American Politics

"Yes, Medicare, the federal government's contribution to a health care system that eats up 18% of GDP. Infrastructure projects that cost a lot more than they do in Europe. A system for student loans that has resulted in spiraling tuition costs and student debt. And a military budget that's more than the next 10 highest countries' combined. All great accomplishments of our federal government.

You're right about meat inspection.

I don't understand your need to demean others. Hopefully, for your sake, you don't carry that over into the real world. "

Is that supposed to be funny, it is not.

Here are some of our fine tax dollars at work.

[URL]https://www.aol.com/news/doj-announces-arrests-high-end-182557852.html[/URL]

In more ways than one.

"Baloney. The USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world. You can't raise huge amounts of money by taxing the rich more. They just won't realize taxable income. That was the situation prior to cuts in the higher marginal tax rates passed with overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans in the 1980's.

Given that Biden has pledged not to raise taxes on families making less than $400,000 per year, how are we going to close the 8% of GDP annual budget deficits that are on the horizon as far as the eye can see? Well, if Biden and the Democrats control government, they're sure as hell not going to cut spending. The deficit and national debt would continue to rise, and unless interest rates tank we're fucked. And what if they do manage to cut the deficits? What happens when that 8% per year (as a % of GDP) in spending suddenly disappears? Then we're fucked too.

I believe Democrats will win the presidency in 2024. I hope Republicans can control at least one house of Congress, so they can continue to put a break on the spending. Yes, that would adversely affect GDP growth in the short term, and you will of course criticize Republicans for being the adults in the room. ".

[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/upshot/biden-election-results-2024.html[/URL]

[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/opinion/trump-republican-nomination-general.html[/URL]

[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/opinion/trump-republican-nomination-general.html[/URL]

Illustration by The New York Times; photograph by Todd Heisler / The New York Times.

Share full article.

David French.

By David French.

Opinion Columnist.

You're reading the David French newsletter, for Times subscribers only. Reflections on law and culture, war and peace, and the deeper trends that define and divide America. Get it in your inbox.

A few weeks ago, I was talking to a local pastor here in Tennessee, and he started the conversation by asking a question I hear all the time: "Can anybody beat Trump?" he was desperate for someone else, anyone else, to claim the Republican nomination. He ticked through the names — DeSantis, Haley, Scott, Pence (he was still in the race then) — and they were all better. Why can't they gain traction? "It's not a binary choice anymore," he said. "It's not Trump or Biden. ".

"But," he quickly added, "if it is Trump or Biden, then I'm voting Trump. It's just who I am. ".

It's just who I am. I thought of that conversation when I saw last weekend's headlines. Donald Trump is now leading President Biden in five swing states, and if the race goes the way the poll suggests, Trump could win the presidency with more than 300 electoral votes. At the same time, we know from previous Times / Siena College polling that the hard-core MAGA base is 37 percent of the Republican Party. Another 37 percent can be persuaded to oppose Trump, while 25 percent are completely opposed to his nomination.

How is it possible that a person whose true base is only 37 percent of his party, who faces four separate criminal indictments and who already lost once to Biden might sit in the electoral driver's seat?

I've written quite a bit on the enduring bond between Trump and his base. There's the strange combination of rage and joy that marks the MAGA community. They're somehow both furious about the direction of the country and having the time of their lives supporting Trump. There's also the power of prophecy. Millions of Christians are influenced by claims that Trump is divinely ordained to save the United States. But the MAGA millions aren't enough to put him back in the White House.

ADVERTISEMENT.

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT.

To understand his general election prospects, we have to go beyond Trump's MAGA core. He needs millions more votes — including from my pastor friend, a man who's desperate to see Trump leave American politics.

Trump's viability in the Republican Party depends on the loyalty of his base, but his viability in the general election depends on a dark combination of negative partisanship and civic ignorance. "Negative partisanship" is the term political scientists use to describe partisan loyalty that exists not because a voter loves his party or its ideas but because he loathes the opposing party and the people in it. And why do voters loathe the opposition so darn much? That's where civic ignorance plays its diabolical role. Partisan Americans are wrong about each other in a particularly dangerous way: Each side thinks the other is more extreme than it really is.

This hostility is what permits Trump to convert his primary plurality into a potential electoral majority. This hostility both predated Trump and powered his election. In previous American political generations, nominating a person perceived to be an extremist or a crank was the kiss of electoral death. You wouldn't merely expect to lose. You would expect to lose in a landslide.

