Not about 2028.

And the week's links.

So…I had a quick, mild, 24 hour cold this week, which is why I’m here on Friday instead of my usual Thursday. And perhaps why I couldn’t quite connect the three items below, all of which are vaguely sort of but not really about the 2028 election. Instead, I’ll just run them unconnected. Plus the week’s links a little early, so I can focus on sleeping (and the Preakness) this weekend.

Item One As you may know, the 2024 elections finally ended this week. If you haven’t been following it, the news was that the Republican effort to overturn a judicial election in North Carolina was finally defeated, and the Democratic winner was sworn into office. Yes, more than half a year since the November election.

There are two ways to look at this, and unfortunately they are both correct, which makes for a lot of confusion.

So the first and (I guess?) most obvious one is about the dangers of an anti-democratic Republican Party. Donald Trump is the leader in this, most importantly of course in his unlawful efforts to overturn the 2020 election. GOP anti-democratic efforts pre-date Trump’s active involvement – see for example efforts to make voting more difficult during the era when high-turnout elections generally favored Democrats – but it’s at least sometimes a lot more crass now.

At the same time: A lot of people were convinced that the North Carolina effort would be successful. It was not. Indeed, as far as I know there were no successful efforts to overturn elections in 2020, 2022, or 2024, and relatively few serious efforts, other than the (very big!) exception of the 2020 presidential election. I was worried that one or more close House races would wind up being contested, but that didn’t happen. Predictions of considerable violence and intimidation at the polls didn’t pan out, either.

Again: Both are correct. People should absolutely be worried about efforts by Republicans to curtail free and fair elections. A legitimate 2028 election is, alas, no certain thing as of now. And yet people should also be aware that those attempts have largely been unsuccessful – so far at least. I keep hearing people certain that Trump will never allow fair elections again, but meanwhile just this week a Democrat beat the incumbent Republican to become mayor of Omaha. Don’t ignore the threat; don’t be a “doomer” convinced that all is lost.¹

Item Two Trump continues to “joke” about running for a third term in 2028. It is, of course, massively inappropriate. To say the least. Even more so when he does so, “joking” or not, in front of US troops.²

A lot of people have tackled this, but I have one thing to add. We’re talking here about a president who is (once again) at record levels of unpopularity at this point of his term of office. Perhaps he’ll rally; even at his current low-40s approval rating he would be a reasonably viable candidate for re-election if this was his first term. However, the polling indicates that there may be a fair amount of resistance to the entire concept of a third term (which is, after all, flat-out unconstitutional). And it wouldn’t take much of a slump at all for Trump to fall into the dicey area where first-term presidents start hearing talk of primary challengers.

My general feeling is that Trump’s magic hold on even his strongest supporters is overrated – yes, they love him, but they also are apt to love any incumbent Republican, at least as long as GOP-aligned media doesn’t turn against them. My guess is that if Trump falls into mid-to-low 30s approval, a whole lot of Republican party actors, including in GOP-aligned media, are going to stop “joking” about a third term. Even if he won’t.

Look, I remember when there was a brief repeal-the-two-term-limit movement early in Ronald Reagan’s second term. It did not survive the Iran-Contra scandal and the subsequent drop in Reagan’s popularity. Yes, by all means people should be bashing Trump for this – at the very least, it’s yet another sign that he doesn’t believe the law and the Constitution apply to him, and that’s very dangerous. I’m just not yet concerned that this particular threat is apt to pan out for him. Assuming that the 2028 election is free and fair; see item one above.

Item Three Joe Biden is back in the news with a new reported book apparently claiming that his physical condition and perhaps cognitive condition were covered up by the White House. Unlike some, I do consider this a worthwhile subject and one that is worth learning more about. Even though Biden on his worst day knew far more about government and public policy than Trump on his best day, and even though…well, all the rest about the current president.³

That said, I agree with those who say it has basically no bearing on future elections. While presidential candidates need to have answered prepared for all sorts of things, the quality of the “what about Biden?” answer is extremely unlikely to matter. If it’s even asked at all.

Indeed, despite all the fuss and bother about it, most of what the out-party does has little or no bearing on what happens in future elections. Oh, it’s possible that there’s some small effect, and in very close races anything can matter, but mostly the out-party’s performance is a function of how the president’s party is doing. Or, really, how the president’s party is perceived as doing.

What parties do after a defeat may have huge implications for what they will do the next time they have a chance to govern. So it’s very important – and if one believes that the Biden story gets to something really wrong with the party, and not just a one-time circumstance of a particular person and a particular situation, then it is in fact very important for Democrats to solve whatever that problem is. But like it or not, what Democrats do probably won’t have much to do with when that next chance comes.

On to the links:

1. Anna Grzymala-Busse at Good Authority on the upcoming election in Poland.

2. Dan Drezner on Trump’s bargaining skills. Well, lack of skill.

3. Miranda Yaver on the GOP attack on Medicaid.

4. Brian Arbour on normal politics in abnormal times.

5. Matthew Green on Trump and board games.

6. And Seth Masket on impeaching Trump. A popular topic! I think my piece a while back on impeachment has a somewhat different perspective, so be sure to read Seth’s if you read mine…although the real specialist around here on the topic is Julia, so if you only read one it probably should be her item.

1. Yes, there have been efforts — mostly by Republicans, occasionally by Democrats — to rearrange the rules in order to help one party. Some of those seem to have been somewhat successful; anything that makes voting more difficult has real costs, even if it has no effect at all on election outcomes. (After all, if you make it harder for one group to vote and they show up anyway, it means that they’ve absorbed those costs in some way, whether it’s time or money or just energy expended.)

2. It’s also just plain embarrassing. .

3. And as many have said, there’s nothing inherent in physical damage — inability to walk, for example — that would necessarily interfere with presidenting.