Robert Kagan wrote a gloomy essay in The Washington Post on November 30 predicting that if Trump is re-elected, he will establish a dictatorship. On December 7, he wrote another essay on how to stop Trump. The bottom line, he contends, is that Republicans must stop him. They know the danger he poses, and they alone have the credibility with Republican voters to convince them that Trump is unfit for office.
Kagan knows well that all of the other candidates for the Republican nomination (except Chris Christie) have stated that they would vote for Trump even if he is convicted of federal crimes.
But his formula to defeat Trump is to assume that Nikki Haley is best positioned to compete with Trump. He believes that the others should endorse her and that she should denounce Trump. She should make clear that Trump is unelectable because of his refusal to accept the election of 2020 and the likelihood that he will be convicted in one of his many trials.
If Republicans agree that Trump is damaged goods, he will lose a large section of his voters—not his MAGA cult, but other Republicans.
Kagan writes:
The first step is to consolidate all the anti-Trump forces in the Republican Party behind a single candidate, right now. It is obvious that candidate should be Nikki Haley and not because she’s pro-Ukraine but because she is clearly the most capable politician among the remaining candidates and the performer with the best chance, however slim, of challenging Trump. All the money and the endorsements should shift to her as quickly as possible. Yes, Ron DeSantis is likely too selfish and ambitious to drop out of the race, but if everyone else does and the remaining money and support all flow to Haley, he will quickly become irrelevant….
Trump supporters fall into roughly three categories. The great majority are completely committed to what former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman has called the “cult” of Trump. They are out of reach for Haley. Another smaller group has no problem with Trump, so long as he can beat President Biden and the Democrats next year. This faction is undoubtedly reassured by polls that say that Trump can win, so the possibility that Haley can also beat Biden is irrelevant to them. They prefer Trump, and there is no reason for them to rethink their position so long as Trump remains clearly electable. Finally, there is a small percentage of Republicans who say they will support Trump unless he is convicted; recent polls suggest these people make up roughly six percent of GOP voters in some of the key swing states…
If she is serious about trying to stop Trump, however, there is only one way to cut into his mammoth majority, and that is by raising doubts about Trump’s electability. The way to do that is to warn those Republicans still capable of listening that a Trump presidency really does pose a risk to our freedom and democracy and the Constitution. That is what will be required to win over the small percentage of Republicans who are still willing to drop Trump if he is convicted. And if Haley can begin to reel in those voters, she can begin to raise doubts in the minds of those who are supporting Trump because they think he can defeat Biden and the Democrats in November. In short, the way to beat Trump is to make him seem unelectable, and the way to make him seem unelectable is to show that he is unacceptable.
Trump will campaign on the claim that he is a victim of political persecution by the Biden asministration. If he becomes the nominee, the Republican Party will echo his claims. They will insist that the American judicial system is corrupt.
Think about that precious small percentage of Republicans who now say they would not support Trump if convicted. They are actually saying a lot more than that. These are Republicans who still regard the justice system as important and legitimate, who consider special counsel Jack Smith’s charges worthy of a jury trial and legitimate, and who for the moment think a guilty verdict, were it to come, would be legitimate. Can we count on them maintaining those views over the coming weeks and months if all they hear from Republican leaders and conservative media is that the trials are illegitimate acts of persecution? Do the people hoping to be saved by the courts think that these voters will conclude on their own that the trials are legitimate when their entire party is saying they’re not?
As Trump remakes himself into a victim of persecution, will Haley and other Republicans still insist that they will support Trump if he is the nominee? In doing so, they will be tacitly agreeing, and certainly not refuting, the claim that Biden is a dictator and Trump is being persecuted. By the time the trials get underway, that will be the standard Republican talking point. Today, it is just the most devoted Trumpers, but before long, we will see even respectable Republicans “raising questions” about the prosecutions, to the point where the entire court proceeding will be delegitimized in the eyes of the ordinary Republican voter.
What effect will that have on that small percentage of Trump supporters who now say they would drop their support if he were convicted? Those who cling to the hope that the trials will bring Trump down need to understand that the number of Republicans willing to abandon Trump because of a conviction, already small today, is going to be much smaller come spring. As the Trump narrative gains traction and becomes the baseline Republican position, Haley will become a footnote as Republicans of all stripes rally to the martyrdom of Trump…
What they need to hear right now (and for the rest of the campaign) is that they are right, that the Biden administration is not a dictatorship, that the trials are not an abuse of power, and that if Trump is convicted, justice will have been done. And they do not need to hear this from Democrats and Post columnists. They need to hear it from their fellow Republicans, from Republicans they admire. At some point, some leading Republicans are going to have to display the courage to defend the justice system even though that will put them in direct conflict with Trump and his supporters.
We probably can’t expect Haley to take the lead in making the case for Trump’s unacceptability, even though she should. But other Republicans certainly can. It is no secret what people such as Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) think about Trump. Romney’s biography is filled with whispered comments by leading Republicans privately indicating their fear and loathing of Trump. But today, those Republicans remain in their coward’s crouch, hoping to survive as they have the past eight years — by keeping their heads down, by waving off Trump’s threats and dictatorial behavior. Romney, who once had the courage to vote to convict Trump for trying to overthrow the government in 2021, now tells us “at some point you stop getting worried about what he says.” At this moment, Trump and his supporters are engaged in an attempt to obliterate history right before our eyes, to say that down is up and up is down, and that instead of destroying democracy Trump is saving democracy from the Biden tyranny, and that this is what the trials are about. And this is Romney’s response? The people who want to put their faith in the good judgment of Republican voters are counting on those voters to come to the right conclusion themselves while even their most respected Republican leaders are too frightened to defend the justice system against Trump. That is a lot of faith indeed.
But imagine a different scenario. Imagine that Republicans who know Trump poses a threat of dictatorship suddenly discovered their courage and began speaking out, and not just one or two but dozens of them — current and former elected officials, former high-ranking officials from the Trump and past Republican administrations. Imagine if the wing of the Republican Party that still believes in defending the Constitution identified itself that way, as “Constitutional Republicans” implacably opposed to the man who blatantly attempted to subvert the Constitution and has indicated his willingness to do so again as president.
