The Verdict May Be In, But the Jury Is Still Out

What conviction means, what it doesn't, and what we'll just have to wait and see

A couple notes at the top—first, check out our new episode of The Lobby Shop podcast breaking down the state of play in the presidential race. [Note: we recorded before the verdict dropped, meaning you don’t have to listen to 30 minutes of premature speculation and instead can reset your bearings with a reminder of where things stand.]

Second, for those of you in the DC area, I encourage you to check out a Manhattan Institute event I’m participating in at the Conrad DC on Thursday, June 6th. The topic of the conference is the future of free enterprise in the US, and my panel specifically will look at the country’s ongoing political realignment as it relates to supply side economics policy. Lots of great fellow speakers you may know, including Patrick Ruffini and Henry Olson who will join me on the panel, MI’s Reihan Salam who will moderate the event, Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) who will give the opening keynote, and closing keynoter Scott Bessent who, if the papers are to be believed, is on the short list to lead a Trump Treasury department.

Finally, let’s talk a bit about this verdict, what it means, and what we should keep an open mind on.

To the first question, POLITICO Magazine asked me to write a snap reaction on the big takeaway, which is about all I’m willing to say with confidence.

While the jury is still out on the electoral implications of a conviction, the verdict serves as a Rorschach test to a country increasingly divided along the lines of institutional trust.

To some Americans, the Manhattan hush money trial was a model of accountability, a victory for the rule of law, and a public reminder that no one — not even a billionaire former president — can escape the consequences of their actions forever. The system worked, effectively and efficiently, despite the glare of the media and doubts from the chattering class.

To others, the affair was a farce. The fix was in from the beginning, the crooked culmination of a campaign promise to take down a despised political enemy, one that became more desperate and urgent with each passing day as President Biden lagged in the polls. If they could do this to one of the most famous and powerful men in the world, who can’t they do it to? After all, as the former president is keen to remind his supporters, “In reality they’re not after me, they’re after you — I’m just in the way.”

The conviction of Trump on 34 counts may or may not move votes — and in a remarkably close election even a sliver could prove decisive. That part remains to be seen; but for the majority of Americans, the outcome merely serves to confirm their deeply held priors both about the country they live in, and the nature of the opposing political tribe.

72 hours later I think this holds up. But what else can we say at this point? And why does it seem like everyone is talking past each other?

• Does a guilty verdict “help” former President Trump, net-net?

  • No, of course not. It is advantageous not to be convicted of crimes, and sub-optimal to be awaiting sentencing as the presumptive nominee for a major political party.

• So we agree this hurts him, right?

  • It hurts Trump in the sense that it puts downward pressure on his ceiling, which has been his big structural challenge throughout his political career, and one that, at least in the early going of the 2024 election, polling had suggested may be abating. Where there had been signs that Trump could perhaps reach the 50%+1 threshold that would allow him to control his own destiny, the verdict—and the polarized response—makes it that much more likely that his path to victory will rely on winning with a bare plurality, one that requires continuing softness from Biden, and relative strength from minor candidates where it matters.

• Ok, but does it lose him any existing votes?

  • My prior is that if you are willing to tell a pollster in the year of our lord 2024, 9 years after Donald J. Trump came down the escalator, you are well aware of what you are signing up for, and the psychology behind this ongoing support self-selects for a level of commitment and tolerance for negative information that shouldn’t be underestimated. Trump’s line about how he could shoot somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose votes probably shouldn’t be taken literally, but it should definitely be taken seriously. And so far that seems to be playing out in the polls, with Trump maintaining the vote share he enjoyed prior to the decision.

• What about those polls that showed people changing their minds in the event of a conviction?

  • The human capacity for rationalization remains undefeated. We are terrible predictors of our future behavior based on theoretical circumstances, and exception at fitting motivated logic to shifting facts.

  • In the Bragg case in particular, there is a year-long body of work courtesy of various independent (and even liberal) legal experts, commentators, thought leaders, and other elites downplaying everything from the substantive theory of the case to prudential merits of prosecution. This provides a trove of ammunition, insulation, and mitigation—all from well-credentialed third parties—for what might otherwise be difficult to defend.

• But I read 49% of independents and 15% of Republicans say he should drop out!

  • This is a deeply ambivalent country where one of the few things we can agree on is that we are dissatisfied with our choices. In the heat of the primary season, 58% of all Americans indicated that they did not want Trump to be the nominee. (56% said the same about Biden.) 57% of independents and 25% of Republicans agreed. And similar numbers said Trump should drop out following the indictments. That you wish you had better options doesn’t make it so, nor does seeing one of the major Presidential candidates as unfit mean that you’ll support his chief rival. As ever, this election will boil down to who a narrow subset of cross-pressured voters see as the lesser evil, with the corollary that even if they do turn out, they don’t necessarily have to accept the major-party binary.

  • As a general rule, just ignore proxy questions like whether people agree with the verdict, if it makes them more/less likely to vote for Trump, or whether he should be replaced on the ticket. These are convoluted ways to get at the real question—does any of this matter? At the end of the day we’re trying to determine who will win the election, and the only relevant barometer is the ballot test. Ultimately it doesn’t matter why you chose Trump or Biden (or somebody else), and unless your mind is already made up, the decision itself is probably overdetermined.

• So LOL nothing matters?

  • That’s not it either. The verdict amounts to sounding the bell in a plodding prize fight. Partisans are shaking off the early-round doldrums and heading back to their corners just when the race was starting to feel particularly stagnant. And there are (exceptionally) early signs that the exercise itself may be helping Biden. Whether we attribute it to polling noise, participation bias, or a narrow but potentially durable uptick in support, the initial results suggest a modest 1-2pt improvement even as Trump’s share holds steady. And while Trump is certainly not gaining new voters thanks to the verdict, the partisan cues are hardening his existing support, while loosening wallets from a suddenly energized base. Meanwhile this unity itself, and the swift decision of virtually all corners of the GOP to fall in line, helps blunt what might otherwise be a useful wedge into something closer to a 50-50 issue.

The spin war over the verdict is really about setting the terms of the debate. The more the news cycle shifts from questions about Biden’s troubles and ongoing discontent over the cost of living to Trump’s legal woes and the uncertainties of electing a convicted felon, the more likely these marginal effects are to endure. Democrats have every reason to keep Trump front and center, and more often than not the former President tends to oblige. The big question is whether consumers—and events—cooperate, and for how long.