I stumbled on a piece at the Never-Trump site The Bulwark, and it stunned me enough to write it up at New York.
You may have heard about the 45th president’s reported rant at a Republican donor conference near his Florida home over the weekend. Trump is apparently still furious at Brian Kemp for impeding his election coup, and Mike Pence for failing to steal a second term for him anyway, and at Mitch McConnell for refusing to back his electoral vote challenge and then criticizing him for inciting a riot.
To Republicans who aren’t deep in the fever swamps of MAGA-land, this is just Trump continuing his narcissistic and destructive post-election behavior. Just as he blew up those crucial Georgia Senate runoffs in January because he couldn’t let go of his own lies about the presidential election, he’s blowing up the party at a time when the GOP needs to stay unified in the fight against Biden.
And to those of us without a betting interest in Republican success, Trump’s intra-party vendetta and purge threats are bizarre and laughable, and only understandable as a way for him to keep his thumb on the party he conquered in 2016 with no concern for its future.
But what if Trump’s attacks on those who “betrayed” him in 2020 aren’t just narcissistic or backward-looking? What if it’s part of a forward-looking plan to rerun 2020 and get it right this time?
That’s the question Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark appears to have asked himself, and he’s answered it with a hair-raising hypothesis that is as plausible as the assumption that Trump is just throwing temper tantrums. He presents his theory as the likely product of an implicit Republican 2020 “autopsy” that has turned defeat into a near-victory:
“It is likely Republicans will have majorities in the congressional delegations of at least 26 states for the foreseeable future. They have a >50 percent chance of winning the House in 2022 and a pretty good shot at flipping the Senate.
“So the first two preconditions for winning the presidency while losing the election are very much on the table.
“Which leaves just one project: Mustering the political will to move past both the popular vote and the Electoral College.”
If you begin not with the assumption that Trump’s entire effort to steal the election was absurd, but regard it as an audacious plan that wasn’t executed with the necessary precision, then reverse engineering it to fix the broken parts makes sense:
“[T]he key parts of the Republican autopsy have been (1) building the political will to use raw power next time and (2) removing the Republican officials who were not willing to comply last time.
“That’s why Republican state parties have censured nearly every Republican who did not participate in Trump’s attempted coup.”
And the really heady thing for Trump is knowing how easy it was to convince the GOP rank-and-file base that his lies were the gospel truth:
“The Big Lie is actually the biggest insight to come from the Republican autopsy. Republicans and their enablers discovered that if they make false, evidence-free claims often and loudly enough, then the vast majority of their voters will believe them.
“And then, once Republican voters were onboard, they found that the rest of the party elites would either join them or stay silent. Only a handful of Republicans dared to object. And those figures are in the process of being either defeated or coopted.”
So why not play it again with a prepared and united party that won’t hesitate to seize on bogus “voter fraud” claims and either steal electoral votes before they can be certified by the states, or refuse to certify a Democratic victory and throw the election into Congress?
“[E]ven though the success of such a gambit is a longshot given all of the various failure points, since political power is derived from their voters, many Republicans politicians will be incentivized to embrace the challenge anyway, since they will gain power within the party from the voters who have been primed to demand such a fight.”
But it’s not any more implausible than the election coup hypothesis sounded when some of us began predicting it in the spring of 2020. And in retrospect, it was spot-on except for a few crucial mistakes Team Trump made after Election Night.
From Last’s perspective, in ranting about disloyal Republicans Trump isn’t engaged in hindsight or vengeance, but is following an ambitious schedule for success in 2024 by getting rid of potential troublemakers within his party. And here’s the thing: it’s a strategy that doesn’t necessarily depend on Trump running for president again. It’s available to anyone determined to do whatever it takes to reconquer Washington at a time when Republicans look to be a minority of the electorate for the foreseeable future. Trump has prepared the way with a dress rehearsal.
It’s a chilling thought, and one to revisit if Trump’s Republican enemies go down to primary challenges next year.
Beware the October Surprise.
If the New Republic is right and the Pakistanis produce senior members of Al Quaida to the command of Washington, then all is in play.
If bin Ladin turns up dead or alive on 30th October, Bush will win. Regardless of how far down in the polls Bush is, I think that would turn it.
I would certainly encourage Mr. Dowd to continue with such predictions….
It makes getting “there” (if there is down 15 points) all the more easier, but no amount of spinning, ‘pre-planning’, or acting the part of an oracle makes recovering from that 15 point deficit any easier.
I occasionally enjoy taking a stroll down right-leaning blogs to gauge the right’s reaction to stories, events and what-not… and the reaction to Dowd’s comments have been more or the less the same as mine, though with a GOP face.
The wheels are truly coming off — we’re starting to get more and more of these “process stories”, these “inside baseball” type pieces focusing on the GOP side of the aisle that then become angry internal wrangling…. not unlike the Dem MO pre-primary season dating back to 2000.
The key is that the dem surrogates take items like Dowd’s analysis and run with it (piecemeal, of course)…..
“I think Matthew Dowd is absolutely correct — GWB is doomed to be down 15 points by August.”
