How Do You Solve A Problem Like The Donald?
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0
In the months leading up to January 6, 2021, Donald Trump, then the president, launched a concerted effort to prevent the outcome of the 2020 election from becoming a reality. Trump and his team contested the election results in court, told his followers that the vote was plagued with fraud, and finally provoked the riot and insurrection that were intended to prevent Congress and the Electoral College from carrying out their constitutional duties. Yesterday, there was finally some indication that Trump might pay a price for his actions.
Oh sure, Trump was rightfully impeached, but Republicans, even those who were critical of him rallied to his aid and prevented the conviction that would have banned him from holding office again. It is only now, almost two years later, that Republicans are starting to openly break with the disgraced former president. Even at that, the rift is about Trump leading the party into midterm losses rather than The Former Guy’s behavior, which now includes mishandling classified information as a private citizen.
Without the midterm disaster, Trump would be the undisputed frontrunner for the 2024 Republican primary. Even now, he is deadlocked with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and could conceivably win the nomination. (Winning the general election would be much more difficult.)
It was into this situation that the January 6 committee jumped yesterday with a recommendation that the Department of Justice file criminal charges against the former president. The committee reported that it believed that Trump should be charged on four counts: Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Conspiracy to Make a False Statement, and “Incite,” “Assist” or “Aid and Comfort” an Insurrection.
Trump clearly acted very poorly and dishonorably in the aftermath of the 2020 election, but there have been legitimate questions about whether his conduct met the bar to be considered criminal activity. Investigation of many of those questions was rushed in the rapid-fire impeachment that followed the insurrection. Impeachment does not require laws to be broken, but a criminal prosecution does. The congressional inquiry was needed in order to probe more deeply into Trump’s actions.
Now, two years later, we know more about Trump’s role not only during the insurrection but during the two-month buildup to the assault on the Capitol. We also know that he is utterly unrepentant for what he did.
Only one other president has ever been in a similar situation. In 1974, Richard Nixon was under the threat of both impeachment and indictment when he resigned from the presidency. Like Trump, Nixon refused to admit to any wrongdoing. Unlike Trump, Nixon had lost the support of his party and did not attempt to run again.
For whatever reason, Trump refuses to step away. Maybe it’s his ego. Maybe he believes his own press. Maybe his legal woes have left him financially unable to retreat from the limelight and still live in the manner to which he has become accustomed. Most likely, it’s a combination of several factors.
Whatever the reason, Trump presented the country with a serious problem when he announced his reelection campaign. Given his past behavior, he cannot be allowed to inhabit the White House again, but if he is voted down, his followers might well refuse to accept it, and this time, they might be prepared for more widespread violence. At this point, Trump and MAGA represent a national security threat to the United States.
If Trump would just fade away then maybe he could be treated like Nixon. There could be a pardon on the grounds that he retires from public life.
But that isn’t going to happen. Trump would never accept those terms and he could not be trusted to abide by them if he did.
Former Republican congressman, Will Hurd, wrote on Twitter, “The Department of Justice should use its full force in evaluating these charges from the 1/6 committee, but ultimately I think that in order for us as a country to move on and finally turn the page on Donald Trump, he needs to be beaten in a Republican primary.”
I don’t disagree, but I also don’t have any faith that Republicans will vote against another Trump nomination. Time and again, we have seen Republicans flirt with breaking with Trump only to rally around him once again.
Even after all he’s done, he still has a large constituency in the GOP and I have no doubt that if Trump won the nomination in 2024 that most of the critical Republican voices that we hear today would line up to support him. As the committee announced its decision yesterday, Mike Pence, who was nearly killed by the mob on January 6, went on Fox News to minimize Trump’s actions as taking “bad advice from lawyers.”
Let’s be clear: We are at this point because Republicans have repeatedly refused to hold Donald Trump accountable.
The opportunities to rein Trump in were many, but Republicans were always too afraid of their base to act on their self-proclaimed principles. Among the missed opportunities was the firing of FBI Director James Comey, the dismissal of several inspectors general who issued critical reports, the use of national emergency declarations to bypass Congress, the quid pro quo of Ukrainian military aid for an investigation into Hunter Biden, and, of course, the question of whether to impeach or even investigate Trump for his role in the insurrection. In each of these incidents, Republicans protected Trump and, as a result, emboldened him.
