A Deeper Dive on Demographics? Oh Yeah, Youbetcha.

It’s getting pretty hard these days to tell the political coverage from the police blotter. Like so much of our sports and entertainment coverage, we don’t get to the real stuff until after we hear the rundown of all the latest criminal charges.

But the truth is that the forces that shape elections run a lot deeper than who has a special counsel investigating them or the order of the criminal docket.

Part of the goal here at The Dispatch is to get past the momentary fascinations of the news cycle and explore the larger forces that shape American public life and politics. 

So we look for opportunities to turn away from the candidates and campaigns and look at the voters; they are, after all, the ones really deciding. But even there, the temptation is to focus on what’s trending. The political narrative is hard to escape because it’s the water in which we fish are swimming. Schooling up like so many sardines is hard to avoid.

When the political press talks about voter demography, we tend to look at white vs. non-white, college-educated vs. non-college, young vs. old, female vs. male, and married vs. unmarried. But bubbling underneath are complicated long-term trends that defy or operate outside of the buzzy categories that dominate the discussion.

That’s why I’m so pleased this week to offer some fascinating research from my American Enterprise Institute colleague and partner in producing this note each week, Nate Moore. It’s a smart encapsulation of how the long tail of our political past still wags the dog of today’s elections:

Beyond Black and White: Ethnic Subgroups Shape Wisconsin Politics  

In recent years, the nation’s political gaze has shifted steadily southwest. Democrats dream of a blue Texas; Republicans retrench in Arizona and redouble offensives in Nevada. But in 2024, the Midwest remains the electoral king. 

Look no further than the opening and closing events of the Republican campaign season. In 10 days, the field will descend on Milwaukee for the first debate of the cycle. A year later, the GOP will return to Fiserv Forum to crown its candidate in the made-for-TV spectacle known as a nominating convention. Despite the Sunbelt surge, the Republican focus on Wisconsin is smart politics. 

Even if the red team picks off Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada (while holding all Trump states) they are left at 268 electoral votes, two shy of the requisite 270. The Republicans need one among Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or Michigan to capture the presidency. And the Badger State, which went for Biden by only 20,682 votes and reelected a GOP senator last year, is their best chance. In short: Wisconsin is the likely tipping point and both parties know it.

What the parties routinely miss is a critical element of Wisconsin politics: ancestral ethnic coalitions among white voters. After decades of ham-fisted takes, pundits are finally learning that the Latino or black vote cannot be treated as a bloc. Cuban Americans from Miami are politically distinct from Mexican Americans in Tucson. Black voters from southwestern Georgia vote differently than those in Queens. 

Surprisingly, little attention is paid to voting patterns among white ethnic groups, even as white voters remain about 70 percent of the electorate. To be sure, education and geography are essential. But amid the endless discourse on suburban vs. rural and college vs. high school, a crucial aspect of voting behavior slips through the cracks. Ancestry continues to explain white voting patterns, particularly in Midwestern battlegrounds like Wisconsin. 

A brief trip to the history books is in order. 

Though Franklin Roosevelt handily won a third term in 1940, his national margin of victory plummeted from 24 points in 1936 to a hair under 10. Across the Midwest and Great Plains in particular, Democratic performance cratered—primarily along ethnic lines. German Americans, many of whom had immigrated to the United States in the wake of World War I, were vehemently opposed to Roosevelt’s support for the nascent Allied powers. Though only a small percentage joined openly pro-Nazi groups like the German-American Bund, isolationists made their presence known at the ballot box. Wisconsin, which had supported Roosevelt by 33 points in 1936, just barely voted for the incumbent four years later. The swings were most profound in heavily German areas: Washington County in the Milwaukee suburbs shifted nearly 60 points toward Republicans. 

Pro-GOP swings were less severe in western and northern Wisconsin where Scandinavian immigrants outnumber German Americans. Scandinavian Lutherans continued to be receptive to Roosevelt’s foreign policy and New Deal legislation—an acceptance perhaps owed to collectivist principles passed down from their immigrant forefathers. Thus an early political fissure appeared. German Americans, particularly around Milwaukee, split from the New Deal coalition and emerged as rock-ribbed Republicans. Scandinavian-Americans in Wisconsin—and across the Midwest—remained Democratic leaning. 

