Trump Indicted!

[Sommerswerd]

I think a sizeable number are going somewhere: back to being non-voters. They are Trump voters specifically. He's sold them on this "I'm persecuted by the elites in American society just like you are" line. They identify with him personally, not politically. And they will be uninterested in any one who is "just a politician."

This point raises the other side of that coin... inasmuch as there are "Trump voters specifically" who will go back to non-voting once Trump is no longer a candidate, there are probably also "anti-Trump voters", who will similarly go back to non-voting once Trump is no longer a candidate to vote against.

I don't know that the two contingencies necessarily cancel each other out, however... my hot take is that there would seem to be alot more anti-Trump voters than there are Trump-specific voters... so the exit of Trump may ironically end up costing the Democrats a lot more voters than the Republicans.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Romney got 61m, Trump in his first election 63. The specifically Trump voters are the 11 million extra that he got in 2020. Those are people who in 2016 said to themselves, "Yeah, but he'll just become a regular politician as soon as he's elected" and then were pleasantly surprised when he continued to act as a [boorish jackass/outspoken political outsider] all through his presidency. It's those that no other R will draw in the twenty years after Trump leaves the scene (I've got two bottles of Scotch riding on it).

Biden got 12m more than Obama in 2008. Biden in himself does not motivate voters more than Obama. So those are anti-Trump voters. They'll evaporate once there isn't a Trump to vote against.

There's my back-of-the-envelope math.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Romney got 61m, Trump in his first election 63. The specifically Trump voters are the 11 million extra that he got in 2020. Those are people who in 2016 said to themselves, "Yeah, but he'll just become a regular politician as soon as he's elected" and then were pleasantly surprised when he continued to act as a [boorish jackass/outspoken political outsider] all through his presidency. It's those that no other R will draw in the twenty years after Trump leaves the scene (I've got two bottles of Scotch riding on it).

Biden got 12m more than Obama in 2008. Biden in himself does not motivate voters more than Obama. So those are anti-Trump voters. They'll evaporate once there isn't a Trump to vote against.

There's my back-of-the-envelope math.

There's a couple additional factors...

Obama in 2012 got roughly 3.5 million votes less than Obama in 2008, and as you say, there is no way Biden, in-and-of himself, is motivating more turnout than Obama. So I think its safe to say that Biden's baseline turnout (without Trump to run against) isn't Obama's 69.5 million from 2008, rather it's likely lower than Obama's 65.9 million in 2012. I don't know that Biden even tops Hillary's 65.8 in 2016 without Trump to run against. Of course Hillary was running against Trump too, but that was with the voters having less information about how bad Trump was.

So I'd put Biden's sans-Trump baseline at somewhere between Kerry's 59 million in 2004 and Hillary's 65.8 million in 2016. Even giving Biden the benefit of the doubt and assuming he could draw that 65.8 million... that puts the "anti-Trump" vote at 15.4 million, rather than 12 million. So once Trump is gone, the Democrats stand to lose at least 15 million votes, compared to the 11 million that we are speculating the Republicans stand to lose.

The quick math on that puts the Democrats at around 66 million votes and the Republicans around 63 million, in a Trump-less election. Which incidentally, is eerily almost exactly the vote totals that led to a Hillary loss in 2016 (Hillary got 65.8 million votes and Trump got 62.9 million). Which makes sense, since as you say, in 2016, folks assumed Trump would just end up being a generic Republican politician, and Hillary was as "establishment" Democratic politician as it gets. Adding to the eeriness is that Baby Bush managed 62 million votes in 2004, which suggests that the Republican baseline vote hasn't changed in 20 years.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yeah, I should have ended my post "subject to further refinement."

All of your points are sound.

The main thing that I think will characterize the post-Trump era (setting aside for a moment quantitative matters) is that everyone will want another Trump. Trump voters will want another Trump, and even Rs who are more traditional or establishment will still hunger after another figure who draws votes the way Trump has. But in my view, Trump is sui generis. He's not duplicable. Various candidates will try to duplicate various dimensions of his appeal, as they understand them, but all of them will fail to do so and will feel like they are failing to do so. At the same time, "let's just go back to what we used to stand for" will feel boring and lifeless. So I think the Republicans will flounder for a good while after Trump.

That doesn't mean I think the Ds will dominate. Right now they're united by opposition to Trump and Trumpism, and when that is absent, I don't see that they either have a single unifying message.

 

[choxorn]

There's a couple additional factors...

Obama in 2012 got roughly 3.5 million votes less than Obama in 2008, and as you say, there is no way Biden, in-and-of himself, is motivating more turnout than Obama. So I think its safe to say that Biden's baseline turnout (without Trump to run against) isn't Obama's 69.5 million from 2008, rather it's likely lower than Obama's 65.9 million in 2012. I don't know that Biden even tops Hillary's 65.8 in 2016 without Trump to run against. Of course Hillary was running against Trump too, but that was with the voters having less information about how bad Trump was.

So I'd put Biden's sans-Trump baseline at somewhere between Kerry's 59 million in 2004 and Hillary's 65.8 million in 2016. Even giving Biden the benefit of the doubt and assuming he could draw that 65.8 million... that puts the "anti-Trump" vote at 15.4 million, rather than 12 million. So once Trump is gone, the Democrats stand to lose at least 15 million votes, compared to the 11 million that we are speculating the Republicans stand to lose.

