Prior to the presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden on Thursday evening, I was admittedly assuming that the focus — and eventual negative highlight — would have been Trump repeating his malpractices from four years ago: being boisterous and constantly interruptive.

I also perhaps naïvely presumed that after all the criticism and worry from even within his own party about his age, President Biden’s advisors would emphasize the importance of being assertive, clear and even domineering during the debate.

To the horror of most Democrats nationwide, even many in leadership positions, Biden not only fell flat but corroborated the widespread belief that he is too old to serve another term as president.

Despite gaining some relative traction towards the middle and end of the debate, the beginning was especially difficult to watch: The worst part for Democrat viewers was when the president rambled incoherently for several seconds and didn’t clarify himself.

In my opinion, Biden’s feeble performance could have been almost entirely masked with a few simple agreements with CNN and adjustments to the format of the debate — an oversight by the president’s team that might have cost him the entire election.

First — and probably most importantly — there was a glaring need for a live system of fact-checking, or at least for the moderators to hold the two participants accountable for any false statements like many journalists do during live interviews of politicians. Biden’s team could have put this in their terms the same way they argued for the ability to have mutable microphones, but did not. 

As a result of the inaction of Biden’s team, Trump was able to incessantly and consistently lie without any repercussions, all while Biden barely acknowledged them. According to a fact-check by CNN, Trump lied over 30 times in the debate, compared to Biden’s nine false claims. Among Trump’s most extreme falsehoods was claiming many Democrat states allow for abortions after birth, that the 2020 election was fraudulent, that “everybody” wanted Roe v. Wade overturned and that there were no terror attacks during his presidency.

Additionally, when Biden’s team won the coin flip and chose which side to be on on the debate stage instead of having the last word, I was astonished. Sure, apparently people’s eyes gravitate more towards the right side of their screens, but did Biden really want more attention on his face throughout the debate? 

Biden should have taken the last word instead of the right side of the screen and crafted a stronger, less long-winded closing statement. Instead of his lengthy comment on tax cuts, he and his team seemingly forgot that his opponent just a few feet away from him is a convicted felon who also happened to incite a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol. That would have been a much more cogent path to take, especially considering Trump dodged questions relating to both.

I want to be clear in that I don’t believe there is a direct correlation between President Biden’s verbal stumbling during debates and that distinctly affecting how he carries out any actual presidential duties.

Biden has plenty of political experience and, when it comes down to it, can make good enough policy-related decisions in the privacy of the Oval Office relatively naturally. It’s also important to note that the president is not alone in his decision-making and has advisors and other connections to receive plenty of help and advice if he needs it. 

However, this debate was more about the president needing to dispel the notion that he is senile and unstable, and he failed to achieve that objective. To beat Donald Trump, who is actively campaigning on the sentiment that Biden is unfit for office, that was a big misstep. Now we just have to wait and see what consequences might befall his campaign, among which could even include another Democrat replacing him as the nominee for president, a move that many are now calling for.

George is a senior in LAS.

gca3@dailyillini.com

The post Opinion | How Biden’s team set him up for failure in first debate appeared first on The Daily Illini.

If the quintessential prompt of naming fun facts about oneself permeates any type of ice-breaking conversation, I always feel as though I have my answer ready even before any questions are asked.

I am Greek.

But the truth is, behind that seemingly simple answer — and the heritage from which it originates — is a world of historic and bewildering family history that often feels necessary to bring up but impossible to perfectly articulate.

Like many families of European descent, my family was significantly affected by the horrors of World War II. For my grandparents, who were mere toddlers during the conflict, what might seem as obviously distant memories to others are still vivid.

In May of 1941, Hitler launched an invasion of my grandfather’s home island of Crete using his brand new paratrooper division. Crete, because of its strategic positioning in the Mediterranean, was a crucial island for the Germans to take over in order to control a plethora of shipping and naval routes.

While being able to eventually mostly occupy Crete, Hitler’s army sustained losses bigger than most other invasions, and the Battle of Crete was known to be one of the most disproportionately loss-heavy invasions for the German Army throughout the war. 