Then the Republican primary campaign would become a struggle between those defending the Constitution and those endorsing its possible dismantlement at the hands of a dictator. That small percentage of Republicans who now say they would drop Trump if convicted would remain in play, and those now sticking with Trump because he can beat Biden might have reason to start questioning that assumption. It would not take a lot of speeches, or well-placed interviews, or appearances on Sunday shows, by the right people to change the conversation. But that, it seems to me, is the only chance Haley has of giving Trump a run for his money in the primaries.
If Haley can’t beat Trump in the primaries, he thinks she should launch a third party campaign.
Could this coalition come into being? Yes. But it will require extraordinary action by a number of important individuals. People will have to take risks and make sacrifices, but is it asking too much? The risk of standing up today will not be nearly as great as it might be after January 2025. Does McConnell really want to go down in history as the silent midwife to a dictatorship in America? Can Romney not see that it is his destiny to lead the way at this critical moment in America’s history. Did Paul Ryan sell his soul for a Fox board seat? All these people went into public service for a reason. Wasn’t it to rise to an occasion such as this? Former Wyoming congresswoman Liz Cheney shouldn’t have to fight this alone. For people such as Condoleezza Rice and James Baker and Henry Paulson Jr., what was the point of acquiring all this experience and respectability, if not to use it at this moment of national peril? Why are Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and John Cornyn (R-Tex.) defending Trump when they must know he is a threat to American democracy and the Constitution? Where is Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, the man who courageously pushed back against Trump’s effort to steal the 2020 election? Where are all those officials who learned firsthand what a danger Trump was and who have occasionally said it out loud, people such as former attorney general William Barr and former White House chief of staff Gen. John Kelly? Where is former vice president Mike Pence, who single-handedly saved our system of government almost three years ago? Was that his last act? And for that matter, where is former president George W. Bush, who is well known to be appalled by Trump? A word from him would go a long way to emboldening others. What a service he could perform for his country.
Kagan says that stopping Trump would not take a miracle. It would take courage.
How likely is that?
He concludes:
Some readers of my last essay asked fairly: What can an ordinary citizen do? The answer is, what they always do when they really care about something, when they regard it as a matter of life and death. They become activists. They get organized. They hold peaceful and legal rallies and marches. They sign petitions. They deluge their representatives, Republican or Democrat, with calls and mail, asking them to speak up and defend the Constitution. They call out their political leaders, state and local, and give them courage to stand up as well. Americans used to do these sorts of things. Have they forgotten how? At the risk of sounding Capra-esque, if every American who fears a Trump dictatorship acted on those fears, voiced them, convinced others, influenced their elected officials, then yes, that could make a difference. Another ship is passing that can still save us. Will we swim toward it this time, or will we let it pass, as we have all the others? I am deeply pessimistic, but I could not more fervently wish to be proved wrong.

Trump is not unelectable.
Most Republicans do not doubt his electability.
So, wrong and wrong.
Democrats have a choice. They can go with Biden, who has an approval rating somewhere between blech and OMGNO, or Biden can step aside and they can back a candidate who can actually defeat the Vile Orange Monster.
LikeLike
The Dumpster is not a vicim. In fact, he victimizes others for his own profits and benefits. He’s a CON-Man to the MAX.
LikeLike
I agree with him. It will take courage. I am not optimistic either, but I would like to believe that when push comes to shove, members of the Republican party will do everything they can to keep Trump out office for a second term. Each and every Republican in leadership ought to be vocally and enthusiastically supporting Nikki Haley right now. She appears to be the only reasonable alternative at this point in the primary.
LikeLike
Hope springs eternal. I remember a lot of folks putting the same hopes on Hilary Clinton, who also had historically low approval ratings.
LikeLike
Democrats have a bad habit of ignoring what the electorate is telling them quite clearly. But, but, but, you’re wrong, electorate! LOL
LikeLike
Who should be the Democrat candidate Bob? Who is an “electable” Democrat nationally? Now that unpopular Gavin Newsom’s state approval numbers have tanked, he is unelectable, too. And that’s before lots of us “concerned” and “worried” Democrats have amplified how voters certainly would never vote for someone as unpopular as Newsom over Trump because Newsom is far too unpopular and Trump is not.
So who instead of Biden?
LikeLike
Al Franken
LikeLike
Al Franken would walk away with the election with a historically high mandate. Pair him with Raphael Warnock.
LikeLike
Al Franken? You don’t think that is magical thinking? Anyone else in the wings if the 74 year old (next year) Franken doesn’t work out?
LikeLike
Thing I did not say that NYC PSP attributed to me number gazillion and three:
that we should choose, instead of Biden, some “random” Democrat
LikeLike
I also find it odd that you seem to think the DNC should just choose a random Dem.
Nothing is stopping them from running the way my beloved (lol!) Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter. Still remember his amazing speech at the 1980 convention. (sounds like it could be a speech made today):
“Among you, my golden friends across this land, I have listened and learned. I have listened to Kenny Dubois, a glassblower in Charleston, West Virginia, who has ten children to support but has lost his job after 35 years, just three years short of qualifying for his pension. I have listened to the Trachta family who farm in Iowa and who wonder whether they can pass the good life and the good earth on to their children. I have listened to the grandmother in East Oakland who no longer has a phone to call her grandchildren because she gave it up to pay the rent on her small apartment. I have listened to young workers out of work, to students without the tuition for college, and to families without the chance to own a home. I have seen the closed factories and the stalled assembly lines of Anderson, Indiana and South Gate, California, and I have seen too many, far too many idle men and women desperate to work. I have seen too many, far too many working families desperate to protect the value of their wages from the ravages of inflation.
…
And someday, long after this convention, long after the signs come down and the crowds stop cheering, and the bands stop playing, may it be said of our campaign that we kept the faith. May it be said of our Party in 1980 that we found our faith again. And may it be said of us, both in dark passages and in bright days, in the words of Tennyson that my brothers quoted and loved, and that have special meaning for me now:
For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”
LikeLike
FACTS:
Biden has really low approval rates across the country.
Low approval ratings are associated with losing elections.
Trump is leading Biden in almost every poll.
Trump has promised that if he becomes president again, he will seek to act as a dictator.
