Uncommitteds will find this must-see TV
Americans love a good courtroom drama as much a police procedural. That fascination may finally get uncommitted voters who have tapped out and tuned out of politics to pay attention to what’s at stake in the November presidential election, Anat Shenker-Osorio tells Greg Sargent in today’s Daily Blast podcast.
Donald Trump’s Manhattan trial begins today. The political press will drive a battle-of-the century narrative to draw eyeballs and clicks. Are these charges serious? Can District Attorney Alvin Bragg prove Trump paying off a porn star was election interference? Who will triumph? But the hubbub around the trial may communicate to non-political junkies the message that where there is smoke there is fire. Trump won’t come out of this unscathed even if acquitted.
The right forever has thrown smoke bombs at opponents to convince the less-tuned-in that there must be something suspicious afoot. Al Gore and the internet. Hillary’s emails. Obama’s birth certificate. Voter fraud. There’s a Deep State out to get you. That there is no there there is beside the point. Create doubt in people’s minds. It’s a death by a thousand cuts strategy for sabotaging an opponent. Or a country. Russians are professionals at it.
The irony as the trial begins today is that the black smoke swirling around Trump will be his emails. That’s not how Shenker-Osorio puts it. She uses the concept of social proof, “where people think the thing they think people like them think.” A lot of people are going to see smoke billowing from Trump and think there must be something to it.
The problem for Democrats, says Shenker-Osorio, is that they “cannot say on Monday that these people are an authoritarian faction” coming for your freedom — an existential threat to America — and on Tuesday promise to work with them. That’s not an effective, consistent or sticky message. “Either the theater is on fire or it’s not on fire,” she tells Sargent. (Democrats seem to have a biological aversion to consistent messaging.)
Polls show that only a fraction of voters “would be less likely to support Trump upon a conviction in this criminal trial.” But that’s enough in a contest with razor-thin margins. To this day, I celebrate one of our 2006 field organizers for losing the most Republican county in the district. Losing there by only 3,000 votes meant flipping the district from red to blue.
Dahlia Lithwick and Shenker-Osorio said the same at Slate on Friday:
Thus, while it is absolutely the case that 36 percent of independents saying that a guilty verdict would move them away from Trump is less than the 44 percent saying it wouldn’t, when your vote total is presently neck and neck and electoral precedent says it will come down to the wire, you cannot afford to lose anyone, let alone over a third of the gettable voters. That 36 percent matters greatly.
And so, those who are dismissing the electoral consequences of this criminal trial by declaring that events in Manhattan over the next few weeks will merely animate Trump’s base—a base that will see this trial as yet more proof of the Deep State’s (™) persecution of their Lord—are also demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of electoral math. You cannot mobilize the voters who are already absolutely voting for Trump to any greater heights. No matter how rabid their fury, and how bottomless their sense of shared grievance, they still get only one vote each—at least until they figure out how to commit the voter fraud they love to decry on a broader scale. The rank and file in the tank for MAGA cannot become more impactful.
Opening arguments today are not like Trump’s civil trials. This is a criminal case. Law & Order stuff. Must-see TV, even if it’s not on TV.
This means that voters who only barely register the drumbeat of political news will still see a man they are supposed to consider the potential leader of the free world falling asleep, muttering threats at jurors, and generally looking sad and trapped and small. And if he is declared guilty, this process will render him, in many voters’ understanding, a criminal.
Presidential elections are won and lost on broad narratives like “Morning in America” and “Yes We Can,” not on narrow policy disagreements.
What Trump on trial—and the constant barrage of chatter about it—ultimately does is clue these weary citizens into the actual consequences of this election. It changes the narrative from a tale of two old men, neither of whom they find appealing, into the possibility that a convicted criminal will be deciding which laws, if any, apply to him and also to everyone else. This, for everyday voters residing outside the commentariat, is what can become core to politics: a story of morality and possibly even some game-changing theater.
Stay tuned. We know you will.
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.