The ethnic coalitions forged prior to World War II were very much still evident in the 1988 contest between Michael Dukakis and George H.W. Bush. In the mid ’80s, Midwestern farmers, particularly in the Driftless Area, were hit with falling prices, lower exports, and severe credit problems. Foreclosures among mom-and-pop farms hit highs not seen since the Depression. Though President Ronald Reagan eventually signed a relief bill, Republicans could not avoid a farm-state backlash. Scandinavian areas in western Wisconsin rocketed leftward towards the Massachusetts governor, while Germans in the east stuck with Reagan’s VP. 

The 1988 Wisconsin electoral map would become a familiar sight over the next quarter century: a blue west and a red east (excluding Milwaukee). Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama all won Wisconsin with different margins, but largely similar ethnic coalitions. As late as 2012, ancestry was almost perfectly aligned with party support. 

In 2016, however, the coalitions cracked. Trump made dramatic inroads among rural Scandinavians and a dozen ancestrally Democratic counties flipped red for the first time since 1984. The east-west ethnic coalitions that long dominated Badger State politics were supplanted by the familiar “blue dot, red ocean” trope. 

Democratic dominance of western Wisconsin is likely over. The pull of educational and geographic polarization is, at the moment, quite strong. But margins matter. And in the margins, ancestral coalitions still breathe. Republicans continue to dramatically underperform in swaths of white, rural Wisconsin counties—an underperformance owed to the white ethnic politics of yesteryear. 

Take the graph below. Each dot represents a rural Wisconsin County plotted as it relates to its 2020 vote and the ancestry of its residents. These counties average 92.5 percent white and only 21 percent of residents hold a college degree. These are counties where Republicans should, and usually do, run up huge margins–often 50- or 60-point victories. But when we look at Biden’s 2020 performance in these counties, he loses many by less than 20 points and even wins a handful. How is a Democrat still doing relatively well in white, rural, low-education counties? You guessed it: ancestry. The more German the county, the greater the Republican margin. The more Scandinavian the county, the better Democrats fare. The Republican failure to maximize their rural margins cost them thousands of votes in 2020—and possibly Wisconsin’s ten electoral votes.

As ethnic blocs fade, ancestral Scandinavian Democrats are more and more willing to cross the aisle and vote Republican. Many already did in 2016 and 2020. But a surprising share of rural, white Wisconsinites remain cheering for the blue team. Republicans must capitalize in these counties that are chock-full of their voter base. Margins of 10 or 15 points simply won’t get the job done. 

For too long, Democrats took their working-class base for granted. It would be prudent for Republicans to learn that lesson. Improving margins in rural, white counties—especially those with Scandinavian heritage—will require real investment. The payoff, though, would be well worth it: tens of thousands of voters primed for a party switch in a battleground state that routinely needs decimal points to declare a winner. 

There is, of course, a flip side of this demographic coin. Just as Republicans have an opening in Western Wisconsin, Democrats must seize their opportunity in the German suburbs of Milwaukee. Long the bastion of the state GOP, the WOW counties—Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington—routinely deliver Republicans astronomical margins, even as other Midwestern suburbs have shifted blue. If Democrats make significant inroads there, as they did in the April Supreme Court race, they would stand to benefit immensely. 

Both parties will invest mountainous piles of cash in Wisconsin over the next 14 months. Whichever GOP candidate emerges from the debate stage will undoubtedly return to Wisconsin many, many times. Joe Biden will not make Hillary Clinton’s campaign mistakes. But the parties still overlook a crucial element of Wisconsin politics. Understanding education, geography, and class—which dominate punditry today—are insufficient to win the state. Ancestral coalitions may well be the secret ingredient to an electorally successful batter. 

History is never as far off as it seems. Republicans and Democrats alike would be wise to remember it. 