Now Republicans lie in a bed of their own making. After years of protecting Trump, they no longer want him, if only because they realize that he is costing them elections, but neither can they afford to alienate his base. The 2024 primary is going to be a battle between the vestiges of traditional Republicanism and MAGA. And there’s a good chance traditional Republicans will lose once again.
The January 6 committee may provide the Republicans with an out. If Trump is indicted, it might nudge Republican primary voters to an alternative candidate. (On the other hand, they might also rally to him out of spite.)
The question now is whether the DOJ will act on the committee’s recommendations. The Justice Department is under no legal obligation to indict or prosecute Trump because the criminal referrals carry no legal weight.
The referrals do increase pressure on the DOJ. A prosecution would be attacked as politically motivated by Trump’s allies, which is to say by most Republicans, but a failure to pursue criminal charges both makes Trump look stronger and encourages bad behavior by others. Kari Lake is Exhibit A.
I think that Justice Department prosecutors should look at the available evidence and, if they think that they can get a conviction, they should indict Trump. The only thing worse than failing to prosecute the former president would be a failed prosecution.
Presidents are not above the law and former presidents certainly are not. Donald Trump’s unethical and criminal actions cry out for justice. Failing to hold him accountable only encourages other, perhaps more competent, would-be strongmen to launch their own plots to seize and hold power illegally.
Donald Trump deserves jail time for trying to steal the election and provoking the attack on the Capitol. If we fail to hold him accountable for this most egregious of abuses of power, then we will deserve the consequences.
Repeatedly here we leftists and liberals have begged conservatives to tell us what circumstances would make them Vote for a Democrat. Time and time again they have dodged the question. And then voted for the very same republicans who have engineered this ongoing threat. Until the GOP chooses to address that, there’s no hope. Because even when he’s indicted and tried on both state and federal charges his base won’t abandon him. They may not abandon him if he’s convicted.
And yet even with this dire threat on the table, conservatives won’t send the GOP packing.Report
LEGALIZE POT JESUS CHRIST JUST LEGALIZE POT
Also, end the DST switch. I’d prefer standard time year ’round but saving the daylight would be acceptable so long as we stopped doing the switch.Report
You’re in luck on the first one, as they’re trying (and have, successfully, in many states). The second, however, seems to be mostly a Republican thing.Report
Oh, is it no longer Schedule 1?
I hadn’t heard! Let me get to googling!Report
Ah wait, they have to legalize it first, and then you’ll vote for them, once the one thing that would make you vote for them is done. Makes sense.Report
Here, allow me to copy and paste this first sentence from the original comment:
“Repeatedly here we leftists and liberals have begged conservatives to tell us what circumstances would make them Vote for a Democrat.”
I have told you.
Hey! Hey Phil! This is what happens when people tell you “this is what circumstances would make me vote Dem”, if you were wondering.Report
Well, they’re doing a scheduling review right now, so there’s a least a chance you’ll be voting Democrat starting next year. Exciting stuff.
(I did not vote for Biden in ’20, and almost certainly won’t vote for him in ’24.)Report
Yeah, there’s a chance! Fingers crossed! Maybe this time they’ll do it!
(My price is not “almost doing something” or “getting really close to doing something” or “would have accomplished it if only the Republicans weren’t in the way”.)Report
Just out of curiosity, does the Vote Democrat switch flip all down the ballot?
Like you will presumably start voting for Democratic Congrespeople, state officials, city Councilmembers ?Report
Nope he will always be trollingReport
When it comes to local politicians, I vote for the ones that best represent me. There are very few city ones, for example, that are 3rd party.
I vote for Richard Skorman, for example (dude dropped out last year, more’s the pity).
However, there is a prominent local politician that I used to vote for that I learned did not tip when he went to my little local diner. I was shocked because he is one of the guys who gave speeches back when we had our caucuses. Dude didn’t tip. Huh.
I stopped voting for him and started voting for his opponent.
And I have mentioned before that I voted for the Republican Congressman whose office helped with all of the immigration paperwork to get Maribou here on a fiancée visa. When he retired (forcibly, I understand), I started voting 3rd Party.
I will continue to vote my conscience locally but, sure, move Pot to Schedule 3 at the least and you can count on my Blue Vote for National Elections.Report
All of which is fine, but this explains why you are not a liberal, and can never become part of the liberal coalition.
Your interests are just too divergent from ours, your priorities are too transactional for solidarity to take hold.
Again, not a criticism, just an observation.Report
Well, best of luck with your future liberal endeavors!
To be honest, I think that progressivism is heading in a vector where our interests will diverge even more.
