欢迎来到538的政治聊天。下面的文字经过了轻微的编辑。

tia .杨(蒂亚·杨编辑/记者):不到两周，共和党初选将正式开始投票，但几个州的请愿者仍在努力阻止前总统唐纳德·特朗普投票。

基于他在2021年1月6日科罗拉多州最高法院美国国会大厦暴动中的角色12月19日裁定特朗普不能出现在选票上，因为他没有资格当选总统宪法第十四修正案第三部分，即所谓的“暴动条款”，该条款禁止任何“参与暴动或叛乱”反对美国的现任或前任公职人员任职。缅因州的国务卿做了一个类似的决定上周。

但是这两个决定都被上诉了，所以在进一步的审查之前，它们的效力被搁置。两个州的结果——以及一系列类似的挑战在其他州——最终可能取决于美国最高法院何时以及如何采取行动。法院尚未正式表示将审理科罗拉多州的案件被双方上诉该州共和党和特朗普的团队，但这个问题的双方都有敦促法院迅速采取行动。该州的选票将于2月12日寄出，初选将于3月5日超级星期二举行，因此时间紧迫。

今天，我们将谈论这些第14修正案挑战的可能结果，以及它们如何影响总统竞选。让我们从具体细节开始:我们接下来要注意什么?特朗普在科罗拉多州、缅因州或其他州被踢出投票站的可能性真的存在吗?

杰弗里·斯凯利(杰弗里·斯凯利(资深选举分析师):根据最高法院的时间表，特朗普可能不会出现在少数初选选票上。在国家高等法院介入之前，如何处理任何可能针对特朗普的投票禁令将取决于每个州。例如，在科罗拉多州，国务卿实际上选择了包括特朗普目前针对州最高法院裁决的上诉，等待美国最高法院的介入。

有些相似的是，缅因州的国务卿延缓了她的决定直到上诉程序在州法院结束。但这并不意味着缅因州和科罗拉多州会有相同的最终结果，也不意味着美国高等法院会很快决定这个案件，足以影响在总统提名过程早期投票的州(包括科罗拉多州和缅因州，这两个州都有3月5日的初选)的选票。尽管如此，我们并没有在这里谈论许多国家，考虑到大多数利用第14修正案阻止特朗普参选的尝试都失败了，尽管通常是出于程序上的原因-而不是因为法院对特朗普在2021年1月6日的叛乱行为提出了质疑。

莫妮卡·波茨(莫妮卡·波茨资深政治记者):我对一切皆有可能保持开放的心态。这一切在8月份的公开讨论中真正拉开了序幕，当时两位法律学者j·迈克尔·卢蒂格和劳伦斯·h·特部落在《大西洋月刊》上的一篇文章第14修正案明文禁止特朗普再次担任总统，因为他参与了叛乱。全国的自由派和保守派已经开始工作了通过法院使这成为现实，科罗拉多州和缅因州的两次成功申办似乎同意Luttig和Tribe的法律论点，即特朗普不需要一直这样证明…有罪适用第14修正案。

这实际上是一个问题，即最高法院是否会迅速受理此案，以及/或者其他州是否会跟进。但是他们需要尽快采取行动，最高法院需要支持这些决定。两人中的保守派法律学者Luttig说他认为最高法院会支持科罗拉多州的裁决如果它接了这个案子，但那是不确定的。最高法院也有可能干脆不再受理科罗拉多一案。

杰弗里·斯凯利:考虑到这个问题的利害关系，我认为最高法院会努力相对快速地采取行动。它从未裁定第14修正案的第3部分，所以有足够的空间让法院狭义或广义地解释事情。法官们是如何起草裁决的很难知道，但这是一个判决可以深入研究州政府官员是否有权将某人从选票上除名，或者第3条是否适用于总统——它所涵盖的职位列表并没有明确指出总统的名字。我要说的是，很难想象一个保守派领导的法院会做出有利于将可能的共和党总统候选人排除在选票之外的决定。虽然更奇怪的事情已经发生了，我猜。

