Fair points! Though I'm inclined to think the parentheticals are crucial. It's true that some polls show majority support for "mass deportations"; but I'd bet good money that if those deportations took the form that liberals are most worried about (ICE going door to door), then *that* would be incredibly unpopular and spark a backlash. Which presumably is why you had Homan (the border tsar) going around saying that it would be humane, focus first on criminals, etc. I have similar thoughts on tariffs.
So I totally agree that *some* version of those are much more likely to be implemented. But would also argue (though I admit I don't have the same charts to back it up—at least yet!) that the nightmarish versions of those that liberals are imagining would be similarly unpopular, so that (hopefully) we'll get watered-down, publicity-stunt-oriented versions of them. We'll see...
That strikes me as pretty plausible. I tend to think that if we were likely to get "crippling" tariffs--ones which would remain in place for a long time-- markets would be showing evidence of that which they currently don't seem to be doing.
Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on countries equal to those already unilaterally imposed by them on our products. Why is it so hard to understand that the solution to this economic dilemma is simply for those countries to drop their unfair existing tariffs? This should be a non issue. It’s called fair trade.
While I agree with the general point, some of the details strike me as a bit slippery. The first two examples you give of extreme Trumpian policies are deportation and tariffs. The third is a national abortion ban. These are very different! Worrying about a national abortion ban is pretty unmoored from political reality. Trump has been explicit about wanting to leave abortion to the states, and like you point out it's very unpopular. (I imagine these are connected--he cares about his popularity.) But my sense is that deportation (what counts as mass?) and tariffs (what counts as crippling?) are both much more likely and much more popular.
Does it really matter what Trump voters think deep down inside, if what they think deep down inside has almost nothing to do with how they vote? Or to put it another way, if Trump does try mass deportations, and the effects are horrible, won’t Trump voters by and large just deny these horrible things have happened?
I think the final question is the crux. And of course, any simple generic will be too simple: different people will react differently to horrible effects of (say) mass deportations. Obviously some people will dismiss any consequences as justified. Obviously others won't. What I think the data about what Trump voters think should do is shift our estimates of the number of people who will react strongly negatively against Trumpian overreach—and shift our estimates of how much pushpack along the way to drastic actions the Trump administration will receive.
I agree that different voters will respond differently. But my guess would be that short of an epic economic disaster, the vast majority of Trump voters continue supporting him. I guess don’t find the data as comforting as you, because the Trump voters I know value never having to admit they’re wrong more than any policies. The reasons they support Trump are constantly shifting, or they simply insist things that happen never did. I hope they are atypical. But I think bad policies shift a few percentage points, short of 2008 style economic catastrophe.
Trump program is dementia level insane regarding both economic and moral values.
The trope that the U.S voters voted trump to reduce inflation is hilariously absurd considering doing extreme unscoped tariffs are the best way to speedrun an economic crisis and hyperinflation.
The greatest deportation in the history of the U.S without any care towards proper management of the human misery it will cause is an extreme moral failure but also highly potentiate the crisis caused by the tariffs as an exacerbation of economic and labour shortage.
Little/no disagreement here on the substance of the issues—I agree that 20% tariffs on all imports would probably be an economic disaster, and the greatest deportation in history would be both an economic and moral failing of epic proportions. The question is whether the plurality that voted for Trump—especially the large proportion of non-MAGA voters who switched between 2020 and 2024—want those extreme versions of the policies. I think the evidence pretty clearly suggests they don't—that's the point of the piece.
Why an economic failure? We are constantly told of the economic benefits of mass low skill immigration, but the countries that have such immigration don’t seem to be realizing much benefit. I suspect the main effect would be modest downward wealth redistribution. Which liberals should theoretically like.
“Pluralistic Ignorance” is essentially the same phenomenon but ingroup/within the “tribe.” The inflated expectations of extremism, inside and outside of party lines, are unsurprising if everyone is virtue (and vice) signaling at that inflated level of severity.
What if I’m well-informed in the sense that I regularly follow various sources from the extreme left to the extreme right and everything in between, as well as academic analyses of the political landscape from an …but also have a collection of views, some of which I hold more strongly than others, that don’t neatly align with the current political constellation?
Technically, wouldn’t that make me both well-informed and political?
It’s that you identify nationwide abortion restrictions as something he wanted that is on the nightmare list. In fact, despite what Kamala said, he made it pretty clear he was going with the “leave it to the states” position. He did say he wouldn’t sign a nationwide abortion ban. Unlike, say, Pence, who talks about Jesus when asked.
Belatedly appreciate the article. One key problem you can now see universal on Substack, Feb 16, is no one actually listens to what he says. They just make stuff up. And I don't have to say who that is, but the administration very carefully has press briefings, in fact, daily, explain their approach at length -- everyone just attributes something they made up that's completely unrelated.
Now you/we may think that the administration might be mistaken, might be lying, they might be fooled into an avenue they didn't foresee (eg, the data that escapes leads to Tech running the world instead of government...handwaving...somehow...sure, why not?) but to completely dismiss what is officially stated and replace it with something invented is positively unhinged. I don't know when I've ever seen this, even in history.
I guess that comes to: 1) Somebody is not even on the map of reality. 2) they are not going to be able to interact at all or affect change while in that condition. Like for example, bringing lawsuits for what is clearly legal, while missing lawsuits for what is clearly illegal. I guess I'm saying it's not like, "The opposition is 21% nicer and 30% more effective than I believed" but more like, "I believe they are lizard people with ray guns who are secretly plotting to eat us" levels. What gets everybody on the same map again?
This was super interesting to read months later, thank you. As many others have pointed out, there doesn’t seem to be much difference in the result between “I actively hate liberals and immigrants and women and hope they die” and the firmer reality, which is more, “trans people skeeve me and I’m okay with women and immigrants and liberals dying, as long as my life gets easier.”
The result is the same. Otherwise the Third Reich wouldn’t have been a thing. German citizens trumpeted loudly after the war that they didn’t want Jews to die…they just needed their lives to get easier. Cognitive dissonance is real and wild. There will be no true elections in 2026. Welcome to Russia.
And abortion will be repealed nationwide through the Comstack Act. And more women, mostly minorities, will die, despite the smug assurances from men that it will never happen. Just like Roe getting repealed, according to them, would never happen. And to date, 6 different states have bills in their congress to charge women who get abortions with homicide, punishable with the death penalty. Another thing that men think will never happen.
Fair points! Though I'm inclined to think the parentheticals are crucial. It's true that some polls show majority support for "mass deportations"; but I'd bet good money that if those deportations took the form that liberals are most worried about (ICE going door to door), then *that* would be incredibly unpopular and spark a backlash. Which presumably is why you had Homan (the border tsar) going around saying that it would be humane, focus first on criminals, etc. I have similar thoughts on tariffs.
So I totally agree that *some* version of those are much more likely to be implemented. But would also argue (though I admit I don't have the same charts to back it up—at least yet!) that the nightmarish versions of those that liberals are imagining would be similarly unpopular, so that (hopefully) we'll get watered-down, publicity-stunt-oriented versions of them. We'll see...
That strikes me as pretty plausible. I tend to think that if we were likely to get "crippling" tariffs--ones which would remain in place for a long time-- markets would be showing evidence of that which they currently don't seem to be doing.
Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on countries equal to those already unilaterally imposed by them on our products. Why is it so hard to understand that the solution to this economic dilemma is simply for those countries to drop their unfair existing tariffs? This should be a non issue. It’s called fair trade.
While I agree with the general point, some of the details strike me as a bit slippery. The first two examples you give of extreme Trumpian policies are deportation and tariffs. The third is a national abortion ban. These are very different! Worrying about a national abortion ban is pretty unmoored from political reality. Trump has been explicit about wanting to leave abortion to the states, and like you point out it's very unpopular. (I imagine these are connected--he cares about his popularity.) But my sense is that deportation (what counts as mass?) and tariffs (what counts as crippling?) are both much more likely and much more popular.
Does it really matter what Trump voters think deep down inside, if what they think deep down inside has almost nothing to do with how they vote? Or to put it another way, if Trump does try mass deportations, and the effects are horrible, won’t Trump voters by and large just deny these horrible things have happened?
I think the final question is the crux. And of course, any simple generic will be too simple: different people will react differently to horrible effects of (say) mass deportations. Obviously some people will dismiss any consequences as justified. Obviously others won't. What I think the data about what Trump voters think should do is shift our estimates of the number of people who will react strongly negatively against Trumpian overreach—and shift our estimates of how much pushpack along the way to drastic actions the Trump administration will receive.
But of course, we'll have to wait and see...
Thanks for responding to this.
