Why Trump Is Polling Much Better Among Very Conservative Primary Voters Than In 2016 | FiveThirtyEight
By: Michael Tesler (FiveThirtyEight)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Michael Tesler
Jun. 1, 2023, at 6:00 AM
AP Photo/Alex Brandon
Shortly before the 2016 presidential primaries began, the influential conservative outlet the National Review devoted an entire edition of its biweekly magazine to making the ideological case "against Trump."
The issue featured essays from over 20 prominent conservatives explaining why Donald Trump's campaign was "a menace to conservatism." It also included a scathing editorial from the National Review's editors, which disparaged the Republican Party's then-presidential frontrunner as "a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones."
With Trump's campaign rhetoric rejecting the party's "broad conservative ideological consensus" in favor of heterodox positions on issues from government spending to restricting free markets to isolationist foreign policies, it's not surprising that he performed relatively poorly with "very conservative" voters in the 2016 Republican primaries.
But that prior pattern has now completely reversed itself in early polling on the 2024 Republican primaries.
In a February 2016 poll from Quinnipiac University, Trump received only 27 percent support among Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters who described themselves as "very conservative" — 18 percentage points worse than he did with "somewhat conservative" GOP primary voters. Quinnipiac's March 2023 poll, however, suggests that Trump now has the support of 61 percent of "very conservative" Republican primary voters — 18 points higher than his support among the "somewhat conservatives."1
Trump's strong showing among the most conservative voters shows up in other early polling on the 2024 primaries as well. A late April SurveyUSA Poll of likely primary voters in North Carolina had him winning 72 percent of "very conservative" Republicans, compared with less than half of other Republican voters. Likewise, another late April survey from Echelon Insights showed Trump polling 27 percentage points better among "very conservative" Republicans in head-to-head nationwide primary matchups against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis than he did with "somewhat conservative" Republicans (77 percent to 50 percent).
These results raise the question of why the ideology of Trump's base has changed so dramatically from 2016 to 2023.
There are undoubtedly multiple factors at play here, but perhaps the biggest are the profound ways in which Trump's presidency shifted the meaning of conservatism in U.S. politics. As political scientists Dan Hopkins and Hans Noel documented in a previous piece for FiveThirtyEight, Trump has come to define who and what Republican Party activists — that is, people who volunteer for political campaigns, donate money, work for politicians, etc. — think of as conservative. Their research, for instance, found that GOP activists viewed Trump critics like former Sens. Ben Sasse and Patrick Toomey as much less conservative than their voting records in Congress indicated. Meanwhile, GOP activists viewed Trump boosters as the most reliably conservative politicians.
But Trump has also powerfully redefined what constitutes conservatism for rank-and-file Republican voters, according to my analyses of data from the Cooperative Election Survey — a massive academic survey administered by YouGov that asks over 50,000 respondents every two years to, among other things, rate politicians' ideologies on a seven-point scale from "very liberal" to "very conservative."
According to CES data, Republicans nationwide now view Trump as more conservative than they did immediately before the 2016 general election. On the other hand, Utah Republicans perceived Sen. Mitt Romney as a lot less conservative after his February 2020 vote to convict Trump during his first impeachment trial. But that decline pales in comparison to the utter evaporation of former Rep. Liz Cheney's conservative credentials. Wyoming Republicans repeatedly rated Cheney as a solid conservative in 2016, 2018 and 2020. Yet her reputation as a stalwart conservative vanished entirely after she voted to impeach Trump in January 2021 and subsequently became one of the former president's most vocal critics in Congress as vice chair of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection — so much so, that Wyoming Republicans placed her all the way on the liberal side of the ideological spectrum in the 2022 CES.