莫妮卡·波茨:我同意，杰弗里。这是前所未有的。但很难想象最高法院会在每个州的投票中取消特朗普的决定。

杨:值得注意的是特朗普与他建立的保守派多数派的关系他并不总是过得很好，尤其是在他离任后。但即便如此，将他从选票中剔除的决定还是令人惊讶的。关于暴动条款是否适用的裁决允许法院避开政治地雷并避免直接评论特朗普是否参与了叛乱。

与此相关的是，Geoffrey早些时候提到，由于程序原因，一些质疑在州一级被驳回，其中一些裁决(即明尼苏达州和密歇根)为大选中的进一步挑战敞开了大门。在这两个州，法院拒绝了将特朗普从初选选票中删除的努力，因为初选是党内事务，而不是公职的直接竞争。但他们没有根据叛乱条款裁定特朗普的任职资格。

莫妮卡·波茨:没错。如果特朗普赢得初选，而最高法院尚未发布阻止进一步挑战的结论性裁决，我们可能会看到这些案件在大选中再次浮出水面。

杰弗里·斯凯利:普选投票的资格确实是这里的重要问题。让特朗普在共和党初选中远离少数选票不会阻止他成为总统候选人。毕竟，科罗拉多州和缅因州的州共和党对特朗普的投票决定做出了回应通过威胁转移到政党党团会议决定他们州的总统偏好。换句话说，这些地方的初选可能不会最终决定7月份共和党全国代表大会的代表人选。

杨:除了为初选提供确定性之外，避免不得不在总体上再次面对这个问题是最高法院在科罗拉多案中做出快速和决定性裁决的另一个动机。

但是考虑到紧迫的时间表和高度的不确定性(因为我们喜欢不靠谱的选举讨论!)，如果我们做在国家高等法院没有对特朗普的资格做出明确答复的情况下，就进入初选?如果由各个州来决定特朗普是否可以出现在他们的初选选票上，那么这一结果是因为州选举法的差异，州政府的党派关系，还是两者兼而有之?

莫妮卡·波茨:可能两者都有吧!我们已经看到了得克萨斯州副州长丹·帕特里克威胁要取消乔·拜登总统的选票作为对科罗拉多州裁决的报复。至少，在特朗普退出投票的州，可能会有一场支持他的竞选活动。这将是纯粹的混乱。

杰弗里·斯凯利:如果特朗普最终没有在一些州进行初选，这将造成一场混乱。但考虑到共和党已经变得多么特朗普化，共和党全国委员会可能会同意州共和党申请紧急豁免，以转向党团会议，而不是特朗普不在选票上的州级初选。

杨:共和党这样的举动会代表初选过程的重大改变吗?这会带来新的问题吗?

杰弗里·斯凯利:一般来说，举行毫无意义的初选并不罕见。到处总统提名的历史在许多情况下，各州选择不使用国营的总统初选来确定代表，而是使用政党运作的程序(通常是党团会议),这导致国营的初选成为一种“”选美比赛。“这个周期，内华达州是共和党方面的一个显著例子——该州共和党2月8日的党团会议将分配国家代表但2月6日仍将有一场州际共和党初选，这不会影响代表名额的分配。

但试图在最后一刻做出这样的改变是不寻常的，因为缔约国必须提前让国家党知道他们计划如何进行这一进程。对于共和党人来说，截止日期是10月1日。因此，任何州共和党都在考虑从使用州办初选转向实施党办党团会议将面临许多行政和后勤方面的挑战。但同样，只有少数几个州有这种可能性。以超级星期二州为例:除了科罗拉多州和缅因州，特朗普目前正在其他11个州进行投票，这些州将在当天举行政府主办的共和党初选，其中一些州的官员和法院——比如加利福尼亚和明尼苏达州——拒绝罢免特朗普。

杨:而且在大选中也没有真正的对等变通办法——我认为一个州接一个州拼凑在一起的可能性更小。大概最高法院会在我们到达那个点之前做出决定。

莫妮卡·波茨:同意。我想他们会想参与进来的。我不认为他们会想让各州决定如此重要的事情。

杨:无论将特朗普从选票中移除的努力是拖延还是迅速结束，还有另一种明显的方式可以影响竞选。让我们来谈谈双方是如何处理这个问题的，在信息传递方面。保守派似乎坚定地团结在特朗普身后。尽管他的主要对手希望能有所改变，让特朗普下台，所有人——甚至直言不讳的特朗普批评者克里斯·克里斯蒂——都公开反对科罗拉多州的裁决.