When Republicans nominated far-right Barry Goldwater in 1964, for example, he won six states and lost the popular vote by 23 points. Eight years later, when Democrats nominated far-left George McGovern, they won one state and also lost the popular vote by 23 points. There was enough partisan mobility in the electorate to decisively reject two different candidates, from opposing edges of the political spectrum.

But now? It is unthinkable for many millions of partisans — or even for those independents who lean right or left and maybe secretly don't want to admit to themselves that they're truly partisan — to either vote third party or cross the aisle and vote for a candidate of the opposing party. They simply hate the other side too much. The result is that virtually any Republican or Democratic nominee begins the race with both a high floor and a low ceiling and no one has much margin for error. Every nominee is going to be fragile, and every national presidential race is going to be close. The margin in the last two races has been agonizingly slim. A few thousand votes cast differently in key swing states, and Hillary Clinton wins, or Joe Biden loses.

Editors' Picks.

A Fast, Foolproof Carbonara for Orzo Lovers.

Got Milk. Cartons? School Cafeterias Won't, Thanks to a Shortage.

In This Country, Most People Rent for Life. Is That Really What They Want?

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT.

ADVERTISEMENT.

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT.

To understand the power of negative partisanship, it's important to understand the sheer scale of the mutual partisan hatred. Dating back to June 2014 — a full year before Trump came down that escalator — the Pew Research Center reported an extraordinary increase in polarization. Between 1994 and 2014, the percentage of Democrats and Republicans who expressed "very unfavorable" views of their opponents more than doubled, to 38 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Republicans. Overall, 82 percent of Republicans and 79 percent of Democrats had either unfavorable or very unfavorable views of their political opponents.

During the Trump era, this mutual contempt and loathing only grew. A June 2019 report by More in Common found that 86 percent of Republicans believed Democrats were brainwashed, 84 percent believed Democrats were hateful and 71 percent believed Democrats were racist. Democrats also expressed withering disgust for Republicans: 88 percent believed Republicans were brainwashed, 87 percent believed Republicans were hateful and 89 percent believed Republicans were racist.

There is an interesting additional wrinkle to the More in Common report. Yes, it found that the two sides hated each other, but it also discovered that both sides were wrong about their political opponents. Both Democrats and Republicans believed their opponents were more politically extreme than they really were. The findings are startling: "Overall, Democrats and Republicans imagine almost twice as many of their political opponents. Hold views they consider 'extreme' " than is actually the case.

The media compounds the problem. More in Common found that consuming news media (with the exception of broadcast news on ABC, NBC and CBS) actually increased the perception gap. As a practical matter, this means that parties are almost always defined by their ideological extremes and each party uses the existence of those extremes to generate fear and increase turnout. Even if a party does try to moderate to appeal to the middle, partisan media still highlights the radicals that remain, and the perception gap persists. The fear persists.

We can start to see why Trump is viable beyond his base. When you ask right-leaning voters to abandon Trump, you're asking them to empower a political party they view as brainwashed, hateful and racist. You're asking them to empower a political party they view as extreme. That's the source of Trump's strength in a general election. He's surfing on top of a huge wave of fear and animosity, a wave he did not create but one that he's making bigger through his malignant, destructive influence.

ADVERTISEMENT.

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT.

That's not to say that we face a political stalemate. After all, we've seen MAGA candidates perform poorly in multiple swing state elections, but many of those elections — even against plainly incompetent or corrupt candidates — have been extraordinarily close. Trump's loss in 2020 was extraordinarily close. In a narrowly divided country, it becomes difficult for one party to deliver the kind of decisive blows that Republicans suffered in 1964 or Democrats suffered in 1972.

When the Trump Republican Party is forced to take three steps back, it often consoles itself with two steps forward. It lost the House in 2018, but it gained seats in the Senate. It lost the presidency and the Senate in 2020, but it gained seats in the House. It lost ground in the Senate in 2022, but it did (barely) win back control of the House. There weren't many bright spots for Republicans in the 2023 elections, either, but there weren't many races, and MAGA will still believe that Biden is weak even if other Democrats have proved stronger than expected.

Already Trump and his allies are blaming electoral setbacks on the Republican establishment. The radio host Mark Levin claimed that the Republican nominee for governor in Kentucky, Daniel Cameron, lost to the Democrat, Andy Beshear, because Cameron is a "Mitch McConnell protégé. " Trump echoed the same theme, declaring on Truth Social that Cameron "couldn't alleviate the stench of Mitch McConnell. " MAGA's solution to electoral setbacks is always the same: more MAGA.