The aforementioned paratrooper division was even not used again due to it being rendered ineffective. Due to all of the consequences of taking the island, Hitler became infuriated and began rounding up civilians in villages throughout the island as repercussions for their resistance.

In one of these massacres, in my grandfather’s village of Adele, my great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather were rounded up with 16 other men from the village and executed by German soldiers.

While remains were eventually discovered, they were unrecognizable. In short, my ancestors lost their identities through the massacre.

In the time since then, a memorial site has been erected at the site of the massacre, with a display case of the 18 skulls of those killed that day. Notably, there are no name cards to identify who is who.

I am proud to say that my grandfather spearheaded an effort to discover, using advanced DNA technology provided by the University of Crete and the Foundation of Technology and Science, the identities of the skulls and finally discern who is who. Despite being a grim undertaking, it would bring to an end our family’s painstakingly long period of not knowing which remains belonged to our ancestors.

Growing up, I never truly grasped the significance of losing your identity like that — and that even after death, holding onto that identity is important. For my grandfather, I can only imagine what it must have felt like not only being raised without a father in a time where women were not yet taken seriously, but also with no closure of being able to have buried him or know which skull at the memorial is his.

This year, that will all finally change with a ceremony of revealing the DNA results on the anniversary of the massacre. My grandfather will be able to restore the identities of his father and grandfather 83 years after the fact.

Not only am I proud of my grandfather for not giving up the effort, but I am also happy for him, because something that has been a void in his identity for years can finally come together. As he has said, “the inhumanity of mass executions denies people their identity,” and it wouldn’t be too far-fetched to say that part of my grandfather’s own identity was denied too.

From now on, any conversations I have about my own identity, while still beginning with the same old quip of me being Greek, will end with me illustrating how my grandfather has finally found peace. While it may seem like a trivial pursuit to the naked eye, the microscope of understanding shows that a discovery like this truly does matter for somebody so proud to be not only Greek, but Cretan.

George is a senior in LAS.

gca3@dailyillini.com

The post DI Voices | My family’s 80-year identity crisis about to be solved appeared first on The Daily Illini.

In 2017, I vividly recall the buzz surrounding that year’s solar eclipse. My incoming high school freshman class and I were blissfully unaware yet simultaneously excited about it.

During the first day of high school orientation, we eagerly donned our “cool-looking” glasses and stepped outside, anticipating a celestial spectacle. However, our excitement was met with disappointment as thick clouds obscured our view. 

At the time, I couldn’t quite grasp why I felt let down. After all, all I knew about solar eclipses was that the adults described it as a fascinating but occasional occurrence. I had no idea what it actually looked like; so, with a shrug, I moved forward and navigated the awkward terrain of high school life.

Fast-forward to this year and the ubiquitous chatter sprung up again. Remembering my sense of disappointment seven years ago — despite not fully understanding what to expect — I felt compelled to make a serious effort to witness the event this time around.

Even though Champaign was going to be at 98% coverage according to the New York Times, I had heard that 100% — or totality — was entirely different and worth traveling for. So I did the hour-and-a-half drive southeast to Indiana, joining the 30 million people living in the path of totality and the millions more doing what I was.

What I saw was far more incredible than anything I’ve ever witnessed. The harmonic combination of sudden darkness and the white, glowing corona behind the moon in the sky blew me away. After the last gray hues disappeared and the temporary coldness dissipated, I found it profoundly saddening I would have to wait 20 more years to experience something similar.

When I saw pictures and videos of the University’s Main Quad jam-packed with eager students, I was admittedly surprised. Just a short hour south was the most incredible thing I’ve ever witnessed, but it felt like the majority of students believed the extra journey wasn’t worth it, or weren’t even aware of the difference between 98% coverage and totality.

Much like how 14-year-old me felt deeply disappointed by not seeing the eclipse—  solely from what I had heard about what to expect — people are behaving similarly in our politics today. In both scenarios, the consequences of relying solely on incomplete information can lead to uninformed decisions.

The term for this is rational ignorance: when the cost of learning information is greater than the potential benefits of having that information, according to an academic article from Clemson University.

