US Politics: Losing Appeals

[Kalbear]

47 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

It very clearly affects the elections because he's low key broke when it comes to liquid capital and is siphoning off money from the RNC to help cover what legal fees can be paid for from them. That's going to hurt his election chances and fucks over every Republican down ballot. By comparison Biden and the DNC are doing pretty well. 

Except in the way it matters - in polling. It might be a good thing to fuck up all the other races, but I don't know that that matters as far as making Trump less electable. Trump in 2016 showed how relatively unimportant paid advertising is when he gets billions in free media, and that hasn't changed even one small bit; if anything, it's gotten a lot worse. 

47 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Furthermore, Trump could lose damn near everything and cease to be in that tier of wealth. His own lawyers are now using the term I have for months, fire sale, and that suggests he both doesn't have nearly as much as he's claimed and that he owns small shares of his properties and/or the debt on them is massive. 

This is again schadenfreude as @Larry of the Lawn pointed out - it's cool to make him upset, but from an electability standpoint it's not that useful because Trump is, well, about as weak as he's going to be anyway. Is him being broke going to make minorities vote for Biden? Is it going to make young people vote for Biden? Is it going to make the various Arab populations in Michigan vote for Biden? 

[Maithanet]

Just to put a bit of numbers of this, here's the campaign spending in 2020, according to OpenSecrets (includes spending by outside groups, but not spending on Congressional races)

Biden campaign:  $1.6 billion

Trump campaign:  $1.1 billion

If you include congressional races, it is another 8 billion more on both sides, as 9 of the top 10 most expensive senate races EVER were in 2020 (including races that weren't even that close like Iowa and South Carolina). 

So even if we assume that Trump is bleeding money through lawyers and fees (which he is), it is really just a drop in the bucket.  If Trump managed to syphon off $500 million in 2024 from donations that would otherwise go to Republican congressional racees, it still would be at worst a minor inconvenience.  If Republicans have "only" $100 million to spend against Sherrod Brown instead of $130 million, is that really going to make the difference?  Possible, but not at all likely. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

29 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Except in the way it matters - in polling. It might be a good thing to fuck up all the other races, but I don't know that that matters as far as making Trump less electable. Trump in 2016 showed how relatively unimportant paid advertising is when he gets billions in free media, and that hasn't changed even one small bit; if anything, it's gotten a lot worse. 

Just wondering, what is your take on the 20-30% of Nikki Haley voters? There numbers roughly track the percentage of conservatives who report believing that Trump lost the 2020 election, and Biden legitimately won. You don't think that's a major vulnerability for Trump? Especially considering that he's been doubling down on his Jan 6 insurrection rhetoric rather than downplaying it?

[Kalbear]

14 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Just wondering, what is your take on the 20-30% of Nikki Haley voters? There numbers roughly track the percentage of conservatives who report believing that Trump lost the 2020 election, and Biden legitimately won. You don't think that's a major vulnerability for Trump? Especially considering that he's been doubling down on his Jan 6 insurrection rhetoric rather than downplaying it?

I think most of them will end up voting for Trump. It wasn't a weakness any more than it was a weakness in 2016 when he only won like 35% of the total Republican vote. Mostly, it's 30% of the primary voters which is itself a weird outlier in voters, and doesn't tend to accurately reflect general voting trends. 

I suspect of those 30% voters which are themselves like 30% of the total population (so like 9%) we're probably looking at maybe 1/4th choosing not to vote for Trump at all, and even fewer voting for Biden. That will likely just go into the general noise of 10% of defectors by party which is the standard value. As I've said before the main way Biden wins is by making people very aware of how bad Trump is and leaning on the dissatisfaction and disapproval of Trump, but in general most people who vote Republican are going to vote Republican regardless of other factors. 

Also, the people who are actually paying attention to the whole insurrection thing and actually care are a pretty small % overall. I genuinely wish it was not the case, but it is - about politics in general. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

As I've said before the main way Biden wins is by making people very aware of how bad Trump is and leaning on the dissatisfaction and disapproval of Trump, but in general most people who vote Republican are going to vote Republican regardless of other factors. 