There are two potential paths past this Republican dynamic. One is slow, difficult and dangerous. That's the path of the Democratic Party defeating Trump and other MAGA candidates, race by race, year by year, with the full knowledge that the margin of victory can be razor thin and that there's always the risk of a close loss that brings catastrophic consequences for our Republic. One negative news cycle — like Anthony Weiner's laptop surfacing in the closing days of the 2016 election — can be the difference between victory and defeat.

The other path — the better path — requires the Republican Party to reform itself, to reject Trump now. A two-party nation needs two healthy parties. Any republic that depends on one party defeating the other to preserve democracy and the rule of law is a republic that teeters on the edge of destruction. A Nikki Haley nomination, for example, might make Biden's defeat more likely, but farsighted Democrats should welcome a potential return to normalcy in the Republican Party. It would mean that politics will perhaps return to a world of manageable differences, rather than a series of existential threats to democracy itself.

ADVERTISEMENT.

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT.

As of now, however, internal Republican reform is a pipe dream. Ron DeSantis is falling, and while Haley is rising, she hasn't even hit 10 percent support in the RealClearPolitics polling average. Trump leads by a staggering spread of 43.7 points. Perhaps a criminal conviction could reverse Trump's primary momentum, but after watching Trump's Republican approval rating survive every single scandal of his presidency and political career, the idea that anything will shake his Republican support is far more of a hope than an expectation.

Until that unlikely moment, we're stuck with the current dynamic. Love for Trump fuels his support in the Republican primary contest. Hatred of Democrats makes him viable in the general election. American animosity gave Trump the White House once, and as long as that animosity remains, it threatens to give him the White House once again.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2866823]I don't think that makes sense. If they call 300 Democrats, 300 Independents, and 300 Republicans, and all 300 Republicans refuse to answer questions, then the poll will only reflect the view of Democrats and Independents. And Democrats and Independents have a more favorable view of Biden than Republicans.

Interesting thought. I thought that prior to, say, 2020, Republicans outperformed polls because they were more motivated to actually go and vote. And in 2022, that flipped. Democrats were mad as hell because Trump tried to steal an election, so they were more motivated to vote. In other words, I thought the poll results were good, and but didn't take into account who would actually go to the effort to vote. Anyway your idea might partly explain what happened in 2022, when Republicans underperformed the polls.

You could be right about this too. I'll preface by saying I don't think anyone who's rational can believe in every position espoused by the Democratic or Republican Party.

Perhaps Democrats, like members of a religious cult or Russian Communists in the 1920's or German Nazi's in the 1930's, strongly identify with their party, regardless of whether the positions of the party make sense. And Republicans, "Bothsiders" and "Neithersiders" are more inclined to answer surveys and vote in accordance with what they believe makes the most sense. That's probably being too hard on Democrats though.[/QUOTE]I think the jury is back and the verdict is in on how certain poll responses simply do not jive with what the poll respondents really believe and will do at crunch time.

For example, since forever I have heard that most people think Repubs "handle the economy better" than Dems. Same as the polls are saying now. You know, that mythical image of Republican policy wonks cooly and unemotionally studying the data, knowing their Economics 101 text books by heart, always cutting taxes, never raising taxes, making the government smaller, getting the gub'ment off our back, pro business, therefore empowering the job creators, paying the bills on time and so on. That mythical image of them that has never existed but their loyal benefactors in Mainstream Media work so hard to fabricate and promote.

Yet, what does the American electorate do when Repub economic policy and stewardship is presiding over another serious economic downturn, businesses are closing, jobs are being wiped out by the millions, unemployment rates are skyrocketing or even just when jobs creation has been low to barely noticeable? When "better handling of the economy" is really needed and in a big hurry?

What did the real world "polls" tell us about the true feelings of the American electorate on that critical issue when fanciful wishes about a "better handling" of an economy where businesses are thriving, jobs creation is roaring along, poverty is declining, wages are improving, retail spending is up, inflation almost doesn't exist, the debt is plunging, deficits are nowhere to be found, the gub'ment is off our backs, nobody pays taxes and it doesn't cost anybody anything no longer apply? Oh, and eating pizza and chocolate cake will cause you to lose 10 pounds per week?