I naively assumed in 2017 that a solar eclipse was no big deal when I had not educated myself on the topic whatsoever. Many people on the Main Quad this year likely also assumed that the 98% coverage was barely different than the totality one hour south, and therefore found it pointless to make the trip.

In the same way people at the University this year decided that the partial eclipse was sufficient, many voters may believe that the knowledge they already have on political issues is enough. Our tumultuous political circumstances come into play when the issue of rational ignorance comes up in voter participation and even knowledge on some political issues. 

This issue will not be solved overnight, but an important first step is realizing the problem exists. A notable study conducted by political scientist Larry Bartels found that incumbent presidents did almost 5% better in elections than they would’ve if all voters in presidential elections were fully informed. With the past couple of presidential elections being as close as they have been, 5% of the vote could decide an entire election.

With a discrepancy that significant, voters need to acknowledge that our elections might be swayed because of a part of the voter base that is uninformed. Whether intentional or not, we need to look further into issues we might believe we already fully understand. Otherwise, we might be left unsatisfied with what we have — just like the stark difference between 98% coverage and totality in this year’s solar eclipse. 

George is a junior in LAS.

gca3@dailyillini.com

The post Opinion | What a general lack of effort to see the solar eclipse says about our elections appeared first on The Daily Illini.

In 2019, one of the biggest stories in politics and on the national scale was the first impeachment in 20 years — that of former President Donald Trump for allegedly trying to abuse his power to convince Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden.

It happened prior only three years ago, when Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection, thus becoming the first president in U.S. history to have been impeached twice.

In an ideal scenario, the process of impeachment should be approached with the utmost seriousness, devoid of partisanship. It is essential to avoid transforming this critical tool into a mere instrument of political maneuvering, as such a trajectory could lead to the dangerous abuse of governmental power.

Nonpartisanship should be the guiding principle in dealing with impeachment, exemplified by representatives breaking party lines during voting. This approach ensures a more transparent evaluation of the allegations, offering a clearer perspective on the merits of the case without being clouded by partisan biases.

Recently, House Republicans impeached Alejandro Mayorkas, the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, claiming that he “willfully and systematically” denied enforcing existing immigration laws and breaching public trust by lying to Congress and saying the border was secure.

The push to impeach Mayorkas, failing once and then going through by a single vote, was led by none other than U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the proponent of conspiracy theories such as Jewish space lasers causing wildfires to the unfounded claim that Donald Trump won the presidential election in 2020. Greene’s involvement and spearheading of the impeachment only raises further concerns about its legitimacy.

After several failed attempts to impeach President Biden himself, House Republicans appear to have “settled” by impeaching his Secretary of Homeland Security. That way of settling only further points to a partisan attempt to “get back” at Democrats for the two impeachments of Trump.

While the Biden administration has been dismissing any impeachment threats with humor, the serious question remains: Is impeachment still a useful constitutional tool, or has it been irreparably altered into just another weapon in the partisan warfare of Washington? 

Impeachment may still sting, tarnishing legacies for all time, but the evolving landscape challenges its effectiveness as a check on executive power. As the nation grapples with this transformation, the true impact of these partisan impeachment endeavors on the fabric of American democracy remains uncertain.

Setting the precedent for impeachment as a back-and-forth game based on whoever has power would be disastrous for the democratic proceedings and norms of our country. We aren’t meant to do things just because we can, especially in politics.

As displayed by the aforementioned examples of impeachment by a bipartisan electorate, that is what our government should strive to achieve — not the literal mishandling of power solely because that party is in power and is unhappy with the undertaking of a policy from the opposition.

Regardless, it is important to note that this mishandling of power can happen on either side. Making impeachment a partisan norm is not meant to only apply to one side. 

In 1998, impeachment was a tool that was used sparingly. When we, as a country, were going as far as impeachment, it was shocking. Nowadays, it’s starting to feel like it’s becoming yet another crazy political occurrence that we are meant to pass off as normal.

George is a junior in LAS.

gca3@dailyillini.com

The post Opinion | The perilous path of normalizing impeachment appeared first on The Daily Illini.