Romney and Cheney are not the only politicians whose conservative bona fides have been questioned after criticizing Trump. The seven Republican senators who voted to convict the former president during his second impeachment trial were all rated as much less conservative than we would otherwise expect from their Senate voting records, as measured by the first dimension of DW-NOMINATE — a political science metric that scores congressional voting records from -1 (most liberal) to 1 (most conservative). Even after we control for those voting records, Republican CES respondents, on average, rated the GOP senators who convicted Trump a full category (i.e., "middle of the road" instead of "somewhat conservative" or "conservative" instead of "very conservative") more liberal than the senators who acquitted him on the CES's seven-point ideological scale.2
It certainly seems from these results, then, that Trump has not only reshaped the Republican Party in his own image; he has also redefined what it means to be a conservative. So, while an awful lot can change over the course of the primary campaign, it appears that Trump will garner disproportionate support from self-described "very conservative" Republicans in the 2024 primaries. Conservatism, after all, is becoming increasingly synonymous with Trumpism in the minds of GOP voters.
Tags
Who is online
94 visitors
Conservatism =Trumpism
History is not going to be kind to all this.
I'm distractedly watching a conversation on a 24/7 news channel (in French) that started with hydroxychloroquine advocate Didier Raoult, founder of an important immunology research organization. The panel quickly agreed that the underlying topic is our capacity to deny reality.
... and then to observe the ubiquity of that denial on the right.
Citation to remember: The characteristic common to all the far right is a desire to eliminate human rights.
You mean like taking away free speech on colllege campuses?
I presume that you actually do know what "free speech" is, and that this post is nothing more than your usual trolling.
I think the real question is "Do you know what free speech is?"
I ask because by you accusing Vic of trolling, you are advocating for his post to be deleted, as trolling is a violation on here.
In essence, trying to restrict his free speech.
Vic has as much free speech here as anyone else.
While I'm fairly confident that Vic knows what "free speech" is, I'm less sure about you. What do you think it means?
Well, since I am not a leftist and prefer to not censor those that think different than me, using excuses like "trolling" to do so, free speech means I can pretty much say what I want to say, within the rules if we are on a private site like this and to not cause a panic in a crowded area, such as yelling "fire" in a theater.
Otherwise...anything goes.
Now, what do YOU think it means?
Yes, like DeSantis has been trying to do from the ground up to New College.
The litany of what Teachers can't say or do is his conservative badge of honor.
DeSantis can't describe "woke", he misidentifies CRT and his FDOE wants the College Boards, those nasty SAT people, to remove from their AP programs, black history "unless it is lawful, historically accurate, and of educational value".
So no AP black history classes for Floridians.
Glad to see we agree once again./s
you are correct
Pretty much the same as you. So you probably agree that Vic was just trolling in 1.1.1 .
I don't think you do think we have the same definition.
I do agree with him. He had a meaningful comparison.
He had the right to say it. You accused him of trolling, which is an offense that means deletion (censoring) of a post, just because you didn't like what he said.
You rightly mentioned the difference between public and private circumstances. Vic complained about a private institution limiting free speech, thus ignoring that essential point. I can't imagine that he doesn't know about it, so if he just ignores it... he's trolling.
Nope...Trump is not a conservative by any stretch of your fevered imagination, he's simply a loud, fouled mouthed, and vulgar former Democrat who won a presidency.
DeSantis is the conservative candidate this time around and has been all his life. Trump is running way to the left of him.
Its not my imagination, its what polling of Republican primary voters has shown.
I agree that Trump is not a conservative ... he just pretends to be one.
But here is the key, if Trump becomes the GOP nominee will you vote for him?
If you and others do then you have ipso facto helped Trump reshape the GOP away from classical conservatism.
It doesnt matter if Trump is a conservative, conservatives think he is.
The tenets of Trumpism have replaced what was "conservatism" as the guiding principles of the modern Republican Party. To be a so-called "conservative" today is to be a Trumpist.
Are you a Republican?
No, lol, we are going to let fucking Biden have another 4 years of open borders, rampant spending and indoctrination. / S
If it comes down to Trump vs Biden we'll be coming home again
And this is what gives Trump power. The GOP collectively knows that if Trump gains plurality most GOP members who would vote for someone else as nominee will rally behind Trump again. This power of Trump compounds the difficulty in displacing him with another individual as nominee.
It is pathetically mechanical and GOP members cannot see the damage they are inflicting on their party.
