years, the more divided the nation will become. It's not Tennessee's business how much Mass. spends on health care, and not Mass's business whether Tennessee allows school vouchers to be used at private religious schools.
I agree with you pretty much 100%. For example: when Roe v Wade was overturned it seemed like a good ruling to me (reminder: I have always voted Dem) because the decision would now go back to the individual states. Does it open a can of worms? Yup, but federal courts (IMO) should not be in the business of policing morality. Neither should state courts for that matter but they are at least more representative of the people that elect them than federal appointees.
You cannot please everyone but we do have national elections and an executive and these things do have a significant effect on a lot of very important things. The see-sawing you observe may be a byproduct of the fact that most voters in the country are like me and see positive and negative in both parties but - because of the primary system, and, I would argue, the media's profit motive - the extremes of both parties exert an influence that is out of proportion to their actual constituent representation. This leads to over-reach on to the left followed by a rightward correction followed by an over-reach on the right followed by a leftward correction and so on.
If you have a solution to that I'm all ears. Maybe this is the way it is supposed to work. Maybe we should do away with the current primary system and have the party leaders pick the presidential nominees like we used to. I couldn't say.
Democrats lost in 2024 because they did not moderate on several issues that voters found key. Now they are moving further to the left as Social Democrats control the primary apparatus.
Meanwhile, the GOP moderate (at least rhetorically) to win swing states while keeping MAGA happy. This time that will be easy. High oil prices will turn voters across the political spectrum against the war. All the nominee has to do to win an election of "bad versus worse" is: 1) Be all pro-MAGA; 2) have no Epstein ties; and 3) be known to be for getting us out of mideast wars. And the man who we know will be the GOP nominee (VP Vance) checks all these boxes.
You may be right but are you saying that is a BAD thing?
There is long way to go before the presidential primaries and a lot can and will happen but as of right now I much prefer the options on the right (Vance or Rubio) to the options on the left (Newsome and some Democratic Socialist). I would like to have the option to vote for someone like Josh Shapiro but the base of the Dem party is far too antisemitic to ever nominate a Jew.
I was more commenting on the political landscape and not what is bad.
I don't see the Democrats nominating someone who can win the general election. Even Shapiro, I don't think he'd be viewed as a moderate on any issue that would move the electorate towards the center.
As for the GOP, the war only strengthens Vance's probability of being the nominee. In the Trump administration, it's clear that Rubio is driving the pro-war wing and Vance the anti-war wing. And MAGA will choose the latter.
Before I even read this article, I have to ask you a very direct and simple question Nate.
Have we seen any evidence ever, throughout the entire history of both Trump's first and second term, that suggests it's possible for Trump's base to split with him?
I used to follow your approval rating tracker on 538 religiously. I continued to follow approval ratings for the beginning of this term as well and I came to a very simple conclusion. I've never seen trump's approval fall below 37% among all voters, or 80% among republicans, even at his lowest points. It has been one of the most persistent and sticky bases of support among any politician I've looked at.
I'm so exhausted by these "will this destroy Trump's approval among his base?" Tell me, at this point, why you assume this is possible and why does this situation meaningfully warrant asking this question yet again? Is it just for clicks?
This piece was written by Eli, not by Nate. I think the purpose of the piece was not to assign this as a causal event for Trump's support eroding, but to answer the question of whether there is data to support that it's having an effect, which Eli seems to think it mostly has not. I don't disagree that the headline could cause you to feel frustrated, but I think the piece actually explains quite well what you're saying. If that means you'd rather not take the time to read it, that is your purview.
It's entirely possible that super-AIDS get's unleashed tomorrow and 90% of the population is at risk of dying. And yet, if this blog posted an article every day asking "has super-AIDS been released yet?" I would stop reading.
The space of possible things that could happen is many orders of magnitude larger than the space of things we should be considering and thinking about. Repeatedly asking the same question when the meta-information has not changed enough for the probability of the answer itself to change is a waste of time.
But I do not doubt that a blog that posts provocative headlines repeatedly will get clicks in the short term. I'm just trying to determine if this blog is doing that so I can decide if it's worth my time to read.
This blog has a wide variety of content, and I find a lot of it entertaining or useful, especially the models which I can pretend are magic oracles. However, it does use a lot of provocative headlines. I think Nate has even mentioned that a bit in a past article. As a professional gambler, he's very focused on data-driven optimization, and he definitely chooses headlines with clicks in mind.
Humans do not have enough time to read everything. The implicit contract of a headline is:
"This is a summary of what we will talk about."
This headline is telling me "We will examine whether Trump's base is fracturing over Iran." This question is asked every time Trump does something controversial, and the answer is always "no." I know that Nate and his team know this because he is the most reliable source on approval ratings and polling.
I even started reading the article with the hope "surely this is not another click-baity article trying to get left-leaning readers excited about possibility that Trump's support is cracking." But alas, it was just that.
The data driven approach of click-bait is:
Excite left leaning readers with the idea that "this time, it's different" when no, we have no information to suggest that's the case.
This will drive engagement in the short time, while annoying analytical readers in the long term.
Up until now, sticking with Trump has always been a viable path to the future. Trump has never been a lame duck before, and assuming that the observed trends in his approval will necessarily continue even as he objectively wanes in relevance is flawed reasoning.
Not to say that it will definitely happen, but to assume that it's _impossible_ does not seem warranted. After all, Trump has never died before either, but we certainly expect him to eventually.
We haven't dealt with a true "cult of personality" figure, in this country's politics maybe ever. Or at least when it comes to the President; I wouldn't mind if someone pointed one out I'm missing. I think what comes after these leaders is often "balkenization" -- the rifts in the coalition supporting Trump are certainly there already and as Eli's data points out it's Trump holding them together. The real problem Republican's may have in 2026 and 28, is that the coalition that Trump built can really only be operated by himself. That would fit with the man's pathology pretty cleanly and what I've already observed: most everyone aping Trump *cough*DeSantis*cough* seems to fail at it miserably.
J.F. Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan. Charisma is relatively common in presidents, since it's so useful in getting elected. Charisma inevitably leads to a cult of personality. Kennedy and Lincoln were both killed; Teddy Roosevelt was shot directly in the chest, but survived (and finished his speech); Reagan was also shot in the chest but survived.
He was assassinated early, but don't forget Huey Long. People always try to assassinate people with charisma; it's probably the only way to stop them. Sometimes, well, often, the assassins finally succeed. Trump has had two attempts that were made public; probably a lot more we haven't heard about.