Among the maze that is college life, where our living situations have finally become a constant, one question lingers during election season: From where should you cast your vote? As we grapple with logistics like addresses, one pragmatic assertion emerges — don’t forget your hometown.

Every time I go home for breaks, I’ve grown to realize how easy it is to notice differences in my neighborhood. From a new hotel being built in that one empty lot, to a Sweetgreen replacing my go-to pizza place as a kid, that bittersweet feeling that my hometown was growing without me made me realize how much I still wanted a say in the happenings of it.

Despite the physical distance that college life may create, the relevance of our hometowns remains undiminished, especially in a year where the stakes of an election have never felt higher, regardless of one’s political stance. In a time like this, participation in politics and voting in our elections is paramount. 

An important fact to note is that college students’ participation in voting has only increased throughout the years, with a study from the Institute for Democracy and Higher Education finding that 66% of college students voted in the 2020 election as opposed to only 52% voting in 2016. While this is great news and certainly a positive trend, we need to stay resilient and keep that momentum going.

Another thing to keep in mind that might be rather obvious is that college and our current living situations, in general, are not permanent. Not only that, but one study in 2019 even found that 56% of college students planned on moving back home for at least one year after graduation. Not only don’t we stay in our college towns for more than one presidential election, but the majority of college students go right back home for at least a little while after college.

Initially, it may seem like a chore or even a misjudgment to bother going the extra mile — or in some cases the extra hundred miles — just to tick a box representing your hometown. And sure, the ability to change your voting address to your school address and vote from Champaign may be the easier thing to do. 

It’s important to understand it’s much deeper than that.

Our hometowns are where we grew up. The political discussions our parents used to have at the dinner table are in many cases what shaped our political beliefs today. Maybe we didn’t understand exactly what they were talking about back then, but with the stakes today, their stress and passion appear to not have been misplaced.

Just like how our living space has changed around us since starting our collegiate lives, it will change again. Nothing in our lives is permanent right now, except for the place we grew up in and will always seem to have an irresistible tie to.

With a general election only once every four years, it’s an opportunity we can’t pass up. Go out and vote in your hometown, or mail in a ballot addressed to it. With presidential elections coming only once every four years, a lot can happen in that amount of time — trust me, I’d know. After all, I still miss that pizza place.

George is a junior in LAS.

gca3@dailyillini.com

The post Opinion | Represent your hometown in this crucial election year appeared first on The Daily Illini.

On the surface, Donald Trump’s victory in the Republican New Hampshire primary seems like icing on the cake in his journey to be the Republican nominee. 

Because despite a fairly strong showing from Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, we can’t ignore that no nominee has ever won both Iowa and New Hampshire and not been their party’s nominee in the general election, right? Right?

To take a statistic like that into consideration in this extremely unprecedented election would be naive. After all, we’ve also never had a presidential nominee running for a second term after being indicted on criminal charges, yet here we are. The rules and precedents weʼre accustomed to are clearly out of the window this time around.

Trump technically isn’t the incumbent president, but he’s the incumbent nominee, and his campaign is structured in essentially the same way as an incumbent president’s would be. To lose by almost single digits, even by incumbent nominees, has always been an immediate kryptonite for their campaign.

If Biden got 55% of the vote as the incumbent like Trump did in New Hampshire, that would be so unprecedented that there would almost certainly be calls for him to suspend his campaign immediately. 

In any case, Haley has no hurrying reason to back out of this election, given Trump’s 91 criminal allegations that pervade it. In an exit poll, 42% of the New Hampshire Republican voters said Trump wouldn’t be fit for president if he was convicted in any one of those allegations.

Not to overstate the obvious, but clearly, Trump would lose a fairly noticeable chunk of his support base if the 91 allegations lead to convictions. This is if he is even allowed to appear on the ballot, another case that is pending in many states.

Additionally, in the context of Trump’s TruthSocial posts in which he calls Haley a birdbrain and threatens anybody who wishes to support her, Trump appears infuriated that Haley hasn’t backed out. Haley staying in the race is annoying for her competitor, and that’s another aspect of her holdout working in her favor.