CONCLUSION FROM THOSE FACTS:
Given how disastrous it would be for our country and for the world if Trump won the 2024 election, and given the increased probability of that due to Biden’s low approval ratings, Biden should step aside in favor of a more viable candidate, for the good of the country and the world. He has served honorably. He has done a lot of good. He has reached the absolute pinnacle of his profession. Now, he needs to do the right thing, the statesmanlike thing, and step aside.
LikeLike
Things I did not say:
We should choose a “random” Democrat to replace Biden.
Things I find utterly ludicrous:
It doesn’t matter how popular a potential candidate does because however popular he or she is, Republicans will just smear him or her anyway, and he or she will consequently drop low in public opinion polls.
Being disliked by the public at large is great news for a potential candidate. We should make sure to choose candidates that the electorate dislikes when elections really, really matter.
LikeLike
Biden has been a great president.
I would very much like to see him have a second term.
However, he is extremely unpopular with the electorate, and Trump is beating him in the polls nationally and by large margins in key swing states.
It is possible that in a second Trump/Biden matchup, Biden would win. Anti-Trump voters REALLY hate the guy, and perhaps that will be enough to galvanize them, despite their tepid feelings about Biden.
However, that’s a HUGE risk to take. Too great a risk, I think.
Consider this scenario: Suppose that you get bitten by a snake. You don’t know what snake, but it had red and black and light white or yellow bands. A doctor says that in your area, there is a 58 percent chance that it was a coral snake and that if you don’t get the antivenom, you will die. However, there is a 42 percent chance that the snake was a harmless scarlet kingsnake, also found in your part of the country. Getting the venom shot is VERY MINIMALLY painful and will cost $20 copay with your insurance. So, what should you do? Given the extremity of the negative outcome, the Precautionary Principle applies. You should take the small hit to avoid the enormously bad outcome.
LikeLike
While Haley has not wasted time on useless culture wars, she is still a tax cuts for the wealthy, corporations and trim Social Security and Medicare for working people member of the GOP. She refused to expand the ACA in South Carolina, and she is known as a hawk. The bad news about Haley for Democrats is she is a good communicator, and she projects an air of authority. She would do better than Biden in a debate.
LikeLike
Yeah, she’s quite representative of her extremist party. She’s NOT riding in to save the day like Dudley Do-right or Sir Gawain. Livery emblazoned with the True Cross?
LikeLike
I watched a couple of those debates. My lord. What a vile lot. All of them.
LikeLike
Biden shouldn’t do a debate.
LikeLike
Biden won’t even really do a campaign. He will do what he did last time. Sit back and watch the show. There is a reason for this. And it’s not that he has had a life-long stuttering problem.
LikeLike
As much as I agree with Kagan’s analysis, it’s wishful thinking that Republicans will stand up to Trump. They have bent the knee at every opportunity.
The problem is that are the minority party. With Trump, they attract a lot of voters that otherwise wouldn’t vote. They need those voters not just for Trump but also for downballot offices.
The Trump voters won’t turn out for Haley. This puts Republicans in a worse position for all offices. In fact, the Trump voters would revile Haley because Trump would attack her endlessly.
I know traditional, 20th century style Republicans who so thoroughly dislike the Democratic Party that they will vote for Trump anyway. Even though they don’t care for him. As long as their more traditional wing shows up for Trump, the added Trump voters bring Senate seats and some swing districts into play.
Republicans understand this. They know the math. They won’t turn on Trump.
LikeLike
it’s wishful thinking that Republicans will stand up to Trump
Exactly. It’s placing one’s hopes on fairy dust.
LikeLike
Historians will write books trying to understand Trump’s malevolent charisma. Why do so many people of modest means trust him? He sneers at them while courting them. Their type would never be admitted to a Trump club except as servants.
LikeLike
Maybe those same future historians
will shed light on why religious right leaders encouraged the, “people of modest means,” to support Trump and voted for him themselves.
Maybe the historians will expand their analysis to ask why there was no strategy to weaken Trump support in the church organizations. Maybe the historians will find out how taxpayers ended up paying for religious schools and how Roe v Wade got overturned with no pushback against the source of origin and associated zealotry.
Maybe in 60 years, there will be a David Kertzer researching history.
LikeLike
Republican elected “leaders” and Republican voters — the “base” — will not turn on Trump, who has proven himself to be a serial liar, con man, racist, misogynist, seditionist, and traitor to the Constitution and the American republic.
So, what does that say about Republican politicians and Republican voters?
We should call them what they are.
LikeLike
I hold Trump in low regard, but there is a valid point to be raised about the multiple prosecutions he is facing. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Trump is genuinely guilty – very plausible – of all the crimes cited in the various indictments.
All of the crimes are alleged to have been committed in either 2020 or early 2021 – why were all the indictments handed down well into 2023? I realize that investigating white collar crimes usually takes no longer than, say, most violent crimes. But 2+ years? It just so happens that the trials are scheduled in the thick of the GOP primary campaign and at least one trial is scheduled in the general election season. 99+% of Democratic campaign experts regard Trump as the weakest of the plausible Republican candidates: they want him to be the nominee, and they also know that these indictments have only increased Trump’s appeal to GOP primary voters.
These trials should all have been held by now, with only appeals standing in the way of final resolution of the cases. I detest Trump, but I also suspect the timing of these prosecutions – not their substance – as being politically motivated.
LikeLike
Mike,
Many readers of this blog have expressed anger that it took so long to indict Trump. Justice moves slowly. I wish his trials had started in 2022. He would be in jail and not a candidate.
LikeLike
Exactly. Garland has a lot to answer for.
LikeLike
Anyone who has followed Trump’s crimes and sedition also knows that there were investigations that were squashed inside the Justice Department;
and also knows that a SITTING president cannot be, under a Justice Department edict, be indicted;
and knows that Trump was IMPEACHED twice – TWICE – in only one term of office, and those impeachments detailed LOTS of evidence that Trump committed ” Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors;”
and knows that the crimes committed by Trump (ahem, “allegedly” committed –– though we have already SEEN LOTS of the evidence in plain light) were widespread, and varied, and it does take time to painstakingly accumulate evidence that will convict him beyond any reasonable doubt, especially when he uses the media to continue to spread his lies about his “innocence” and a “stolen election,” and his “persecution” by Biden and Democrats, and when his lawyers file numerous frivolous motions and appeals – causing some to be sanctioned by the courts – and when Trump’s combined legal-political-personal strategy is to LIE and DELAY.
