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.
Interesting that you leave out YouGov.
Here in the UK, the internet polling by this company is reckoned to be the most reliable of all methods.
What do you think of Mickey Kaus’s analysis concluding undecideds can’t be counted on to break for the challenger?
http://myelectionanalysis.blogspot.com/2004/09/whither-undecideds.html
Hey Ruy… I don’t think it’s “fair” to rely on the right-wing money people represented in such polls as Gallup, CBS/New York Times, NBC/Wall Street Journal, ABC/Washington Post, Zogby, Time, Newsweek.
They have been proved very biased towards Republican candidates and so I think you play into “their” hands.
Fairness? Fairness? I don’t know what meaning that word might have in the present context.
Your analyses should strive above all for *accuracy*. Fairness is a thing of the distant past.
I’d love to see the same analysis on the swing state polls.
I’m starting to worry that we are setting up here for a major disappointment here regarding the undecided rule. What is the empirical evidence that undecided voters break heavily for the challenger in presidential elections? This link is to a page that purports to show (in quite some detail) what has happened in past presidential elections, and it isn’t good news for Kerry.
http://myelectionanalysis.blogspot.com/2004/09/whither-undecideds.html
I hate to say it but I don’t think we can assume that Kerry is going to get undecided voters by 2:1 on election day.
i understand that the undecideds break 2-1 for the challenger. But even if that is true this time, how can Kerry win with that. For example, lets say the latest polls average out to Bush 47, Kerry 46. That leaves 7% undecideds. That means Kerry gets 2/3 of 7, or 4.666 and bush gets 2.33. That means that kerry is at 50.6 and bush is at 49.333. Is that enough? That is with assumptions. If these numbers are off at all (say bush48 to kerry 46) this changes. And it doesnt compute in the Nader or Badnarik votes.
Can someone please clarify how the undecideds can save Kerry (Lord knows i want him to win)
PS> i know all of this is based on these piece-of-crap inaccurate polls…
Alan:
I understand leaving out the more “partisan” polls. Unfortunately you kept Gallup in ..who I believe you criticized for being heavy on the Rep’s in sampling!! and you eliminated Harris…?? why??
Addtionally, Alan, can you give us the dates these polls were conducted, whether they are all RV’s or Lv’s, or LV’s with leaners.
As you know, a poll is only as good as the time it was taken. I also question the accuracy of “averaging polls” ?
Other wise , Alan ,you do good analytical work on here… keep it up!!
Thanks
Ted Sheedy