After the former president and near-presumptive Republican presidential nominee was convicted of a historic felony, the entire political world — from candidates and strategists to scholars, observers and the media — is trying to figure out what it means now, and what it might mean in November.
To say this is an unprecedented moment in our short political history is an understatement. (By the way, I've probably written versions of the previous sentence more times than I can count, but but I'll leave it at that.) My favorite pseudo-pundit to (mis)quote these days is Doc Brown, from the end of the first Back to the Future, who tells Marty McFly that he doesn't need to worry about whether there will be roads big enough for the DeLorean to travel at 88 miles per hour: “Where we're going, we don't need roads.”
To be honest, I recently found myself misquoting Docter, using a scene from the film to explain what little we know about our own political future as we try to cut through the fog of opinion polls.
This may sound like an evasive answer, but it is the reality of the current political climate in this country. There was a time when immoral and unethical behavior was a political death knell. But with big tech companies and social media algorithmically accelerating our tribal instincts, it has become easier than ever for someone to victimize a segment of the population, regardless of their guilt or innocence. Red and blue tribes today have an uncanny ability to distinguish between bad behavior from those on their side while blaming their enemies for similar or even worse characteristics.
To me, the real question of whether the ruling will have an impact on voters is in the hands of both presidential campaigns: To what extent will the ruling come to the forefront rather than just setting the tone?
The question I keep asking myself is: Would this ruling mean more to voters if President Joe Biden's approval rating were higher?
It's a hypothesis that cannot be tested at this point, but I can't help but wonder if some voters are ignoring Trump's moral and ethical failings simply because they believe Biden is unfit to hold office. Of course, if Biden had better political positions, the Republican Party might have gone in a different direction in the primaries.
The point is that I believe politics is a zero-sum game, that this is a binary choice, and that the public must choose the flawed person. This goes back to your question about the two types of undecided voters in this election: aspirational voters and transactional voters. Aspirational voters vote for what they believe is in the best interest of the country, and transactional voters vote for what they believe is in their own interest. I don't know how many aspirational voters are left among the undecided electorate, but I think there are quite a few transactional voters left.
So far, the limited polling I've seen (including private campaign polls) suggests that the ruling over the past week has barely changed the numbers. Of course, even “almost” can be decisive in a close election, so I wouldn't discount the idea that a 1-2 point change would be OK.
But what's clear to me is that there's a divide within the Democratic Party on how to use the ruling, and your perspective on that may differ depending on whether you live in a battleground state or district, or in a blue bubble like New York or Washington, D.C., or some other deep blue area.
I spoke with candidates running for various levels of government in the battleground state of Michigan last week, and they all gave me the same campaign pitch: When talking to voters, the economy was top of their list, with abortion rights and public safety (including the border) as the other two issues.
None of them believed that a message based on preserving or saving democracy would be effective with undecided voters, and none of the Democrats I spoke to strongly supported Biden making Trump the centerpiece of his reelection campaign. That's not to say these people didn't worry about the future of democracy and the rule of law. But they were realistic about what was on the minds of the voters they were trying to reach.
The concern among these candidates is that Biden's democracy-first, “Trump is a threat” message will alienate transactional voters who are fed up with the current economic situation.
When a candidate, especially an incumbent, is unpopular, there are two basic ways to solve the problem: Method 1: Make the campaign a choice, not a referendum, and do your best to make your opponent the focus of the campaign. Method 2: Improve on your own strengths and convince voters that their initial judgment was wrong.
Most incumbents are choosing the first path. It's a tried-and-true one. It embodies one of Biden's favorite mantras: “Don't compare me to God Almighty. Compare me to the other options.”
But what if you have a lot of negative information about your opponent or your numbers? still Unfazed? That's where Biden is now. We don't know what new negative information voters need to consider about Trump. Obviously, there is a lot of negativity priced into Trump, but could it get any worse?
Here's a bold idea: What if Biden ignored Trump over the summer and focused all his efforts on rehabilitating his image with voters?
When it comes to Biden's approval ratings, his personal connections with voters, once his great strength, are becoming a liability.
In October 2020, just weeks before Biden won the presidential election, an NBC News poll showed that a majority of respondents (55%) rated him favorably and 41% unfavorably. In the same poll, then-President Trump's favorable and unfavorable ratings were 43% to 52%, with Biden trailing by 13 points and Trump trailing by 9 points.
Biden was not in a position to have to appeal to the final undecided voters as the “lesser of two evils.” The “doubly haters” were not a very large group, and winning or losing them was not crucial for Biden. However, it is worth noting that Biden won over a majority of voters who had a negative view of both him and Trump.