I mean, this is not rocket science.
To entertain Trump’s lie that all of this a political hit against him is to profess one’s ignorance. If not utter unawareness, then it reflects MORE than a little disingenuousness.
LikeLike
I think Tressie McMillan Cottom is one of our time’s geniuses. (She’s a 2020 MacArthur fellow.) Her book Lower Ed is a must read for any educator, tying together privatization and the commodification of education. In this essay for the Times she has her finger on the pulse of why so many believe the economy is in bad shape. A “bad” economy is something Trump never stops braying about.
When people talk about the work that makes the economy possible, they often think first and most about child care. There is a good reason for that. Child care is necessary work. It is often unpaid work (when done by mothers) or underpaid work (when done by child care workers). The American Rescue Plan sent $39 billion to states, with the aim of stabilizing child care centers. After some of that funding expired in September, the problems typical of our country’s child care shortage re-emerged. Depending on where one lives, child care centers’ capacity may not have returned to prepandemic levels, producing a lot of anxiety and wait-lists for families. As one of my colleagues recently put it, anyone who thinks he just has bad vibes hasn’t tried to find summer day care for young children.
Then there is the rest of the hidden labor that has to happen so people can go to work, that is so often invisible and has historically been the domain of women: caring for a household and aging relatives, receiving the plumber or delivery truck and, of course, having the time (and money) to make meals, manage doctors appointments, chauffeur kids to after-school activities and clean the house.
No paywall:
LikeLike
Very important, this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is only one way to beat Trump: individual Republicans, through secret ballot, can vote for the opposite candidate. Some of them did in 2020. After January 6, some more will turn against him, but saber rattling against inflation may mean others vote for republicans.
I am not optimistic. Once most people vote for at someone, they feel a loyalty.
LikeLike
Brand loyalty. It’s big in politics.
LikeLike
Should readers anticipate that Kagan will be adding to his list of what should be done and by whom, anti-Trump action plans by highly placed, liberal activists anxious to counter the conservative bishops and Catholic Conferences? The answer to that is, “no,” because Kagan’s lens is distorted by a life on the coast like most political strategists. Religious right voters exist in the midsection of the country- a place limited to fly-overs by the elite pundits from the ivy leagues.
Secondly, Beshears success in Kentucky won’t be modeled elsewhere. To national strategists, Kentucky is in the dead zone like those areas where cell towers don’t exist to facilitate communication.
More’s the pity.
LikeLike
While real conservatives like Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, and the founders of the Lincoln Project want to stop Traitor Trump, they do not control the Republican Party. The MAGA RINOs, Traitor Trump loyalists until death or prison ends their fascsit alliance, controls the GOP.
And Democrats seem too busy walking around on eggshells, broken glass and hot coals, apparently scared to death to confront the Traitor, to stop him.
Who does that leave?
Jack Smith
Alvin Bragg
Fani Willis
Letitia James
If anyone saves our democracy and its Constitution it will be these four and/or the voters in 2024.
Traitor Trump has already been found guilty of rape and fraud.
In the rape case, the jury awarded the victim $5,000,000.
The Democratic party and traditional media should be shouting this repeatedly from the rooftops.
In the fraud case, the judge is deciding how much the penalty will be. Traitor Trump and his crime family have already been found guilty of fraud in New York. And the prosecution is asking for $250,000,000. The final judgement is up to the judge so his name should be on that list, too, especially if that judgment sends Traitor Trump to prison.
Justice Arthur Engoron
The Democratic party and traditional media should also be shouting this repeatedly from the rooftops.
If convicted rapist and fraud Traitor Trump is stopped it will be the justice system and/or the voters that stop him, not the Republican Party and not the allegedly cowardly Democratic Party that is unwilling to fight fire with fire. Dumb butts.
And there are more court cases to come.
LikeLike
Yes. He is a convicted rapist. If the Democratic Party were worth its salt, it would be running ads to that effect 24/7, everywhere. Like this:
xxxxx
The judge in Trump’s defamation suit says that his court determined that Trump committed rape.
Rape.
Should a rapist be our next president?
Obviously not.
xxxxx
But then the DNC would have to grow some.
LikeLike
It’s time to take the gloves off.
LikeLike
So, Kagan proffers a plan to defeat Trump. GOP Party elders coalesce as big talking, anti-Trumpers.
Analysts say that for Trump to win, he only needs to flip Mich. and Georgia and add one more state, Az., Penn., or Wisconsin. Let’s hope someone else has an alternative plan to Kagan’s.
Is it too much to ask the Catholic Church in the US (went whole hog to the public square at the behest of John Paul II) to stand up for democracy?
LikeLike
When the Democratic political machine, including the DNC, anointed Hillary Clinton DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE HAD EXTREMELY LOW APPROVAL RATINGS, I wrote on this blog that this was a terrible mistake. I warned that she wasn’t liked and that she might well lose. And every time I did, people here piled onto me to tell me what a great person Hillary was and how we have to get behind our candidate and blah blah blah.
And she lost to one of the most vile and disgusting people ever to run for political office in this country. Yes, she won the popular vote. But she lost the election.
Now, ONCE AGAIN, we have a candidate with EXTREMELY LOW approval ratings, and one doesn’t dare say here that he should step aside. We have to get behind our guy.
I’m sorry. Too much is at stake. It is not OK to run someone who has a good chance of being defeated by the VILE ONE.
Precautionary Principle, folks. If ever it applied, it does to this, right now. Biden needs to step aside, for the good of the country. This would be the noble thing to do. He has been a better president than I expected Status Quo Joe to be. Much better. But the facts are the fact with regard to his approval ratings. He needs to do the right thing.