The election of 1932,1960, 1976,1992, 2008 and 2020 is the result of that real world "poll. ".

There is no real world polling data on what happens when outgoing Dems have left the economy in a shambles, jobs creation has been atrocious or worse and the American electorate runs to a Repub to "better handle" the economy because none of those required conditions have existed since the creation of modern polling surveys.

On the poll sampling issue, I think you will find that the highly MSM-celebrated recent poll showing Biden down by a few points vs Trump in 5 of those 6 swing states the sampling of self-identified Repubs was a few points higher than that of Dems in all but one state, Pennsylvania. That is vs what most recent polls say is virtually an even split for Dems and Repubs at about 25% each with a record number higher claiming to be Independents.

That poll sampled more than 3,000 respondents, a very high number for a poll. Why did they call so many people? Did they start out with a goal to call, say, 3,016 or whatever respondents and let the sampling chips fall where they may? I don't think so.

If they had hit their 3,016 respondents goal and it turned out all but 16 of them were self-identified Dems they would have called another 3,000 or 4,000 respondents until the sampling finally got to a less laughable balance.

They ask about political affiliation at the end of the survey. So I think they keep calling and calling until they finally get a breakdown of political affiliations that somewhat match the way other surveys and perhaps even registrations and voter rolls say the three are represented. And in that survey's methodology it looks to me like they stopped when the Repub sampling was still a few points higher than the Dem sampling by a few points in all but one state. Perhaps due to time constraints.

[QUOTE=MarquisdeSade1;2866898]

WTF did someone write a military to protect our borders?

Is that supposed to be funny, it is not.

Here are some of our fine tax dollars at work.

[URL]https://www.aol.com/news/doj-announces-arrests-high-end-182557852.html[/URL]

In more ways than one.[/QUOTE]Not a word of that was supposed to be funny. It doesn't take $877 billion a year to protect our borders. That's what the USA spends on the military annually. I don't believe the $877 billion includes much if any of the $75 billion the US has spent on Ukraine. And it certainly doesn't include the additional $60 billion for Ukraine that Congress will probably soon authorize. Or the $14.5 billion we'll be sending to Israel.

And no, the bastards shouldn't be spending our hard earned money prosecuting victimless crimes like the "high end brothel network" either.

[QUOTE=MarquisdeSade1;2866925]

I believe Democrats will win the presidency in 2024 LMFAO

[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/upshot/biden-election-results-2024.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

OK, I really don't know. If the Republicans nominate anyone besides Trump and Biden's the Democratic nominee, I believe the Republican wins. And if Trump runs against any Democrat except Biden, I think the Democrat wins. Neither of the two old men are popular.

De Sade.

I'm liking you again. Don't let me down with crackpot ideas again, unless there is credible evidence. I googled the words in my title and found five infamous re-elected US felons at " [URL]Cracked.com[/URL]". There are other sites listing indited US representatives. All of them were much less popular the the Lord & Savior, who has very smart words and dint get us into war, or out of war, for that matter.

Anybody remember the famous last words from Dwight David Eisenhower?

[QUOTE=Beijing4987;2866953]Anybody remember the famous last words from Dwight David Eisenhower?[/QUOTE]I don't know if they were his last words. But here is a favorite quote from him:

[I]Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the corn field[/I] - [B]Dwight D. Eisenhower[/B].

Governing looks mighty easy when you are a keyboard warrior and you are thousand miles away from the District of Columbia. - [B]Subcmdr[/B].

[QUOTE=Beijing4987;2866953]Anybody remember the famous last words from Dwight David Eisenhower?[/QUOTE]Yes.

[URL]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address[/URL]

[QUOTE=Beijing4987;2866953]Anybody remember the famous last words from Dwight David Eisenhower?[/QUOTE]Sure. They reportedly were:

"I want to go. God take me. ".

[URL]https://www.myjournalcourier.com/news/article/Holy-Cow-History-Tiffany-s-extreme-White-16927998.php[/URL]#text=Dwight%20 Eisenhower%2 see%20 who%20 had%20 suffered, afternoon%20 at%20 his%20 Texas%20 ranch.

Which presumably he really meant. Contrary to that earlier bit about warning us against the "Military-Industrial Complex". LOL. Few potuses benefited more in their entire working life, political advantage and presidency from the "Military-Industrial Complex" AND deficit spending than Ike.