Hey, Phil! In the future, when you’re tempted to ask “what circumstances would make you Vote for a Democrat?”, please keep this exchange in mind.Report
Jaybird’s monomania strikes again!!!! Without realizing that a lot if states have legalized marijuana. Also without understanding that people care about multiple issues and are not monomaniacsReport
Saul, I was asked “what is your price?”
I have stated my price.
You don’t want to pay it? You think it is too high? Fine. Go to the next person. Maybe they will be impressed by your moral positioning.Report
The real problem is that hardly anybody believes you. Most of us believed KD’s and Mike Dwyer’s and a few other persons’ account of their “price.” We simply thought that, as a matter of substance, what they said was indistinguishable from demanding that Democrats either: (1) adopt the conservative Republican position on issue A, B, or C; or (2) throw an important Democratic constituency under the bus, which led, naturally, to the conclusion that what they were really saying — entirely in good faith — was “I’ll vote for the Democrats when they become Republicans.” But we paid them the respect of treating their stated conditions as their real conditions.
By contrast, many of us have heard your stated “price” and pay you the respect of thinking that you are not silly enough for that to be serious.Report
I am that silly. I assure you.
Now, if you want me to get into the reasons behind it, I can give you a bunch.
They include the whole issue of how Marijuana is actually *TWO* things:
1. A plant that can give you a pleasant stupor and mild euphoria and some variants help with some kinds of creativity (and has medicinal benefits to boot)
2. A mystical “get out of jail free” card for police. “I kicked down the door because I detected the distinct smell of burning marijuana.” “I was in fear for my life due to the distinct smell of marijuana.” “Sure, our cop shot the guy in his own apartment after mistaking his apartment for her own but we found marijuana in there afterwards!”
Legalization of marijuana would take away much of the latter. Though, sadly, I’m sure that there will still be a handful of states that keep that particular talisman because it’s just too useful.
My father died of malignant melanoma in the 1980’s. He took chemo. I remember him vomiting because of it. I understand that marijuana can help with that particular kind of nausea and, ain’t this a kick in the head, there are studies that show that marijuana can actually help against melanoma.
My father refused to take it, mom said. He wanted to set a good example for his kids and not use an illegal drug just because it was convenient.
I’d also like to enjoy a doob while watching Quantum Leap. The old one, I mean. I don’t know about the new one just yet.
And while I suppose I could provide an entire LITANY of things that the democrats would have to do in order for them to get my vote, I decided to pick just one. One simple one. One silly one. One that you’d think that it’d be easy to get on board for.
And you know what? That price is too high.
I’m more likely to encounter people arguing that I shouldn’t have that particular price than I am to encounter people who tell me that, yeah, that’s one that should have been paid a while ago.
Anyway, I will continue to say “that’s my price” and I expect to be told that I should be a cheaper date.
“You should instead vote for the democrats because they tried to abolish student debt!” or something like that. “They’re better than Republicans!”Report
That’s all very well, but you’re looking for love in all the wrong places, and ignoring your real enemies, which makes it hard to take this “price,” and the assurance that you will deliver once it is paid, seriously.Report
Well, you don’t have to believe that I will deliver once its paid. Heck, maybe I don’t even exist! Like, I’m some weird GPT-2 thing that is still going in 2022.
That said, assuming I’m human, the issue’s been kinda moot so far, hasn’t it?
(And, let’s face it, Colorado’s already blue so it’s not like “if only you had voted for Joe Biden! We might have legalized it by now!” is actually on the table.)Report
That explains a lot. There has always been a Turing Test quality to exchanges with whatever lies behind the Jaybird avatar.Report
Do you feel you’ve passed or do you feel you’ve failed?Report
I don’t grade my own papers. I’m content to let the voluminous record speak for itself.Report
That wasn’t my question.
But okay.Report
By “dodged” you mean “gave you an answer you didn’t agree with”, right? Because I’ve laid out my answer before.Report
Most of us have. Repeatedly and in the best of faith. That someone with a straight face continues to say otherwise speaks volumes.Report
Time and again when even those of us who are moderate or only just slightly conservative have answered that question in good faith, the reply from the leftists on the site is “it wouldn’t matter anyway, they’d never vote for a Democrat.” You’re being disingenuous if not outright dishonest here, which shouldn’t surprise me since I’ve read many of your articles.