LikeLike
Reagan won because the DNC nominated the unpopular Jimmy Carter and if they would have nominated the popular Ted Kennedy LIKE I TOLD THEM TO, Kennedy would have won and we’d be saved from Reagan. I spent so much of 1980 working so hard amplifying how unpopular Carter was (and of course everyone who heard that understood that the subtext of unpopularity is the person’s complete and utter venality, untrustworthiness, and failure as a leader.) I couldn’t believe it when some of my elders tried to tell me that Carter’s unpopularity was due to something other than his total corruption and failure as a president. Because I knew better. As a first time voter, I made sure to amplify all the memes about how unpopular Carter was BEFORE the election – because the subtext of course was that his unpopularity was because he was a terrible, awful person and not because he was being smeared by a right wing propaganda machine. I remember having a friend who was so angry at me for my constant Carter hate, but I was only doing it because I knew that had the DNC not prevented Ted Kennedy from being the candidate, then Ted Kennedy would have handily defeated Reagan.
Same with the wildly “unpopular” Mondale. I blamed the Democrats for not nominating Gary Hart in 1984, because I knew Gary Hart was 100% certain to win due to his popularity. In 1988, I knew that the stupid Democratic voters who mistakenly thought Dukakis was popular just because he had high popularity numbers at the beginning of the year did not understand that was a mirage and only Paul Simon or Dick Gephardt had the “popularity” and either of them were 100% certain to defeat Bush 1. Or maybe Al Gore would have won as the 1988 candidate because he was so popular!
Of course this is all ridiculous. The Republicans run very unpopular candidates and turn them into acceptable ones by getting us to help them demonizing their opponents by amplifying whatever negative thing works.
When was the last time you ever heard Fox News amplifying the narrative every single day for months about how unpopular a Republican candidate is? Or how corrupt a Republican is? It doesn’t happen. The Republicans refuse to legitimize ANY negative narratives about their candidates.
While our side just keeps making the same mistake over and over again and looking for some perfect “popular” candidate and believing that we lose because we didn’t run the “right” candidate. While the Republicans laugh at us and run their unpopular candidates spewing the most unpopular ideas and still win.
Biden didn’t win in 2020 because he was “popular”. He won because WE – the Democrats and progressives – refuse to legitimize the Republican narratives to smear him. That was working great right up to the perfectly decent withdrawal from Afghanistan when instead of refusing to legitimize the right wing narratives, as we did in 2020, our side did what Republicans NEVER do and legitimized a dishonest right wing narrative to demonize Biden. And that’s what happened to Jimmy Carter, to Mondale, to John Kerry to HRC.
Whether some new candidate will be more popular after the right wing smear machine gets done with him or her depends entirely on us, not on the candidates. There is a reason that Republicans never undermine Trump (more unpopular, more demented, more dishonest than any candidate in history). There is a reason the UNpopular George HW Bush beat Dukakis and the UNpopular Bush 2 beat both Gore and Kerry. Because our side helps legitimize the false narratives about our candidates while the Republicans never ever do so with theirs.
There were only a couple times in my lifetime when I didn’t hear our side helping to legitimize some negative attack on the Democratic candidate. In 1992/1996, in 2012/2016 and in 2020. Biden wasn’t especially popular, but our side didn’t keep repeating the narrative of how unpopular (or corrupt or demented) Biden was. The right wing tried the same smears of Clinton and Obama, but our side didn’t play along.
I never heard any Democrat say “Sure Obama hangs out with terrorists and hates America and is too young and inexperienced, but hold your nose and vote for the pro-terrorist candidate.” They simply focused on Obama’s strengths and rejected all attacks as utterly untrue. The few times our side does that, our candidate wins,but too often we get suckered into conceding as “true” the negative attacks. That’s what happened when a reasonably executed Afghanistan withdrawal with significant successes and unexpected flaws that were responded to admirably turned into the worst fiasco in history. Ever since then, our side keeps “admitting” how bad Biden is, while the Republicans keep saying how great and wonderful their candidates are.
I am fine with another candidate, but I hope you don’t mind me amplifying all the false narratives the Republicans want pushed about that new candidate’s major flaws, corruption, and overall untrustworthiness. If you think that any Democrat won’t turn into the next “unpopular” Dukakis or Jimmy Carter and turn off voters, then you haven’t been paying attention. Dems win the few times that they refuse to play that game. Republicans win because they NEVER play that game.
Maybe you agree that Jimmy Carter should have stepped down for Ted Kennedy, and THAT is why the Democrats lost. Maybe you agree that Mike Dukakis should have stepped down for Al Gore or Dick Gephardt or Jesse Jackson or Paul Simon and THAT is why the Democrats lost.
But what I see is that the Dems lose with perfectly good candidates because they form circular firing squads and don’t realize that the Republican propaganda machine got them to do it.
I wish the Republicans would act as our useful idiots but they don’t. And they win only when we help them win. I don’t understand why we still keep repeating history.
LikeLike
Apples and oranges and so utterly nonsensical. –Bob S.
LikeLike
because the subtext of course was that his unpopularity was because he was a terrible, awful person
OK. You’ve said a lot of bizarre things on this blog, but this is one of the most bizarre. No one said that Biden was unpopular because he was a terrible, awful person, if that is intended to be the point of this breathtakingly feeble (and weird) attempt at satirical analogy.
LikeLike
But sure, go ahead and continue thinking that you can simply think reality into being however you would like it to be.
LikeLike
According to 538, as of today, Biden’s disapproval rating is 55.8 percent. And 17.6 percent of voters have changed their rating to “disapprove” in the past two years. But my saying this outloud, of course, is going to undo the magic that happens if we just close our eyes and wish very very hard for Santa to bring us Biden again as a Christmas present.
Aie yie yie. Ridiculous. [insert 20-volume screed here claiming that what the electorate thinks of a candidate doesn’t matter; ROFL]
LikeLike
Gosh, you’re right, NYC. It makes so much more sense to run unpopular candidates.
LikeLike
And you’re right, NYC. If Biden loses, it won’t be because he has breathtakingly low approval ratings. It will be because I posted that he had low approval ratings. Voters pretty much decide based on my reporting the facts. Funny that the political pundits haven’t figured this out yet. Those fools still think that people lose elections when voters hate them. LOL. Crazy, huh.
LikeLike
Bob,
A short answer to this quote by you which summarizes my too-long replies below:
Bob says: “if we just close our eyes and wish very very hard for Santa to bring us Biden again as a Christmas present.”
Your solution is to just close our eyes and wish very hard for Santa to bring us the “electable”, “popular” Democrat candidate to defeat Trump.