Period.
That’s increased reluctance, of course, or decreased willingness…
Have convention bounces increased or decreased over the years? Is there any general trend? It seems to me that since a national party convention is essentially a show for TV, the fragmentation of the viewing audience, the decline of the broadcast networks, and the decreased reluctance to devote lots of time to this sort of thing would render them less relevant over the past decade or so.
“One post-Dem convention poll had Dukakis up 17 points; others had Dukakis up by less. The distinction is that George Bush Sr. was not the incumbent, he was the Vice President. The point made in the post is that no incumbent behind by that much has gone on to win.”
This is putting a tremendous amount of weight on the incumbency factor alone. Given that Bush was the VP, one would expect at least some of the incumbency effect to apply to him. Since there are so few cases anyway of Presidential elections, and fewer still of incumbent Presidents running, I wonder if the Dukakis vs Bush campaign is not at least as much relevant as the absence of any case in which an incumbent President is down by over 10% after the challenger’s convention and still wins.
“I suppose it’s all about the expectations game: predict some outlandish bad outcome for your candidate and then when it doesn’t occur claim things are going your way.”
Hannity (hey, I was driving home and nothing else was on) was doing just this tonight on his radio show. Only, he said the typical bounce from naming a VP was fifteen points — an odd manipualation of Dowd’s odd number. He went on to say that the failur of this 15 point bounce to occur is a clear sign of the public’s distaste for the ticket with “the numbers 1 and 4 liberals in the senate” on it.
AB
about whether “Dowd now believes Kerry is up by 8 points?”, it seems that article that you cited or Dowd’s email points out that the challenger gains ~7 and the incumbent loses 8. And he states that he believes that they are tied.
… should read “Kerry ahead 47 to 44”.
AP-Ipsos poll, with leaners, Mon – Wed: Bush ahead 46 to 45.
AP-Ipsos poll, with leaners, Tues – Wed: Kerry ahead 47 to 47.
http://2.004k.com/national/
One post-Dem convention poll had Dukakis up 17 points; others had Dukakis up by less.
The distinction is that George Bush Sr. was not the incumbent, he was the Vice President. The point made in the post is that no incumbent behind by that much has gone on to win.
One question I have: what was Dukakis’ lead over Bush I after the Dem convention?
I had the impression it was over 10%, maybe well over. Is this not true?
isn’t this just more of the “soft bigotry of low expectations?”
sounds to me like Dowd is trying to skew the CW that if Kerry doesn’t get that 15 point bounce, he’s toast. same thing they did to Gore in the last coup (I mean election).
The banality of american electoral politics:
40% R / 40% D are intransigent. Of the remaining 20%, half are split 50/50, hence the 45-45 poll results. The remaining 10% are in play and the last 3 months of the campaign, including the convention kabuki theater is for their benefit. Who the fuck are these people and why do they get to decide the fate of the country?
I wish someone would go through and catalog the predictions that Dowd has made. It seems he comes out with one of these every few months; usually in the right direction, but with a loaded dice to spin his guys way when it lands.
Ruy
I just came from seeing 3000 women pay money, get up at the crack of dawn to cheer on Kerry and Edwards here in NYC. Biggest event of its kind ever.
This huge level of enthusiasm is hard to square with the AP poll which is just now on the MSNBC home page which shows Bush ahead by 49-45. Poll taken Monday prior to the announcement and then Tuesday and Wednesday. How can that be?
And what is the agenda of the home page editor touting this poll when their own NBC poll shows Kerry ahead.
I hope you write about this. I think polls like the AP can be used to push poll public opinion and set up confusion about the electoral outcome.
I think people like you need to start defensive debunking.
What’s depressing is how mindless the media has been about repeating Dowd’s spin – without even stopping to think about, much less check, the facts.
That’s the great GOP advantage in this election: Their media strategy assumes that journalists are clueless, selfish oafs with the long-term memory of a sea sponge.
And what do you know – they’re right.
I agree with the last poster. There’s nothing scientific or historical about this. Dowd’s just trying to raise expactations knowing Kerry probably won’t get that high of a bounce, and then Dowd can go back to the press and say the bounce wasn’t as high as expected. However, i do enjoy Fabrizio uptight about Dowd’s comments…
Bounce numbers historically fall off at a rate of 1 to 2 points per week after the convention. Perhaps Dowd is figuring that by the time Bush gets his bounce (which I predict will be much less than normal) Kerry’s bounce will be gone or at least in reach.
Fact is that there is simply not room for a 15 point bounce for Kerry, not enough independents out there. This is an expectations game and Dowd wants Kerry’s 8 or 9 points to look enemic.
Has anyone attempted to get Dowd to answer the question “Where did you get the fifteen point number from?” I know it is hard to get a hold of some people, and the speculation is interesting, but maybe Dowd has something to back up the claim.
Ruy….we have a chat going on over at dKos. Might you fill us in on your polling methods? How do you find people to answer your polls? I’ll respost your response, if you should give one.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/9/11533/48230