All I’ve ever asked from any leftist on this site is that they take a look at the excesses on their own side with a critical eye, and for an explanation as to why it is they’ve abandoned so many of their traditional liberal principles like defense of the first amendment. In response, I’m gaslighted and told that there are no excesses on the left, if there are any they’re all justified, and by the way, the first amendment means that Molotov cocktails are free speech.
So…shrug.Report
Hi Kristin,
The talk about liberals ditching the 1st Am is way overblown. The 1st Am is the bee’s knees. Big thumbs up. I can be plenty critical of other libs. If we’re talking 1st Am then i’d beg any 1st Am defender to also care about what R’s are doing to it. See DeSantis and his anti woke bills, books being taken out of classrooms based on the thinnest complaints.
One of the lamest artifacts of internet/social media discourse is cherry picking data to show that an entire group believes something.
If anybody ever tells you there are no excesses on the left i’m more then happy to join you in mocking them. Does anybody really even say that?Report
Most of my pre-OT blogging was criticism of Obama and the Democrats for what they thought they needed to do in things like national security (where for instance I pilloried them for making the Patriot Act permanent). I’ve also got a history in pixels of lambasting their obsession with out Republicaning the GOP. You might want to go look that up and read it some time. I have also lamented here in a good many threads the way the Democrats have given in on issues I care about – both to the GOP and to their own tired “centerists.” I do t really feel like recapitulating all that.
Despite what you and others might have read in the most recent Twitter thread I’m also a big fan of a broad 1st amendment, so long as hate speech, fascism, and incitement to violence get roundly punished. We tough at a war two generations ago to kill fascism off – and yet 40% of our modern fellow citizens think it’s just fine. Those folks and their speech are a direct threat to what’s left of our grand experiment and while I do not support government censorship I also do t support that idea having any public platform. It threatens my daughters, it threatens my gay relatives and it threatens my black relatives. And for the moment it has a titular figurehead, whose party refuses to punt him. Because if tgat 40%.
So keep on voting for republicans all you like – just remember they want authoritarianism which will makes exchanges like these go away.Report
It’s always funny when right-wing loonies say they’re just moderates or slightly right-leaning people scared off by the evil Leftists who control everything. Extremists like…Joe Biden. Chuck Schumer. Nancy Pelosi. Raphael Warnock. Jim Clyburn.
Yes, yes, I know you voted for Obama.
Guess who also did that? Kari Lake.
I’m open with the idea I’m to the left of 97% of the population and I deal with the fact. Be actually honest where you actually are on the Overton window, instead of playing the aggreived reasonable person, scared off by the Woke.Report
“Only one other president has ever been in a similar situation.”
Why doesn’t Clinton count?Report
Many of us think he does but not u a way you agree with. He was rightly impeached for lying under oath – though that’s way less of a threat to Demi racy or the constitution then is say stealing classified documents or fomenting and insurrection.
The problem with the Clinton analogy is that he was placed in that position over a peccadillo because that’s all the Republicans appointed special counsel could find he he had done – and it wasn’t illegal no matter how unethical.
Nixon and Trump are cut from very different cloth.Report
The only solution is a pillory and a group of 13th century peasants, armed with rotting cabbages.Report
As a citizen, my focus isn’t on the narrow question of whether Trump broke laws. My focus is on the 40% or so of my fellow citizens who demand either Trump or someone very much like him.
It isn’t even that I’m asking them to vote for a Democrat. All across the country there remain thousands of Liz Cheneys, Adam Kiplinger’s, Justin Amashes and Mitt Romneys.
But by overwhelming majorities, the Republicans who support democracy and rule of law are being driven out and replaced with insurrectionists.
Trump is the tumor which has metastasized.Report
As a reader on this site, it’s my great hope in 2023 that you guys stop writing 97% of your articles about Donald Trump. It’s boring, makes this site which I still think has so much potential to do some really good journalism, seem amateurish in the worst possible way, and accomplishes nothing but to feed your own personal obsession(s) with Trump. It doesn’t foster cross-the-aisle understanding and communication, it changes no minds, it isn’t insightful, it gluts the market which is already hypersaturated with Trump articles, and did I mention how mindnumbingly boring it is?