None of the people you mentioned though were as deeply flawed or malignant as Trump. Another difference: he might be charismatic, but he's not nor has he ever been "popular" in any accepted definition of the term. He's good at running up marginal turn out in people that seem to have a lot of resentment, while towing enough of GOP normies a long. He embodies that first group almost perfectly though which may be why he resonates so well with that kind of person.
In addition to Washington, like SCA mentioned, I'd say FDR also had a similar cult of personality. He was popular enough to be elected four times in a row, and he enacted a pretty radical agenda for economic change. Like Trump he was able to argue his ideas directly to the people of the US, although he had to use radio chats instead of Twitter.
My first thought was a different Roosevelt- Theodore Roosevelt.
He had the famous sayings and the populist bent. & then when the GOP moved away from him he went & formed the Bull Moose party & ran as a 3rd party in the 1912 election.
Granted Roosevelt's ideas were much more progressive than Trumps' & time has found that Teddy was on the right side of most issue, which I greatly suspect won't be the case in Trump's case.
Yup. I'm not sure he can hold it together through '28 though. If the midterms are a disaster for the GOP (like a losing the Senate disaster), I think the coalition will crack rather quickly.
In this scenario almost every swing district republican loses, so what's left in the House are the hardest-core MAGA in the safest districts. They'll be in full opposition mode continuing to spout nonsense and obstruct wherever possible, while every other GOP pol is trying to recalibrate for what they think will be the winning lane in '28 post-Trump.
If Vance has any brain cells, he has to break with Trump a little (unless Harris' big failing only applies to Dems /s), which will cause friction too. No Senate means no SCOTUS seats in play, though presumably they'd try to replace Thomas and/or Alito during the lame-duck but with Collins, Tillis, Sullivan, and your pick of TX/OH/IA losing, it's not a given how interested they'd be in playing ball.
Trump has also shown a tendency to sulk after a loss (not campaigning in the '21 GA Senate runoffs being exhibit A). If he's disengaged or just constantly battling investigations, that's two years of gridlock, negative headlines, and having to still defend an extremely unpopular lame-duck POTUS.
I don’t see myself as MAGA, but I’m a Trump voter. My guess is that many of his voters feel similar to me: confused why we’re getting into foreign entanglements, but willing to let him cook.
Venezuela made sense given proximity (spheres of influence) and geography (top of SA). I figured in his second term we’d pivot entirely away from the Middle East. The best I can figure is there’s a more strategic goal; Kharg Island is an interesting theory, worth reading if you didn’t see the X post. But it’s also possible he’s just had enough of Iran and while I abhor foreign entanglement, it’s hard to not feel some sense of general good about the removal of the mullahs.
Dispassionately, I don’t see how any military intervention can be successful long term in Iran if we’re not willing to dictate a secular system of government. I’m not an expert but from what I’ve read, support for Islam there has been dropping for decades and now it’s minority status. Either lean into that and force the issue or it seems inevitable the hard liners will hold onto power. Put another way, name the enemy and dictate terms or wind up dancing around it and losing like W.
That’s what I was trying to convey. I knew it would make people angry but figured a few would get it.
FWIW there’s much about his second term that has given me cause for concern. And I cannot fathom why Trump can’t hold his fire for people like Bill Maher. He’s a tragic flawed hero.
But when the alternative is Kamala Harris and an entire party of people who can’t stand up for women only sports and restrooms and can’t define “woman” because “I’m not a biologist”…sorry but I’m sticking with Trump, flaws and all.
As a straight 46 y/o white guy I just don't get how "women's sports and restrooms" is anybody's hot-button issue. I'll never understand why seemingly reasonable people lose their minds instantly over it.
It just has such a minimal effect on the average person's life, why do you base your vote on it so strongly?
Like i can see Trump's appeal to rural voters on economic concerns, immigration, and foreign policy, though i disagree on most points. But the culture war stuff just seems so....stupid to me i guess.
I guess you don’t have daughters who are running into this in public school. Not throwing shade your way, no disrespect, but it’s an issue I’ll die on a hill to win. I can’t fathom how anybody heard that “biologist” answer from KJP and didn’t reflect on the insanity of modern culture.
BTW that’s only one of a hundred policy positions where I strongly disagree with modern Dems.
I tend to agree with you..& that's while I agree with Dan that the Dem side of the 2 aforementioned cultural issue items is stupid.
IMO, they are such a small part of what affects me that I could never use them as a basis for who to vote for..esp since Trump has many other stances I find just as stupid (tariffs being a big one that affects ALL of us much more than women's sports & restrooms)
Nice post, but I don't agree that we CAN dictate terms involving a secular government. It certainly never worked in Iraq, including now: the news today says there is a very active front against our troops in Iraq now, with Iraqi militias supporting Iran. Do a whole lot of damage and then let the people of Iran figure it out, if they can.
I am MAGA, and I agree: let him cook. The three infected, running sores of foreign opposition have been Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba. Trump is clearing them all up, Cuba being plainly in play now, and IMO it's a great thing, and the Democrats never did it and never would have done it.
The answer to the question of what would get us to turn against Trump seems obvious to me: failure. That's what did for George W. Bush, after all. He was riding high in Republican opinion till he let Rumsfeld and Cheney take over and fail in the Iraq War, and they did it trying for just what you are suggesting: they tried a World War II-type change of government in Germany. That was also tried in WWI (it was all one war, many historians now think: a thirty-year war turning on one question, will Germany rule Europe?) with the Weimar Republic, but Germany wasn't nearly beaten enough. The second try, it worked. But we had to beat Germany down --twice-- so far to get there that no one is going to want to get that involved in the Mideast, I don't think. Iranians will have to do that themselves after we pretty thoroughly defeat them this time. If we do.
So failing in Iran and also a worldwide recession could be a problem for Trump. The big problem as I see it for Trump is that most, MOST wars last at least four years, many longer. There are a few short wars, like Israel's tend to be, but the pattern is for every sovereign to say that it will be over by the end of the month, or at least "by the time the leaves fall" (the Kaiser). Then it lasts four years, or five, or thirty, or a hundred (116, actually, that one). Look at how soon the Ukraine War was supposed to be over, and it's still going on. I don't think Trump can afford a five-year war in Iran.
All fair points but I strongly disagree about W having tried it. He never named Sharia or Islamism as the opponent; in fact, he went out of his way to avoid casting that light. Part of why people turned on him was the futility of his approach: we could see with our own eyes what was happening, an unwillingness to name the enemy, and an obviousness there was no winning when we hadn’t bothered to define success.
The same thing will happen here if we’re unwilling to define success criteria and do whatever it takes to achieve a quantifiable outcome.
