Same here. Which is why that 17% is a huge number. The idea that poll says a conviction won’t make a difference is bullshit
I’d take that.
His idiot working class followers apparently can’t recognize a con man when they see one, but I’ll bet good money that most of them can recognize that one guy who never does shit on the jobsite, but who keeps his job because he’s buddy-buddy with the boss.
Yeah, the group “Trump isn’t quite criminal enough yet get my vote” is going to be pretty small.
In theory there could be people who think, “A guilty verdict proves that the system is biased against him” and who would end up supporting him, where an acquittal would lead to the opposite result. I just suspect that all those Americans could fit in my Camry with room for luggage.
As ever, the real impact will be in enthusiasm, not intention. Will a given verdict energize Trump or Biden voters to show up at the polls? Or will it have the opposite effect?
I absolutely do not think any support will change. Nobody in 2024 is going to say, “oh my gosh, I certainly can’t vote for Trump now that he’s been convicted of a crime! I only vote for honorable, law-abiding citizens, which is what I thought Trump was until just recently.”
But maybe they start to tune him out, maybe switch back to Fox from OAN, and maybe they can’t be bothered to go vote on election day.
I think something like that might happen. There are a shit-ton of people who think that Trump is skeezy and Biden’s a moron, and aren’t sure what to do: is a skeezball better than a fool? But if the question changes to “is a convicted felon better than a fool?” their answer may become clearer.
From your lips to God’s ears. I think people who do the whole “oh they’re both really bad” schtick about two clearly not-equivalent choices are people who locked in their choice long ago but are kind of ashamed to admit it.
There aren’t enough MAGAs to elect Trump on their own. He needs votes from those who may not like him, but desire Republican policies. Those people, given a choice between a convict and a Democrat, are liable to just stay home on Election Day.
How bad would a Democratic candidate have to be to get you to stay home when the alternative is Trump or the equivalent?
Lots of indy and youth voters - who might stay home or vote 3rd party. Biden needs a good turnout, and not to lose too many of those.
trump is doing his favourite things today. posting on social media and watching tv. i wonder if he has a bell for beverages…
A Trump conviction is, as noted, not likely to change that many minds as to how they’ll vote, given how baked in his support is. But it will continue to tie up his time, money (or somebody’s money, anyway) and limited headspace through the sentencing and appeals processes, and that may hinder his campaigning efforts.
I mean, he’s still ranting about the EJC verdicts. A conviction now means even more incoherent all-caps ranting on Truth Social, and similar ranting about how unfair everything is in his campaign speeches. That’s not going to help his campaign any. It’s hard to portray yourself as a strongman when all you do is throw tantrums.
On the jury deliberations: it’s gratifying to see that they appear to be taking this all seriously, and I suspect this will mean a longer rather than shorter deliberation period. If they thought the prosecution’s case was weak and underlying crime unproved, they’d likely sweep away all the charges at once. But if they think it applies, they’ll go through all 34 charges individually to test them.
While 12 honest citizens are locked up in a room working hard to serve the cause of justice. Every moment of every day the Orange Fuck just infuriates me.
from cnn:
Our CNN reporters are seated inside the courtroom as the jury continues deliberating.
There are also four members of the public sitting inside along with the hoard of reporters.
rc: this is why i have jacks, a wee deck of cards, and a trivia game in my backpack. not to mention a kindle.
That all makes sense.
In support of this theory, on one request by the jury:
I’m encouraged by their interest in the rain metaphor. (To paraphrase, it was: if you wake up and see that the ground outside is wet, it’s reasonable to infer that it rained, even if you didn’t see or hear the rain.)
To me this indicates that some in the jury room might be saying ‘we can’t convict Trump because we don’t have tape of him saying “pay off Stormy so I won’t lose voters” or documents in which he signs off on that plan.’ And other jurors are saying ‘we don’t have to infer that because there’s no video and no document he signed directly ordering that, that he’s innocent.’
.
.
.
(Adding to all those who’ve said this already: thanks, @rocking_chair , for all the work you’ve done in this thread bringing us so much information.)
Also, the lesson #2 was, never admit wrongdoing - double down, attack, attack, attack.
Does anybody know what he is posting on social media? Is he doing it on Truth Social? Is is a typical Trumpian rant?
I don’t know if he has a bell for beverages, but I’m sure that there are more than a few drink machines in the building, and I’m equally sure that someone would volunteer to go get a drink if Trump asked.
Trump Goes On Truth Social Rage Bender, Posting 31 Videos (mediaite.com)
here is some from yest.
today i believe he is ranting about the judge and his odd version of unanimity.
Can the jury find Trump did commit business fraud with intent to commit another crime but not that he was conspiring to violate New York election laws?