I don't disagree with this basic assessment, except that in the most important swing states, a small margin of disaffected conservatives can have a big impact on the electoral results. Those rare well-informed purple state voters may end up mattering quite a bit.

[DireWolfSpirit]

This allows them to detain people suspected of entering the country illegallly. 

Supreme Court allows Texas to begin enforcing controversial immigration law

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/politics/supreme-court-allows-texas-to-begin-enforcing-controversial-immigration-law

[Phylum of Alexandria]

I guess I didn't spell out why I asked about those Haley voters in the first place. It's because Kal mentioned 2016 as a reference point. Third party shenanigans aside, I don't think 2016 is a good reference anymore.

Wouldn't 2020 be the more appropriate reference point? That election had some portion of conservatives voting for Biden but for other Republican candidates down-ballot. And even that election was before the January 6 insanity.

2024 has few good reference points, in truth. Trump is running as an incumbent, but is technically not an incumbent (essentially he's an incumbent in the minds of people who assert that he won in 2020). In 2021, most Republicans wanted to move on from January 6 and pretend it never happened; some people were outright disgusted. I'm not saying these people are guaranteed to vote against Trump; many have shifted to the party line narrative, while others will equivocate to assuage their discomfort. I think of these effects in terms of tendencies, which will depend in some part on the plausible deniability that Trump will offer to more well-informed conservatives as he runs. And yet, he is currently offering no convenient off-ramp for the more well-meaning voters: not only will he not "move on" with Jan 6, he's calling the insurrectionists "hostages," and promising them pardons.

It's not crazy to think that the chunk of conservatives who split their 2020 tickets against Trump will do the same in 2024. Given all that's happened, it seems more likely than not. 

Edited March 20 by Phylum of Alexandria
clarity

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Except in the way it matters - in polling. It might be a good thing to fuck up all the other races, but I don't know that that matters as far as making Trump less electable. Trump in 2016 showed how relatively unimportant paid advertising is when he gets billions in free media, and that hasn't changed even one small bit; if anything, it's gotten a lot worse. 

At the same time I think Trump is polling better than expected because the microscope hasn't been as intense as it use to be for the casual followers of politics. I'd bet the average person will be reminded how much of a piece of shit he is as we get deeper into the cycle.

Quote

This is again schadenfreude as @Larry of the Lawn pointed out - it's cool to make him upset, but from an electability standpoint it's not that useful because Trump is, well, about as weak as he's going to be anyway. Is him being broke going to make minorities vote for Biden? Is it going to make young people vote for Biden? Is it going to make the various Arab populations in Michigan vote for Biden? 

I think the latter group will come home and Biden's team is going to do everything to make that as realistic as possible. 

But overall, Trump being broke doesn't matter. Trump being broke and taking money from the RNC does. It doesn't really matter for the presidential race, but it gives Dems an edge on funding House and Senate races. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Third party shenanigans aside, I don't think 2016 is a good reference anymore.

It isn't. 2016 just highlights Hillary's hubris and strategic errors. Not sure much of it applies anymore outside of recognizing Americans are even more awful than we thought. 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

That will likely just go into the general noise of 10% of defectors by party which is the standard value.

Should be noted this wasn't really the case in 2020.  Exit polls had Biden winning Dems 94 to 5 and Trump winning Reps 94 to 6.  AP Votecast had Biden winning Dems 95 to 4 and Trump winning Reps 91 to 8.  So I guess AP was roughly close for Trump but, ya know, he lost.

[Martell Spy]

Trump-backed Moreno wins Ohio Senate primary
His victory is a relief for the former president.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/19/trump-backed-moreno-wins-ohio-senate-primary-00147945

Quote

 

Bernie Moreno, a former car dealer endorsed by Donald Trump, has won a three-way GOP primary for the right to take on Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown in Ohio.

Moreno beat out Secretary of State Frank LaRose and state Sen. Matt Dolan, who was endorsed by popular figures in the state’s Republican establishment.