Good points, but I think Bush did indeed try to change the government in Iraq, just as the allies did, twice, in Germany. It's always, lately, an attempt to turn it into a democracy. That doesn't seem possible to impose anywhere, at least without a world-historical effort of many years and decades, and often not then.
I think the moment of truth in Iraq was the day they dug Saddam Hussein out of his spiderhole. The next day our troops should have started leaving (making sure first that Hussain was killed, obviously, preferably by us!!). Even after all that silly "shock and awe" and "Mission Accomplished" stuff, I do see we couldn't really leave with Hussein still alive and popping up on a sidewalk from time to time. But staying on to fix their government? Bad move. Same for Iran.
What is the single question the Iran war hangs on? Wars are always very simple in their question: Will England rule France? Will Germany rule Europe? Will Russia regain its former territory, Ukraine? The war question here is, Will Iran control the whole Mideast? to do that, it believes it needs nukes (and it's right, IMO). We don't want this because 1. Nukes will certainly be aimed at us, and we've already got a lot of that. 2. Our important ally Israel would be obliterated. 3. As we see at only two weeks in, the way to control the Mideast and much of the rest of the world is by controlling oil via the Strait of Hormuz, and that's a serious problem. These three are the only issues: the religion thing is a matter of propaganda tactics and doesn't matter.
So I consider the success criteria as getting rid of their nukes and also getting rid of all their many proxy partners, in Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza, and Iraq. And we need a base IN Iraq, preferably on one of those Persian Gulf Islands Iran has, to keep them down. That's the function of many of our bases, keeping them down, such as Germany; the rest are forward-positioning.
Respectfully I disagree. We can obliterate them now and they’ll just rebuild toward nukes in a few years when a passive POTUS inevitably takes over. We have enough history to trust that will happen.
But look at Iran prior to the ISLAMIC revolution: it was western and favorable. Sorry (not sorry) but that’s the truth: making women wear robes and hide their faces is evil, and so is child marriage. I’m not afraid to say that. Islam is fundamentally at odds with western values, the Islamist’s aren’t afraid to acknowledge it, and they’ve spent decades poking the US bear with impunity.
All that aside, we know what happens if fundamentalists remain in power and another passive POTUS takes over. They get nukes and there’s no going back.
Can’t believe I’m talking myself into supporting the current war. I said “let him cook” initially as a lukewarm reaction but responding to your comment has me warming up.
Well, of course I don't disagree with you that Islamism is an AWFUL religion. A lot of religion is truly awful, such as the Spanish Inquisition, which lasted a lot longer than people realize (centuries). I'm a great fan of the crusaders, myself.
It's just that a lot of beliefs are mainly a way to express power, and to see if people are in the club or Other, and need killing or deportation. Power is what it's all about, not religion. Power over women and if they won't wear the hijab, they aren't in the club, so they get killed.
Well, Persia has been a pain for 3000 years that we have a good history of; they're just that kind of people. Like Germans. You are right of course, if they survive, they'll try again for nukes and control, at least if the theocracy continues or anything like the old Persian autocrats --- Darius and Midas and all that lot. People in D.C. carry on about how Iran is "one week away from nukes" every month since before Covid, so it probably would be best to set them back a few decades and CHANGE things a lot ---- who knows what happens then, maybe they'll reform, as you point out they almost did before the theocracy took over. I don't see how it could be much worse than it was before the war started, so anything has to be an improvement or no worse than the same, I suppose.
I think the non-interventionist stuff wasn't for MAGA, but for the moderates. It made Trump look less neocon/neolib, which normies saw as preferable to starting wars everywhere.
One area this polling does not treat is religion. Christian nationalists are a major, if not a majority, source of support for Trump. The war against Iran, in concert with Israel, feeds into their beliefs that it will hasten the Second Coming. As far as thinking about who might succeed Trump, almost none of the current contenders look likely to gain the lock on Christian Nationalist support that Trump has. The exception might be Pete Hegseth who has invoked evangelical language to defend the attacks on Iran. If you think that is preposterous, consider a twice-divorced man who boasted grabbing women’s private parts winning the White House—twice.
Today, Trump repeatedly referred to the war as an "excursion." It's pretty clear that he meant to call it an "incursion," but as often happens these days, Trump suffered a brain fart.
This war is kind of the best-case scenario for Democratic hawks because Republicans bomb these evil horrible regimes that need to go down but they also take all the political cost so it's pretty sweet.
“The New York Times is using the capitalized version of ‘Iran War’ in its headlines”
New York Times headlines capitalize every word except for certain connective words (prepositions, conjunctions, articles) if they are three characters or fewer. “War”, as a noun, would always be capitalized even though it’s three characters. So this actually doesn’t indicate anything.
Disclaimer: I don’t have a copy of the style guide so I don’t know the exact set of exceptions, but I verified the general rule by looking at a bunch of headlines.
I'd frame this differently. MAGA has to break--that is fracture--without Trump to hold it together. Even if Trump tries to run in 2028, that would facture the movement. Far more likely, different contenders for Republican leadership will choose specific issues to break with Trump, while supporting most of his policies. Whatever the outcome of that struggle, some current MAGA supporters will be on the winning side, and some won't. I can't imagine any individual other than Trump holding MAGA together in its current form.
Will Iran and military adventurism be the key issue? Probably not if the war either ends favorably or badly. But if there's some kind of intermediate outcome, I'd say it's likely. I could see J. D. Vance running on "Trump was great except his advisors steered him wrong on Iran and I tried to stop it," while others claim secret plans to get us out of Iran or pledge to continue the fight.
But there are plenty of other possibilities for decisive fractures. I think Iran is too much in play to be confident about what voters will think about it in 2028. In 2026 I suspect it will give a push to less-MAGA Republican candidates and the effect on Republican versus Democrats will depend on how things develop.
Great post --- I love the idea of Vance criticizing Trump's "advisors" who steered him wrong --- like pretty much every faction against kings and other entrenched politicians throughout history. It's never the leader beloved of so many --- it's always "the advisors." Works, too. And the getting us out OR this time we'll fight to win! is so reminiscent of Humphrey vs. Nixon.
But of course the Republicans will fracture: all dominant parties do, thus allowing for differing opinion. When the Democrats dominated in the 1930s, '40s, and '50s, they split into Southern Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats, several others.
Getting out of this war with a win and without a huge recession is crucial for Trump and Republicans, IMO. Nobody likes failure.
I assume all major Republican Presidential hopefuls in 2028 will run some version of "Trump-but" or "kinder, gentler MAGA." No one will make the Kamala Harris mistake of failing to separate from an unpopular administration, but none can afford to be anti-MAGA. Since Vance is part of the administration, he pretty much has to blame other administration members. Outsiders can blame Trump himself, saying he went too far or had some blind spots or made mistakes.
I agree that dominant parties fracture. Republicans are not so dominant as to collapse under their own weight, but they're too dependent on Trump personally. He's not a Jack Kennedy able to bequeath his supporters to relatives (I don't take Junior seriously), and all his heir-apparents have embarrassed themselves supporting him and also have quarreled with him--with the possible exception of Vance who may be able to walk that tightrope. Moreover, MAGA was never consistent ideologically, nor composed of groups that think alike.
I agree there's some similarity with the Democratic party troubles after FDR died. But he had over 12 continuous years in office, plus two of the greatest crises of the 20th century to forge a lasting legacy, with lots of talented acolytes to carry on. Nevertheless, as you say, no one else could hold together southern racists and New Deal liberals. Ronald Reagan was similar for the Republicans, building a solid legacy but leaving a party split between conservatives and traditional Republicans.
I think Donald Trump will leave the Republicans in much worse shape than FDR or Reagan left their parties. He's forged nothing and has no meaningful acolytes.
Very interesting. Of course I agree about 2028 GOP candidates running Trump-but and Kindler, Gentler MAGA. It's the obvious turn back to the more comfortable mean. And that Kamala's refusal to differentiate herself from a totally failed administration casts a long, dark shadow: but it's the same shadow cast by Hubert Humphrey, who made the same mistake (probably under the exact same compulsion from the prez at the time). And of course both lost.
I don't agree Trump will leave us in worse shape. Trump's genius is that he knows how to CHANGE things. And so do the tech bros, famously: the simple rule is "Move fast and break things." This country has been frozen in amber, unable to move out of the most ghastly positions somehow locked in place by the worst of the elites: DEI, college loans, never fight anyone no matter how dangerous they are, trannies and the like perversions, open borders, cancel culture as bad as anything during the Catholic reformation. Well, I exaggerate: the Dems hadn't yet got around to roping people to stakes and burning them alive, but they were going that way.
That's why Trump has from Day One moved so fast --- if you don't move fast, people stop the change! Whatever it is. As for breaking things, it doesn't even matter if they try to put it back together, like all the pet junior judges the Dems have been using. Once it's broken, whatever bad policy it is, people know it CAN be broken ------- that we don't have to live that way! That's it, he's letting change happen, and I love it. We sure need it, in my opinion.
That's a good point. I'll amend my claim. Donald Trump will not influence the future the way FDR and Ronald Reagan did--by empowering a generation of young, aggressive, talented, activists. Instead his influence will be mainly from smashing long-standing obstacles to action and exposing long-entrenched elites to competition.
As for who is MAGA? Last week Trump answered that question. MAGA is Trump and it is whatever Trump says that it is. So no surprise that it is a cult of personality. If you look at other cult leaders it's clear that being a mental case is a plus.
If you uncritically believe what Trump says, you suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
As for the fake MAGA leaders, those who oppose Trump's policies, the isolationist America Firsters, let's call them what they. are and not sidestep around it. They are white supremacists, Nazi sympathizers, antisemites and/or self pitying whiners, developmentally deficient, who need to blame everyone else for their own life choices.
In some way, shape, or form, MAGA leadership consists of opportunists and grifters, with the grifter-in-chief at the top.
MAGA was broken long before Iran came into the picture
Is there much value to at the time polling on a foreign policy issue? What matters is whether it is seen later as a success. Unless lots of Americans die or it won't be a major issue in 3 months.
Nice piece, Eli. Trump has always been a cult of personality, and policy would get awkwardly assigned to him. MAGA-coded policy is fluid because Trump's convictions are fluid. This is why it hasn't caused the atrophy in party support, but the tepid Republican or swing voter for whom interventionism was a key policy position might be shaken. Silver Bulletin (and 538) has always been hesitant to assign much weight to policy polling due to how poor the data ends up being, but I believe a lot of the data routinely finds foreign policy concerns tend to rank toward the bottom. So while it may be a negative for a lot of MAGA voters, the weight they're assigning to it is minimal. If Trump came out tomorrow with a robust immigration policy that would increase the number of immigrants eligible for citizenship, I think there would be a different level of MAGA erosion.
Nate - not a comment on this column, but WSJ had an article today about Aaru -- a company doing market research with bots designed to have specific demographics to represent "synthetic" humans -- with results more accurate than *some* polling. Would like your reaction to this. Viable?
TLDR? Nothing new to see here. Trump has done a thing that caused some GOP elites to disagree with him, but his mindless cult of followers is sticking with him just as they have done for the past decade. Democrats, and a majority of Americans overall, oppose the thing he has done.
I've given up hope that MAGA voters will ever turn on Trump. He literally could shoot someone in broad daylight and they would just assume he had good reason or that it was fake, if they even heard about it.
I disagree. From my POV the idea that Trump's most ardent supporters are just some cult and that there is no rational basis to their support is off base. In this country elections are a binary decision. Its not enough to make the point that one option is bad, you need to make the case that the other option is less bad. Trump's history is that he properly diagnoses problems and then implements the wrong solutions but that is still an upgrade on the current Dems.
I have been a reliable Dem voter since the 80s but if I were presented right now with a choice between Vance and Newsome I am honestly not sure who I would vote for. If it were a choice between Rubio and Newsome I would almost certainly vote for Rubio.
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can make 80%-90% of the country happy. The country is too ideologically diverse for a single national policy. Vance, Rubio, and Newsom believe they can move the nation towards a unified ideology, but this is a fool's errand. The problem is not just diagnosing problems but believing that there is a national solution for all problems like both Biden and Trump do.
The more we continue on this sea-saw every 4 to 8 years, the more divided the nation will become. It's not Tennessee's business how much Mass. spends on health care, and not Mass's business whether Tennessee allows school vouchers to be used at private religious schools.
I agree with you pretty much 100%. For example: when Roe v Wade was overturned it seemed like a good ruling to me (reminder: I have always voted Dem) because the decision would now go back to the individual states. Does it open a can of worms? Yup, but federal courts (IMO) should not be in the business of policing morality. Neither should state courts for that matter but they are at least more representative of the people that elect them than federal appointees.
You cannot please everyone but we do have national elections and an executive and these things do have a significant effect on a lot of very important things. The see-sawing you observe may be a byproduct of the fact that most voters in the country are like me and see positive and negative in both parties but - because of the primary system, and, I would argue, the media's profit motive - the extremes of both parties exert an influence that is out of proportion to their actual constituent representation. This leads to over-reach on to the left followed by a rightward correction followed by an over-reach on the right followed by a leftward correction and so on.