Presenting an alternate option to Trump — one of the most polarizing political candidates of all time — is good for the process. If Haley was concerned about her prospects of annoying Trump Republicans and hurting her position in the Republican party, she would have dropped out right after New Hampshire and perhaps even after her third place showing in Iowa.

Before this election year, a Plan B for an incumbent nominee just in case the Republicans campaign didn’t work out wouldn’t even be a thought. But in this situation, Nikki Haley appears to want to be that unprecedented Plan B. All factors considered; she might as well stay right where she is.

George is a junior in LAS.

gca3@dailyillini.com

The post Opinion | Nikki Haley doesn’t need to go anywhere appeared first on The Daily Illini.

In the wake of the recent third Republican presidential debate, one glaring omission stood out like an elephant in the room — or should I say the elephant not in the room? Much like how Donald Trump has been literally absent from the debates, he also appears to be absent in the constant attacks from the candidates on each other.

The clear leader in the polls, a tracker from The New York Times noted that the former president was only talked about for a measly 56 seconds in the nearly two-hour debate.

The candidates know there’s a reason Trump is leading so much in the polls. His fundamental transformation of the GOP’s values from a more traditionally conservative approach to a wave of populism has resonated strongly with a significant segment of the Republican voter base. 

The candidates, acutely aware of this shift, find themselves walking a tightrope, attempting to distance themselves from Trump’s more controversial actions while not alienating his fervent supporters.

It doesn’t help that Trump’s frequently bombastic rhetoric is largely about what others have had to say about him. The last thing any of the candidates on the debate stage want is to be the brand-new target of Trump’s rhetoric, and therefore have his millions of supporters not consider them as a potential alternate to their primary choice.

Well, it’s no secret that this “strategy” to not challenge Trump on the debate stage isn’t working. The polls have remained the exact same, at least where Trump is concerned, despite the now three chances his opponents have had to change that.

These candidates, exchanging blows like “scum,” need to direct that feisty energy toward the former president if they seriously want to have a chance to win the bid to be the Republican candidate for president next year. With such an outside chance already, they have nothing to lose.

Perhaps the candidates, which include Florida Gov. Ron Desantis, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, hope that Trump is somehow forced out of the race. 

Trump’s 92 criminal allegations speak for themselves, and perhaps the candidates believe that he will not be allowed to run. This way, by not attacking him during the debates, they hypothetically wouldn’t lose his supporters if that did happen.

However, this expectation rests on shaky ground. Trump’s ability to weather controversies is well-documented, evident from his victory in the face of numerous historical scandals during the previous election. Barring a truly seismic development, it seems unlikely that the legal troubles alone would be sufficient to prevent Trump from pursuing another presidential bid.

The candidates need to confront the reality that, at least for now, Trump is still the leading force in the Republican Party. Neglecting to challenge him on the debate stage not only fails to address the concerns voters may have about him, but also sets the candidates back in their prospects for pursuing the bid.

To have any hope of securing the Republican nomination, the candidates must pivot their strategies. It’s time for them to realize that bypassing the Trump question does not make it disappear; rather, it lets it grow unchecked.

George is a junior in LAS.

gca3@dailyillini.com

The post Opinion | The party of the elephant must address the elephant not in the room appeared first on The Daily Illini.

’Tis the season to be jolly! Or at least that’s how the saying goes. As the calendar flips to Nov. 1, some people might raise an eyebrow at the sight of Christmas lights being put up and holiday music wafting through hallways.

Some may cry, “It’s too early!” Others may insist, “Let Thanksgiving have its time.”

The holidays, whether Christmas, Hanukkah or Kwanzaa, are a source of happiness and many people’s favorite time of the year. The Gallup-Sharecare Well-Being Index, based on interviews with about 7,000 Americans from 2008 to 2012, revealed that the period from late November to late December consistently saw the highest levels of happiness, proving that the holiday season is a favorite and joyful time for many people regardless of their specific holiday traditions.

It’s a common misconception that the holiday season begins earlier and earlier every year and a chief reason people are becoming increasingly wary to begin celebrating before Thanksgiving. Despite it feeling like retailers take advantage of the season with festive displays as early as possible, Google Trends data consistently shows that people’s interest in searching for “Christmas” remains unchanged during the first week of November each year, indicating a consistent start to the holiday season in people’s minds.

I need to preface all of this by saying I have no hate for Thanksgiving at all, which can be a great time to get together with family, but there’s a reason there are no songs or movies attributed to Thanksgiving. It’s a dinner, maybe a party for the family on a single day, but outside of that?

On the other hand, we have a slew of activities associated with holidays like Hanukkah and Christmas — like ice skating, gift-giving and caroling, to name a few — while still retaining the familial aspect. This is a cultural phenomenon that spans weeks, not only a single day like Thanksgiving.

Among these activities, holiday movies and music highlight the season. Large contributors to the joy of the season, familiar movies like “Home Alone” and songs like “All I Want For Christmas Is You” easily invoke that cozy and festive nostalgia that just hits so hard.

With no major celebration that ushers in its own distinct media culture between Nov. 1 and the holidays, like the spooky movies that accompany Halloween, it shouldn’t feel like a guilty pleasure to begin indulging in Christmas’ expansive media culture once spooky season is over with.

So why not begin celebrating right after Halloween? Given that happiness levels reach year-long highs during the holiday season and there’s a lack of major media culture during the time between Halloween and Christmas, it seems like a logical choice to start celebrating early, especially considering the stress relief it can bring. 

Get those colorful lights up and defrost Mariah Carey, the holidays are coming!

George is a junior in LAS.

gca3@dailyillini.com

The post Opinion | It’s perfectly fine to start celebrating the holidays on Nov. 1 appeared first on The Daily Illini.

In the hallowed halls of the U.S. Capitol, the speaker of the House serves as a critically important figurehead in American politics. The position itself symbolizes power, leadership and the ability to guide the nation effectively.

However, over the course of this past year, we have seen an unprecedented vote-out of an incumbent speaker and, at the time of the writing of this column, gone the longest amount of time without an elected speaker.

Ever since Republicans took majority control of the House of Representatives, the turmoil and indecision within the party itself has reared its ugly head.

When the previous Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was ousted as Republicans took over majority control, it was time to elect a new speaker to represent the Republican majority. The majority of Republicans voted for Kevin McCarthy, who was put forth as the candidate. But when the real voting came around, it took a shocking 15 ballots to elect him, the longest the process had taken since 1860.

Now, we find ourselves in a similar situation. At the time of writing, the position has been left vacant for an outstanding 22 days, the longest the country has ever gone without because of political divide since the mid-1800s.

After Republicans ousted McCarthy, their nominee just nine months prior, they elected Steve Scalise. After Scalise failed to achieve traction, Jim Jordan was nominated. Then after three ballots went nowhere because of 20 Republican holdouts, it was Jordan’s turn to be voted out of the race for speaker.

The GOP’s repeated struggles to secure the necessary votes for their chosen House speaker candidate highlight a concerning pattern. It is evident that this has become a cycle, formed by distrust and doubt within the party.

On the other side of the political spectrum, the Democrats have unanimously backed their nominee Hakeem Jeffries on every single ballot, both during the McCarthy election in January and during the current election.

In a time where there is unprecedented dysfunction within the Republican Party, one might wonder if the political processes we have always had in place are still as effective as they used to be.

Because over 50% of votes need to be for a specific candidate, holdouts due to gridlock are going to continue and potentially worsen, based on the trends we have seen over the past two elections.

This may support an argument for why the process of election by popular vote would be more effective in today’s political climate. If the popular vote was the chosen method to elect the House speaker, either those 20 Republican holdouts would have to get over their differences with Jordan or accept Jeffries.

The current method could be called a formality, allowing opposing representatives to make a ceremonial stand against a candidate, no matter how dire the situation to elect a new speaker may be. 

This may have been less of a problem at a time when the world wasn’t in a dangerous position. However, global conflicts internationally highlight the potential fragility of a vacant political position in our country — let alone one that is third in line to the presidency.

