Can Trump Voters Be Persuaded to Reconsider?

I had not planned on writing today, but I want to make sure you don’t miss an excellent pieced published in The New York Times today. A Trump Conviction Could Cost Him Enough Voters to Tip the Election.

You’ve likely seen some of this information before. But the authors, Norm Eisen, former White House Ethics advisor and special counsel during Trump’s first House impeachment, Celinda Lake, well-regarded Democratic pollster, and Anat Shenker-Osorio, political researcher and campaign adviser, make a compelling case for the political impact jury verdicts in the criminal cases against Trump will have.

I think their argument suggests at more than that as well. The authors appropriately limit themselves to what they have statistical evidence to prove—that a conviction in a criminal case would swing enough Trump voters away to result in his loss at the polls in 2024. I think that data hints at a more compelling conclusion, that those who plan to vote for Trump can be swayed even without trials if they come to believe he committed criminal acts. A jury’s verdict isn’t the only kind of proof that can convince people to reject Trump’s candidacy. Now that indictments are public and much of the evidence is available it should be possible to persuade folks Trump committed a crime through means short of a jury verdict.

The New York Times article argues that, “if Mr. Trump is tried and convicted, a mountain of public opinion data suggests voters would turn away from the former president.” While cautioning against early polling data, the authors point out that the “negative impact” a conviction would have has been a consistent feature of polling data over the last six months, including in swing states. The authors are unaware of a poll with contrary results. They point to a December New York Times/Sienna poll that showed nearly a third of Republicans rejecting Trump as the party’s nominee if he’s convicted, even if that comes after he wins the nomination. Another poll showed a seismic shift among independent voters who currently support Trump 45% to 44% over Biden. But 53% of those voters said they’d support Biden following a Trump conviction while only 32% would remain in Trump’s camp, with even greater shifts among younger voters.

The authors argue a conviction would shift votes because Americans are protective of the right to vote and “leery of entrusting the Oval Office to someone who abused his power by engaging in a criminal conspiracy to deny or take away those freedoms.” But they point out voters are sophisticated enough to understand the difference between mere allegations and proof and that Americans’ familiarity with the jury system through participation in it means that its integrity is trusted.

So, Godspeed to the courts. But based on this analysis, we should consider taking the idea further. If all Trump voters truly believe the prosecutions are a political witch hunt, convictions alone would be unable to change their minds. A jury’s verdict is perhaps the best way to help people reject candidate Trump. But it is not the only one.

The facts that demonstrate Trump’s guilt are an intricate interweaving of evidence. It’s not enough to just look at video from January 6 or any single piece of evidence, no matter how compelling it is. And people need to know the crimes Trump is charged with, what the proof is on complicated issues like state of mind, and have the opportunity to assess why it adds up to vote-changing guilt, even before a jury’s assessment. Some of us have been able to make a committed study of that evidence, but others have had families to care for, and jobs and other responsibilities that occupied their time. For others, the issues may not have seemed pressing before now. But as we move into the election year, the timing is right. We’ve all seen how compelling exposure to the evidence is—that’s why the January 6 hearings moved public opinion so significantly.

That’s what our Civil Discourse community has always been intended for: to promote respectful conversations among people with different views. We know that insisting people agree with us doesn’t work. But appealing to their intelligence and their common sense can, as many of us have seen with friends and family members. The polling referenced in today’s New York Times piece is a good jumping-off point for a conversation. Ask a friend who is considering voting for Trump what they think about these polls and if they too would be less likely to vote for Trump if he were convicted. That’s an opportunity to begin the process of discussing the facts, and referring people to sources like the January 6 committee transcripts of testimony from Republican witnesses, if they want to see it for themselves.

Hopefully, the criminal justice system will stay on track. Hopefully, the court of appeals in the District of Columbia will move expeditiously on Trump’s motions to dismiss the indictment and the Supreme Court will do the same. Hopefully, a trial will take place, perhaps not too much later than the currently scheduled date on March 4. But we do not have to wait on uncertain timelines and do nothing in the meantime. We can take advantage of this insight about how voters are influenced by proof of Trump’s guilt and seize the opportunity to get to work.

During the 2010 election, a field study tested how personal contact with a candidate affected voters’ decisions. It concluded that regardless of the message delivered, a candidate who came to a voter’s door and spoke with them influenced their choice far more than a candidate who simply left information at their door did. And that conclusion held up regardless of whether the candidate spoke with voters about their ideas and qualifications or simply provided information about how to vote in the upcoming election. It’s a long leap from effective persuasion by the candidate themself to conversations among voters about their views, but the study does underscore the importance of personal conversations in a political context. In a society that has come to view so much of our political discourse as toxic, why not see if a respectful conversation based on data and facts can bear fruit?

Political slogans that have gone stale make fresh sense in this election. Vote like your democracy depends on it. Vote like your life depends on it. In this election, we can’t afford to leave any stone unturned.

Civil Discourse is now the eighth most popular Substack newsletter in the U.S. politics category, with just shy of 200,000 subscribers. If we can each reach just a few eligible voters and convince them of the importance of registering and voting for democracy, we can save the Republic in 2024. I’m so appreciative of everyone who believes along with me that it’s worth it. As voters and citizens, we have enormous influence if we are willing to use it.

We’re in this together,

Joyce