You actually think Trump has a chance to win a general election??
There is a segment of each political party which will vote for the party regardless of who the candidate is. This has been the way for a very long time. Children started in one political party because their parents were members of that party. And some never change.
I hope that Trump is not the GOP nominee but if he is I think it's going to be a closer election than anybody really wants. Biden must run on his record and a lot of independents vote on kitchen table issues.
This is not directed to Snuffy.
Part of this thread is removed for no value. Please leave personal questioning out of the discussion.
It is amazing that many of the people defining what a Republican or conservative think are so far left they would probably not even talk to a Republican if their life depended on it.
Many of those people are also so very prolific and predicting the future. One has to wonder why they haven't won multiple lotteries by now...
That is correct. That does not change the adverse effect that I described. If Trump continues with his momentum, GOP members (public and private) will fall like dominoes into his camp. Look at @2.2.9 from a pro-DeSantis GOP member. It is not "we will fight to ensure Trump does not win the nomination" but rather "if it is Trump we will vote for him".
I do not see that happening. Trump as the GOP nominee is a near guarantee that the D nominee will win. And that is what blows my mind about the lack of strategic thinking on the part of the GOP at large (everyone who is a member). By not pushing Trump out / refusing to support him as the nominee under any circumstances, the GOP is placing the general public in a position of not having a viable GOP candidate to consider.
It is difficult to find any conservative or Republican who is willing to say that Trump is an embarrassment to and a lasting stain on our country.
How did we ever get in such a horrible fix?
Doesn't 2.2.9 really fall under the line I wrote where a segment of each political party will vote for the party candidate regardless of who the candidate is? Now if 2.2.9 had stated that they will vote for Trump in both the primary and the general you would have been better off but all you really do is prove my point that a segment of each party will vote for that party regardless of the candidate.
While I can agree that Trump as the GOP candidate in the general is not a good position to be in, Biden as the Democrat candidate is no bed of roses either. Biden will have to run on his record and despite the story being told by his supporters does not have a good track record over the past two years. That's why I believe the general is going to be closer than people would like, unless someone other than Biden is the Dem nominee.
But I think it's way too early to pick nominees, there's a lot of time to go yet.
Is it necessary for you to hear after listening to all the liberals here stating it ad nauseum for the last 7 years?
The vast majority of Americans (myself included) and especially independents do not get overly involved with the primaries and nominating process. They leave it up to the parties to nominate their best candidate and then vote between the two (or three or four) that are actually in the election. That seems to have worked fairly well in the past. Maybe not so much at this point. But to think that people are going to get overly involved in the nominating processnnow when they have not in the past is just not going to happen IMO.
My guess is that GOP partisans are unwilling to admit the mistake the GOP party made with Trump. This is a common political maneuver. If in politics one admits a mistake then the other side will relentlessly hammer on it. There is no statesmanship anymore. Thus GOP members are in a sense obliged to defend / excuse / deflect from Trump to remain good GOP loyalists.
In result, Trump remains as an active parasite on the GOP. Worse, Trump seems to have a solid chance to again secure the GOP nomination. So by not biting the bullet and ripping the parasite from the body, the GOP must endure more damage from Trump.
I think of myself as socially middle of the road and fiscally conservative. I find Trump as completely inappropriate as a national leader.
It needs to be said several times a day and every time the name Trump is brought up. Otherwise you will be accused of being a Trump supporter.
Prove your point? Did you notice that I agreed with that point?
But that ignores the point I made. My point, to be crystal clear, is that the GOP continues to inflict damage on itself by making it clear that if Trump is the nominee, they will all fall into line like good little dominoes. And it does not matter that the Ds will do likewise with Biden because my point is about Trump securing the nomination and ipso facto almost certainly guaranteeing a loss for the GOP.
Yeah, yeah, snuffy, I am no fan of Biden. Again you are not dealing with my point and just deflecting to the Ds and Biden. Biden has a very good chance of winning (even though that is NOT what I want). Thus the Ds support of Biden is not shooting themselves in the foot. In contrast, the GOP support of Trump is absolutely shooting themselves in the foot.
