Voters: double down on Trump or fold?
National referendum on now
Gordon L. Weil
The pollsters are running wild.
As the U.S. approaches Election Day, forecasting about the possible
outcomes dominates the political news.
The basis for the forecasts is often poll results. And many of those
results fall within the so-called “margin of error.”
In reality, most polling should be read to say that the outcome
is uncertain, so voters better cast their ballots on the possibility that they
might determine the winner. Polls can
become an election factor by encouraging voter behavior, but they are given far
more weight than they are worth.
This column has often criticized polling. Its reliability is weakened by one or more factors: the ways in which the survey sample is collected,
how the answers are massaged, the survey questionnaire and its potential bias,
its lack of timeliness and the tendency of pollsters to rely on one another to
verify their findings.
Often, pollsters focus on “likely voters.” What tells them if a voter is likely to cast
a ballot? The voter. And that includes one other factor raising
doubt: is the interviewee being honest?
And how representative of a larger constituency are the many people who simply
decline to be surveyed?
The bottom line must be that the people who vote will differ
from the hypothetically representative people in a survey. How much?
That gets back to the question of turnout, varying from place to place, issue
to issue or candidate to candidate.
The congressional elections this year look to constitute a
referendum on President Trump, which he would like it to be. What is his outlook?
To begin, he can rely on his core, the faithful MAGA adherents. Supporting him is the essence of their
political participation. Just as he
claims, he is never wrong about anything.
For them, when Trump takes a position, that position is, by definition,
correct. If he abruptly changes his
position, that’s because he knows more than anybody else about underlying
reality.
The Trump core is likely to vote.
Closely related to the core are voters he has convinced that
the Democratic Party is out to destroy America, because it is socialist or even
communist. To convince people of this
view, he must rewrite history, which works for those whose knowledge of history
is shaped by social media and is mostly wrong.
They vote for Trumpers, who will block the supposedly devious Democrats.
The Democratic doubters are likely to vote for GOP
candidates, though some may choose to abstain.
Finally, he would rely on voters whose allegiance to the Republican
Party is ingrained, possibly by family or neighborhood custom. His takeover of the GOP pays off when
traditional adherents remain committed, blind to his departure from Republican
orthodoxy like the need to cut deficits.
This may be especially true in dwindling rural areas.
Traditional Republicans could choose to stay home. While some will remain loyal, others are angry
about their cost of living and government spending. A minority might believe the Democrats could
do better. Some, now fully aware of the
extent to which Trump has turned the presidency to personal profit, will want
to openly reject him.
National policy is often something of an abstraction for
voters, which explains why foreign policy issues are secondary. The practical implications of key policies –
income, prices, opportunity, nondiscrimination – matter more than policies removed
from daily life. Sometimes, of course,
people vote on social issues to the point of ignoring their own wellbeing.
A theme of recent elections has been the message that people
want change. Government is not yielding
results that improve their lives. The
elections of Barack Obama and Donald Trump were essential expressions of that
message. But reality has to reflect the
results that would have to fulfill promises for change.
Trump’s charisma and exploitation of presidential power
suggested that he could bring real change.
His policies on immigration, environment, energy, and civil liberties
carried his unique stamp.
His greatest problem may have been failure to keep America
out of war, as he had promised, and the abandonment of his winning promise to
bring prices under control and open economic opportunity. A failed understanding of economics and an overly
exalted belief in American power led to the clear failure of his trade policy
and his Iran war.
Promises were not kept at a cost to the people, and they
noticed.
Trump’s belief in himself extends to a belief that, if the
election comes down to him, the voters will keep faith in him no matter their own
worries. MAGA has momentum, he believes. To help it, he proposes massive taxpayer
supported handouts.
Will voters double down on their commitment to Trump or turn
away from him in their own self-interest?
A divided people, not the polls and pundits, will ultimately provide the
answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment