Where Is DeSantis’s Polling Bump?

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

48 Responses

  1. North
    Ignored
    says:

    It should be obligatory to note, perhaps somewhere around when you commented on how long it is before the first primary, that polling this far out is not terribly removed in predictive power from examining chicken entrails.

    That being noted I would rather have money riding on Trump than DeSantis currently.

    Their lack of predictive power aside the polls do have one significant influence: on other candidates. DeSantis’ perceived weakness will encourage more candidates to jump into the race and that, alas, redounds to Trumps benefit as it’ll fracture the anti-Trump vote whereas Trumps core supporters will not be easily split. With the GOP Primary states being “winner take all delegates” a concrete plurality is all Trump needs to build a dominating lead.Report

  2. Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    DeSantis has been hurt by three things – the entrance of other viable non-Trump candidates, negative press coverage for normies, and a break in bad news for Trump. The first I see as a real threat. The second reflects how bad the press wants Trump to get the nomination. The third is a passing phenomenon. But it appears that negative press hurts DeSantis more than it hurts Trump.Report

    • North in reply to Pinky
      Ignored
      says:

      I suspect anyone who could be swayed by the media to dump Trump is long gone.Report

    • InMD in reply to Pinky
      Ignored
      says:

      I think the tougher problem for the GOP to grapple with is that Trump is not just the media spectacle, cult of personality candidate, but that there are a bunch of substantive issues where he is the electable moderate compared to the neocons, the zombie Reagans, and the social conservatives. Bottom line is he will promise not to cut entitlements for seniors, in the ultimate show of chutzpah play down and ultimately disavow Dobbs, and play to protectionist and isolationist sentiments that don’t code well to traditional post Cold War partisan lines. Unless one of the other candidates is willing to actually take a risk and break mold in some important way(s) Trump will crush them all.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        What possible reason is there to assume any of this?

        These are all assumptions of principles he holds, or beliefs that he adheres to.

        Yet, everything we know about the man is that he has no principles or beliefs, but instead will cravenly adopt any principle or support any idea if it offers some gratification, even if it is directly contradicting everything he said ten minutes ago.Report

        • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          There is no assumption to be made. He is doing all of this now. And he is doing it because he has no principles or commitments and is therefore willing to say whatever he thinks he has to say to get power. And because the GOP is still a totally moribund party on virtually all matters of substance it’s once again proving incapable of dealing with him.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            Which means he will sign whatever bill a Republican Congress sends to his desk, whether it is abolishing Social Security or a national abortion ban.Report

            • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Quite probably yes but not really the point of the OP or the conversation of why no one in the Republican primaries has been able to threaten him so far.

              As an aside I think it would be good for all of us in the anti Trump coalition not to let the guy live rent free in our heads. The endless moral outrage isn’t conducive to good analysis or improving the situation, which is another thing Trump and his base rely on.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Which part of the analysis is not good?

                Other than the “He’s an electoral moderate” stuff.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                See my response below to Lee. Of course Ron Haley Christie isn’t going to say ‘don’t elect him because he’s making empty promises and for all the lib owning and bloviating will govern exactly how we would.’ That would be ridiculous and it illustrates why they’re stuck.Report

              • North in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                The point, Chip, is Trump will promise these things that violate GOP orthodoxy and his voters will support them regardless of the reality that Trump has no principles that he adheres to because the only alternatives to Trump promise things those voters don’t like and those voters have every reason to believe the Trump opponents are being honest about it.

                If their choice is a guy who says he won’t cut their medicaid and social security who might be lying and a guy who says he’s going to cut their medicaid and social security who is likely telling the truth then of course they’ll vote for the former.

                And the non-Trump GOP can’t fight Trump in these areas because they aren’t capable of doing so. They can’t change policy positions (their money folks won’t let them and they don’t want to) and they can’t lie (because they’re on record espousing those policies).Report

              • InMD in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                Exactly.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                DeSantis’ feud with Disney violates GOP orthodoxy, and in fact is a flat contradiction to DeSantis’ public stance even 5 minutes before Disney made its public statement.