Magical thinking, indeed.
Are you angry at me because I refuse to believe that Republicans win because they nominate “electable” candidates and Dems lose because they don’t???
Are you angry at me because I know that Newsom, Bernie, Mayor Pete, or any Democrat you name can quickly turn into an “unelectable” candidate?
Republicans win because we help them make our candidates unpopular and they lose when we help make our candidates popular.
Republicans NEVER help us make their candidates unpopular the way we help them make our candidates unpopular. You think Republicans win because of their “popular” candidates and I see a bunch of candidates who should have been far more unpopular than the Democrat. Instead of considering why, you just keep alluding to some other mysterious candidate you are certain will be popular once the right wing machine gets done with him, due to that candidate’s innate and impeachable popularity. Not hardly.
Magical thinking indeed.
LikeLike
^^UNimpeachable
LikeLike
FYI, Gavin Newsom is unpopular even in California according to polls. “49% of California voters disapprove of the job Gov. Newsom is doing and 44% approve, according to a new Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll”
And:
From The Guardian, Nov. 30, 2023:
“But as his political star rises, his constituents are growing increasingly sceptical. The governor, who sailed through an election after thwarting a recall effort, has recently seen his approval rating sink to an all-time low. His vetoes of bills that would have expanded labour protections and rights alienated powerful unions. And his rejection of laws to outlaw caste discrimination, decriminalise psychedelics and consider gender affirmation in child custody cases has confused advocates who thought they could count on his support.”
Polls should not be a reliable measure of whether someone is electable.
The Republicans get bad poll numbers and their response is to fight harder to amplify how great their candidate is and demonize the Democrats.
The Democrats get bad poll numbers and too often our response is to wring our hands and offer up lots of quotes to the media expressing our worry and concern about all the reasons this candidate is so unpopular, then express major doubts about this person as a candidate, and then allude to how good it would be to replace him with someone else since his unpopularity means we have no faith whatsoever any voter would want to vote for him.
Is there another candidate who isn’t unpopular like Newsom to replace the sure-loser Biden? Just wondering….
LikeLike
Thank you, NYC parent.
LikeLike
Ted Kennedy was not popular with the entire electorate, only with progressive Democrats. He would have fared no better than did Carter. Many people looked at TK and had one thought: Chappaquiddick. See the episode of the HBO series Succession involving Kendell Roy and the caterer.
LikeLike
Your guy, Ted Kennedy, ran for President a gazillion times and never got the nomination. Why? BECAUSE HE WAS UNPOPULAR. Because he had a low approval rating with the electorate.
If you can’t figure out that having the electorate disapprove of you is bad for your chances of getting elected, then sense is simply not going to get through to you. Your argument that any candidate will be made unpopular is bizarre. Clinton won and won again. Obama won and won again.
LikeLike
Again, the Precautionary Principle applies to situations where there is uncertainty as to outcomes and one of the outcomes is really, really bad. Because one cannot be sure of the outcome, one acts out of precaution to prevent the very bad outcome. So, in this case, the extremely low approval ratings that Biden has create uncertainty as to the outcome of a Biden/Trump matchup in 2024, and the outcome Trump is extraordinarily bad (I agree with this in Kagan’s poorly thought-out article, that a second Trump presidency could be catastrophic). Trump’s boyfriend Sean Hannity just asked him in an interview if he would be a dictator in a second presidency, and Trump answered, only from Day 1. He is quite serious about this. The man is deranged. He has spent months fantasizing aloud about going after his enemies and turning the military into his own private Trump militia to accomplish that end. The risk of an end to Democracy is too great to take. Biden needs to step aside, honorably, and now.
LikeLike
Bob,
My point is that you seem to have some magical thinking that if Biden steps down, the replacement candidate won’t be just as hated by the time the Republican smear machine gets done with them and the rest of us help them by bemoaning how once again the DNC chose a terrible candidate but we should all hold our noses and vote for that terrible candidate.
I ask you again, do you think Ted Kennedy would have defeated Carter and we can lay the blame for Carter’s defeat on all the primary voters who should have voted for Ted instead if they wanted to win?
The Democrats do this all the time, except when they win. They publicly handwring about how bad their candidate is and that becomes cemented in voters’ minds. The mythical “replacement” candidate — like Ted Kennedy or Bernie Sanders — was supposedly certain to defeat the Republican. Of course that mythical replacement candidate had not yet been been the target of the right wing smear machine and somehow people still believe they would be immune.
The Republicans don’t do this. Ever. Which is ironic because their candidates are simply horrible. It doesn’t matter if 99% of the Democrats say that Trump or DeSantis is too unpopular to get elected, because Republicans won’t concede that point.
But often half the Democrats will concede to their own candidate’s flaws — they are too old, too corrupt, too unpopular — “but you should vote for them anyway”.
When our side stops focusing on our candidate’s bad points and exclusively focusing on our candidate’s good points, THE WAY THE REPUBLICANS DO WITH THEIR CANDIDATES, we win.
But we almost always prefer what we call “honesty” and pride ourselves for being willing to legitimize all the undermining narratives that defeat our candidates.
Which “perfect” replacement candidate for Biden do you think it going to win if we do this? You think Bernie and Ted Kennedy would have been immune in 2020 and 1980 and won after half the Democrats “honesty” had to admit to all the undermining right wing narratives about them?
You are correct that Biden could very well lose. Ironically, not because he has done a bad job or done anything corrupt while in office. But because we all agree he is unpopular and has no business being the candidate and that has become the driving narrative, which far overwhelms anything else. “Democrats in disarray” and voters despise them. Republicans are never in disarray about whoever their candidate is. They focus on the positives and NEVER concede the negatives while we just keep amplifying the negatives about ours. And voters hear “only partisan Democrats believe the Republican candidate is bad, so it’s just politics, but look at all the Democrats who admit their own candidate is bad,so it must be true.” And then we wonder why so many people don’t like the candidate.
Ask yourself WHY Biden is unpopular. Because he is unelectable? Because he is unpopular? Because voters blame Biden for everything bad about the economy and credit him for nothing?
We no longer care about unemployment, we care about inflation but if we had low inflation and high unemployment we would care about high unemployment. We care about the debt ONLY when a Democrat is president but never when the Republicans run it up.