I agree that different voters will respond differently. But my guess would be that short of an epic economic disaster, the vast majority of Trump voters continue supporting him. I guess don’t find the data as comforting as you, because the Trump voters I know value never having to admit they’re wrong more than any policies. The reasons they support Trump are constantly shifting, or they simply insist things that happen never did. I hope they are atypical. But I think bad policies shift a few percentage points, short of 2008 style economic catastrophe.
Trump program is dementia level insane regarding both economic and moral values.
The trope that the U.S voters voted trump to reduce inflation is hilariously absurd considering doing extreme unscoped tariffs are the best way to speedrun an economic crisis and hyperinflation.
The greatest deportation in the history of the U.S without any care towards proper management of the human misery it will cause is an extreme moral failure but also highly potentiate the crisis caused by the tariffs as an exacerbation of economic and labour shortage.
Little/no disagreement here on the substance of the issues—I agree that 20% tariffs on all imports would probably be an economic disaster, and the greatest deportation in history would be both an economic and moral failing of epic proportions. The question is whether the plurality that voted for Trump—especially the large proportion of non-MAGA voters who switched between 2020 and 2024—want those extreme versions of the policies. I think the evidence pretty clearly suggests they don't—that's the point of the piece.
Why an economic failure? We are constantly told of the economic benefits of mass low skill immigration, but the countries that have such immigration don’t seem to be realizing much benefit. I suspect the main effect would be modest downward wealth redistribution. Which liberals should theoretically like.
“Pluralistic Ignorance” is essentially the same phenomenon but ingroup/within the “tribe.” The inflated expectations of extremism, inside and outside of party lines, are unsurprising if everyone is virtue (and vice) signaling at that inflated level of severity.
What if I’m well-informed in the sense that I regularly follow various sources from the extreme left to the extreme right and everything in between, as well as academic analyses of the political landscape from an …but also have a collection of views, some of which I hold more strongly than others, that don’t neatly align with the current political constellation?
Technically, wouldn’t that make me both well-informed and political?
It’s that you identify nationwide abortion restrictions as something he wanted that is on the nightmare list. In fact, despite what Kamala said, he made it pretty clear he was going with the “leave it to the states” position. He did say he wouldn’t sign a nationwide abortion ban. Unlike, say, Pence, who talks about Jesus when asked.
Yep, you might be an exception. Hard to say, of course—but the statistics I cited are all generics, and of course only hold on average!
Belatedly appreciate the article. One key problem you can now see universal on Substack, Feb 16, is no one actually listens to what he says. They just make stuff up. And I don't have to say who that is, but the administration very carefully has press briefings, in fact, daily, explain their approach at length -- everyone just attributes something they made up that's completely unrelated.
Now you/we may think that the administration might be mistaken, might be lying, they might be fooled into an avenue they didn't foresee (eg, the data that escapes leads to Tech running the world instead of government...handwaving...somehow...sure, why not?) but to completely dismiss what is officially stated and replace it with something invented is positively unhinged. I don't know when I've ever seen this, even in history.
I guess that comes to: 1) Somebody is not even on the map of reality. 2) they are not going to be able to interact at all or affect change while in that condition. Like for example, bringing lawsuits for what is clearly legal, while missing lawsuits for what is clearly illegal. I guess I'm saying it's not like, "The opposition is 21% nicer and 30% more effective than I believed" but more like, "I believe they are lizard people with ray guns who are secretly plotting to eat us" levels. What gets everybody on the same map again?
This was super interesting to read months later, thank you. As many others have pointed out, there doesn’t seem to be much difference in the result between “I actively hate liberals and immigrants and women and hope they die” and the firmer reality, which is more, “trans people skeeve me and I’m okay with women and immigrants and liberals dying, as long as my life gets easier.”
The result is the same. Otherwise the Third Reich wouldn’t have been a thing. German citizens trumpeted loudly after the war that they didn’t want Jews to die…they just needed their lives to get easier. Cognitive dissonance is real and wild. There will be no true elections in 2026. Welcome to Russia.
And abortion will be repealed nationwide through the Comstack Act. And more women, mostly minorities, will die, despite the smug assurances from men that it will never happen. Just like Roe getting repealed, according to them, would never happen. And to date, 6 different states have bills in their congress to charge women who get abortions with homicide, punishable with the death penalty. Another thing that men think will never happen.
Because it’s never happened to them.
The majority didn't vote for anyone. Neither side got more than 1/3 of the electorate to vote for them.