Of course. That is why the GOP should be working NOW to eliminate Trump from the running instead of projecting acquiescence should he maintain his momentum. (And yeah the Ds should be actively looking for a viable alternative to Biden but, as I noted, their political situation is different from that of the GOP. They can win with their poor choice; the GOP almost certainly loses with Trump.)
And one can only hope that sufficient numbers show up to ensure Trump's momentum does not carry over into primary wins. If that were to happen, it would be a surprising and encouraging behavior from the electorate.
You have more faith than I do. I would consider it more shocking than surprising. I hope I am wrong but I have already been wrong twice this year so my quota has already been reached.
I think we agree that this is an unlikely event.
Your overall point seems to be that if Trump is the R nominee then the Democrat nominee of Biden will win in the general. And all I have stated is that I believe is that even if Trump is the R nominee the general will be closer than people think. Biden must run on his record which to this point is not good and a lot of independents (and a good number of Democrats) don't want him to run again. Having Trump as the R candidate does not guarantee a Biden win. And that's all I have said all along.
It is amazing that so many narrow-minded far right reactionaries live in their own distorted little universes and would be appalled that most people live among and relate to people of all political viewpoints.
most people live among and relate to people of all political viewpoints.
Unless you are on a college campus in which case make sure professors don't have machetes before you say anything that might be conservative leaning.
New research on political behavior finds that most Democratic and Republican voters live in partisan bubbles, with little daily exposure to those who belong to the other party. For instance the typical Democrat has “almost zero interactions” with Republicans in their neighborhood, according to an article by Harvard doctoral student Jacob R. Brown and government Professor Ryan D. Enos published March 8 in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.
“There’s a lot of evidence that any separation between groups has a lot of negative consequences. We see this in race; we see this in religion; we see this in all kinds of things,” said Enos. “And increasingly, we see this in partisanship in the United States.”
Yes, if Trump is the nominee, the GOP is almost certainly going to lose in the general. Even if Biden is the D nominee, he will very likely win if running against Trump in the general.
I am also stating that the GOP has let the nation down by depriving us all of a choice for PotUS. The Ds look to be letting us down too but not nearly as bad as the GOP.
I know, Snuffy, I responded to that already.
Trump as the GOP nominee does not guarantee he will lose ... I never stated 100% certainty. What I stated is that it is near certainty. That translates into 'extremely likely' not 'guaranteed or certainty'.
You seem to be dwelling on insignificant nuances rather than address the key point I made which is that the GOP is shooting itself in the foot by not pushing Trump out.
Do you recognize the strategic error the GOP is making by not working to ensure a nominee other than Trump?
TiG, I have not been following US politics closely enough to know if the GOP even has a viable contender who should be nominated for POTUS so I value your opinion on who you believe the GOP should nominate and why he/she would be electable or should be electable to lead the US for 4 (or more) years?
I live in a GOP stronghold in the Bible Belt. I find it mentally and physically safer to avoid talking politics and religion with anyone (even Democrats) because to EVERYONE I personally know - I am either 100 percent with them or they consider me 100 percent against them. I am too independent to be 100 percent with most anything, but mostly, I like debate that gives me reason to research something I wasn't aware of or hadn't fully considered.
Personally, I don't recall that most people (I've met) have ever liked their ideas challenged because they hadn't actually acquired their beliefs through logic and research. Their only way to defend themselves was through emotional argument because they had acquired their beliefs through emotion.
The problem with the GOP today is that it has a strong MAGA contingent that compromises the viability of what one would consider a more classical conservative (e.g. Mitt Romney, who I think would have made an excellent PotUS). So by continuing to placate the MAGA crowd and Trump, the GOP has painted itself into a corner. To get out of the corner they must diminish the influence of the MAGA contingent and they already might be out of time to do that effectively.
