Protest Vote Speculation
Michigan is holding its primaries today, and the political media's main focus seems to be on the people who won't be voting for the two main candidates in the race. On the Republican side, the question is not whether Donald Trump is going to win or not (he is) but on how many people will vote for Nikki Haley, who is still clinging on to relevance. On the Democratic side, the question is not whether President Joe Biden is going to win or not (he is) but on how many people mark their ballot "uncommitted," in protest over his policies towards Israel and the Gaza Strip. When everyone already knows which two horses are going to win, to put this another way, then they've got to find something else to talk about.
The 2024 presidential election is unusual in a number of ways, but perhaps the biggest is that it is essentially a race between two incumbent presidents. Joe Biden, of course, sits in the Oval Office. Donald Trump, though, used to sit there and wants to sit there again. Only once in American history has a president won a non-consecutive term -- normally losing candidates never even make another attempt. So the dynamic between a president and the ex-president he defeated is rather unique for America to contemplate. But what it also means is that the outcome of the primary season has been a foregone conclusion for months now. Both Biden and Trump are cruising to their respective parties' nomination.
Since this is a boring thing to write about (what else is there to say other than that previous sentence, really?), the pundits seek stories elsewhere. The problem, however, is that nobody really knows what people are going to do. There aren't exactly good prediction models to use for such a unique situation.
On the Republican side, Nikki Haley is still in the race and swears she's going to stick it out until at least Super Tuesday. She is correct in pointing out that Trump has been pretty consistently losing around 40 percent of the GOP primary vote. To be sure, Trump getting 60 percent of the vote would be considered an astounding feat for an open primary contest, but it is actually rather low for an incumbent (which is what Trump essentially is). Reporters have been trying to dig into the Haley vote to see what it consists of, but there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. Some Haley voters are never-Trump Republicans. Some are Democrats who have crossed over to participate in the GOP contest (since their own primary is such a foregone conclusion). Some are voters who are genuinely enthused about Haley and her candidacy. The big question, however, is what are all these people going to do in November?
How many of them will refuse to vote for Trump? How many of them will stay home in disgust at their choices? How many of them will vote for third-party candidates? How many of them will cross over to vote for Biden? The entire election could hinge on the answers to those questions, but it is maddeningly difficult (if not impossible) to get clear answers for any of them.
Over on the Democratic side, there are different shades of nuance but the essential questions are pretty much the same. How many Muslim voters are so disgusted with the situation in Gaza that they are going to refuse to vote for Biden? That is the question at the forefront currently, as Michigan has a rather high percentage of Muslims in the Democratic base. A similar effort to register a protest was launched in New Hampshire, but it wound up only getting 1,500 votes and the media never really paid much attention to it. In Michigan, it's now all they're talking about on the Democratic side, and the number of uncommitted voters will likely be over 10,000 (Michigan, of course, is a much more populous state than New Hampshire). Michigan is a crucial battleground state, so Biden can't afford to lose too many votes to this particular issue, but then again the general election is over half a year away and the situation in Israel and Palestine will likely be a whole lot different by November (in fact, things may improve there as soon as next week, according to Biden). Perhaps the bad feelings among Democratic voters will have died down by that point? It's impossible to say. A war waged eight months ago doesn't have the same impact as a war which is ongoing, obviously.
But as I said, the overarching questions remain the same. How many Democrats who register protest votes against Biden in the primary will refuse to vote for him in the general? How many will stay home? How many of them will vote for Cornel West or other third-party candidates? Will any of them actually cross over and vote for Trump? The current answers on the Democratic side are the same as the answers on the Republican side: nobody knows.
Complicating everything further is the fact that in a whole lot of states there will be more than two candidates on the November ballot. Cornel West, R.F.K. Jr., and whomever No Labels decides to run will appear on many state ballots this fall. They will likely only garner a slim percentage of the vote, but this could be a very close election in a lot of states -- meaning a slim percentage could throw the race between the two major candidates one way or the other.
At this point, my big question is whether No Labels will recruit Nikki Haley for their ticket, or perhaps some other mainstream Republican. That would certainly roil the race. All of a sudden, the never-Trump Republicans would have someone they could enthusiastically vote for. Voting for Nikki Haley would be a lot easier for a lot of GOP voters than pulling a lever for Joe Biden, one would assume. Haley probably wouldn't get anywhere near the 40 percent she just pulled in from her home state, but even if she siphons off five or ten percent of Trump's support, that could prove to be decisive (especially in the battleground states).