Holy croakano! We welcome your feedback, so please email us with your tips, corrections, reactions, amplifications, etc. at STIREWALTISMS@THEDISPATCH.COM. If you’d like to be considered for publication, please include your real name and hometown. If you don’t want your comments to be made public, please specify.

STATSHOT

Biden Job Performance
Average approval: 41.6%
Average disapproval: 53.8%
Net score: -12.2 points 

Change from one week ago: ↓ 0.2 points                        
Change from one month ago: ↓ 2.6 points

[Average includes: Reuters/Ipsos: 40% approve-54% disapprove; NPR/PBS/Marist: 41% approve-52% disapprove; NYT/Siena; 39% approve-54% disapprove; Newsnation: 47% approve-54% disapprove; Gallup: 41% approve-55% disapprove]

Polling Roulette

[Brookings Institution analysis of 2020 Census data]

TIME OUT: ‘WE LIKE HOT BUTTER ON OUR BREAKFAST TOAST’
Washington Post: “In hindsight, almost every aspect of ‘Rapper’s Delight’ by the Sugarhill Gang appeared miscalibrated: Most members of the hastily formed group hailed from New Jersey rather than hip-hop’s home base of the Bronx, and they weren’t well-known in the local rap scene. … Few expected the song to have real staying power. Instead, ‘Rapper’s Delight’ became a massive hit, selling 14 million records and announcing hip-hop’s arrival to the mainstream. … While the song ushered in a fervor for hip-hop, it was soon followed by other hits for Sugarhill Records, such as ‘The Message’ by Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five. It also served as a cautionary tale for the legal battles, exploitation by labels and questions over credit that have long loomed over hip-hop. … In 2011, ‘Rapper’s Delight’ was added to the Library of Congress for its cultural significance. The entry noted … ‘Rapper’s Delight’ has stood its ground and never crumbled over time. It is an invaluable requirement in the world of hip-hop, propelling rap music into what it is today.”

DESANTIS GAMBLES ON A STRONG IOWA SHOWING

New York Times: “Republican strategists with experience in presidential races (but unaffiliated with Mr. DeSantis or his 2024 rivals) diagnosed some of the top problems of his campaign. Solving the Trump problem is the master key to this election, and no one has found it. … A related problem: Mr. DeSantis has failed to captivate voters … ‘The No. 1 failing for any campaign, and it’s clearly DeSantis’s problem—what is his elevator pitch?’ said Dave Carney, a New Hampshire-based strategist. … In an earlier reboot, Mr. DeSantis’s campaign said it would zero in on Iowa. … Although the Iowa caucuses are still several months away, Mr. DeSantis is playing a risky expectations game, one that could make it difficult for him to rebound if he doesn’t post a strong showing in Iowa.” 

Hard reset continues as DeSantis ditches campaign manager: New York Times: “For the third time in less than a month, Mr. DeSantis’s campaign announced a major restructuring, this time removing his embattled campaign manager, Generra Peck. … Taking over the DeSantis campaign is James Uthmeier, the governor’s chief of staff, who is one of his most trusted advisers but has little campaign experience. In another significant move, David Polyansky, one of the architects of the early-state strategy at Never Back Down, the pro-DeSantis super PAC, is moving from that outside group to the campaign. … Last year, Ms. Peck, 36, oversaw Mr. DeSantis’s overwhelming reelection as governor … But she had never worked on a presidential campaign, much less run one. Mr. Uthmeier, 35, appears to have even less direct political experience than Ms. Peck” 

Pence becomes eighth to qualify for Milwaukee debate: Politico: “Former Vice President Mike Pence has qualified for the first Republican presidential primary debate on Aug. 23. This sets up a potential faceoff with former President Donald Trump. … Pence’s biggest hurdle to get on stage had been the donor requirement, a mark that some of his primary opponents reached weeks before he did. … But should Trump eventually decide to participate, it could set up a showdown between Pence and his former boss. Pence seems likely to qualify for the second GOP debate. … The Republican National Committee recently announced the new rules to be on stage, which requires candidates having 50,000 unique donors and hitting 3 percent in a few polls. Besides Pence, all seven of the other candidates who have qualified for the first debate have already hit the new donor threshold, and Pence’s team has expressed confidence he’ll clear that nominally higher bar.”