Under normal circumstances, with a rational GOP, I would have answered your question with someone like Condoleezza Rice. Although she is now a tad older than I would prefer (68), she is otherwise (to me) an ideal candidate for PotUS. She is grounded, replete with integrity, experienced, brilliant and I believe would be a genuine statesperson. She announced decades ago that she would never run for PotUS and I suspect that is because she cannot bring herself to be sufficiently disingenuous to win.
As for the Ds, I have suggested Gov Tim Walz of Minnesota. A rational, experienced, grounded guy (IMO) who is in the right age range (59). I think Gov Walz would make an excellent PotUS.
There are no doubt plenty of solid individuals who could be good / great PotUS' but I think the nature of politics dissuades the good people and leaves only the more slimy elements ... and that is who we are stuck with as politicians.
I would be okay with 2024 if Biden were to run with Gov Walz. Then if Biden cannot finish his term, we would have a solid individual taking the helm. Trump, if nominated, will pick a sycophant and I am sure I would disapprove of that individual taking the helm. But I do not see Trump winning in the general so my focus is more on Biden.
Thanks for the courtesy of sharing your thoughts.
I will add Tim Walz to my google list to look at when my brain is fresher. I have spent the last 3 days watching videos by Sam Vaknin. Often, I struggle with his thought process, but I take a few notes that resonate with some of my thoughts and life experiences. This morning I started the video linked below and still haven't finished it 8 hours later. I really need to begin again because I will probably find some insight that I might find beneficial.
How to Resolve Your Inner Conflicts? Deceive Yourself! - YouTube
I really need to do some light reading and fun videos for a few days to recharge my energy.
Happy to share thoughts with a rational adult. A rare experience nowadays.
Thank you. I've been doing a lot of work regaining self awareness after spending years of my life trauma bonded to a narcissist. According to Vaknin, it is likely that being that involved with a narcissist allows the narcissist to control their victim's brain waves. After personally living it, I can see it could have happened - just difficult to accept that I lost two decades of my life marching to someone else's drum. Oh well. Live and hopefully learn and spread the knowledge.
My most anticipated event of 2023 is the release of Robert Sapolsky's book - Determined: A Science of Life without Freewill. I'll probably get it on Kindle soon after its release. If you read it, I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
You have your opinion and I have mine. If both Trump and Biden are the nominees for their respective parties I don't think it will be an easy election and I believe the EC count will be closer than anybody would like. For you the key point is the GOP is shooting itself in the foot by not pushing Trump out, for me another key point is that Biden will be running on his record of his first term. And I don't think that record is an insignificant nuance.
I too will absolutely read his new book!
Yes, that is my point. If Trump wins the nomination he will virtually ensure a GOP defeat. That means all who support Trump (directly or indirectly) will have inadvertently engineered a victory for Biden (assuming he is the D nominee) even if many voting for Biden do so while holding their noses.
Agree to disagree. Biden this time around must run on his record and that will weigh him down in the general election. In addition he continues to show his age. I believe there are those who might vote for Biden will also realize they are voting for Harris as to be honest the odds of Biden being able to complete a second term cannot be anything better than 50/50.
But I'm done with this conversation. You have your opinion and I have mine and to be honest neither one amounts to a hill of beans. Someone will win the Oval Office in 24 and life will continue to go on. None of this matters.
67%.... just sayin..
Donald Trump is a known traitor. Under what circumstances would that person EVER be acceptable as president of the United States?
Known traitor?
Where do you get these little nuggets from?
I did not mention Donald Trump. I do not read about Donald Trump. I do not discuss Donald Trump on or off of the internet. I have found it very beneficial to my mental and physical health to put Donald Trump on personal ignore.
If Trump is the GOP nominee, and Biden is the Democratic nominee, then I will continue to ignore both of them as much as I can - which for several months has been totally.
Words have no meaning.
If it is so well known that you know it, why won't the Biden Justice Dept. try and convict him and be rid of Trump forever?
I know, I did.
We don't have , as a country, the luxury of ignoring Donald Trump going forward towards the next election.
LOL. What are you doing, trying to rationalize voting for that piece of shit?
