this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
298 points (94.3% liked)

politics

19170 readers
5938 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

There are two schools of thought when considering Donald Trump’s efforts to retain power after the 2020 election.

One holds that Trump was simply pushing the boundaries of legality, squeezing through cracks or uncertainties in the process to effect a result that blocked Joe Biden’s inauguration. Some of those who think this is a fair description of what Trump and his allies attempted also think it was warranted, given baseless concerns about election fraud or illegalities. Others simply think it was a clever effort to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, like violating unwritten rules to win a sporting contest.

The other school of thought argues that Trump and his allies broke the law to subvert the transfer of power. This camp includes special counsel Jack Smith.

Once we overlap these groups with the Republican primary electorate, things get interesting. A lot of Republicans clearly think that Trump was simply working an angle, as he had done so many times in so many circumstances before. Others — clearly fewer — think that what he did was illegal. Some chunk of the likely 2024 primary electorate, though, sits in a weird position: agreeing that Trump broke the law in his efforts to remain president, but also supporting his bid to regain that position in January 2025.

On Wednesday, The Washington Post released data from a poll conducted by Ipsos in partnership with FiveThirtyEight. Included among the questions was one that teased out an aspect of the distinction drawn above: Would Republican primary voters rather have a party nominee who respected the rules and customs of elections … or one who would do whatever it takes to win?

About 13 percent chose the latter, 1 in 8. Nearly all the rest chose a nominee who respects those customs. But that means, given Trump’s position in the polls, that a significant portion of the group preferring a nominee who respects election rules also support Trump’s candidacy.

There are interesting patterns in the willingness of likely primary voters to endorse a candidate indifferent to the rules of running for office. Men say that they prefer a candidate who will do whatever it takes to win more than women. So do extremely conservative Republicans, a quarter of whom endorse a candidate who will set rules and customs to the side.

As the news-consumption habits of respondents shift toward the fringe, their support for ignoring election rules climbs. More than a fifth of those who get news from Newsmax, One America News and other right-wing outlets prefer candidates indifferent to election rules. Among those who watch network news, the percentage is far lower.

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Smite6645@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

It's just out of habit at this point

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bullshit it's 1 in 8.... It's like cockroaches you see one there's hundreds or thousands. I'd say it's a lot closer to 1:2 or 1:1.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

They 'prefer' a candidate that respects the rules but will support anyone that's not a Democrat.

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] thesprongler@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

7 in 8 Republicans are liars.

No, that also seems low.

[–] hudson@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

that number seems low

[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

One in eight? Lol. One in eight are willing to admit it. Probably like 1/3-1/2 would go along with subverting democracy for "their team". We're talking about the party that's fine with the fact that they lose every popular vote and still manage to regularly get control of the government. Democracy is not important to them.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

"Election rules" are what govern democracy itself. Without them you don't have a free democracy.

So the headline should be changed to "One in 8 Republicans think winning is more important than democracy" and you can see where the problem lies.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’d believe 12 in 8 before I’d ever believe 1 in 8 give a shot about election rules. They just want to win. They don’t care about following rules. We’ve had this proven time and again.

I'd bet those numbers are much higher in actual life. 10s of millions of Republicans will happily vote for the coup leader the next time around.

[–] RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

1 in 8 Republicans need their citizenship revoked and to be airdropped somewhere in the Sahara.

I mean, they don't want to play by the rules, then why not suspend them just in scope of dealing with them? (I know it's not logical, hush it).

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

You don't need to go that far, just drop them 20 miles from any city or town in literally any terrain and most of them couldn't make it.

[–] davepleasebehave@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I read, for what that's worth, that around 30% of any population would.be authoritarian..so that makes sense

[–] Zink@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

Actions a speak louder than polls. Lol to 1/8.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Wow that's lower than I thought. Nice.

[–] DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like most SportsBall fans. As long as my team wins, whatever it takes.

Almost like people treat politics like a sport.

Go red team

The thing that scares me a lot more is the number that don't explicitly think that way, but will believe any story that says the election was stolen by Soros or whatever

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


One holds that Trump was simply pushing the boundaries of legality, squeezing through cracks or uncertainties in the process to effect a result that blocked Joe Biden’s inauguration.

Others simply think it was a clever effort to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, like violating unwritten rules to win a sporting contest.

Included among the questions was one that teased out an aspect of the distinction drawn above: Would Republican primary voters rather have a party nominee who respected the rules and customs of elections … or one who would do whatever it takes to win?

While that minority of the electorate who is indifferent to rules and customs is interesting, it’s probably more telling that so many Republicans express a preference for a rule-abiding candidate and also want Trump to be the 2024 nominee.

This group almost certainly falls into the first school of thought articulated at the beginning of this article, those who think Trump was pushing against the rules to retain power, without breaking them.

The former president and his allies have stoked this idea for years, in part recognizing that it is a preferable legal strategy to admitting that he’d broken the law.


The original article contains 761 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] n0m4n@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

One holds that Trump was simply pushing the boundaries of legality, squeezing through cracks or uncertainties in the process to effect a result that blocked Joe Biden’s inauguration.<

Others simply think it was a clever effort to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, like violating unwritten rules to win a sporting contest.<

These people are wrong on 91 counts.

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honestly surprises me and gives hope.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

Sorry, it’s just a lie. It’s 8/8

[–] Alwaysfallingupyup@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago

Democrats are exactly the same.