Today’s poll question is a long time coming. A recurring question on my SXM radio program is to ask whether those with an inherent bias against President Trump are more or less irrational than those who reflexively support him? A month ago, a listener/friend named Larry Paul suggested a framing of that question but I never got around to it. And then on Wednesday’s radio program, Sue from South Carolina called and used a word choice I’d not heard before: “Trump Devotion Syndrome”. I thought that was perfectly phrased and so I decided that today, I’d ask which is more irrational, those with Trump Derangement Syndrome or those with Trump Devotion Syndrome? Here’s where it gets interesting. After deciding on the question, I went looking for any published opinions addressing the subject. Only I found one better: an academic study and resulting paper on exactly this issue. The lead author, Dr. Andrew S. Franks, will be my radio guest today. Spoiler alert from the Abstract of his paper: “Results for all three studies supported the asymmetric bias hypothesis. Trump supporters consistently showed bias in favor of the interests and ostensible positions of Trump, whereas Trump’s detractors did not show an opposing bias.”
Regardless of that outcome, I invite you to vote on today’s poll question, and to listen to my interview with Dr. Franks at 10am ET.
Shifting semantics. Last Saturday, in connection with the day’s poll question, I referred to the military action in Iran as a “war”. Some viewer blowback followed because President Trump has been loath to use that word. Yesterday he referred to the situation as both a war and a “little excursion”. When questioned by Peter Doocy as to which it is, Trump said “both”. Something else not being clearly communicated – the U.S. objective.
Yesterday, Senator John Cornyn, who is still facing a Republican runoff against Ken Paxton in Texas, announced in a New York Post essay that he will support a rule change regarding the filibuster in connection with the SAVE Act. No doubt he aims to appease President Trump and move beyond the primary to a general election against James Talarico. The SAVE Act has passed the House and among other things, would require proof of citizenship to vote where Trump and fellow Republicans have claimed that scores of undocumented immigrants are voting illegally. But the data says otherwise. Stephen Richer is a Republican who served as elected recorder in Maricopa County, Arizona. He recently aggregated information from a number of states (including Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Georgia and Michigan) that have cross-checked voter roles with citizenship data. The finding? Migrant voting fraud is virtually non-existent and surely not enough to sway any election. His analysis is worth a read.
##
