Signals from the 2024 elections

 

Gordon L. Weil

The pollsters have gone into hiding to lick their well-deserved wounds.

The pundits are desperately assigning blame for the Democratic defeat, while admitting that Trump was a better candidate than they thought.

Beyond the false forecasts and short-time wisdom, a variety of signals emerge from the elections. 

First, my “told you so” statement.  Last December, I wrote that the election would not be between Biden and Trump.  I then wrote that the election would not be close. And I wrote repeatedly that polling results were false, conjured up by pollsters, and not a good measure of opinion.  All true.

Now, down to business.  Here are signals from the elections.

Whatever you think about his message, Trump came across as telling you what he really thought.  He declared that he would say what he wanted, no matter the advice of his strategists.  He generated an aura of sincerity that is almost extinct among political candidates.  In my experience, the early Ed Muskie was like that, and that could be one reason he succeeded.

Money in politics matters, but not without limit.  People will take just so much repetitive advertising or endless pleas for contributions.  To no avail, the Harris campaign amassed more than Trump, despite his big backers.  There is a point of saturation, which comes when people have heard enough.  Billionaire backers and huge war chests can overkill. 

One reason why polling falters is that the relatively few people who agree to talk often lie.  Pollsters reported that in 2016, people fibbed about their support, because they did not want to admit they backed Trump.  That may have been true this year as well and explain why his victory was unforeseen.

Members of politically identified groups, everyone from Poles in Pennsylvania to Muslims in Michigan, may not necessarily see themselves as members of narrow constituencies, but more like average Americans.  If bread is too expensive for middle-class Americans, it is also expensive for target populations.  Apparently, a lot of people agreed on that.

Campaigns often focus on Latinos, who are assumed to see discrimination against Latin American immigrants as their overriding issue. The same may be true for other ethnic groups. Assuming that minorities would back Democrats, simply because they are minorities, may miss the innate conservatism of many such people.  Too much political slicing and dicing, perhaps.

The parties may be fading.  Lawn signs omit party affiliation, formerly a sign of loyal support.  Elections may be more about persons than parties.  Once, the national party chairs were the prime “slash and burn” campaign representatives, allowing the candidate to remain more elevated.  They are almost unknown these days.  Trump’s daughter-in-law co-chairs the GOP.

Trump will be strongest in 2025.  Presidents usually enjoy the greatest deference in their first year, so next year could be the best time for him to try to push his policies, especially while enjoying strong congressional support.  

The following year is another election year, the mid-term when an incumbent president usually loses some congressional support.  Re-election campaigns may reflect the influence and effects of Trump’s policies.  The Democrats could see a chance to retake one or both houses as the best way to control some of his moves.  Expect to see presidential-level campaign spending.

JD Vance may be more in focus than the usual vice president.  As he ages, Trump might find Vance’s visibility helpful, especially in 2026.  And he may bear closer than usual scrutiny, as the possibility of his having to step into the Oval Office increases.

Trump may test the extent of the extreme political powers that the Supreme Court has given him.  Will he be the “day-one dictator” or will he perceive political risks in going too far?  While the Democrats may push back, the real question will be whether Congress reasserts itself.  Congressional renewal, desperately needed, could be a bi-partisan concern.

The role of Congress will depend heavily on the Republican leaders.  House Speaker Mike Johnson has clearly aligned himself with Trump. The Senate GOP will soon select a new Majority Leader who could influence the president or simply fall in line.  This impending selection may provide some hints about the Trump-Congress relationship.

Leadership is the big challenge for the Democrats, which have no obvious national chief.  A new image is needed, possibly to lead the 2026 campaign effort.  The Democratic National Committee may have to stage an informal version of the presidential primary the party never had. It could gain from having a spokesperson who acts as leader of the opposition from outside of Congress.

This list suggests the election has left much American voters do not know about their political future.  It is likely to differ from recent political tradition.   Trump is defining the GOP message.  The Democrats need a new message of their own.

 

 

Trumpism after Trump

 

Gordon L. Weil

We just got a look at what American politics could look like after Donald Trump.