                And yet DeSantis’ voters, like Trump’s, immediately switched their stance as well.

                I just don’t see any difference between Trump and DeSantis voters.Report

              • North in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Sure, but few actual voters on the right care about libertarianism or rah-rah businessism; those’re doctrines that the elite on the right hand down. DeSantis kicking Disney around on behalf of cultural grievance plays fine with the voters on the right because what libertarianism they have is instrumental; my freedom from things the left does is important but the lefts freedom from things I like is abhorrent.

                But Trump? Why vote for the cheap knockoff (who’ll cut your Medicaide and Social Security) when the original Trump model is available and says he won’t?Report

            • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Yes?

              This might be an explanation for why he’s not a good/transformational President, but misses InMD’s point that getting elected doesn’t mean caring about being a good or transformational President; just about getting elected.

              We already know he’s bad a Presidenting.Report

        • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          I agree with a lot of this; but there’s an even simpler phenomenon: a significant minority of R voters *really* like Trump. This is different from a significant Majority that would *support* Trump in an election.

          The risk for a non-Realignment candidate is that they want/need to win with Trump’s coalition. He can’t afford to Nuke Trump unless he’s going to replace voters in a Realignment strategy. He needs Trump to implode. But yes, that’s why the ‘re-tread’ Republican Establishment will fail. You either win with Trump’s coalition or push the Re-alignment boulder over the cliff and see what happens. I think RDS is hoping for the Coalition path where Trump –somehow– fades. He doesn’t come from the re-alignment wing of the party… and I’m not sure he ‘groks’ what that would mean or how it would work.

          At least, that’s how it looks so far… maybe they roll out some grand strategy that we’ll all marvel at… but so far not really seeing that in the offing.

          p.s. Has DeSantis (re-)Announced in actual meat-space? The Twitter thing was a Thing… but if that’s the only thing so far, it’s probably something that needs remedying.

          edit: slightly mis-threaded… responding more to InMD’s comment than the sub-comments.Report

          • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
            Ignored
            says:

            Yea, no real quibbles with this, and ‘pushing the realignment bolder over the cliff’ I think is similar to what I meant by ‘breaking the mold.’ All of the other candidates so far have proven too afraid to violate any orthodoxy which is what someone would need to do to at least have a chance to beat Trump. If DeSantis or any of the rest of them can’t do that they might as well all put exclamation points after their names and we can watch Trump knock them down like bowling pins. The only way Trump maybe fades is if he goes to prison… and even then…

            As an aside I think the level of triggering provoked by calling Trump the ‘electable moderate’ of the GOP field is telling on so many levels it could be the subject of its own post.Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        Trump as an electable moderate certainly doesn’t conform to how Trump acted during his first Presidential term with his dickwaiving contest with North Korea, bog standard Republican economics, and nearly everything else.Report

        • InMD in reply to LeeEsq
          Ignored
          says:

          Yea, someone should probably attack him on that stuff. But given he is running against Republicans right now you understand why they would struggle to do so, right?Report

          • LeeEsq in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            Republicans can’t attack him on that stuff because then they would have to owe their own unpopular agenda. Democratic politicians and others have been attacking Trump on this but his voters don’t care.Report

            • InMD in reply to LeeEsq
              Ignored
              says:

              I don’t understand the point you’re going for. There’s no world where a major party nominee doesn’t get a whole lot of votes. There are people who will vote their party no matter the candidate or what the other does. Always has been that way always will be.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                True for President. Some years back the Republican nominee for Colorado governor finished third, with 12% or so of the votes. Came close to costing the Republicans their status as a major party in the state’s scheme of things. The kind of state-level events that led to that almost certainly can’t happen at the national level.Report

  3. John Puccio
    Ignored
    says:

    I wouldn’t put much stock in polling numbers until after the first debate.

    People need to see the two on the same stage trading punches.

    Unlike 2016, Trump is going to square off against someone who will actually punch back.

    If Desantis doesn’t get a huge bump then, Trump will cruise to the nomination.

    Let’s see what happens.Report

  4. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    The 2024 Presidential election is almost certainly going to be a rematch between Trump and Biden. I get that a lot of people don’t want this but reality is reality. Unless the writers start getting very hackish.