Trump still hedging: Politico: “At last sounding, Donald Trump was saying he might skip the first Republican presidential debate, scheduled for Aug. 23 in Milwaukee. ‘Ronald Reagan didn’t do it and a lot of other people didn’t do it. When you have a big lead, you don’t do it,’ Trump said on Fox. For once in his life, Trump was telling the truth. … By RSVPing in the negative, Trump will be doing everybody—voters, his opponents, his party, the animal kingdom and even the universe—a major favor. … At this point in the clinched campaign, there is no point in having him win more votes. His media magnetism and skill at domination are so grand that any debate with a panel of Republicans that includes him tends to be about him.”

Trump drops retail campaigning, sticks to mega-rallies: New York Times: “Over decades of presidential campaigns, the Iowa way has been to hop from town to town, taking questions from all comers and genuflecting to the local culinary traditions. … Now former President Donald J. Trump is delivering what could be a death blow to the old way. … If any of his dozen challengers hope to stop his march to a third straight nomination, they will almost certainly have to halt, or at least slow, him in Iowa. … Most of the Republican candidates are trying to do Iowa the old way, and all of them are less popular and receiving far less visibility than Mr. Trump, who has visited the state just six times since announcing his campaign in November. … What’s different about Iowa this time … is that before Republicans consider a broad field of candidates, they are asking themselves a more basic, binary question: Trump or not Trump?”

Too soon? Trump builds VP shortlist: Wall Street Journal:  “Possible vice-presidential candidates [for Trump] range from staunch loyalists in Congress such as Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia to other popular party figures, including former Arizona television host Kari Lake. One prominent critic, Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, has been warming to the idea of supporting Trump and serving alongside him, people familiar with her thinking say. … Trump has also indicated he could tap a current 2024 rival for the job. … [Trump aides]  say Trump wants someone who has a record of winning and is aligned with his agenda. Trump also likes people who do well on TV.”

LAKE PRIMED FOR ARIZONA SENATE BID 

Washington Examiner: “Former Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake is maintaining a strong lead in the state’s Republican primary for Senate in 2024. … Lake hasn’t launched her campaign for Senate, and it’s possible she could have a different position in mind: vice president to former President Donald Trump. … Lake, who is an adamant supporter of the former president, could be first in line if she decides against a Senate run. … However, it is likely that several established Republicans will oppose Lake as Trump’s running mate, especially as the party looks to appeal to moderate and independent voters heading into 2024. … Republicans fear a repeat of 2022, particularly if Lake becomes a Senate candidate or a vice president to Trump.”

Manchin hints at dropping Dem label: West Virginia Metro News: “U.S. Senator Joe Manchin says he continues to think about possibly leaving the Democratic Party and becoming an independent. ‘I would think very seriously about that. I’ve been thinking about that for quite some time. I haven’t made any decisions whatsoever on any of my political direction.’ … For me, I have to have peace of mind basically,’ he said. ‘The brand has become so bad. The ‘D’ brand and ‘R’ brand. In West Virginia, the ‘D’ brand because it’s nationally bad. It’s not the Democrats in West Virginia. It’s the Democrats in Washington or the Washington policies of the Democrats.’ … Manchin also said Thursday he doesn’t think a possible third party candidate in next year’s presidential election would hurt Democrats and help in the possible reelection of Donald Trump.”

Trio of House Dems prep for California showdown: Los Angeles Times: “[Rep. Adam] Schiff, [Rep. Barbara ] Lee and Rep. Katie Porter (D-Irvine) vie for their colleagues’ support in one of 2024’s highest-profile Senate races. … Although most members speaking on the record said that everything was hunky-dory, they admitted privately that they were worried … what strains it could put on the delegation. … If no Republican finishes in the top two of California’s all–party March primary, two of the three Democrats will have to spend eight more months running against each other. That’s a real possibility: A recent Public Policy Institute of California survey found a tight three-way race. … The trio led every declared Republican hopeful, none of whom polled in the double-digits. Right now, all three Democrats have a strong incentive to play nice. … But that incentive is likely to disappear in November.”