Trump won’t always be at the center of the national debate.  He could lose the election, leaving him to focus on meeting his many legal challenges.  Or he could win, serve his term in office, and depart.  Or, given his age, death or disability could overtake him, allowing Vance to assume power.  But he will go.

Whatever his future, his role over the last nine years raises questions about the future of Trumpism without Trump. Will his policies survive?  Will the Republican Party be dominated by his partisans or will the traditional members he labeled RINOs – Republicans in Name Only – be able to restore their “compassionate conservatism.”

The performance of Ohio Sen. JD Vance in the vice-presidential debate provided useful hints about the post-Trump future, at least for the Republicans and likely for the political world.  Vance’s answers, while displaying the required loyalty to Trump, were notable for smoother packaging. They were important for what they omitted.

On the issues, immigration stood out.  The key issue for Trump when he first ran in 2016, it remains at the center of GOP politics.  Vance repeatedly resorted to unrestricted immigration to explain most of the economic and social problems facing the country.  His answer was not only a sign of Trump loyalty, but his silver bullet solution to winning the election.

Trump had torpedoed a bipartisan bill to begin dealing with the issue, often raised by the Democrats, but that means less to voters than the problem itself.  Underlying opposition to immigrants and immigration is anguish about the coming end of a white majority in America.  Making America “great again” is about stopping, slowing or even denying the inevitable change.

Immigration is sure to be Trump’s legacy.  Difficult to solve, it can become a perennial political focus.  Vance stuck with it, but dodged backing deportation of more than criminal aliens.  Trump is far more sweeping. Vance also avoided racial undertones to his position.  But here as elsewhere, he went along with Trump’s unfounded assertions.

For the Democrats, the personal freedom of women over their own bodies – the abortion issue – remains the keystone of the campaign.  Here, Vance was seemingly contrite. He admitted that his own restrictive position has been rejected by his state’s voters.   He said that his party would have to do better in building trust on the issue.

Contrast his remarks with Trump’s.  The former president keeps shifting his position, trying to lessen the impact of his efforts to topple Roe v. Wade, but he makes ludicrous charges about how Democrats want to kill babies.  Vance looked more reasonable, retreating after the debate to veer right again.  Like Trump, he seeks an impossible position aimed at satisfying both sides.

Media attention has highlighted the civil and coherent debate between Vance and Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic nominee.  They listened to one another and occasionally claimed to find some common ground.  There were no personal attacks or use of degrading nicknames or huge lies, characteristic of Trumpian discourse.  But Vance hewed to his leader’s lines.

Walz entirely boxed him in once. He asked if Vance believed that the 2020 election was stolen, and the senator evaded answering.  In effect, he had to remain loyal to his leader, but managed to refrain from openly supporting him.  Vance obviously shares a Trump-like political vanity. Looking to his own future career, Vance showed himself as more deft than dangerous.

The American government has been almost paralyzed by an unwillingness to compromise between dominant elements within both parties.  Agreement on federal spending has become almost impossible.  In the GOP-dominated House, it’s a matter of “my way or the highway,” sending the American people down that road by an unpopular Congress.

This state of affairs cannot last.  Either the system will be mortally wounded, making authoritarian government quite likely, or traditional majority rule with a role for the minority view must be restored.

This election could be the turning point.  If Trump were to lose and the Democrats gain control of Congress, it could happen now.  Kamala Harris would need to work with responsible Republican leaders.  When the intimidation from Trump possible retaliation fades, senators like Vance might work with the Democrats to achieve workable compromises.

If Trump loses, but the GOP controls Congress, it would be up to Harris and Vance, as a GOP leader, to find a path to compromise.  If Trump wins, congressional Republicans could foresee his influence waning, though they would support his policies.  Of course, it’s possible that an aging Trump might have to give way to Vance at some point.

Whenever Trump leaves the scene, restoring compromise is essential.  Vance may have tried to make it look possible.

 

Polls: An additional note.

I wrote about the adjustments being made and not made to survey data.  Then, The New York Times wrote: “Ms. Harris has since shored up her support among older voters and has begun making inroads among Republicans: 9 percent said they planned to support her, up slightly from 5 percent last month.”

Slightly! An 80 percent increase?   The four percent as a share of the total Trump vote in 2020 is about 2.8 million voters.  That many voters or even a half of them could swing states or put some leaners into doubt.

‘Figures don’t lie’ except when they do

Political polls far from ‘scientific’ 

Gordon L. Weil

“Lies, damned lies and statistics.”  

That old saying about the levels of lying both reveals and warns about the excessive use and misuse of numbers.

People love numbers.  Rankings and ratings are the basis of decisions that may determine matters ranging from which country is a world power to what toaster browns bread best to where a student should go to college.

These decisions matter, but they may be based on flimsy data.  Because we place much confidence in numbers, they become the tools or weapons of those seeking to impress or convince us.   Every day, we are flooded with facts and factoids by supposed experts who keep pumping out statistics.

The reason why numbers seem to be the gateway to the truth is that science relies heavily on numerical data.  A scientific law can be verified all the time by data and observation.  People who disagree on almost everything can accept scientific proof of a law of nature.

Sir Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity, and its existence can be endlessly proved by observation and measurement.  It was not merely his opinion, wrapped in numbers.

Science distinguishes laws from theory.  Theory can be tested against alternative explanations.  Many numbers today would give us the same impression of certainty that we get from a scientific law.  In fact, they are so far from the real truth that they wouldn’t even qualify as theory. 

Take the Summer Olympics, soon to occur in Paris, which will produce numbers that are widely accepted as the truth.  Athletes will be proclaimed as winners, the best in the world.  Countries will engage in a race for the most medals, which somehow will indicate their superior standing among the nations of the world. 

Russia seeks to pile up medals in the belief that winning more medals is an indicator of its superiority.   So, it cheats by doping its athletes.   The late, unlamented East Germany used extensive doping to boost its international reputation.

Some events, like gymnastics and artistic swimming, are judged not scored, but awarded numerical rankings.  Judges rate break dancing, a newly added athletic event.  Baseball, which produces a score, has long been excluded. 

Athletic judges may make personal judgments, yet they contribute to the same medal count as timed races.  In fact, most ratings and rankings are based at least in part on the opinions and values of the raters and judges and not on standards required by good science. 

Among the most popular numbers are the college rankings that help young students decide where to pursue their education.  The numbers are unreliable.  The components may change, undermining long-term comparisons.    Information provided by colleges to raters may be falsified, fudged or incomplete.  Yet the rankings are revered.

When they hand out the Academy Award Oscars, do they truly go to the best picture or best performer?  The current ranked choice voting could produce a distorted result reflecting popularity and prejudice more than quality.  Some big mistakes have been made in the past. The best picture could be everybody’s second choice.

When it comes to ratings, from military power to movies, always beware of the word “best.”

Probably the subject where we most willingly follow questionable numbers too closely is public opinion polling about elections.  Numbers are published with so-called “margins of errors” that give the data the appearance of science.  Yet we know little or nothing about who participated or whether questions were fair.  What was the bias of the pollster?

And a survey is only a snapshot; the world can change.  Six months ago, few responses would have been influenced by events in the Middle East, but the Israel-Gaza situation is now a major issue.  How and how much will it influence voter preferences about six months from now?  And many other key issues may look different by then.

The message that emerges from our excessive reliance on numbers of dubious validity is that they should not be taken at face value. None of the daily flood of data that drowns us is truly scientific, no matter any claim.  Still, it may be as good as we can get it.

Perhaps the most useful information we derive from rankings and ratings is whether they change over time and, if so, by how much. Biden’s or Trump’s ratings moving by a point or two over a few days are probably meaningless.  If a trend continues long enough, a voter may begin to understand who is gaining or losing.

If we are not skeptical of statistics, we risk accepting politics as if it were nothing more than an athletic competition.  Poll numbers, like other statistics, are not perfect, and they are often overanalyzed.

The biggest risk is that another old saying may apply: “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”