    Even if Trump somehow manages to lose the nomination, he is almost certain to cause havoc and not accept it.

    DeSantis’ main fan is that premature sour puss Ross Douthat. Ross D seems to like DeSantis as someone who will impose strict social reactionary politics but without any of Trump’s aesthetic ugliness or corruption. Ross D is just a bit my junior and clearly out of step with his generation and he hates it.Report

    • Slade the Leveller in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      There is a non-zero chance that both these guys croak before November 2024. The Republicans at least have someone on the bench. I have no idea who the Dems have.Report

      • CJColucci in reply to Slade the Leveller
        Ignored
        says:

        They have lots of people broadly acceptable to most of the party, too many in fact. None of them is an obvious successor and there wouldn’t be time for someone to separate from the pack.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Slade the Leveller
        Ignored
        says:

        First, 18 months prior to November 2020, I doubt that anyone would have picked “Joe Biden” as the Dems best chance.

        But second and most importantly, I think there is a very strong and growing sense among politically-active Dems that the election is a referendum on liberal democracy itself, meaning I expect turnout to be high and any Generic Democrat who can credibly be seen to support democracy will get virtually all of Biden’s voters.

        And anyone who can be credibly seen as a supporter of abortion rights and LGBTQ rights will hoover up any stragglers and probably a significant percentage of crossover squishy middles.

        None of this is to predict the outcome, but I really don’t think the Dems chances in 2024 depend very much on Biden/ Not Biden.

        So long as these videos keep coming of shrieking Karens showing up to school board meetings, or internet tough guys harassing store clerks over pride tee shirts and lite beer, and as long as we keep hearing these horror stories of suburban moms being forced to bleed out waiting for doctors to decide to treat their miscarriages, you can expect the “Not Republican” vote to be highly motivated.Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          I keep on writing that Biden is one of the most underestimated politicians out there. The problem with this is needing to read people continually underestimate and underate him again and again like people in polls who call him slow and pondering.Report

        • LeeESq in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          I happened to be one of the few early Biden supporters on the other blog. So yes, I thought Biden was the Democratic Party’s best chance even though I got laughed at a lot for that. Biden is basically the anti-Trump in temperament and that is who we needed to nominate.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          Aw, man! I picked Biden back in August 2019. Which is a mere 13 months prior to November 2020.

          But, like, there were a ton of people on board 13 months prior…

          I’ll see if I can find earlier. (But I remember saying “Does Biden win MI, WI, and PA? Then Biden wins the election” a buncha times.)Report

          • North in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            You’re mean Jay, those links make me cry. I did well in the prediction games but all those names in the old conversations. Who started cutting all the onions in here?!?Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Slade the Leveller
        Ignored
        says:

        They have lots of people but no one except a kook is going against Biden because Biden is the President and it is rare to go against a sitting President from your own party. As to your contention, it is plausible but seems unlikely at this point to be honest.Report

        • CJColucci in reply to Saul Degraw
          Ignored
          says:

          I think the assumption is that Biden goes toes-up and there’s a scramble to be the stand-in, not that any of the bench players would take him on.Report

          • Jesse in reply to CJColucci
            Ignored
            says:

            The reality is, no matter how uncomfortable it makes a certain kind of Democratic voter of all ideologies if Biden goes to the great ice cream store in the sky, Kamala’s the nominee.

            We can talk about people we prefer or whatever, but the incumbent black female POTUS is not losing a primary, unless you can tell me the candidate who can win over black voters in South Carolina against her.

            In 2016, there was somebody – the experienced VP to the first black POTUS. I see nobody, even people I’d prefer on electoral or policy grounds .