If you have a solution to that I'm all ears. Maybe this is the way it is supposed to work. Maybe we should do away with the current primary system and have the party leaders pick the presidential nominees like we used to. I couldn't say.
Democrats lost in 2024 because they did not moderate on several issues that voters found key. Now they are moving further to the left as Social Democrats control the primary apparatus.
Meanwhile, the GOP moderate (at least rhetorically) to win swing states while keeping MAGA happy. This time that will be easy. High oil prices will turn voters across the political spectrum against the war. All the nominee has to do to win an election of "bad versus worse" is: 1) Be all pro-MAGA; 2) have no Epstein ties; and 3) be known to be for getting us out of mideast wars. And the man who we know will be the GOP nominee (VP Vance) checks all these boxes.
You may be right but are you saying that is a BAD thing?
There is long way to go before the presidential primaries and a lot can and will happen but as of right now I much prefer the options on the right (Vance or Rubio) to the options on the left (Newsome and some Democratic Socialist). I would like to have the option to vote for someone like Josh Shapiro but the base of the Dem party is far too antisemitic to ever nominate a Jew.
I was more commenting on the political landscape and not what is bad.
I don't see the Democrats nominating someone who can win the general election. Even Shapiro, I don't think he'd be viewed as a moderate on any issue that would move the electorate towards the center.
As for the GOP, the war only strengthens Vance's probability of being the nominee. In the Trump administration, it's clear that Rubio is driving the pro-war wing and Vance the anti-war wing. And MAGA will choose the latter.
Before I even read this article, I have to ask you a very direct and simple question Nate.
Have we seen any evidence ever, throughout the entire history of both Trump's first and second term, that suggests it's possible for Trump's base to split with him?
I used to follow your approval rating tracker on 538 religiously. I continued to follow approval ratings for the beginning of this term as well and I came to a very simple conclusion. I've never seen trump's approval fall below 37% among all voters, or 80% among republicans, even at his lowest points. It has been one of the most persistent and sticky bases of support among any politician I've looked at.
I'm so exhausted by these "will this destroy Trump's approval among his base?" Tell me, at this point, why you assume this is possible and why does this situation meaningfully warrant asking this question yet again? Is it just for clicks?
This piece was written by Eli, not by Nate. I think the purpose of the piece was not to assign this as a causal event for Trump's support eroding, but to answer the question of whether there is data to support that it's having an effect, which Eli seems to think it mostly has not. I don't disagree that the headline could cause you to feel frustrated, but I think the piece actually explains quite well what you're saying. If that means you'd rather not take the time to read it, that is your purview.
There's a first time for everything. We shouldn't just assume something won't happen because it hasn't happened yet.
It's entirely possible that super-AIDS get's unleashed tomorrow and 90% of the population is at risk of dying. And yet, if this blog posted an article every day asking "has super-AIDS been released yet?" I would stop reading.
The space of possible things that could happen is many orders of magnitude larger than the space of things we should be considering and thinking about. Repeatedly asking the same question when the meta-information has not changed enough for the probability of the answer itself to change is a waste of time.
But I do not doubt that a blog that posts provocative headlines repeatedly will get clicks in the short term. I'm just trying to determine if this blog is doing that so I can decide if it's worth my time to read.
This blog has a wide variety of content, and I find a lot of it entertaining or useful, especially the models which I can pretend are magic oracles. However, it does use a lot of provocative headlines. I think Nate has even mentioned that a bit in a past article. As a professional gambler, he's very focused on data-driven optimization, and he definitely chooses headlines with clicks in mind.
I'll tell you what I am exhausted by... People who didn't read the article complaining about the article.
Humans do not have enough time to read everything. The implicit contract of a headline is:
"This is a summary of what we will talk about."
This headline is telling me "We will examine whether Trump's base is fracturing over Iran." This question is asked every time Trump does something controversial, and the answer is always "no." I know that Nate and his team know this because he is the most reliable source on approval ratings and polling.
I even started reading the article with the hope "surely this is not another click-baity article trying to get left-leaning readers excited about possibility that Trump's support is cracking." But alas, it was just that.
The data driven approach of click-bait is:
Excite left leaning readers with the idea that "this time, it's different" when no, we have no information to suggest that's the case.
This will drive engagement in the short time, while annoying analytical readers in the long term.
And yet somehow you had the time to write all that...
I feel the need to defend myself against internet trolls. I admit that is character weakness unfortunately.
Up until now, sticking with Trump has always been a viable path to the future. Trump has never been a lame duck before, and assuming that the observed trends in his approval will necessarily continue even as he objectively wanes in relevance is flawed reasoning.
Not to say that it will definitely happen, but to assume that it's _impossible_ does not seem warranted. After all, Trump has never died before either, but we certainly expect him to eventually.
Years are short, decades are long
We haven't dealt with a true "cult of personality" figure, in this country's politics maybe ever. Or at least when it comes to the President; I wouldn't mind if someone pointed one out I'm missing. I think what comes after these leaders is often "balkenization" -- the rifts in the coalition supporting Trump are certainly there already and as Eli's data points out it's Trump holding them together. The real problem Republican's may have in 2026 and 28, is that the coalition that Trump built can really only be operated by himself. That would fit with the man's pathology pretty cleanly and what I've already observed: most everyone aping Trump *cough*DeSantis*cough* seems to fail at it miserably.
George Washington had a serious cult of personality, but he had no desire to be king, or even president for life.
J.F. Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan. Charisma is relatively common in presidents, since it's so useful in getting elected. Charisma inevitably leads to a cult of personality. Kennedy and Lincoln were both killed; Teddy Roosevelt was shot directly in the chest, but survived (and finished his speech); Reagan was also shot in the chest but survived.
He was assassinated early, but don't forget Huey Long. People always try to assassinate people with charisma; it's probably the only way to stop them. Sometimes, well, often, the assassins finally succeed. Trump has had two attempts that were made public; probably a lot more we haven't heard about.
None of the people you mentioned though were as deeply flawed or malignant as Trump. Another difference: he might be charismatic, but he's not nor has he ever been "popular" in any accepted definition of the term. He's good at running up marginal turn out in people that seem to have a lot of resentment, while towing enough of GOP normies a long. He embodies that first group almost perfectly though which may be why he resonates so well with that kind of person.