 

 

[DMC]

8 hours ago, Maithanet said:

So even if we assume that Trump is bleeding money through lawyers and fees (which he is), it is really just a drop in the bucket.  If Trump managed to syphon off $500 million in 2024 from donations that would otherwise go to Republican congressional racees, it still would be at worst a minor inconvenience.  If Republicans have "only" $100 million to spend against Sherrod Brown instead of $130 million, is that really going to make the difference?  Possible, but not at all likely. 

I've been a longtime proponent of emphasizing the diminishing returns of the astronomical fundraising in campaigns today.  However, this premise is fundamentally flawed in ignoring context, and overstating the case. 

First of all, this is based on the assumption that the fundraising will remain constant with 2020 levels.  Fact of the matter is, the RNC is already in dire straits, with the DNC currently having nearly three times cash on hand and outraising the RNC thus far about $137 million to $99 million.  That could very well change - it's quite early, but in contrast, in 2019-2020, the RNC outraised and outspent the DNC nearly two to one.

If Trump is using the RNC as his personal piggybank, the disparity in spending could potentially be drastically different than the 2020 cycle context.  Further, it's very easy to envision Trump using the RNC in such a manner having a compounding effect by souring many of the major donors that not only the RNC relies on, but also the other party committees as well as many of the Super PACs each party relies upon.

And while I tend to agree with the general consensus that this is unlikely to have an impact on Trump v Biden specifically, we don't know that for sure.  Yes, Trump famously was outraised by Hildog two to one ($1.2 billion to $600 million) and still won, but perhaps that was more a Hildog problem?  And what if he has trouble even getting to $600 million this cycle and is outraised, say, three to one?  Anyway, diminishing returns doesn't necessarily mean this won't have an impact.

Finally, simply taking the aggregate metrics is an obvious ecological fallacy.  Yes, no matter how much money Jaime Harrison raised in 2020, he wasn't going to win a US Senate race in South Carolina; and same goes, dispiritingly, for Sara Gideon against an incumbent like Susan Collins.  But that does not mean significant disparities in funding/spending can't be the difference in otherwise competitive races.  Indeed, your Brown v Morenos, Tester v Sheehys, Gallego v Lakes - or even, say, enable Casey to finish off McCormick early so resources can be allocated elsewhere.

[DMC]

Another example of public perception not aligning with empirical facts - violent crime is precipitously decreasing:

Quote

Violent crime in 2023 had fallen 6% from 2022, with murders tumbling 13%, according to the latest FBI Quarterly Uniform Crime Report, which was based on data from 15,199 of 19,152 law enforcement agencies across the country.

“It suggests that when we get the final data in October, we will have seen likely the largest one-year decline in murder that has ever been recorded,” crime analyst Jeff Asher told NBC.

Under violent crimes, murder saw the biggest drop, followed by rape (12%). Robbery and aggravated assault both fell by 5%.

I don't think this will have much impact either way on the election -- well, at least the presidential election, but I did find this tidbit interesting:

Quote

A major outlier was motor vehicle theft, which rose collectively by 11%, with a jump of 38% in the Northeast, followed by 24% in the South and 2% in the Midwest. The west was the only region to see a decline (-4%). The FBI data show that the greatest spikes were reported by larger cities, with reports even declining in nonmetropolitan counties.

Keep your cars safe, city-dwellers!

[The Anti-Targ]

 

14 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

It wouldn't slow him down from doing something else illegal. You have to have faith this house of cards will eventually catch up. Especially since he's so sloppy. 

*Couldn't care less. Also:

People in mixed metophors shouldn't stow thrones in grass houses.

[mcbigski]

11 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Just wondering, what is your take on the 20-30% of Nikki Haley voters? There numbers roughly track the percentage of conservatives who report believing that Trump lost the 2020 election, and Biden legitimately won. You don't think that's a major vulnerability for Trump? Especially considering that he's been doubling down on his Jan 6 insurrection rhetoric rather than downplaying it?