            Like, tell me who is the person who gets the 53-year-old black female mail carrier from exurban Columbia not to vote for Kamala.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Jesse
              Ignored
              says:

              Corey Booker.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                VP Harris would have to step in it bad for Booker to have a shot against her.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                She’s proven to be exceptionally capable.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                To get booker past the voters over her she has to be more than “unimpressive” to the media jabbering heads. She has to be flagrantly inept.
                I say this as a person who’s never carried water for her- Harris needs merely to be an adequate VP, a bar she has easily cleared, to be in the lead for the running. An adequate performance isn’t going to lose her the nod to a black man unless she absolutely fishes up campaigning or otherwise fishes up (or some other candidate absolutely catches fire).Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not saying that Kamala won’t be the presumptive nominee if Biden falls over at an event or something.

                I’m just saying that she will have a row to hoe and she will have to go up against other folks again.

                And that didn’t go well for her last time. Well, until the VP pick.Report

              • Jesse in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “And that didn’t go well for her last time. Well, until the VP pick.”

                The same way the ’08 campaign didn’t go great for Joe Biden…until the VP pickReport

              • North in reply to Jesse
                Ignored
                says:

                Pre-fishin-cisely. It’s not like we don’t have bad veeps from history, even recent history, to look at. Harris? She is not one of them. Not even close.

                I’m not saying she deserves the nod, I’m saying someone seeking to unseat her won’t be able to cite her veep performance as a reason to pass her over.Report

              • Jesse in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                Like, Kamala isn’t my first pick for 2028, but also, many of the people saying she’ll lose in a landslide are the same people who continually overthought Trump’s popularity and GOP electoral success because of 2016. Both on the Dumb Left and the Right.

                Yes, if the 2028 GOP ticket is say Brian Kemp / Kim Reynolds, with an economy that is finally probably slowing down, Kamala’s likely in trouble.

                But, it’s extremely like that if Trump is alive, he’s the 2028 nominee and if he isn’t alive, the front-runner is somebody who spends Biden’s 2nd term only talking about things OANN, Newsmax, and Matt Walsh cares about.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Jesse
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not saying “she’ll lose in a landslide”. I’m saying that she’ll have to fight to maintain her presumptive nominee status and I’m not sure that she will win that fight.

                I look forward to this being interpreted as me saying “Kamala will give a speech and halfway through a sentence will say ‘excuse me’ and then burp and this will cost her the nomination.”

                “Have we ever even heard a presidential nominee burp? Why is Jaybird arguing that Kamala will be the first one to burp on a live microphone?”Report

              • Pinky in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Booker’s absurd in the same showy-and-stupid way at Harris. One might out-buffoon the other on a given day, but there’s no higher ceiling for floor for either of them.Report

              • Jesse in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                I think there’s a world where maybe Warnock’s the guy, but guess what, Warnock isn’t going to run against the first black female VP (or POTUS), unless she has like, Bush late 2nd term approvals.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jesse
                Ignored
                says:

                The reason I would see Warnock as a lot more formidable is because he now has a history of winning hard fought, tight elections in a place where Democrats haven’t won a lot in recent history (even if one of the opponents was Hershel Walker). While I think the criticisms of Kamala have become a bit oversold the thing that sticks out to me is that she has never won a competitive general election. Not once. Which isn’t to say climbing the ladder of intra party politics doesn’t require a certain kind of skill and ambition, but it isn’t the same as beating Republicans in a big, high visibility contest.

                It isn’t a sexy topic but at the end of the day it’s the most important thing. That she hasn’t ever done it is a real red flag, no matter what the problems are with her chief of staff or underwhelming trip to the border or whatever the latest chatter on her is about. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a little identitarian box checking (and honestly BSDI) but the whole point is to actually win.Report

              • Jesse in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                The 2010 AG’s race was competitive – a moderate LA DA Republican candidate in the biggest GOP wavee in a generation where Kamala was painted as basically a left-wing San Francisco radical – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_California_Attorney_General_election

                Now, I know the pushback is, “that proves how weak Kamala is, that she was close in California,” if you ignore the cycle it was, and the background of the Republican candidate.

                Putting that aside, yeah, I’d prefer a Whitmer/Warnock ticket in 2028. I just don’t think the difference between that and say, Kamala/Walz is as big as people are claiming, on TV and the Internet.

                Especially if the GOP continues to be the GOP.Report

  5. Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    He’s been obviously running for months. I’m not sure why making it official would change the polling much.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *