Do You Think An Undecided Voter Is An Idiot? At Least They're Not MAGAts
When Fred Upton (R-MI) retired from Congress in 2023 he had been representing southwest Michigan since 1987. He won his last race against Democrat John Hoadley 211,496 (55.9%) to 152,085 (40.2%), Hoadley winning Kalamazoo County, and Upton winning the 5 others. More interesting, though, is how much Upton had out-polled Trump in the district. Not only did Upton win comfortably, Trump barely scraped by with 51.3%. And Upton outpolled him in every single district, from the most urban to the most rural:
Kalamazoo- Upton 46.0%, Trump 39.5%
Berrien- Upton 55.9%, Trump 52.7%
Allegan- Upton 66.3%, Trump 61.6%
Van Buren- Upton 60.3%, Trump 55.2%
St. Joseph- Upton 67.5%, Trump 64.8%
Cass- Upton 65.0%, Trump 63.6%
Yesterday, Upton and another Michigan Republican who served in Congress, Dave Trott, endorsed Kamala, citing the J-6 insurrection and failed coup. Joe Schwarz, another Republican former congressman has also endorsed Kamala. Upton, the former Problem Solvers Caucus chair said, “I don’t believe l’ve missed a vote in Michigan in the 52 years I’ve been eligible to vote. And I’ve not been afraid to split my ballot from time to time but have never voted for a Democrat for president, until now. It is often said that, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ And, let’s face it-the whole world seems on fire today.”
Upton told reporters that he had already cast his ballot for Harris-Walz and that Trump is “unfit to serve as commander in chief again [having] directly jeopardized the peaceful transition from one administration to the next… Time and time again, respected senior national Republicans have urged our former president to focus on governing rather than personal attacks, mistruths and continued false 2020 election claims,” he said. “Instead of heeding that advice, we see unhinged behavior not acceptable in most forums almost daily.
According to 538, Kamala leads by a fraction of a point in Michigan in a race that has been tightening, although the most recent legitimate polling (by Quinnipiac) shows Harris up by 3 points. The averages look tighter than they are because heavily biased Republican polls like Trafalgar and Rasmussen keep flooding the averages with fake numbers.
Supposedly, research shows that the voters who are still undecided are very impressed by messaging emphasizing that Republicans find Trump unfit for office. With Americans’ abandonment of respect for expertise, I suspect they wouldn’t be all that impressed by the 82 American Nobel Prize winners who endorsed Kamala yesterday. Their fields included physics, chemistry, medicine and economics and this was their open letter:
At no time in our nation's history has there been a greater need for our leaders to appreciate the value of science in formulating public policy.
The enormous increases in living standards and life expectancies over the past two centuries are largely the result of advances in science and technology. Kamala Harris recognizes this and understands that maintaining America's leadership in these fields requires budgetary support from the federal government, independent universities, and international collaboration. Harris also recognizes the key role that immigrants have always played in the advancement of science.
Should Donald Trump win the presidential election, he would undermine future US leadership on these and other fronts, as well as jeopardize any advancements in our standards of living, slow the progress of science and technology, and impede our responses to climate change.
This is the most consequential presidential election in a long time, perhaps ever, for the future of science and the United States. We, the undersigned, strongly support Harris.
The disconnect between expertise and public opinion is a reflection of societal shifts, where emotional appeal or uniformed personal conviction make morons feel good about themselves. It’s a dangerous trend representing a stark departure from the post-World War II era, when scientific advancements were widely celebrated and respected. You can trace this erosion back to several cultural and political developments, the conservative demonization of education and the rise of social media, which have worked together to “democratized information,” allowing people to find “evidence” for virtually any belief, no matter how fringe. As a result, Nobel laureates in fields like physics or economics are likely to appear distant and elitist to undecided voters who are probably already idiots and who feel more connected to influencers or populist figures. Fascist-oriented politicians like Trump have capitalized on this distrust by positioning themselves as anti-establishment outsiders, further eroding public confidence in academic and scientific elites.
In addition, the fact that many Americans feel disconnected from the benefits of scientific progress— from automation reducing job opportunities to a sense that elite institutions serve their own interests— deepens this divide. The very expertise that once symbolized progress and hope for the future now represents, for some, an oppressive system. So… I wouldn’t expect this endorsements from Nobel Prize winners to move undecided voters, who may see these experts as part of the same out-of-touch establishment they feel oppressed by.
Harris will carry the voting bloc of disaffected former GOP officials by a landslide. At least her campaign has wildly succeeded in appealing to that discrete bloc.