Ya think?

Politico is struggling to understand the voters' response to the lawfare against ex-President Trump. For months there has been the disconcerting news that Trump rises in the polls every time a new criminal prosecution is launched against him, or a huge civil judgment is imposed for $100MM or more.

Today's news is that the polls show what might be a signal that some voters, at least, would not completely ignore a criminal conviction in one of the pending criminal cases. The disquieting news in the detailed poll data is in two parts. First, the prospect of a criminal conviction moves the needle surprisingly little. About 44% of all voters would shrug it off, while almost 1/3 say it would reduce their likely support. Among independents, the results are similar. As far as I can tell, that could mean mostly that independents are composed of likely Trump supporters and likely Biden supporters, and that one group would dislike Trump even more if he were convicted, while another group would be largely indifferent.

Second, it's clear that poll respondents are answering without any particular reference to the precise lawsuit the poll was trying to ask about. It's almost, the article muses, as if voters were making no effort to think about the relative merits of the various lawsuits. Perhaps there is a group that is thinking "all the lawsuits are fine and no treatment is too harsh for this man I execrate," while the other is thinking "all the lawsuits are equally balderdash, so a conviction in any of them would have about the same (non)effect on me." As the author puts it:
First, it is possible that at least some Americans — perhaps very large numbers of them — are not clearly distinguishing the cases against Trump from one another or do not care about the sorts of distinctions that have occupied some legal commentators, including yours truly. Second, their opinions on Trump’s guilt may be a proxy for their views on Trump more generally and more evidence that we live in a 50-50 politically polarized country.
What the author does not grapple with directly is what it means for this multitude of lawsuits to be eliciting primarily a partisan response on the subject of guilt and innocence. Lawfare undermines the justice system's ability to persuade the public that justice is on the menu. When someone forfeits his credibility, he loses his ability to make his point outside his echo chamber. I think this particular lawfare's point is a bad one, so I'm pleased people are proving somewhat deaf to it, but it's a dangerous game for the broader future.

It occurs to me, as well, that we have been stuck at close to 50/50 for a while, but recent polls suggest we may be tilting. If that's the case, it will not necessarily be suffcient to throw just about any garbage on the wall in the confidence that it will stick with half the electorate. In November, if the stick rate is more like 48/52, Trump's opponents may have to figure out a way to criticize him in a way that can be heard by more than his bitterest and most entrenched enemies.

5 comments:

  1. "Trump's supporters may have to figure out a way to criticize him in a way that can be heard by more than his bitterest and most entrenched enemies."

    Because some criticism will doubtless be warranted? That seems fair.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's the moral of the Boy Who Cried Wolf: when there was a real wolf, no one was listening to him any more. No one doubts that real wolves may threaten us, only that the people constantly trying to alarm us about a particular wolf threat should be listened to for one more instant.

    We'll have to hope that, if there ever is a real wolf, we'll be able to rely on someone else to sound the real alarm. The current batch are permanently discredited with half the country.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In the last sentence, I meant to refer to "Trump's opponents," not his "supporters."

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was wondering about that, but I decided that it made sense either way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't want to be this automatic in my thinking, but at this point whenever I hear about any Trump lawsuit information my first thought is "Hunter Biden arranging money for his dad, who uses his office to protect him." I admit I have increased my danger of being eaten by a wolf, but I just plain have an actual life to live.

    Or as I taught my children to ask in the 1990's "Compared to what/whom?"

    ReplyDelete