This would all likely hinge on whether Haley decides to fully burn her bridges with the Republican Party, of course. Up until roughly the New Hampshire vote, she was still rather supportive of Donald Trump. Many saw this as her angling for a possible vice presidential role on his ticket, in fact. Since then, though, she has lit into Trump in increasingly personal terms. She is now saying that he is essentially unfit to be president. So what is she going to do when she is eventually forced out of the Republican race? Endorse Trump -- a man she's now making the case is unfit to serve? Plenty of other Republicans have taken this route, swallowing their pride in an effort to boost their future prospects within the Trumpian GOP. But at this point it seems pretty obvious that Nikki Haley is not going to be tapped by Trump for his veep slot. So she may not have much of a future in the MAGA GOP anyway -- which might just be an enticement to start seriously talking to the No Labels people.
The primaries were essentially over before they began. There will be no drama in watching the returns come in on either side. Joe Biden and Donald Trump are going to win Michigan tonight. But the general election is going to be a much wilder ride, because the key to victory may be in figuring out what all those Haley voters and uncommitted Democratic voters are going to do. When the choice between Biden and Trump becomes inescapable for voters, how many of them are going to return to the fold of their respective parties, hold their noses, and vote for Trump or Biden? Nobody knows. I'm sure some pundits will be speculating wildly tonight about what it all means -- which way all these protest voters are going to break, in the end -- but at this point it is no better than guesswork. The primaries are a foregone conclusion, but the general election is still very much up in the air.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I wonder, two things ... will Biden get the message of tonights Michigan primary and, if he does, will he do anything about it.
If there is no ceasefire in place by the end of the weekend as Biden predicted, then he better stop the unconditional military aid to Israel if he wants to get re-elected.
Joshua,
Israel's reaction to the Hamas Horrors of 10/7 really is horribly 'over the top', by a long shot.
Speaking of protest votes, Nicci Haley is on a mission and it really doesn't have anything to do with winning the Republican primary. Still hoping she stays in until the bitter end and that includes the convention.
What I don't understand is what does Dean Phillips think he is proving aside from the obvious. Time for him to step aside - the voters don't want him.
Only once in American history has a president won a non-consecutive term -- normally losing candidates never even make another attempt.
Interestingly, the only president to win a non-consecutive term lost his bid for re-election against Benjamin Harrison (R) in the Electoral College but actually did win the popular vote. When the "do-over" election was held in 1892, Grover Cleveland (D), won the popular vote for the third consecutive presidential election.
So the dynamic between a president and the ex-president he defeated is rather unique for America to contemplate.
Well, we do know that (to date) no president has won two terms in office without winning the popular vote at least once. So if I was forced to place a wager on it at the current time, I would definitely not put my money on the candidate who is most likely to lose the popular vote for the third consecutive presidential election.
Elizabeth Miller
3
What I don't understand is what does Dean Phillips think he is proving aside from the obvious. Time for him to step aside - the voters don't want him.
They also don't want Marianne "you can manifest your own reality by thinking it" Williamson, but that hasn't stopped her from unsuspending her failed campaign. Let them waste their money, at least it's good for the economy.
@liz,
your opinions on israel/hamas hold zero sway with me because they are horribly misinformed.
Only once in American history has a president won a non-consecutive term -- normally losing candidates never even make another attempt.
The other exception (losing candidate who tried again and won) had two consecutive terms -- and beats out Trump for the distinction of being the worst human being ever to be POTUS.
nypoet22,
Josh,
Do you feel that Israel’s response has been appropriate? Hamas is not pro-Palestine, it is anti-Israel. The death of 1200 Israelis was horrific and inexcusable. But the response by Israel has been even more horrific and inexcusable because it was not carried out by a terrorist group, it was carried out by a country that we heavily support. Almost 30,000 Palestinians have been killed and 100,000 injured since the Hamas attack in October. How many of these were actually members of Hamas is a number that I have yet to see published. They are being starved out since aid is not allowed to enter the area. Add to this the fact that they have no electricity and no clean water and you have the perfect recipe for slow and painful deaths. Their infrastructure has been destroyed.
Yes, Israel has the right to defend its people from attack. That does not justify the death toll in Gaza now reaching over 250 killed per day — more than we saw in Rwanda back in their worst days. Again, I ask you how many members of Hamas are included in these daily killings? It is not like life in Gaza had been good prior to the Hama attack.
Israel has the most sophisticated missile defense system in the world. I have never understood how someone launching a rocket from the rooftop of a Palestinian apartment building (that is shot out of the sky and does not harm any Israeli) justifies Israel giving everyone who lives in that apartment building an hour to grab what they can and evacuate before Israel destroys the entire building.
Can you imagine if a street gang in this country did a drive-by that didn't harm anyone and the police’s response was to blow up the housing projects where the gang members supposedly live? The Palestinian people are literally fish in a barrel — they have nowhere to seek refuge.
I do not know how Israel should battle Hamas to get them out of Gaza, but their current strategy is genocide and it must be stopped. It just feels like Israel is doing the same thing the US did in response to 9/11 — extreme acts of revenge that go far beyond seeking justice against those responsible for the terrorist attack.