To be honest, I think Donald Trump was the best, most thrilling thing that ever happened to some of you. The masturbatory joy with which some of you greet the 1,000,001st article saying the exact same thing is absolutely baffling. It’s like your every fantasy about the Republican boogeyman came true and you just cannot resist talking about it constantly because it’s the high point of some of your entire lives. Watching you obsess about Trump and him obsess over your obsessions is like watching a very sick dysfunctional relationship, where both parties are just completely getting off on it. Because YOU ENJOY IT even more than he does. You love that Donald Trump exists and you love it that he justifies you finally being able to set aside all those pesky liberal principles that you never believed in anyway. You love him, it is obvious you love him with every one of these ridiculous, dull, and self-indulgent articles published pretty much on the daily, and quite frankly, you all deserve each other.
Too bad you’re taking the rest of the country down with ya.Report
You know it’s funny. There were only two things that the “trump” election and administration did that had any interest to me. 1) The reaction of every single media outlet I viewed/listed to (particularly NPR) who lost their shit when Trump was elected, confirmed that their so called media neutrality was BS, and 2) the hysteria that those on the left had over ever thing he said he’d do and never did. The spite continues. Now it’s just boring. But rest assured, OT and other places will be talking about trump for years to come…. 🙂Report
This is my third comment on the thread and the first time I’ve mentioned Trump, and I’m only mentioning him to talk about how I didn’t mention him.
Obviously, I don’t know what the next two years will be like, but I’ve asked a couple of our fellow commenters for their predictions, and they both thought Trump would win the nom (one of them predicting he’d already have major endorsements by this Christmas). At this point I’m assuming that DeSantis gets the nomination. If people want to write about Trump, fine, but they’re just increasing his chance of winning. Most conservatives I know have moved on from him.Report
God bless you for saying this!
It will baffle me for the rest of my days the electorate of these United States thought he was fit to be president.Report
I don’t want to hijack the thread, nor do I want to start an argument, but I could give you my solution to that puzzle if you want.Report
I’m always ready for a good threadjack!
Let me amend my statement. I was recently talking to someone about where my son went to college, Waukesha, WI. Solid middle class town, maybe even a tiny bit upper middle. At any rate, not one iota of economic anxiety, which is usually the explanation given for DJT’s appeal. Waukesha Cty. is about as red as you get. Not the Robert Lafollette kind of WI red, but whacko modern day red.
With that in mind, fire away.Report
OK. Consider the following statement: “The US had a moron at its helm for at least 8 of the years between 2000 and 2016, and it didn’t significantly affect my life.” I’d speculate that more than 70% of voters would agree with that statement. With that in mind, and with the results of 2016 and 2020 as evidence, should you really assume that people only vote for someone they consider fit to be president?Report
Yes. Or rather they vote for the fittest candidate presented to them who fits their ideology and priors.Report
If you’re saying that fitness for office is the third-highest priority for voters, then that in itself serves as an answer to Slade’s puzzle.Report
You assumed an order to those things. I simply stated the totality of choice conditions. No one cites for someone they believe unfit, not matter prices or ideology.Report
I’m just following your sentence structure. You said max A given B and C.Report
What I wrote quite plainly was that people vote for the candidate who they believe most fit for office and that ideology and priors were their boundary conditions. Meaning that the data we see based on voting patterns is that someone who is fit for president but doesn’t match one of those other boundary conditions doesn’t get that persons vote. Likewise someone who matches those boundary conditions may still not be seen as fit for president as was the case in 2016 for all of DJTs primary opponents.Report
There were only 2 men who held the office during those 16 years. I voted for one and against the other. Neither of them did I consider unfit for the office. If the party of my preference nominated someone like DJT you better believe I’d be looking elsewhere on the ballot.
I think you turned my statement around, to be honest. Obviously the people who voted for him thought he was fit for office. My bafflement resides in how that belief can be held.Report
It was much easier before Jan 6th, and he hasn’t run for office since.
“Unfit for office” is a remarkably low bar. The first time he ran, it was against someone who got caught selling pardons. If she was fit for office then claiming he wasn’t was hard before the 6th.Report
You and Pinky have both compared DJT to other people who’ve run for the office. What I’m saying is the man, irrespective of anyone else who’s either held or aspired to hold the office, was unfit.
An illustrative example: https://time.com/4984525/freed-hostage-donald-trump-presidency/Report
I understand your point. I’m not saying anything that’s a defense of Trump. I’d consider him remarkably unfit. The reason I’m bringing up other presidents is for evidence that “unfit” isn’t seen as a disqualifier.Report
If the choice is between DJT (erratic Billionaire who has been manipulating the media for 40+ years) and someone who was caught selling pardons, then you don’t get to say “irrespective”.
