We begin today’s roundup with Michael Bender at The New York Times who provides an overview of Donald Trump’s hold on the Republican Party:
Although his dominance of Republican politics has led to three disappointing elections in a row for his party, a solid and devoted core of conservative voters appears ready to follow him wherever he leads again — even if into defeat.
It’s a painful reality for the cohort of Republicans hoping to move on from Mr. Trump. First they have to find answers to two inevitable questions: How many Trump die-hards are there, and can they be persuaded?
As an aside, also from the article:
Mr. Roberts named immigration as his top issue and lamented a lack of civility in politics, although he wore a T-shirt reading “Let’s Go Brandon,” code for a four-letter insult to Mr. Biden.
Of course.
Next up, Paul Krugman at The New York Times on the “Trump personality cult”:
The Trump personality cult may have been enabled in part by forces that go beyond politics. After all, we used to expect dignified behavior from captains of industry as well as politicians. But these days, perhaps because celebrity culture infects everything, business leaders are taken seriously even when they seem unable to refrain from flamboyant displays of ego and insecurity. (Cough. Elon Musk. Cough.)
Tom Scocca argues that it will be difficult for the MAGA base to reassess after such disappointing results :
Belief in Donald Trump means never having to face the facts. If the MAGA movement wouldn’t accept defeat in an election Mr. Trump directly lost, head-to-head, in 2020, why would it accept defeat in this one secondhand? Has everyone forgotten the basic lessons of the nation’s unwilling but thorough immersion in the Trump psyche? From the Trumpian point of view, Mehmet Oz didn’t lose to John Fetterman in Pennsylvania because Mr. Trump has worn out his magic touch; Mr. Oz lost because he, personally, was not Donald Trump.
The leader’s great promise to his followers has always been that he will liberate them from consequences. Turnout numbers and precinct returns, like real-estate bankruptcies, are nothing more than inconvenient opinions, to be overcome by force of bluster, or force of will.
Aaron Blake at The Washington Post takes on the notion that the Republican edge on the national popular vote signifies a major advantage:
The reason: Some districts don’t feature two major-party candidates, and as a result, those races skew the overall numbers. That’s because having no major-party opponent generally means candidates run up a much bigger margin than they otherwise would.
John Cassidy at The New Yorker:
Still, G.O.P. politicians and voters who want to move on from Trump face a lot of obstacles. According to the YouGov poll, Trump is still ahead of DeSantis among “strong Republicans.” Going back to 2016, polls have often underestimated his support, and, in many parts of the country, “Trump 2024” flags and posters are already evident. Plus, having dominated Republican politics for the past six years, Trump has many allies embedded in the Party machinery and in Congress. In the incoming class of G.O.P. House members, roughly two-thirds have adopted some version of his 2020 election denialism, according to a tally by the Washington Post. On top of all this, Trump remains a prolific fund-raiser. And, despite the front page of Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post hailing Trump’s would-be rival as “DeFuture” following DeSantis’s victory over Crist, the forty-four year old Floridian hasn’t confirmed his intention to be a candidate in 2024.
On a final note, here’s Jeet Heer at The Nation on the importance of securing a 51st vote in the Senate:
Even if Manchin and Sinema aren’t tempted by defection, a Warnock reelection would have the salutary effect of diminishing their power. Manchin would no longer have a veto on the Democratic agenda. Sinema would likely become more cautious too, especially since fellow Arizona Senator Mark Kelly was reelected with nearly 52 percent of the vote. The reelection of an Arizona senator who ran as an orthodox Democrat, combined with the fact that she will face primary voters in 2024, should concentrate Sinema’s mind on her own political future. There would be good reason for her to become more wary about bucking the party line. The Democrats would therefore have a larger caucus and one that would—at least in theory—be more ideologically disciplined.