That was like the punchline to a long sad joke of oil industry baby GW Bush's horrific presidency when he slammed America for being "Addicted to oil".

LOL. Funny revisionist history shit those dudes try to squeeze into their legacy just before the screen door smacks them in the butt on the way out.

Given the the government needs so much financial help, maybe the Presidency of the United States of America should be restricted those with net worth of at least a billion USD.

Members of Congress should have a net worth of at least 100 million USD.

If you have been in the United States of America and managed to accumulate that kind of wealth, you should be willing to give back a few years to serve "your fellow Americans". If asked, I will serve. But with my current net worth I do not qualify under my new suggested restrictions.

[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2866837]I agree with you Spidy. Abortion accounts for a lot of it. Trump being the figurehead of the Republican Party didn't help either. And this isn't a good omen for Republican's chances in 2024.[/QUOTE]Let hope Dems, run their campaigns accordingly and use Ohio, Kentucky and Virginia (an other 2023 primaries), as blueprints and go "all-in", on the policies that the majority of Americas care about.

At the same time, put Repubs on blast, for their "culture war", "woke" and non-starter issues.

[QUOTE=Beijing4987;2866951]De Sade.

I'm liking you again. Don't let me down with crackpot ideas again, unless there is credible evidence. ...[/QUOTE] Yeah, I like the wishful thinking, but don't get your hopes UP!

Methinks, you'd have better luck at qualifying for as a Member of Congress, in SubCmdr's [b]"new rules"[/b] for holding federal office! (...kkkk!).

"Not a word of that was supposed to be funny. It doesn't take $877 billion a year to protect our borders. That's what the USA spends on the military annually. I don't believe the $877 billion includes much if any of the $75 billion the US has spent on Ukraine. And it certainly doesn't include the additional $60 billion for Ukraine that Congress will probably soon authorize. Or the $14.5 billion we'll be sending to Israel.

And no, the bastards shouldn't be spending our hard earned money prosecuting victimless crimes like the "high end brothel network" either.

OK, I really don't know. If the Republicans nominate anyone besides Trump and Biden's the Democratic nominee, I believe the Republican wins. And if Trump runs against any Democrat except Biden, I think the Democrat wins. Neither of the two old men are popular. ".

[URL]https://www.wcvb.com/article/federal-brothel-case-millions-dollars/45790565[/URL]

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2866814]But but but Bidenomics is a disaster! Nobody can afford to buy anything! There are no jobs! The Unemployment Rate is skyrocketing! Our Armed Forces are waging war in Ukraine and Gaza! The caravans are coming to take the last 2 remaining jobs and murder us in our beds!

How can the Repub mission to outlaw [b]Sex For Pleasure, Oral Sex, Anal Sex, Sex Outside of Marriage and Access to Contraceptives[/b] "trump" the living Hell Biden and the Dems have plunged America into after Trump and his classic Repub economic policy and stewardship handed them such typically wonderful Repub economic policy and stewardship results just 2 years and 9 months ago along with nothing but more classic Repub assistance and co-operation in improving the economy and the lives of Americans ever since?

Lolol.[/QUOTE]

EihTooms, now your scaring me!

Your parody and impression of a [b]"Chicken Little" Republican[/b] ([i]"...ahh the sky is falling!"[/i]), was just too scary good. For a split second there, I [u]almost[/u], mistook you for a Republican! [i]([b]blasphemy,[/b] I know...kkkk!).[/i]

But in all honesty, you'd think by now, Repubs would have figured out, Americans don't want, gov't in their bedrooms. Or telling parents what to do with their own children. These "culture wars", "bedroom" and "parental rights" issues are very much proving to be a non-starter, for Repubs.

Notice how Gov. Ron de Santis, has toned-down his "woke" rhetoric, to an imperceptible low. Or how Gov. Youngkin, lost both Houses in Virginia, because he decided to rule on [b]women 'bodily autonomy'[/b], "...telling women a 15-week abortion ban was reasonable!". And his NEXT trick, was to sell it too the rest of country, in a bid to enter the Republican Primary for the US Presidency. This political maneuver (or manure), I think should be called the "Youngkin belly flop".

Also note, Repub candidate for Kentucky Governor, Daniel Cameron, was [b]Moscow Mitch's,[/b] groomed man-boy for the governorship. Could Moscow Mitch, be losing his touch on Kentucky? Is this yet another sign, that "moderate" Repubs are a dying breed?