Which mythical candidate will be immune to being smeared by the far right with the rest of us sorrowfully “conceding” that of course our replacement candidate has these serious flaws which we want to talk about all the time? Whether it is Biden or some other new replacement, the only way they defeat Republicans is if our side takes a page from the Republican handbook and rejects every single criticism as a right wing partisan attack and constantly amplifying our candidate’s good points and getting a lot of Republicans to publicly concede that all the negative things people are saying about their candidate is true.
Would Ted Kennedy have defeated Reagan like I believed with all my heart? Do we blame Carter for not stepping down? Is that Jimmy Carter’s legacy — a man too arrogant and power-hungry to realize that he was too unpopular to be allowed to be the candidate? Is that Mike Dukakis’ legacy? “Should have stepped down”?
Funny that Bill Clinton defeated George HW Bush and even then, I don’t recall the Republicans spending the next 10 or 20 years saying that saying that it was his fault for not stepping down. Republicans knew that in 1992, their smear machine didn’t work against Clinton the way it had against Dukakis. Not because Clinton was so perfect and Dukakis wasn’t, but because the media and the Dems themselves didn’t play along. So they set out to destroy his presidency instead (with help from the Dems “reluctantly conceding” how all bad outcomes were Clinton’s fault. Exactly the same playbook as Biden.
LikeLike
The GOP has a very successful bunch of tactics. First, the smear machine. They smeared Hillary for more than two decades. In fact, she is a level-headed brilliant woman who would have been a great president. Even with the smear machine working overtime in 2016, she won 3 million votes more than Trump. The Electoral College made him president, not the voters.
The other GOP strategy is to keep the public focused on culture war issues, not the substance of government. Talk about race, gender, the undermining of traditional values. Call Democrats bad names, like Communists, fascists, politically correct, Marxists, vermin, WOKE.
Don’t talk about GOP plans to gut Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, the safety net, the environment, etc.
LikeLike
Carter was a great person. But in 1980 he had a very, very low approval rating. So, he wasn’t likely to win a second term. Hillary had a low approval rating going into the election. She was loathed by a large percentage of the electorate, even though she is, indeed, brilliant and would, I think, have made a great president. So, I agree with you. But it was a huge mistake to make her the candidate given a) how much of the electorate didn’t like her and b) how intense that distaste for her was. It didn’t look good from the start, and from the start, I predicted that if she were the candidate, we would lose. She ran a very close race. She won the popular vote. But she lost. And the result was that we got Trump.
We need to learn from this recent history.
LikeLike
OK. I could go one by one through these screeds and point out how, line by line, they are based on misinformation. For example, I could point out that Ted Kennedy never had a high approval rating nationally, which makes your example ludicrous. Same for every other point you’ve made. But as past experience has amply illustrated, doing that would be a colossal waste of time. You are impervious to facts. For example, you are impervious to the fact that Biden has a very low approval rating and that when the electorate doesn’t approve of a candidate, he or she has a worse chance of winning. That this is so blindingly obvious but goes over your head says all that needs to be said.
Biden could well lose to Trump. Because he is not approved of by most voters. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what I or any other individual might think of Biden. It’s simple the fact. QED.
LikeLike
OK. I’ll provide one more. Clinton had an enormous approval rating. He left office with an enormous approval rating. So that example simply proves my point.
But please insert another 80-paragraph monologue about how the way to win elections is to run a candidate that the electorate disapproves of. ROFL.
LikeLike
I can think of a dozen Democratic candidates who have a better chance of winning than does Biden.
LikeLike
Carter is another good example of my point. The Democrats ran him, even though he had abysmal approval ratings, because he was the incumbent. And entirely predictably (duh), he lost. When Carter was running for president again in 1980, his approval rating was only 34 percent. The likelihood that he would be reelected given that rating was, well, very low. OBVIOUSLY.
LikeLike
And Carter was a good guy. No argument from me about that. But it was insane, given has much he was disliked, for him to be the candidate for the second term.
LikeLike
There is nothing magical about thinking that a candidate with a higher approval rating has a better chance of winning than does the guy with the significantly lower one. It’s freaking utterly magical thinking to think otherwise.
Oh, voters hate this guy. So he’s sure to win if we all just don’t say anything bad about him. ROFLMAO.
LikeLike
Johnson was an astute politician. In 1967, his approval rating dropped below 40 percent. In 1968, he did the right thing. Given his abysmal numbers, he announced that he would not run again for the office.
LikeLike
Biden has poor polling numbers in part for the same reason a good man, Carter, had poor polling numbers. The right wing PR machine tags them with responsibility for high inflation/high interest rates.
LikeLike
How’d that work out when LBJ stepped down?
And why are you so focused on approval rates?
Obama had quite low approval rates a year before he ran for re-election. Obama’s 45% approval rate in January of 2012 was significantly LOWER than Carter’s in January of 1980! (January 1980 approval ranged from 55 – 58%)!!!
George HW Bush had high approval rates (as high as 70%) through 1991, and it was only at beginning of January 1992 that they went into steep decline.
Ronald Reagan had low approval rates in the low 40s in 1983 before he ran for re-election and won by the largest margin in history.
Bob, I am not just inventing stuff — I looked it up. Jimmy Carter had quite low approval through most of 1979, but beginning in December of 1979 (this time for Biden) until March of 1980, Carter had high approval ratings in mid 50s.
First week of January 1980, Carter’s approval rating was even higher than Ronald Reagan’s approval rating the first year of January 1984.
Reagan had 52% approval at the beginning of January of his re-election year. Carter had 56% approval at his.
The difference was that Reagan’s went higher while Carter’s dropped. What did Carter do to cause that? Was I right to be so critical of people who didn’t join me in trying to defeat Carter in the primary? (were you one of those?) Maybe all the attacks on Carter BY DEMOCRATS helped sink his re-election. Carter and Reagan start out with the same approval ratings at the beginning of their re-election year.