Don't forget that other guy.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Barack_Obama_Hope_poster.jpg
In addition to Washington, like SCA mentioned, I'd say FDR also had a similar cult of personality. He was popular enough to be elected four times in a row, and he enacted a pretty radical agenda for economic change. Like Trump he was able to argue his ideas directly to the people of the US, although he had to use radio chats instead of Twitter.
My first thought was a different Roosevelt- Theodore Roosevelt.
He had the famous sayings and the populist bent. & then when the GOP moved away from him he went & formed the Bull Moose party & ran as a 3rd party in the 1912 election.
Granted Roosevelt's ideas were much more progressive than Trumps' & time has found that Teddy was on the right side of most issue, which I greatly suspect won't be the case in Trump's case.
Yup. I'm not sure he can hold it together through '28 though. If the midterms are a disaster for the GOP (like a losing the Senate disaster), I think the coalition will crack rather quickly.
In this scenario almost every swing district republican loses, so what's left in the House are the hardest-core MAGA in the safest districts. They'll be in full opposition mode continuing to spout nonsense and obstruct wherever possible, while every other GOP pol is trying to recalibrate for what they think will be the winning lane in '28 post-Trump.
If Vance has any brain cells, he has to break with Trump a little (unless Harris' big failing only applies to Dems /s), which will cause friction too. No Senate means no SCOTUS seats in play, though presumably they'd try to replace Thomas and/or Alito during the lame-duck but with Collins, Tillis, Sullivan, and your pick of TX/OH/IA losing, it's not a given how interested they'd be in playing ball.
Trump has also shown a tendency to sulk after a loss (not campaigning in the '21 GA Senate runoffs being exhibit A). If he's disengaged or just constantly battling investigations, that's two years of gridlock, negative headlines, and having to still defend an extremely unpopular lame-duck POTUS.
Could get real ugly real fast for the GOP.
I don’t see myself as MAGA, but I’m a Trump voter. My guess is that many of his voters feel similar to me: confused why we’re getting into foreign entanglements, but willing to let him cook.
Venezuela made sense given proximity (spheres of influence) and geography (top of SA). I figured in his second term we’d pivot entirely away from the Middle East. The best I can figure is there’s a more strategic goal; Kharg Island is an interesting theory, worth reading if you didn’t see the X post. But it’s also possible he’s just had enough of Iran and while I abhor foreign entanglement, it’s hard to not feel some sense of general good about the removal of the mullahs.
Dispassionately, I don’t see how any military intervention can be successful long term in Iran if we’re not willing to dictate a secular system of government. I’m not an expert but from what I’ve read, support for Islam there has been dropping for decades and now it’s minority status. Either lean into that and force the issue or it seems inevitable the hard liners will hold onto power. Put another way, name the enemy and dictate terms or wind up dancing around it and losing like W.
>Venezuela made sense given proximity (spheres of influence)
I'm not sure exactly how proximity excuses violating another nation's sovereignty.
100%
I think this post is a perfect example of why MAGA will never abandon Trump. To put it simply, they trust him.
If Dan, who claims not to be MAGA, is perfectly happy to "let him cook", how much more people that are full-on MAGA.
That’s what I was trying to convey. I knew it would make people angry but figured a few would get it.
FWIW there’s much about his second term that has given me cause for concern. And I cannot fathom why Trump can’t hold his fire for people like Bill Maher. He’s a tragic flawed hero.
But when the alternative is Kamala Harris and an entire party of people who can’t stand up for women only sports and restrooms and can’t define “woman” because “I’m not a biologist”…sorry but I’m sticking with Trump, flaws and all.
As a straight 46 y/o white guy I just don't get how "women's sports and restrooms" is anybody's hot-button issue. I'll never understand why seemingly reasonable people lose their minds instantly over it.
It just has such a minimal effect on the average person's life, why do you base your vote on it so strongly?
Like i can see Trump's appeal to rural voters on economic concerns, immigration, and foreign policy, though i disagree on most points. But the culture war stuff just seems so....stupid to me i guess.
I guess you don’t have daughters who are running into this in public school. Not throwing shade your way, no disrespect, but it’s an issue I’ll die on a hill to win. I can’t fathom how anybody heard that “biologist” answer from KJP and didn’t reflect on the insanity of modern culture.
BTW that’s only one of a hundred policy positions where I strongly disagree with modern Dems.
I tend to agree with you..& that's while I agree with Dan that the Dem side of the 2 aforementioned cultural issue items is stupid.
IMO, they are such a small part of what affects me that I could never use them as a basis for who to vote for..esp since Trump has many other stances I find just as stupid (tariffs being a big one that affects ALL of us much more than women's sports & restrooms)
‚Venezuela made sense given proximity (spheres of influence) and geography (top of SA).‘
Because it’s part of your empire? Are Brazil, Argentina, Chile also vassal states? Jesus fckn Christ…
Nice post, but I don't agree that we CAN dictate terms involving a secular government. It certainly never worked in Iraq, including now: the news today says there is a very active front against our troops in Iraq now, with Iraqi militias supporting Iran. Do a whole lot of damage and then let the people of Iran figure it out, if they can.
I am MAGA, and I agree: let him cook. The three infected, running sores of foreign opposition have been Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba. Trump is clearing them all up, Cuba being plainly in play now, and IMO it's a great thing, and the Democrats never did it and never would have done it.
The answer to the question of what would get us to turn against Trump seems obvious to me: failure. That's what did for George W. Bush, after all. He was riding high in Republican opinion till he let Rumsfeld and Cheney take over and fail in the Iraq War, and they did it trying for just what you are suggesting: they tried a World War II-type change of government in Germany. That was also tried in WWI (it was all one war, many historians now think: a thirty-year war turning on one question, will Germany rule Europe?) with the Weimar Republic, but Germany wasn't nearly beaten enough. The second try, it worked. But we had to beat Germany down --twice-- so far to get there that no one is going to want to get that involved in the Mideast, I don't think. Iranians will have to do that themselves after we pretty thoroughly defeat them this time. If we do.
So failing in Iran and also a worldwide recession could be a problem for Trump. The big problem as I see it for Trump is that most, MOST wars last at least four years, many longer. There are a few short wars, like Israel's tend to be, but the pattern is for every sovereign to say that it will be over by the end of the month, or at least "by the time the leaves fall" (the Kaiser). Then it lasts four years, or five, or thirty, or a hundred (116, actually, that one). Look at how soon the Ukraine War was supposed to be over, and it's still going on. I don't think Trump can afford a five-year war in Iran.
All fair points but I strongly disagree about W having tried it. He never named Sharia or Islamism as the opponent; in fact, he went out of his way to avoid casting that light. Part of why people turned on him was the futility of his approach: we could see with our own eyes what was happening, an unwillingness to name the enemy, and an obviousness there was no winning when we hadn’t bothered to define success.
The same thing will happen here if we’re unwilling to define success criteria and do whatever it takes to achieve a quantifiable outcome.
Good points, but I think Bush did indeed try to change the government in Iraq, just as the allies did, twice, in Germany. It's always, lately, an attempt to turn it into a democracy. That doesn't seem possible to impose anywhere, at least without a world-historical effort of many years and decades, and often not then.
I think the moment of truth in Iraq was the day they dug Saddam Hussein out of his spiderhole. The next day our troops should have started leaving (making sure first that Hussain was killed, obviously, preferably by us!!). Even after all that silly "shock and awe" and "Mission Accomplished" stuff, I do see we couldn't really leave with Hussein still alive and popping up on a sidewalk from time to time. But staying on to fix their government? Bad move. Same for Iran.
What is the single question the Iran war hangs on? Wars are always very simple in their question: Will England rule France? Will Germany rule Europe? Will Russia regain its former territory, Ukraine? The war question here is, Will Iran control the whole Mideast? to do that, it believes it needs nukes (and it's right, IMO). We don't want this because 1. Nukes will certainly be aimed at us, and we've already got a lot of that. 2. Our important ally Israel would be obliterated. 3. As we see at only two weeks in, the way to control the Mideast and much of the rest of the world is by controlling oil via the Strait of Hormuz, and that's a serious problem. These three are the only issues: the religion thing is a matter of propaganda tactics and doesn't matter.
So I consider the success criteria as getting rid of their nukes and also getting rid of all their many proxy partners, in Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza, and Iraq. And we need a base IN Iraq, preferably on one of those Persian Gulf Islands Iran has, to keep them down. That's the function of many of our bases, keeping them down, such as Germany; the rest are forward-positioning.
Respectfully I disagree. We can obliterate them now and they’ll just rebuild toward nukes in a few years when a passive POTUS inevitably takes over. We have enough history to trust that will happen.
But look at Iran prior to the ISLAMIC revolution: it was western and favorable. Sorry (not sorry) but that’s the truth: making women wear robes and hide their faces is evil, and so is child marriage. I’m not afraid to say that. Islam is fundamentally at odds with western values, the Islamist’s aren’t afraid to acknowledge it, and they’ve spent decades poking the US bear with impunity.
All that aside, we know what happens if fundamentalists remain in power and another passive POTUS takes over. They get nukes and there’s no going back.
Can’t believe I’m talking myself into supporting the current war. I said “let him cook” initially as a lukewarm reaction but responding to your comment has me warming up.
If you are against child marriage - as you should be! - there's some states of the USA you could also turn your attention to.
Well, of course I don't disagree with you that Islamism is an AWFUL religion. A lot of religion is truly awful, such as the Spanish Inquisition, which lasted a lot longer than people realize (centuries). I'm a great fan of the crusaders, myself.
It's just that a lot of beliefs are mainly a way to express power, and to see if people are in the club or Other, and need killing or deportation. Power is what it's all about, not religion. Power over women and if they won't wear the hijab, they aren't in the club, so they get killed.
Well, Persia has been a pain for 3000 years that we have a good history of; they're just that kind of people. Like Germans. You are right of course, if they survive, they'll try again for nukes and control, at least if the theocracy continues or anything like the old Persian autocrats --- Darius and Midas and all that lot. People in D.C. carry on about how Iran is "one week away from nukes" every month since before Covid, so it probably would be best to set them back a few decades and CHANGE things a lot ---- who knows what happens then, maybe they'll reform, as you point out they almost did before the theocracy took over. I don't see how it could be much worse than it was before the war started, so anything has to be an improvement or no worse than the same, I suppose.
"Well, Persia has been a pain for 3000 years" Umm, the Roman Empire had a more consistent policy of raping and enslaving children.
I think the non-interventionist stuff wasn't for MAGA, but for the moderates. It made Trump look less neocon/neolib, which normies saw as preferable to starting wars everywhere.
One area this polling does not treat is religion. Christian nationalists are a major, if not a majority, source of support for Trump. The war against Iran, in concert with Israel, feeds into their beliefs that it will hasten the Second Coming. As far as thinking about who might succeed Trump, almost none of the current contenders look likely to gain the lock on Christian Nationalist support that Trump has. The exception might be Pete Hegseth who has invoked evangelical language to defend the attacks on Iran. If you think that is preposterous, consider a twice-divorced man who boasted grabbing women’s private parts winning the White House—twice.
Today, Trump repeatedly referred to the war as an "excursion." It's pretty clear that he meant to call it an "incursion," but as often happens these days, Trump suffered a brain fart.
This war is kind of the best-case scenario for Democratic hawks because Republicans bomb these evil horrible regimes that need to go down but they also take all the political cost so it's pretty sweet.
“The New York Times is using the capitalized version of ‘Iran War’ in its headlines”
New York Times headlines capitalize every word except for certain connective words (prepositions, conjunctions, articles) if they are three characters or fewer. “War”, as a noun, would always be capitalized even though it’s three characters. So this actually doesn’t indicate anything.
Disclaimer: I don’t have a copy of the style guide so I don’t know the exact set of exceptions, but I verified the general rule by looking at a bunch of headlines.
I'd frame this differently. MAGA has to break--that is fracture--without Trump to hold it together. Even if Trump tries to run in 2028, that would facture the movement. Far more likely, different contenders for Republican leadership will choose specific issues to break with Trump, while supporting most of his policies. Whatever the outcome of that struggle, some current MAGA supporters will be on the winning side, and some won't. I can't imagine any individual other than Trump holding MAGA together in its current form.
Will Iran and military adventurism be the key issue? Probably not if the war either ends favorably or badly. But if there's some kind of intermediate outcome, I'd say it's likely. I could see J. D. Vance running on "Trump was great except his advisors steered him wrong on Iran and I tried to stop it," while others claim secret plans to get us out of Iran or pledge to continue the fight.
But there are plenty of other possibilities for decisive fractures. I think Iran is too much in play to be confident about what voters will think about it in 2028. In 2026 I suspect it will give a push to less-MAGA Republican candidates and the effect on Republican versus Democrats will depend on how things develop.
Great post --- I love the idea of Vance criticizing Trump's "advisors" who steered him wrong --- like pretty much every faction against kings and other entrenched politicians throughout history. It's never the leader beloved of so many --- it's always "the advisors." Works, too. And the getting us out OR this time we'll fight to win! is so reminiscent of Humphrey vs. Nixon.
But of course the Republicans will fracture: all dominant parties do, thus allowing for differing opinion. When the Democrats dominated in the 1930s, '40s, and '50s, they split into Southern Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats, several others.
Getting out of this war with a win and without a huge recession is crucial for Trump and Republicans, IMO. Nobody likes failure.
Thank you for the kind words.
I assume all major Republican Presidential hopefuls in 2028 will run some version of "Trump-but" or "kinder, gentler MAGA." No one will make the Kamala Harris mistake of failing to separate from an unpopular administration, but none can afford to be anti-MAGA. Since Vance is part of the administration, he pretty much has to blame other administration members. Outsiders can blame Trump himself, saying he went too far or had some blind spots or made mistakes.
I agree that dominant parties fracture. Republicans are not so dominant as to collapse under their own weight, but they're too dependent on Trump personally. He's not a Jack Kennedy able to bequeath his supporters to relatives (I don't take Junior seriously), and all his heir-apparents have embarrassed themselves supporting him and also have quarreled with him--with the possible exception of Vance who may be able to walk that tightrope. Moreover, MAGA was never consistent ideologically, nor composed of groups that think alike.
I agree there's some similarity with the Democratic party troubles after FDR died. But he had over 12 continuous years in office, plus two of the greatest crises of the 20th century to forge a lasting legacy, with lots of talented acolytes to carry on. Nevertheless, as you say, no one else could hold together southern racists and New Deal liberals. Ronald Reagan was similar for the Republicans, building a solid legacy but leaving a party split between conservatives and traditional Republicans.
I think Donald Trump will leave the Republicans in much worse shape than FDR or Reagan left their parties. He's forged nothing and has no meaningful acolytes.
Very interesting. Of course I agree about 2028 GOP candidates running Trump-but and Kindler, Gentler MAGA. It's the obvious turn back to the more comfortable mean. And that Kamala's refusal to differentiate herself from a totally failed administration casts a long, dark shadow: but it's the same shadow cast by Hubert Humphrey, who made the same mistake (probably under the exact same compulsion from the prez at the time). And of course both lost.
I don't agree Trump will leave us in worse shape. Trump's genius is that he knows how to CHANGE things. And so do the tech bros, famously: the simple rule is "Move fast and break things." This country has been frozen in amber, unable to move out of the most ghastly positions somehow locked in place by the worst of the elites: DEI, college loans, never fight anyone no matter how dangerous they are, trannies and the like perversions, open borders, cancel culture as bad as anything during the Catholic reformation. Well, I exaggerate: the Dems hadn't yet got around to roping people to stakes and burning them alive, but they were going that way.
That's why Trump has from Day One moved so fast --- if you don't move fast, people stop the change! Whatever it is. As for breaking things, it doesn't even matter if they try to put it back together, like all the pet junior judges the Dems have been using. Once it's broken, whatever bad policy it is, people know it CAN be broken ------- that we don't have to live that way! That's it, he's letting change happen, and I love it. We sure need it, in my opinion.
That's a good point. I'll amend my claim. Donald Trump will not influence the future the way FDR and Ronald Reagan did--by empowering a generation of young, aggressive, talented, activists. Instead his influence will be mainly from smashing long-standing obstacles to action and exposing long-entrenched elites to competition.
I don't see the war souring MAGA voters on Trump. I see the possibility of downstream
economic effects souring some MAGA voters on Trump, mostly by causing them to tune out/become less energetic about voting.
To start, let's stop trying to normalize Trump. Trump is a walking Petri dish of malignant pathologies. Think I'm exaggerating? Check this out:
https://www.amazon.com/Much-More-Dangerous-Donald-Trump/dp/B0FB479JJW/ref=sr_1_2?crid=7RLURGOF6I5M&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9._HXKIJh6Wu_9RZgXSZv-v76_6e6xVKGbWkKE2t4OZWHavn4g0tc3bciskDLU_W-GgZgvgJBad1cy8BWOy_u8LoaonfEMnRHTN5naqBVliiywxwN9cWYl6TsfkdxFlGzsBnMWpg8zSZadNxA3u-AXAZMxl2tvuZWDFbOQy-8qICoJaDFqaEYqItvPDTLiNT5NmimB7UJILM_Na0-ThdIUtvfuwA7ZaaFKomlESRIPVaU.DswjSPLpRToMkSPtmNz24I5rFZ7O5DJgIfDmYt9sDk8&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+dangerous+case+of+donald+trump+book&qid=1773260524&sprefix=the+dangerous+case%2Caps%2C273&sr=8-2
As for who is MAGA? Last week Trump answered that question. MAGA is Trump and it is whatever Trump says that it is. So no surprise that it is a cult of personality. If you look at other cult leaders it's clear that being a mental case is a plus.
If you uncritically believe what Trump says, you suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
As for the fake MAGA leaders, those who oppose Trump's policies, the isolationist America Firsters, let's call them what they. are and not sidestep around it. They are white supremacists, Nazi sympathizers, antisemites and/or self pitying whiners, developmentally deficient, who need to blame everyone else for their own life choices.
In some way, shape, or form, MAGA leadership consists of opportunists and grifters, with the grifter-in-chief at the top.
MAGA was broken long before Iran came into the picture
I am beginning to doubt that you really like us ---------- [:-)
Heavens no! I was being complimentary.
Is there much value to at the time polling on a foreign policy issue? What matters is whether it is seen later as a success. Unless lots of Americans die or it won't be a major issue in 3 months.
Nice piece, Eli. Trump has always been a cult of personality, and policy would get awkwardly assigned to him. MAGA-coded policy is fluid because Trump's convictions are fluid. This is why it hasn't caused the atrophy in party support, but the tepid Republican or swing voter for whom interventionism was a key policy position might be shaken. Silver Bulletin (and 538) has always been hesitant to assign much weight to policy polling due to how poor the data ends up being, but I believe a lot of the data routinely finds foreign policy concerns tend to rank toward the bottom. So while it may be a negative for a lot of MAGA voters, the weight they're assigning to it is minimal. If Trump came out tomorrow with a robust immigration policy that would increase the number of immigrants eligible for citizenship, I think there would be a different level of MAGA erosion.
Nate - not a comment on this column, but WSJ had an article today about Aaru -- a company doing market research with bots designed to have specific demographics to represent "synthetic" humans -- with results more accurate than *some* polling. Would like your reaction to this. Viable?
TLDR? Nothing new to see here. Trump has done a thing that caused some GOP elites to disagree with him, but his mindless cult of followers is sticking with him just as they have done for the past decade. Democrats, and a majority of Americans overall, oppose the thing he has done.