1. Yes, as @danielsgoldman is talking about now on @MSNBC is playing a big part. Rep Senator reluctance to go after Trump is MUCH MORE now than mere political reluctance. And frankly Trump made these threats openly known. Yet, he had his "lists" for primaries. But there is much

2. more going on here, that I'll touch on in the article which will also include the survey results ( there is STILL TIME to get involved w the survey. It is on extremism in the GOP- focused on MTW, GA-14 but also GOP extremism broadly. Ultimately, I waited to field it until
3. after the impeachment trial bc the survey wasn't really meant to test that (trust me, the big org will cover it!) and bc I was afraid it would impact what we are trying to measure. So now its time to get this puppy in the field. UNLESS, y'all care to asses some of this stuff
4. Impeachment may or may not impact attitudes on MTG and tribalism. Lord knows it had so many elements of extremism that times in. In order to add anything I'd gave to raise more money. 10K is not enough- survey research, the kids you see in wapo and nyt and such are like 30K
5. Some quotes I get are even for 50k!!! For 10K, with me doing analysis, we'd get to ask 5 or 6 questions and the most critical demos. (If you are reading this and willing to add your won pro-bono work to mine PLEASE DM me. This isn't some silly horse race poll. The goal is to
6. quantify 1. how deep is the extremism problem with reg problems? Is it 30/70 like the media talks about or are the extremists the vast majority? The party's politicians, leaders, and donors act like its 30/70 but given the extent of the issues they have it seems like the Trump
7. is the 70% wing. What policy positions, esp-Trump style ones do R voters hold. Is THAT 70% too? If we want to fix a problem we need to know what it is and how deep it goes. Maybe the voters in GAS 14 like MTG bc she reflects their views well? If you want haven't before and
8. you want to here is where you can donate. I have changed the amount to 15,000-will see what happens. If we don't raise more, we sill still have a great poll, but will more money we can ask more Q AND hit a large n to get into the crosstabs. Otherwiose, we'll have to use.
9. But i'm only going to go give it a couple of days, I want the get the survey in the the field. https://t.co/hWXP38YsRl

More from Rachel "The Doc" Bitecofer 📈🔭🍌

1. Yes, Trump will claim to intend to target GOP senators up for reelection in '22 (like he did to Thune with Kristi Noem) if they don't join in @HawleyMO's sedition on Jan. 6, but the fact is, it's not clear whether Trump will be successful in ANY of those efforts & voting yes


2. to hedge off these threats will also create fissures & fractures for these incumbents among other elements of their party that could complicate their renominations. Indeed, what worries me the most about the potential for the country to slip into @anneapplebaum territory is

3. that what should be robust and intense push back from the party establishment against actually ending democracy- bc that's what Trump's request would do, if it was granted, is fairly muted. What we SHOULD be seeing from the mainstream of the party is threats to strip committee

4. assignments, chairs, privileges, even reelection funds, if anyone gets involved in this bullshit- in the House & the Senate, and the fact that you don't see it is more than a story of McConnell & McCarthy being afraid of Trump & his base. Its a story of receptivity, of the

5. level of receptivity the congressional and party leadership is dealing with both within the rank and file membership of the party and within its donor class, and THAT, my friends, is why you find me so concerned. That, and my decision to finally pull @anneapplebaum's book

More from Trump

This is mostly right but strikes me as it needing said that I don't think the left or the intelligentsia have the slightest idea how low institutional trust in anything coming from a left mouthpiece is now. Except in-network, the best heuristic is "the opposite of what they said"


If you look at the situation from a predictive models perspective instead of the more rigorous and appropriate (under normal circumstances) "prove your case or gtfo" perspective, trusting the opposite of whatever the left side says has an AMAZING track record, as we know it.

Literally, the best heuristic most people have right now, in terms of how often it gets things right versus *completely* wrong, is "whatever CNN, the NYT, public health officials, and the Democrats said... yeah, the opposite." That is, they're wrong WAY outside of statistics.

They're also not just wrong. They're *completely* wrong, backwards, often transparently covering something up that they don't want known or refuse to believe. This isn't just a legitimation crisis because there's a heuristic: whatever the official left narrative is, is wrong.

There are a few reasons why such a heuristic would be more predictive than not. One of those is conspiracy, and another is mass hysteria with ideological capture. We know at least one of those is happening and have rather strong evidence both are. That makes conspiracy reasonable

You May Also Like