Republicans don’t say “people don’t like our candidate, so we’ll concede their point loudly and publicly at every opportunity and make sure they know that even Republicans agree that Reagan or Trump is wildly unpopular and despised but Republicans want you to vote for their wildly unpopular and despised candidate anyway. Never. They say they have a great candidate, polls don’t matter, and tear down the Democrat by pointing out that “even Democrats” agree that their candidate has all these flaws and is wildly despised, and Dems are laughing at you and think you are stupid enough to vote for such a terrible candidate. Here is our Republican candidate who is terrific, and the only people who say he is not are partisan Dems and a very few RINOs who are also partisan.
There was a big difference between how Dems talked about Carter when Carter was “un”popular and how Republicans talked about Reagan and Trump and every Republican who is “un”popular. When we don’t do this, Dems win.
When Dems and progressives talk like I did in 1980 about Carter, they lose.
I could not believe that so many Dems kept “conceding” all the Republican negatives about Dukakis and Gore and Kerry and Clinton. I thought they learned a lesson after getting played for fools in 1988, but they quickly forgot it by 2000. Republicans never forget – and they get better with practice at their political craft.
While we just keep reinforcing the right wing narratives by focusing on all the reasons that a Democrat won’t win, which the public hears as they “shouldn’t” win.
LikeLike
Bob says: “Carter was a great person. But in 1980 he had a very, very low approval rating. So, he wasn’t likely to win a second term.”
Jimmy Carter’s approval rates were HIGH from January – February 1980. Then they fell precipitously. In fact Carter’s approval rates at the beginning of January 1980 were similar to Reagan’s at the beginning of January 1984. Why did they go in opposite directions? I can tell you why – because Jimmy Carter was a secret neoliberal, who blocked universal health care, was only interested in money for his corrupt family, and had to be defeated at all costs. I, and other people like me, confirmed that this was true — we were not Republicans but we did our part to help Republicans legitimize false narratives because “even Dems” were saying it was true.
And why are you cherry picking approval rates for Bill Clinton? He had many low approval rates and the first 2 gallup polls of January 1992 showed Clinton at a low 42 and 46% approval.
Barack Obama also had low approval rates in December of 2011 and the beginning of January of 2012.
Clinton and Obama were re-elected because Dems supported them the way Republicans support their candidates instead of “reluctantly conceding” how bad their candidate was and legitimizing what would otherwise be ignored as “partisan narratives”.
We, thankfully, also did this with Biden in 2020.
With Clinton, Obama and Biden, the Republicans tried many narratives to undermine the trust voters had in them, but the Dems never helped legitimize them.
We are doing to Biden in 2024 what we didn’t do in 2020. Shame on us. If anything, 4 years of a surprisingly good Biden presidency – not perfect but overall much better than we expected – should have us rejecting every right wing attempt to undermine Biden.
Although Bob, you may disagree and say that Biden’s increasing senility and the high percentage of voters who despise him is simply a truth that must be amplified. The Republican party agrees with you.
But please don’t be naive enough to allude to some anonymous “better” candidate. Please name names, so I can tell you what all the negative narratives are that we should be amplifying as “truth” in the name of just wanting a different candidate from them! We have to confirm that the candidate is really bad so that we can find that elusive perfect candidate that will beat Republicans! Who do you have in mind? Gavin Newsom? I know you can’t be naive enough to believe there aren’t dozens of narratives that a progressive like me or a moderate like someone else can amplify so voters start clamoring for an “electable” candidate to defeat the Republican because Newsom is so bad. Hello Dukakis 2024!
Who are these “better” Democratic candidates that are immune to us when we work hard to make voters understand that “even Democrats” are willing to legitimize the negative narratives that make a candidate “unpopular”?
FYI,Bernie Sanders would have been like George McGovern once the GOP (with help from the Democrats who felt compelled to “honestly concede” the negatives) got done with him.
Of course, Bernie could have won. Just like Dukakis and HRC could have won. But only if we start acting like Republicans and shutting off all the negative narratives and amplifying only the positives, like we did in 1992 and 2008 and 2020. How can we Dems get some useful idiot Republicans to help us amplify the negatives about their candidates? And I mean Republicans on the right, not DINOs. We need lots of quotes from real Republicans about how “worried” and “concerned” they are that the Republicans are offering such a flawed and unpopular candidate. Then a more prominent Republican can agree that their candidate is very flawed and unelectable but voters should support him anyway. Just like Democrats do! If only Republicans would say “DeSantis wants women to die in childbirth, and he wants to take away your Medicare, but please vote for him anyway because he’s better than Biden.” Or “Trump is a lying fascist who does what Putin tells him and will rob you blind, but please vote for him anyway because he’s better than Biden.” Why can’t Republicans start following the Democrat playbook for how to win?
Republicans are successful in elections despite their ideas being wildly unpopular. Because they know what wins.
Focusing on their candidate’s “popularity” is something the Republicans never do – they fight to demonize the Democrat and hold up their candidate as ideal. While we help them amplify the negatives about the Democrat and bemoan that the elusive “perfect” Democrat candidate isn’t running , as if such a candidate has ever existed.
Why did Carter’s popularity sink in 1980 while Reagan’s popularity rose in 1984? Because Carter did bad things and Reagan did good things? Or because Dems like me helped legitimize all the worst narratives about Carter? I own that, and I never did it again. But if I was as naive as I was in 1980, I would be working to destroy whatever name you come up with as the “ideal” candidate because I would be so focused on the negatives–and I would want to make sure Americans join me in focusing on those negatives because my admirable goal would be to help voters find the better and perfect candidate – like Ted Kennedy! – who was guaranteed to beat the Republicans!
Republicans will destroy Gavin Newsom – or anyone else -, IF enough of us “real Democrats” help legitimize and amplify every single negative about him while dismissing all the positives as unimportant.
When we “real Democrats” who are legitimizing and amplifying all the negatives about Newsom are asked why we do it, we will explain that we are just “helping” the Democrats to dump Newsom stat to find that unnamed “electable” candidate like all those wonderful electable Republicans who keep winning elections against all of our “unpopular” candidates!
As soon as a Democrat loses, we rush to blame it on them being un-electable. As soon as a Republican loses, Republicans rush to demomnize whoever Democrat them, question whether such an unpopular and awful Dem candidate could ever win without cheating, and then running their same terrible candidates again.
It shocks me that our side is just as obsessed with amplifying a Democrat’s flaws and negatives as the Republicans are.
LikeLike