The quick math on that puts the Democrats at around 66 million votes and the Republicans around 63 million, in a Trump-less election. Which incidentally, is eerily almost exactly the vote totals that led to a Hillary loss in 2016 (Hillary got 65.8 million votes and Trump got 62.9 million). Which makes sense, since as you say, in 2016, folks assumed Trump would just end up being a generic Republican politician, and Hillary was as "establishment" Democratic politician as it gets. Adding to the eeriness is that Baby Bush managed 62 million votes in 2004, which suggests that the Republican baseline vote hasn't changed in 20 years.

There's a big factor that's being left out if you're comparing vote totals by raw numbers: The US population grew about 50 million between 2000 and 2020. Presidential Election vote totals generally increase over time because the number of people in the country generally increases over time. Every presidential election between 2004 and 2016 was in the neighborhood of 60% of the voting-eligible population turning out, with 2008 being the peak but not by that much.

2020 did have really high turnout, the highest in over 100 years at 67%, so maybe there's something to "Trump was uniquely capable of getting people to vote for or against him once people saw what he was like in office"

 

[JollyRoger]

Trump has shown that people are willing to vote for him . . . to be indicted

 

[Sommerswerd]

Trump has also shown people who are willing to vote for him... be indicted.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Judge indefinitely delays Trump’s classified documents trial in Florida​

U.S. Judge Aileen M. Cannon said there are too many pre-trial issues to address to set a new trial date now

Donald Trump’s Florida trial for allegedly mishandling classified documents and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them has been pushed back indefinitely, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon ruled Tuesday, increasing the chance that Trump’s New York criminal trial may be the only one to happen before the November election.

The judge had originally set the trial date for late May and heard arguments on March 1 about when the trial should be — with Trump’s lawyers pushing to start after the presidential election, in which he is the presumptive Republican nominee, or no earlier than August.

Prosecutors urged Cannon to pick a date in early July. But in her ruling, the judge said there are too many complicated legal rules and deadlines surrounding the use of classified evidence in public criminal trials that need to be considered before she finalizes a court date. She said she would schedule the trial date at a future time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/05/07/trump-classified-documents-trial-delayed-cannon-florida/

 

[Sommerswerd]

Judge indefinitely delays Trump’s classified documents trial in Florida​

U.S. Judge Aileen M. Cannon said there are too many pre-trial issues to address to set a new trial date now

Donald Trump’s Florida trial for allegedly mishandling classified documents and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them has been pushed back indefinitely, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon ruled Tuesday, increasing the chance that Trump’s New York criminal trial may be the only one to happen before the November election.

The judge had originally set the trial date for late May and heard arguments on March 1 about when the trial should be — with Trump’s lawyers pushing to start after the presidential election, in which he is the presumptive Republican nominee, or no earlier than August.

Prosecutors urged Cannon to pick a date in early July. But in her ruling, the judge said there are too many complicated legal rules and deadlines surrounding the use of classified evidence in public criminal trials that need to be considered before she finalizes a court date. She said she would schedule the trial date at a future time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/05/07/trump-classified-documents-trial-delayed-cannon-florida/

Shocked... SHOCKED I tells ya!

 

[Arakhor]

Do judges not have any oversight at all? How is this allowable?

 

[Gori the Grey]

There is oversight. Smith can appeal to the circuit court to which she answers. He has done so twice, and both times the circuit court has sided with him and insisted she change course. Many expect that, if enough of these pile up (and apparently just a single case is a huge embarrassment for a judge), Smith might ask them to have her removed.

But we're actually past the point where it really matters. There's no chance of getting the trial in before the election. So either Trump will win, and dismiss these charges, or he will lose and Smith will continue the prosecution on whatever time frame.

 

[Arakhor]

Given their performance so far, it's definitely possible, but do you really think that SCOTUS will allow Trump to simply pardon himself of federal crimes?

 

[Gori the Grey]

He doesn't have to pardon himself. He just has to have his AG drop the prosecutions.

 

[Arakhor]

Ooh, right. That makes sense.

I do wonder what makes Cannon potentially endanger her career to fawn over Trump so much in this way. It's not as if we don't already have ample evidence of the people Trump used and disposed of from a great height.

 

[Gori the Grey]

No danger to her career. Lifetime appointment. Trump either appoints her to Supreme Court because she's still in his good graces when time comes for an appointment, or she paddles through the rest of her career at this level (which is probably beyond what she would have achieved without him).

 

[Arakhor]

Today's hot take: tenure plus political power is a terrible mix.

 

[Gori the Grey]

There is a value, though, in putting judges outside of the winds of partisan to-and-fro. That's not to say that they aren't political or that their decisions aren't. But they are (at least potentially) freed from whatever the most immediate political pressures dictate. On the whole, it's a good thing, I think. There are bad cases of every good thing.

 

[Farm Boy]

Earl Warren.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Rum raisin ice cream.

 

[Farm Boy]

That sounds amazing.

Not sure I've heard of that one.