OHIO PRO-LIFE ROUT OFFERS CLUES FOR 2024 

Roll Call: “The defeat this week of an Ohio ballot measure that would have made it harder to amend the state constitution was a big win for supporters of abortion rights. But the rejection of Issue 1 contains another lesson that could have implications for the 2024 election: that the GOP’s focus on transgender youth—wrapped in a message about ‘parents’ rights’—may have run its course. In the weeks leading up to the referendum, Protect Women Ohio, which is made up of a coalition of anti-abortion groups, spent more than $5 million on ads tying the ballot measure to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. … The rejection of the ballot measure fuels Democrats’ hopes that abortion will continue to drive voters away from the Republican Party, even in red states such as Ohio.”
BRIEFLY

Arizona Dems push for abortion amendment on 2024 ballot—Washington Post 

GOP leadership preps huge blue state spending spree—Washington Examiner 

Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn arrested, charged with assault—Mediaite

New-look Blue Dogs hope to expand Dems’ moderate wing—Washington Post 

‘Tennessee Three’ member launches long-shot Senate bid—ABC News

Dems dream of a Mississippi governorship—FiveThirtyEight

Ben Wikler and the turnaround of Wisconsin Democrats—The Atlantic

WITHIN EARSHOT: MARIE KONDO FOR CONGRESS 

“The reason is simple: a lack of joy.”—An email to supporters from California Democratic congressional candidate Aditya Pai announcing that he was dropping out of the race. Eight hours later, he sent another email reversing course, announcing his continued candidacy, blaming a staffer for sending out the wrong letter.

MAILBAG

“When you were going over all the game theories these Republican consultants are trying to work through about whether it’s better for the Senate chances to nominate Trump or someone else, it made me think about straight-ticket voting. Is that going the way of the Whigs and typewriters, at least the way we’ve usually thought of it? At least in my case, I find myself much less likely to fill in the oval next to someone just because they have an “R” next to them than I used to because I have to think, ‘Are they one of those Trump goofs?’ I’m still straight ticket in the sense I don’t find myself very often voting for Democrats, but if it’s a Trumper or I don’t have enough information I just will skip over it. Do you see that happening more or am I just weird? Actually, both could be true.”—Craig Berry, Frankfort, Illinois

I bet you’re the best kind of weird, Mr. Berry! A conscientious, active citizen in your local community and a thoughtful citizen of our republic. In a world that celebrates selfishness and cynicism, be proudly weird, sir. There are two ways to think about straight-ticket voting. There are only six states left, Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, that have actual straight-ticket voting, which is an option on ballots in which voters can choose to make just one selection to back all of one party’s nominees. So it is certainly the case that straight-ticket voting, per se, is on the way out. On the other hand, de facto straight-ticket voting, when voters choose all the individual candidates from one party, is as strong as it ever has been. The story of the Senate tells us just how strong down-ballot partisanship has become. It’s the same old story: the decline of party power (de jure straight-ticket voting) has been met by an increase in partisanship (de facto straight tickets). But in its own way, that increases the potency of voters like you, who more carefully pick and choose. It may not be a big consideration in a state as politically lopsided as Illinois, but in competitive races, it’s the small number of voters like you who make the difference.