10/7 was an atrocity. Hamas is evil, and should be destroyed.
Israel's response is both a greater atrocity and a recruitment campaign for Hamas. The US should have made a much more vigorous effort to discourage Israel from taking this reprehensible and self-destructive path.
Israel is a long-standing ally of the US, and we should fulfill our commitments to our allies. But that leaves at least some room for greater pressure than we exerted.
And in other news…
Mitch McConnell is stepping down as the Senate Republicans's leader and will not seek to keep his leadership position come November. Too many “Oops, I pooped my pants!” moments to let him be one of the faces of the party, I guess. No one has done more to allow the ultra-rich to buy politicians than Moscow Mitch. He will not be missed!
dsws
7
The other exception (losing candidate who tried again and won) had two consecutive terms -- and beats out Trump for the distinction of being the worst human being ever to be POTUS.
Who could you be referring to if not Andrew Jackson!? Interestingly, like Grover Cleveland, that sorry excuse of a human being also won the popular vote in three consecutive presidential elections.
Joshua,
your opinions on israel/hamas hold zero sway with me because they are horribly misinformed.
Yeah, so you have mentioned, on occasion. That's not a great way to engage but, I do understand that if you can't engage without busting a blood vessel, then it's probably best that you don't.
You lost me at Josh
Heh.
@betsy,
i am in no danger of excess blood pressure, just as you appear to be in no danger of ever becoming informed on any historical details regarding israel or ukraine that don't jibe with your fixed opinions. you don't get it, you don't want to get it, and that's your choice. after repeated attempts by myself and others to educate you have essentially been ignored and brushed aside as if they'd never happened, it's a little rich that you are accusing anyone else of refusing to engage.
JL
Joshua,
If history had anything to do with forming opinions on current affairs, then there wouldn't be so much resistance around here to understanding what is actually happening and not happening in the here and now in Ukraine and Israel.
It seems Trump hasn't got the market cornered on the concept of projection, not to mention magical thinking.
You are right about one thing, though. It is pretty much a waste of time trying to engage with mean-spirited people who have closed minds. But, that won't stop me from trying to shed a little light around here, whenever the opportunity arises. I have become immune to the juvenile name-calling and democracy dies in the dark.
Betsy!? Seriously? Oh, wait ... :)
Biden loves to talk about inflection points. But, there does seem to be wide consensus in the region that we are indeed at an inflection point in terms of Israeli security and Palestinian rights and regional development.
There was an interesting discussion at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace this morning, taking into account the various perspectives on what the way forward is to be from this inflection point. Like any discussion on the Middle East, it was largely depressing.
One key point that struck me as I was listening is that the way forward is almost entirely dependent upon, ah, US engagement. In that regard, Biden, who regards himself as a Zionist, has always struck me as someone who has a token degree of empathy for the Palestinian cause and who also has not, historically, been too willing to get his hands dirty in an intractable Middle East peace process.
Maybe Biden has come to his own personal and professional inflection point with the realization that he must now, at long last, lead the way out of the current chaos of the region with the understanding that the US is the indispensable nation.
Well, given that this is an anxious election year in America, one can still hope. :)
Governing Gaza After the War
Unintentionally self-referential
Joshua, "give it a break - you don't have to be a prick every day of your life, ya know!"
What movie is that from?
How about you engage with [18] ...
... no danger of ever becoming informed on any historical details regarding israel or ukraine that don't jibe with your fixed opinions...
Maybe consider being a little more substantive?
Russ[8],
The horrific Hamas 10/7 attack on Israel was a traumatic event, in the truest sense. That attack and the real threat of more to come crystallized what Hamas is all about and that they need to be neutralized as an entity that would ever be capable of committing those atrocities again from Gaza or anywhere else.
More than 1200 Israelis brutalized and killed and taken hostage with the promise from Hamas that this is just the beginning is what is being compared to more than 30,000 dead Palestinian civilians, mostly women and children, and the destruction of Gaza as a platform for terrorists.
The question is how to square that perspective with the Palestinian struggle against occupation and loss of land and for statehood. One big problem is that Palestinians and their supporters and donors and leaders have squandered so many chances and so much money on things that have only set their cause back while Israel has long taken an approach to ensure that Palestinians will never become a political force in the land of Palestine.
Hence the intractable nature of peace in the promised land. How do we escape the seemingly endless cycle of violence? The chaos and death and destruction of the moment could provide the opportunity to move forward for all involved but only if there is enlightened and focused leadership on the issue - from all corners but especially from the US.
nypoet22
I apologize. I swear it said Joshua when I first typed it. Only saw it said Josh after you called me on it. Again, my mistake.
Russ,
Not sure why Joshua got so uptight about your calling him Josh. He called me Betsy in this thread! Heh. I think he thought that I was the one who called him Josh ... ;)