Biden currently has a lower approval rating than Trump did in 2020. In an April NBC News poll, Biden's approval rating was 38% to 52%, a 14-point drop, while Trump's approval rating was roughly the same, with 38% approving and 53% disapproving.
When views of both candidates are more negative than positive, undecided voters are more likely to judge both candidates in a highly transactional way: which candidate will be better for them or hurt them the least.
Trump is a living example of George Bernard Shaw's famous line, “Don't wrestle with a pig, you get each other dirty, and the pigs love it.” Trump always does better when the questions about personal character are somewhat neutralized, which is my guess why Trump currently has a slight lead over Biden. He's clearly getting the “double-hater” vote now.
Meanwhile, Biden's personal approval ratings look a lot more similar to Hillary Clinton's in 2016 than they do to Biden's in 2020.
In a poll conducted after the release of the Access Hollywood tapes in October 2016, Clinton's personal approval rating was 37% positive and 50% negative, roughly the same as Biden's now. For Trump, it was even lower (again, the poll was conducted three days after the release of the tapes), at 30% positive and 63% negative. Trump's rating rose to 40% positive and 46% negative in his first poll after the election. Clinton's rating in her first poll after the election was 32% positive and 54% unfavorable.
Will Biden be able to attract undecided voters who feel as negatively about him personally as they do about Trump? Clearly, Clinton failed to attract doubly displeased voters in 2016. Biden may not be able to win unless he improves his personal standing among voters.
I know the idea of broadcasting a positive message goes against the grain of how campaigners think these days, and the cynic in me understands that the political climate is so negative that a positive message can seem out of touch with the average voter.
But even if the Biden campaign were to take a hard, negative stance against Trump now, as they did last week with Robert De Niro's press conference and subsequent TV ads narrated by the actor, it's not clear that this would work as long as Biden is viewed as unfavorably as Trump. The whole De Niro episode is a real head-scratcher for me. I don't see what point this strategy has other than raising money from the base.
Ironically, Biden had the instinct to deal with Trump early in his term by barely mentioning him, only occasionally calling him his “predecessor.” Biden's instincts about where to go in 2019 were also spot on, as he steered clear of the left-wing coalition in the Democratic primary.
It doesn't suit Biden to be the target of personal attacks. But it seems he has decided to go down that path with a “fight fire with fire” mentality. I know politics is not easy, but there is a time and a place for everything. I'm not sure these negative attacks against Trump will work unless Biden first improves his standing among the public. If Biden's personal negativity overlaps with Trump's negativity on Election Day, he is likely to fail.
The right's obsession with Fauci
Since the pandemic began, the anger directed at Dr. Anthony Fauci from many on the right has been breathtaking.
Does he have absolute authority? No. But he is clearly a dedicated public servant who has dedicated much of his professional life to the world of public health. He is not poor, but he clearly gave up millions of dollars he made in the private sector over the years to stay at the National Institutes of Health.
His treatment at a House hearing this week by Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was particularly egregious: I don't understand why members of Congress can't accept the premise that disagreements don't cause offense.
Greene was not interested in being briefed by Fauci on some of the decisions he advocated for during his time in the administration. She simply wanted to perform for her social media audience. Many outgoing and former members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, have complained to me privately that her actions are emblematic of what is wrong with our current politics.
Sadly, if this is how unelected officials are treated in public, we are all losing out going forward. Don't take my word for it. Here's what Dr. Fauci said at the hearing this week, and what was largely ignored in the press:
“I think this is a huge disincentive for young people to want to go into public health, or even science or medicine, because I'm a very high-profile person, and it's clear to me that not only I, but many of my colleagues who are less visible than me, receive threats every time they speak out to defend what we're trying to do to protect the American people. And when they see their colleagues receiving threats, they say to themselves, 'I don't want to go there. Why should I be involved in that?' And we have potentially very talented people who are important to maintaining the integrity and excellence of the public health enterprise in the United States. The best people aren't coming because they don't want themselves or their families to go through what their colleagues are going through.”
This isn't just true in public health, it's true in just about everything that involves politics these days: We're not keeping the best and brightest in Congress. We're not letting the best and brightest run for office. And we're not going to recruit the best and brightest to places like the NIH or the military.
One day voters will miss anonymous well-meaning people running for office. Let's hope they realize this before it's too late and people like Marjorie Taylor Greene become the norm.
This week on NBC News' Chuck Toddcast, Chuck is joined by Steven Brill, author of “The Death of Truth,” to talk about the spread of misinformation and disinformation. Sign up to receive new episodes of Chuck Toddcast every Wednesday and Friday. Apple Podcasts, Spotify Or wherever you listen to podcasts.