“You are an optimist—from a GOP perspective. The only announced candidate [for Arizona’s Republican Senate nomination], the sheriff of Pinal County, auctioned off an AR-15 or some such thing as one of his fundraisers, and Kari Lake is hinting she might run. Neither would have a snowball’s chance in today’s 111 degree Tucson in a general election unless Sinema actually split the Democrat vote.”—John Johnson, Tucson, Arizona

Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb is an interesting cat, to be sure. He’s a TV star from his many turns on reality TV, and has worked hard in his trademark cowboy hat to cultivate his image as the self-styled“American Sheriff.” But he can’t easily be written off as another Joe Arpaio, whose antics as sheriff in neighboring Maricopa County eventually rendered him unelectable statewide. Lamb seems to be much savvier about his brand, sometimes pandering to the radical right, sometimes voicing thoughtful insights on the plight of migrants and his county’s large American Indian population. Plus, he’s a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints. The Mormon vote is huge in Arizona, and has helped many Western politicians reach the Senate, including former Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake. But is Lamb another David Clarke, the similarly made-for-TV sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, who wilted under the scrutiny of national media attention? Certainly Lamb’s 2020 reelection—unopposed with 97 percent of the vote—suggests he’s starting with a strong base of support. On the other hand, he’s ratcheted up his anti-government, conspiratorial rhetoric as his ambitions have grown. That is further complicated by Lake’s expected entry into the race. If he decides to try to out-kook Lake he could certainly render himself unelectable in the general election even if he does prevail in the primary against his more famous rival. But on the Democratic side, things are plenty weird, too. Rep. Ruben Gallego has positioned himself as a true, radical progressive, which wouldn’t sell any better next November than Lamb or Lake as MAGA extremists. Which brings us to the incumbent, Kyrsten Sinema. She’s trying to have it both ways: voting with Democrats to keep the party in control of the Senate but glorying in her independent status. If she doesn’t run, Gallego would be free to move more to the center in a general election to pick off independents and non-MAGA Republicans. If she does seek another term, Gallego will have to hunker down on the far left to shore up support with his party’s base. Sinema has husbanded her ample cash reserves wisely and, with her high name ID, can afford to wait on her decision as the candidates in both parties alienate persuadable voters by sucking up to the primary electorate. For all of those reasons, this race looks like a pure toss-up to me at this point. 

“I have a real problem with the notion that GOP strategists are comfortable with ceding the presidential election in order to flip the Senate and retain the House. If true, that political strategy is fundamentally shortsighted, geared toward an illusion of control rather than actual governance.”—Dan Kirschner, Tualatin, Oregon

True, true, Mr. Kirschner. But I would also remind you that a lot of what those strategists are doing is rationalizing. They don’t have as much control of the situation as they would like to think—or their critics believe—and are looking for silver linings in unhappy scenarios.  

“What do you think is Ramaswamy’s theory of the (primary) race and/or reason for running? Obviously he can afford the $$, but I am not sure what he hopes to get out of it. VP or cabinet slot? He appears to be running as something like “kinder, gentler MAGA,” given that all his substantive policies are full MAGA (except maybe not full national industrial policy), but his public persona’s effect is entirely different. Trump but younger and without the resentment, with the narcissism kept under a bushel? Something he seems to have grasped that e.g. Ron DeSantis has not stated that being a Trump true believer is fun among other things. But I don’t see Ramaswamy’s presentation as remotely Manichaean enough for more than a small sliver of today’s Republican base.”—Scott Carter, Seal Beach, California

All that may be true, Mr. Carter. But Ramaswamy does represent an interesting kind of threat to Trump. Voters looking for a Trump alternative may struggle with moving from the former president to one of his mainstream rivals, but they might feel okay about exploring support for the pro-Trump outsider. That could erode core Trump support and act as a transitional phase between Trump and another contender. Presidential primary voters migrate more than they jump.

“… So for purposes of my hypothetical: 1) Assume Trump’s still indicted but hasn’t begun any trials before the RNC convention when the nominee will be officially confirmed. 2) Pretend (humor us) that the RNC, both among its leaders and its membership at large, has lost all faith in Trump’s chances, and they are willing to go on record with a vote whose practical effect would be to deny Trump the nomination. … Further pretend the courts are unwilling to intervene or second guess this. When and how could something like this be accomplished, if it could? When would be the last time it could be accomplished pre-convention, if it could be at all? In short: What are the possible coup scenarios within the GOP, and of them, which if any are plausible, and when are they ruled out?”—Bill Dyer, Houston, Texas

Conventions make their own rules, so the range of possibilities is very wide. When the rules committee gathers to set the parameters for the convention, it starts with what was handed down from the year before, but could do anything it wishes. And I can’t imagine any court intervening to tell a political party how to pick its nominees. There’s no governmental role to play there. And since you asked me to humor you about the willingness of Republicans to wrest the nomination away from Trump in a procedural maneuver after he had won enough delegates to claim the crown, I will not state some obvious truths that I know you already understand. 

“When DeSantis drops out of the race, say after a disastrous debate showing and the ensuing drop in polls, who do you think would rise next? Another Trump wannabe like Ramaswany? Or an alternative like Christie (who is rising in New Hampshire)? What are the odds DeSantis winds up as Trump’s VP pick? Don’t demur, give us your best guess.”—David Houggy, Jr., Allison Park, Pennsylvania 

I can assure a demur! Or at least a partial one. The premise of your question is based on DeSantis bombing out of the race in the next couple of months. Given the cash on hand for his campaign and super PAC—probably more than $100 million—the point of the leaner, meaner new campaign is to go long. The moment this fall when the likes of Nikki Haley and Mike Pence are having to make hard choices about the road ahead is the moment the DeSantis campaign has been preparing for. The bet is that as closing time approaches, voters who have previously rejected DeSantis as too coarse, too statist, or too ambitious will start to see him more favorably. Like Dick Nixon driving his future wife, Pat, to go on dates with other guys when she refused to let him court her, DeSantis is hoping that indefatigability and relentlessness can be his superpowers. It nearly worked for Ted Cruz in 2016, and probably would have if the party had known what degradations lay ahead with a Trump presidency. The trouble for DeSantis is that while conservatives and moderates may have learned that lesson, the populists and nationalists have learned their lessons, too. Why settle for a demi-demagogue when you have the real thing? I don’t see DeSantis as a Scott Walker figure who pratfalls in a couple of debates and drops out in mid-September. I could see a collapse so profound that he would have to go by, say, Thanksgiving. But I could more easily see DeSantis still in there throwing (and taking) body blows in mid-February. As for being a running mate to Trump, I can’t imagine what would be in it for anyone involved. They obviously despise each other, come from substantially the same wing of the party, and reside in the same state. I could far more easily imagine Haley to play the role of conciliator with the traditional wing of the party and then Donald-says-the-darndest-things Trump apologist in a general election. DeSantis is in office and can run again in four years, so the appeal of getting Penced by “the boss” would be of limited appeal.

“I moved to New Hampshire last year and for the first time in my adult life I’m living in a state where, theoretically, my primary vote matters. Now, before moving here my intention had been to vote for whoever was the frontrunner in the Republican primary, if that wasn’t Trump, and for whoever had the likeliest chance of beating Trump, if Trump was still the frontrunner. And of course a lot of that decision would be based on polling. Well, now I realize that I am a little bit more in a position where my vote could help determine the frontrunner and that maybe I need to respond to texts or calls from pollsters if I want someone other than Trump in the lead. With DeSantis trying harder every week not to lose votes, I’m wondering at what point, if I want to see someone else have a chance to win the nomination, polls actually matter and when I should stop hitting ignore on every polling call and text I get (and holy cow are there are a lot of them). What do you think?”—Michelle Oswell, Sutton, New Hampshire 

Not only is a New Hampshire vote particularly valuable because of the state’s first-in-the-nation primary, but because of the Granite State’s small size. In the 2016 Republican primaries, one New Hampshire vote was about as consequential in determining the outcome in the state as nearly 10 votes in Texas. Yes, there’s another multiplier at the convention when delegates are doled out, but you’re right, Ms. Oswell, that you’re sitting on one of the most valuable voter registrations in the nation—including to how it relates to polling. So, I’m going to give you some counterintuitive advice: Vote with your heart, not your head. I would not say that to every voter, but here you are conscientiously wrestling with your duties to your country and your party. You seem unlikely to be swayed by hucksters, sophists, or people of low character. So-called “strategic voting” is usually a bust, anyway. As my old daddy used to say, better to “get a hunch and bet a bunch.” The same kind of goes for pollsters, too. Many of those polls are robo-dialed junk polls, and many others aren’t polls at all, but candidate pitches or attacks disguised as public opinion research. Feel free to ignore whatever looks icky on your caller ID. But if you see something that looks reputable, like the outfits we use in our weekly averages, I’d sure appreciate you picking up from time to time. I need good info! It was at about this time in 2015 that the New Hampshire race started to firm up: Jeb Bush hit the skids, Trump started to climb, Marco Rubio started to make his move, and John Kasich got on the board. The polls ended up being pretty predictive, as I expect they will be again. So while your strategic voting and survey taking are admirable, I think you can feel free to do as you please on both and trust that your voice, and the voices of voters like you, will be heard in their proper proportions.

You should email us! Write to STIREWALTISMS@THEDISPATCH.COM with your tips, kudos, criticisms, insights, rediscovered words, wonderful names, recipes and, always, good jokes. Please include your real name—at least first and last—and hometown. Make sure to let me know in the email if you want to keep your submission private. My colleague, the studious Nate Moore, and I will look for your emails and then share the most interesting ones and my responses here. Clickety clack!

CUTLINE CONTEST: IN FACT, IT’S THE CRINKLIEST  

It’s all about the voice this week, as our winner perfectly captured the energy of Trumpian chicanery for the split-screen image of the current president and his predecessor (and would-be successor).

“Some people say mine is a rock too, but it’s actually a wadded up piece of paper, and paper covers rock, so I win. Again.”—Bob Lepine, Little Rock, Arkansas

Winner,  The Geezer and The Sleazer Division:

“‘Shuffle in the Jungle’ bout slated for November 5, 2024.”—Linda McKee, DuBois, Pennsylvania

Winner, Battery Included Division:

“New from Mattel, Rockem Sockem Robots Geriatric Edition”—Benny Richardson, Stamping Ground, Kentucky

Winner, ‘Like a Doll’s Eyes’ Division:

“Dark Brandon is confident of his rock-paper-scissors ability, even without his shades.”—Paul Williams, Shaker Heights, Ohio

Winner, Grow a Pair Division:

“Instead of having debates, Joe Biden and Donald Trump agree to participate in competitive feats of strength, such as walnut cracking.”—Rick Whaley, Portage, Michigan

Winner, The Cowardly Lions in Winter Division:

“[Biden and Trump simultaneously] ‘Put ’em up, put ’em up! … I’ll fight you with one [hand] tied behind my back. I’ll fight you standing on one foot. I’ll fight you with my eyes closed.’”—Richard Basuk, New York, New York

Send your proposed cutline for the picture that appears at the top of this newsletter to STIREWALTISMS@THEDISPATCH.COM. We will pick the best entrants for each week and an appropriate reward for the best of this month—even beyond the glory and adulation that will surely follow. Be hilarious, don’t be too dirty, and never be cruel. Include your full name and hometown. Have fun!

AH, THAT FAMOUS NORDIC SENSE OF HUMOR
AP: “A Finnish man reportedly stored [26.5 pounds] of dynamite in two cars belonging to a friend, saying it ‘was a joke.’  Finland broadcaster YLE said Wednesday. The owner of the two cars didn’t see it as funny and informed the police who briefly detained the potential prankster. He was eventually freed but remains a suspect. He admitted to placing the explosives on Aug. 3 in the cars but said he didn’t intend to blow them up, YLE reported. Police have also ruled out any possible terrorist intent. The suspect faces up to two years in prison. Tony Rauma with the local police told YLE the men knew each other and live in a small village in the western part of Finland. It was not known where the explosives came from.”

Chris Stirewalt is a contributing editor at The Dispatch, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the politics editor for NewsNation, and author of Broken News, a book on media and politics. Nate Moore and Jae Grace contributed to this report.