Now since then DJT has taken up arms against the Country so there’s that. IMHO we’ve move past “corrupt and self serving” and are now into “crazy old man” territory.Report
Dems will always have Trump, and R’s will always have the Clintons.Report
Yeah well when DJT testifies for 11 hours in front of an opposing party congressional investigation that produced no criminal referrals and no legislative changes then maybe they can be called equivalent.Report
I wasn’t equating them. Both parties seem to need a bete noir and they fit the bill.Report
I don’t see it.
Saying they need a bete nor implies both are empty of a positive agenda.
MAGA by its very definition is about redress of grievance and punishment of wrongdoers.
Progressives have grievances too but not wrongdoers to punish.
For example, progressives want to end trans discrimination, but not harm non trans people.
Conservatives want to roll back protections for trans people and label them as dangerous perverts.
These are not symmetrical.Report
If your goal is to end all economic/social inequalities, then everyone who is above average or who wants to be is a wrongdoer deserving punishment.Report
Take that up with someone who fits that description. I can’t think of anyone here who does.Report
Its hard to find an actual proposal from any progressive of any significance that poses an actual harm to anyone.
Even the most progressive taxation envisions levels of taxes on par with most other developed nations. Even the most draconian regulations would be equal to any of our peer nations.
As opposed to having officials from Dept of Family Services come to throw you in jail and take your kids away because you allowed your teenage son to experiment with makeup.Report
Do historical examples count or are you specifically talking about currently?Report
What Europe calls nations we call states.
Relevant comparisons should be to the entire EU, which as a whole is multi-cultural, large, diverse, and has vast differences in it’s economies. Looking at one state (Idaho) and saying all 50 states should be like that implies differences don’t exist.
In addition the Left’s insistence on collective outcomes/rights conflicts with individual rights. Affirmative Action for colleges means Asians are punished for their skin color. Obama’s crew removed due process for sex crime accusations at a college level.Report
I don’t think having a bete noir necessarily equates to having no other positive agenda. It is helpful to have someone to point to while saying if you vote for this guy and his philosophy we won’t be able to accomplish our goals (be they positive or negative).
It just happens that DJT and HRC make great betes noirs for those who are looking for them.Report
So, when do we get the special prosecutors report in that pardon selling scheme? Because just as surly as DJT appointed one to look into the Mueller investigation he would have appointed one to go after that wouldn’t he?Report
There was no reason for the pardon other than the money. There was no reason for the money other than the pardon. People are far to the Left as Jimmy Carter have pointed that out.
Yes, we can’t prove it was illegal in a court of law. This is an issue with the limitations of the law and the sophistication of the corruption.
However, we still had a politician running for President who got caught selling pardons.
And we also have her followers looking at this and proclaiming it’s not disqualifying nor even existing. So it’s Trump world with better spin and polish.Report
To be fair, it was Bill with the pardon power.Report
To be fair neither of them had pardon power when Secretary Clinton ran for President.Report
We got here by questioning whether or not Trump was unfit to be President (and whether this was obvious before Jan 6th).
A husband-wife team with a history of selling pardons as President and collecting money from governments she was dealing with as Secretary suggests the answer should be “no”.
If we’re not going with “no” (and clearly we’re not), then nothing short of taking up arms against the US would do, which of course Trump has done so there’s that.Report
We occasionally write about politics. He is the presumed front-runner for the GOP nomination. The last time he was President, it ended in a violent President-sanctioned attempt to overturn the Constitutional order. I don’t see how we can’t write about that sometimes.Report
Team Blue needs an enemy to run against, normally that enemy is racism. The problem is this means all of Team Red needs to be racists, when typically their behavior matches Team Blue.
Trump, with his unfiltered speech, was a massive bump up to Blue’s world view. They get to use him to “prove” to themselves that everyone who voted for him was a racist and that racism is why they voted for him… because the alternative, i.e. that people voted for Trump in spite of his faults because Blue’s plans aren’t very popular, isn’t bearable.Report
Immortality is not a thing but an ample portion of the American electorate decided that they wanted raw and unvarnished racism in speech and policy and are not backing down. There are some brighter spots but it is mainly because under 45 voters and especially under 35 voters reject what the GOP stands for.
The Bulwark staff are the only honest #NeverTrumpers because they realize defeating the Trumpian beast means voting DemocraticReport
And like I’ve been saying, the bigotry overrides any other priorities, even the desire for living in a liberal democracy under the rule of law or even life itself.
There was that article in the WaPo the other day about how the health outcomes in Republican states are measurably worse than in Democratic states, yet people, even the people gasping for air in a wheelchair, continue to vote Republican.Report
These sorts of studies say more about the author than the reality unless they are able to detail what the link is supposed to be. Reading Scientific American, I see NO attempt to normalize for other factors that we know have affects.
I did one minutes worth of research to check whether Blue/Red is related to age (something we know is strongly related to health), and found that Red averages 5-7 years older.Report
Here is the article, you can read it for yourself:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/12/16/politics-health-relationship/Report
Your link is pay walled. However it’s probably talking about the same study that mine is talking about: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-in-republican-counties-have-higher-death-rates-than-those-in-democratic-counties/
The dates match up.Report
Here is the study referenced by WaPo, published by Lancet.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667193X22002010
The authors names are different than the on you found.
The study, published this month in the Lancet Regional Health-Americas, found that the more conservative the voting records of members of Congress and state legislators, the higher the age-adjusted covid mortality rates — even after taking into account the racial, education and income characteristics of each congressional district along with vaccination rates.Report
I just suggested this sort of science tends to say more about the researcher than the researched.
So let’s check… expert in racism/health, expert in inequality in health, expert in stats (no other information), expert in disease (probably including Covid), and expert in racism and inequality in health.
Their findings were: For example, in models mutually adjusting for CD political and social metrics and vaccination rates, Republican trifecta and conservative voter political lean independently remained significantly associated with an 11%–26% higher COVID-19 mortality rate.
The key way to focus on the political leader was ” concurrent overall voting record and their specific COVID-19 votes”.
Translated into English, the section of the general public whose ideologies included not treating Covid seriously tended to not treat Covid seriously even after we adjust for vaccination rate and thus enjoyed a higher mortality rate.Report
No, it does not say more about the researcher, unless you can demonstrate error.
And in addition to COVID outcomes the second study in the WaPO article:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275466#abstract0
Which found that overall health outcomes were worse in Republican dominated states due to policies around guns, smoking and public health.Report
If you’re looking for ways to prove your team is better, then that’s what you’ll find.
Your link is a wonderful example of nonsense, exactly what I’m talking about.
One of the big “health outcomes” they’re focused on is murder. However rather than drill down into where young men are dying, that paper averages the entire nation together. So my Florida zip with a murder rate of zero is in there with inner city Chicago.
It has to take a national average because most/all of the high murder areas are Blue plantations and the purpose of the study is to prove Blue is better.
Then it pulls in policy on assault weapons. If we’re looking at national averages, then assault weapons kill roughly no one.
We do some magic statistics, and zap. If my Florida suburb bans assault weapons then inner City Chicago will be less murderous.
And I think that’s what we call “demonstrating error”.Report
We used annual data from the 1999–2019 National Vital Statistics System to calculate state-level age-adjusted mortality rates for deaths from all causes and from CVD, alcohol-induced causes, suicide, and drug poisoning among adults ages 25–64 years.
They don’t talk about murder at all.
You can’t argue from authority, since you obviously aren’t one, but neither can you assert competing data and logic to refute the study.
Given the choice between professional researchers who have a published paper, and some guy on the internet misquoting the study and doing a lot of handwaving, I gotta trust the researchers.Report
A more recent international analysis of 2014–2015 found that higher U.S. death rates before age 65 were due to drugs, suicide, and homicide, plus higher CVD and respiratory mortality among women
…such policies are associated with lower rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related deaths…
One comparison of U.S. life expectancy in 2006–2008 with that of other high-income countries attributed the higher U.S. death rate to noncommunicable diseases (especially CVD), unintentional injuries, and homicide (for men);Report
You’re talking about a different study- There were two in the WaPo article.
I’m quoting the second link I gave you.
But here’s the thing- We are talking about three different studies- Two cited by WaPo and one from Scientific American that you found.
Different sources, different sets of data, but all telling a similar story.
And they match other stories we’ve heard, about the opiod epidemic and declining health outcomes in rural Midwest.
They match studies showing higher rates of workplace accidents in conservative right to work states, they match studies of obesity in rural and conservatives regions, and so on and so on.
It isn’t just one study in one media outlet, it is multiple studies, across different times and by different sets of researchers all pointing to a common conclusion.Report
I was quoting the 2nd study you put up. The link is in your 11:33am (EST) post. Click on it and search for “homicide”.
The anti-vaxers use similar logic.
If we drill down to specific issues you have some better points. Covid we would expect a blue/red split for obvious reasons.
The opioid epidemic was more a thing in some states than others, although looking at the maps I’m not sure I see a solid blue/red split.
https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/2020.html
Obesity (I’ll link the map after) seems to say that California and New York do better than the other states but I’m not sure why. Note if Obesity is simply a thing that urban environments deal with better than rural, then I’m not sure where we go with that.
Homicide (which should be seriously affecting death rates if we’re going to include it) should be mostly a Team Blue thing since Blue owns all the infected inner cities. As such it should strongly be linked with Team Blue policies (especially gun control). I’m not suggesting one causes the other although if we’re going to use this paper’s “logic” then I should.
Jumping from these facts to “gun control is effective at reducing murder” should be insane with this kind of study since the high murder rate areas also have high gun control. That these studies don’t do that is STRONGLY suggestive they have a way to “normalize” the data, i.e. spin the things statistically so it’s not blue’s fault.
The core problem is after you’ve opened the door to “my team is the best and we’re going to use stats to prove it”, then we’re deep into junk science.
The conclusion is voting blue will make you younger, less likely to get Covid, more likely to smoke (your link) but without health effects (also your link), slimmer, less likely to suffer from opioids, but more murderous.
Whoops, the studies don’t say “more murderous” because the inner cities totally aren’t blue owned, that’s not on their ticket, because of statistics or something.Report
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/prevalence-maps.htmlReport
You misread the report-
The authors mention that OTHER studies examined homicide, but not this one.
This study examined four causes of death- Cirulatory illnesses, alcohol induced deaths, suicide and drug poisonings.
Not homicide.
Also, your obesity link shows exactly my claim- the states with highest obesity are also Republican dominated. Kentucky and West Virginia are highest, followed by the Confederate states.
Yet another study, courtesy Yasmin Tayag at the Atlantic showing that health outcomes in Republican counties have been worsening for decades even before COVID.
https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj-2021-069308Report
So the gov has ways to make us less fat? Or would voting Blue make me thinner?
My read on this is it’s somewhere between a random walk and a measurement of the rural/urban divide. My walking around the block(*) every evening strongly influences my health, my voting habits do not.
There’s a stronger claim that it’s healthier to live in an urban environment as opposed to rural. However I’m not sure what we’re supposed to do with that. Will voting Blue change a farm into a city?
(*) Takes an hour, it’s a big block.Report
In my very red state, the GOP controlled legislature is very much actively denying healthy outcomes to its citizens as a matter of legislative policy. We remain one of the states to not expand Medicaid under the ACA even though it would positively affect a variety of poor health outcomes we currently have – things like maternal mortality post parting. We are also normally last or second to last in educational outcomes and per pupil spending, and lack of education has a strong correlation to adverse health outcomes. The legislature justifies these Olivier to prevent fraud – by which it is generally accepted in the state that they mean morally unworthy people don’t deserve state support. Such people are generally also understood to be poor whites and most blacks.
And yet the GOP maintains political power. Voting here very much affects health outcomes.Report
What you’re trying to do is link [specific policy] to [specific bad outcome].
That’s a good idea, someone should do some studies. We could compare the states that accepted the ACA expansion (Red or Blue) vs the ones that didn’t.Report
So the gov has ways to make us less fat?
Socialist governments have reliably resulted in weight loss among the citizenry.Report
I don’t know about you, but I’m just glad that Chip was able to overcome that which was holding him back from reading scientific papers.Report
Oh, and it’s not “states”, it’s “counties”. The study also talks as a “link” “health policies”, but those aren’t decided at a county level.
That person in the wheelchair who is voting Red won’t get younger if they vote Blue.Report
Here’s the thing: the only thing that stops Trump from becoming the 2024 GOP nominee is if he decides not to do it. Because if he runs and loses, what’s going to happen? Right, he’ll start screaming that the primary was stolen (as he did in 2016). And while the MAGA diehard aren’t a majority, they are a big enough minority that them bailing on the GOP wrecks the party and their nominee gets destroyed in the general.
Why would the GOP want a piece of that? Why would DeSantis? The GOP has chained themselves to a suicide bomber. And the only choice they have is to give into his demands every two years.Report
I would support Republicans stealing the primary from DJT if it looked like he would win it.Report
What if we just ditch primaries altogether? All they’ve done is entrench the major parties and suck public money into private organizations.Report
So you are willing to support unethical and possibly illegal acts to keep him from winning as opposed to voting out those who support him? Fascinating.Report