I think it depends on where you're measuring them.  Haley did particularly well where cross over voting was allowed in the primaries, such as New Hampshire.  OTOH, one of my golf crew is totally Republican, except for being anti Trump.  I assume he grew up loving big brother media, and he does seem to have a lot of cognitive dissonance, but listening to hear him say how awful Biden is but he still can't vote for Trump makes my head spin.

Though the odds of Trump winning Connecticut are only about 4 magnitudes greater than Biden flipping 5 swing states on the Wednesday after the election, so it's probably still a moot point.

 

[Bironic]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

Another example of public perception not aligning with empirical facts - violent crime is precipitously decreasing:

Yes that’s one of the major headaches of the western world in general. Right wingers being able to run on crime (only violent / blue collar crime obviously) being a massive problem. When every single statistic in the west shows that since the early 90s crime has declined or stagnated. Only 2020 ( the pandemic year) and in some countries 2021-2022 being the exceptions with actual rise of crime. 
But yes if it bleeds it leads, so the media have a lot of blame here, and in our world of alternative facts, reality doesn’t seem to matter when it comes to politics…

[Phylum of Alexandria]

6 hours ago, mcbigski said:

OTOH, one of my golf crew is totally Republican, except for being anti Trump.  I assume he grew up loving big brother media, and he does seem to have a lot of cognitive dissonance, but listening to hear him say how awful Biden is but he still can't vote for Trump makes my head spin.

"Je suis l'Empire à la fin de la decadence…"

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 hours ago, mcbigski said:

I think it depends on where you're measuring them.  Haley did particularly well where cross over voting was allowed in the primaries, such as New Hampshire.  OTOH, one of my golf crew is totally Republican, except for being anti Trump.  I assume he grew up loving big brother media, and he does seem to have a lot of cognitive dissonance, but listening to hear him say how awful Biden is but he still can't vote for Trump makes my head spin.

Though the odds of Trump winning Connecticut are only about 4 magnitudes greater than Biden flipping 5 swing states on the Wednesday after the election, so it's probably still a moot point.

 

You are more insightful that this.  You are.

 

[Maithanet]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

I've been a longtime proponent of emphasizing the diminishing returns of the astronomical fundraising in campaigns today.  However, this premise is fundamentally flawed in ignoring context, and overstating the case. 

First of all, this is based on the assumption that the fundraising will remain constant with 2020 levels.  Fact of the matter is, the RNC is already in dire straits, with the DNC currently having nearly three times cash on hand and outraising the RNC thus far about $137 million to $99 million.  That could very well change - it's quite early, but in contrast, in 2019-2020, the RNC outraised and outspent the DNC nearly two to one.

It's fair to say that every race is different, although the idea that the 2024 campaign is going to be vastly different than 2020 in terms of spending seems very unlikely.  It is possible that if Trump is constantly raiding the RNC and PAC money to pay legal fees (and just because he can), then it could have an impact.  I'm just providing context that even a big number like Trump siphoning off $100 million is still only a small fraction of total spending.  If he somehow took $200 million or more, then it probably would have some impact downballot, particularly for races like state senator, comptroller, where comparatively small amounts of funding can make a big difference.  But that's not the kind of thing that is going to make stressed liberals feel better, either now or after election day. 

The fact that many state republican parties like AZ and MI are basically broke is a good thing for Democrats.  And while that can absolutely be laid at the feet of Trumpism, it isn't because people are lining thier pockets.  It's that when MAGA shoves the establishment/country club republicans aside, the latter are less interested in opening up their wallets.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

I'm just providing context that even a big number like Trump siphoning off $100 million is still only a small fraction of total spending.

Right, but my point is that context of the aggregate spending includes 435 House races and ~33 Senate races - 90-95% of which (at least) are not competitive, but still account for a very large percentage of the aggregate spending in any given cycle.  The RNC, other party committees, and leadership/independent Super PACs are integral to the actual competitive races, and it's very clear that Trump commandeering the former could have a very significant impact on competitive races.