1. Trump tried to steal the 2020 presidential election.
2. He sat on his ass while the capitol was invaded by Trump supporters and dozens of cops were hurt. Trump did nothing to try and stop it. Nothing. Of course , he had his reasons for doing nothing - he wanted the "riot" to succeed in delaying or postponing the certification of the electoral votes.
An understanding of reality.
I am not the country. I do have the luxury of ignoring anyone I choose to.
I would rather spend my time watching videos or reading books that interest me.
I have spent this evening being entertained by the following. You might like one or both of these if you have time to spend doing something other than saving the country.
STOP BEING MANIPULATED! - YouTube
and
Your Brain: Who's in Control? | Full Documentary | NOVA | PBS - YouTube
[no value/trolling]
Yet here you are...
Now you are just trolling her.
Thats fine, but then why are you commenting on an article about the presidential election?
I dont think too much about my brain. It seems to still be working.
-
If Trump wins in 2024, one of the main reasons will be apathy.
An observation is trolling? Good to know.
in this case?
emphatically!
Some people have their own definitions.
deniers usually do.
[trolling]
Is there a reason that I have to justify asking TiG for his political opinion on one of your seeds? If so, I will make a note of paying more attention to avoid ever commenting on your political seeds so we will never have to have a repeat of this interrogation.
Interacting with TiG because I really was interested in his opinion because I happen to value his opinion.
I was simply curious to see if you think it would be acceptable to put a traitor back in office. I dont think it was an unreasonable question. I'm going to be asking a lot of people that question over the next year.
Well now you have my answer.
Indeed
Right wing...
please list specifically why YOU believe Trump is a traitor.
No.
Just no.
Stop.
How can you not know this already?
Do you not consider it a betrayal of trust (of the oath of office: " I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. " ) for a PotUS to falsely (and intensely) claim that the USA electoral system was rigged (corrupt)? Or that tens of millions of US voters were disenfranchised by "bad people"? Or that the duly elected PotUS is illegitimate?
Is that not a betrayal of the oath of office?
How about suborning his V.P. to commit an unconstitutional act of tabling certified votes from states where he lost so that he could (by his nutty scheme) win via plurality? Or attempting to coerce the Georgia SoS to find votes and declare him the winner? Or coercing the Speaker of the House in Arizona to submit alternate electors?
Does attempting to steal the presidency count as an act against the government and/or the CotUS?
There is more. But surely you see why someone could justify labeling Trump a traitor.
Maybe you should stop assuming so many things.
Oh so logically you are implying that you already knew Trump was a traitor? You just wanted to hear JR's reasons?
If you did not consider Trump a traitor then clearly my 'assumption' was spot on.
What did YOU read?
Now you are assuming about implications.
You are, of course, free to keep on making erroneous assumptions and there isn't anything I can do to stop you.
And you leap to obfuscation.
Stand up and take a stand; do you or do you not consider Trump a traitor?
If not, then deal with my response @2.2.69 to your challenge.
That's absurd.
My challenge?
What are you going on about?
FFS, please tell me that asking someone to explain why he thinks as he does isn't 'challenging' to you.
I have had enough of this waste of time.
You deny that you challenged JR @2.2.67 to " please list specifically why YOU believe Trump is a traitor. "?
Just a brilliant string of responses from you Texan.
I have had enough of this waste of time.
He's an expert on trolling.
I admire you, TiG!
A member's years of trolling don't make a dent in your faith in their redeemability.
That's not sarcasm. I truly wish I had such infinite patience.
Trump doesn’t even know what Trump stands for. Publicly he’s only about grievance, privately his concerns are purely based on transactions.
Trump stands for Trump, it's not complicated.
I would say that the National Review was prescient in its prognostication, but it does not take an ability to see the future to say that someone who has behaved badly all their life will probably continue to behave badly. Any person with reasonable intelligence should have been able to predict, if not specific bad things, then at least that he would wrest the institution from the moorings of precedent and decorum. He is not conservative. He is populist with fascist leanings. He has made the republican party, through his populism, bend towards fascism al la DeSantis as his closest quote-unquote conservative rival. The republican party has lost its way.