To be taken seriously on the national and especially international scale, the United States needs to show that it can elect political leaders effectively. We can’t have discourse on this scale in a time like this, despite concerns on either side that their respective nominees are not good enough.

If we can’t change the Constitution to allow for the aforementioned popular vote method, then instead we need to take a good, hard look at those U.S. representatives who have decided to force the House into an unprecedented vacancy, potentially risking the political security and credibility of the nation, and hold them accountable.

George is a junior in LAS.

gca3@dailyillini.com

The post Opinion | Chaos around speaker of the House vote exposes deficiencies in US government appeared first on The Daily Illini.

In the current landscape of American politics, we find ourselves in an unprecedented era of dysfunction, where traditional norms and procedures have been cast aside.

At the center of it, a single politician has gotten far by doing exactly that: not following the rules. Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, has been arguably the most controversial president of all time, but that’s exactly how he became president in the first place.

At the center of Trump’s controversies have been a staggeringly high amount of criminal allegations. In total, there have been a shocking 91 criminal charges across four different states and cases.

One would think that these allegations, covering felonies such as forgery, conspiracy, obstruction, retention of classified information and so on, would significantly hinder an ordinary politician’s approval ratings. And yet, since the beginning of 2022, Trump’s favorability among Americans had a surprising effect of a 3%, according to FiveThirtyEight, a data collection website that averages all reliable polls conducted.

First and foremost, the steadfast loyalty that Trump’s base displays can be attributed to the cult of personality that surrounds him. He has been able to cultivate a unique image as a political outsider who is willing to defy the establishment, a status that has endeared him to Americans who feel especially left behind by the government.

To create a bond with his supporters, Trump utilized bombastic and unapologetic rhetoric daily. In many cases, this would include the constant framing of his defiers as people on a “witch hunt” and that any media source that covered him in a negative light would be “fake news.”

Perhaps Trump knew early on that allegations against him would eventually arise. Either way, by painting the picture that most of the country is out to get him ahead of time, he effectively trained the minds of his supporters to automatically reject anything that went against him.

This strategy, done intentionally or not, is reflected in a study that measured Americans’ trust in government. The study showed that in 2020, 38% of Republicans trusted the government to do what is right most or all of the time, a high not seen since the early years of George W. Bush’s presidency.

Then, during the election cycle of 2020 and the events of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, the Republicans’ trust in the government plummeted, culminating in an almost record low of 5% on March 11, 2021.

There is a direct correlation between this plummet in trust in the government from Republicans and the number of tweets from Trump, as between the months of September and December 2020, Trump tweeted an average of about 1,000 times a month, peaking at almost 1,500 tweets in the month of October 2021 alone.

Through this harnessing of support, Trump was able to successfully capitalize off of his outrage, as the data shows, by tweeting the most at the same time government trust plummeted to a record low. 

This positive correlation shows the significant impact Trump’s tweets had on his support base and goes to show his supporters will believe most or all of what he is saying, and, in turn, develop extreme distrust in his political opponents. 

Some may think that Trump’s removal from Twitter in January 2021, which lasted until late 2022 when Elon Musk bought the platform, would be like a bucket of water over a flame.

But the truth is that after the previously mentioned period where he tweeted continuously during the election of 2020, the damage had already been done.

Trump’s mission, through the use of the intentionally planted seed of doubt within his supporters, was accomplished. He didn’t even need to develop a following on Truth Social, his personal alternative to Twitter, because his supporters were already sold on him.

The devotion Trump’s supporters have for him, paired with their willingness to believe him through scandals involving criminal allegations, is what keeps him healthily afloat in the political sphere today.

Because of that, Trump’s ability to foster doubt in politicians and media that defy him, and to harness that doubt as a safety net against any criminal convictions he may face, are exactly what make him the dangerous political opponent he is.

There is no way of knowing how exactly the aforementioned 91 allegations will affect his run as president next year, if at all, but it will certainly be fascinating to find out.

George is a junior in LAS.

gca3@dailyillini.com

The post Opinion | How Donald Trump galvanized his base through social media appeared first on The Daily Illini.