到目前为止，共和党人是如何看待这个问题的?它会影响初选吗?

杰弗里·斯凯利:是的，这又是一件有助于巩固特朗普在共和党基础中的支持的事情。这时候他并不需要太多的帮助，但是这个标志着无数次在这场初选中，唯一有微弱机会击败特朗普获得共和党提名的候选人发现自己在面临法律挑战时基本上支持特朗普或他的立场。

现在，我们还没有太多的民调来确定这在初选中对特朗普有多大帮助——我怀疑这可能会伤害他——因为这个决定12月19日出版就在圣诞节假期之前，很少有民意调查机构在此期间进行过民意调查。所以我会关注一月初的民意调查，看看是否有任何迹象表明这已经影响到了事情。

莫妮卡·波茨:对，根据aYouGov/经济学人1月2日刚刚结束的民意调查显示，90%的特朗普选民和86%的共和党人认为特朗普今年应该有资格竞选总统。当谈到1月6日投票取消资格的依据时，民主党人认为特朗普应对当天的事件负责，当被问及时，没有资格参加竞选，而共和党人越来越认为他没有责任，起义没有那么暴力。随着时间的推移，他们的观点实际上已经软化了。

穿过其他的民意调查当被问及受访者是否同意科罗拉多州的决定时，绝大多数共和党人反对，而更大多数的民主党人支持。最终，我们看到一致的数据表明，大约三分之一或略多一点的美国人认为特朗普不会做错事，大约三分之一或略多一点的美国人强烈反对特朗普。

也就是说，在YouGov/The Economist调查中，54%的大多数美国人认为最高法院将决定他有资格，不管他们个人怎么想。这可能是因为，正如我们提到的，由于特朗普本人任命的三名大法官，法院拥有保守的多数席位。

杰弗里·斯凯利:总体而言，在那次调查中，46%的美国人认为特朗普有资格竞选总统，而40%的人认为他没有资格(14%的人不确定)。正如莫妮卡指出的，这个问题和其他问题都引发了巨大的党派分歧。

杨:正如你提到的，杰弗里，特朗普在初选中的优势地位似乎丝毫没有受到他在这场竞选中面临的一系列法律问题的影响。许多保守派人士认为，这些第14修正案的挑战是特朗普受到的一系列攻击中的最新一起，这些攻击是党派政治迫害。甚至民主党人似乎也认为这是一个失败的问题，而且确实如此担心这可能对特朗普有利。这些最新的挑战如何在特朗普的其他法律挑战的计划中发挥作用?在这一点上，共和党的基础会看到吗任何的针对特朗普的合法挑战?

莫妮卡·波茨:我真的不认为他们会。事实上，我认为他们认为每一次法律挑战和起诉都是对一些最出格的阴谋论的进一步证明:深层国家是为了抓住特朗普。

杰弗里·斯凯利:几乎可以肯定不是。12月中旬，在科罗拉多州裁决之前，一个《华盛顿邮报》和马里兰大学的民意调查当被问及对司法部就特朗普1月6日的行为对他提出的刑事指控的态度时。总体而言，57%的美国人认为司法部像其他人一样让特朗普承担法律责任，而41%的人认为司法部出于政治原因不公平地针对特朗普。但在共和党人中，77%的人认为司法部的指控是出于政治动机，而只有20%的人表示，其目的是让特朗普承担责任。

在同一项民意调查中，共和党人明显不太可能说特朗普对1月6日袭击美国国会大厦负有“很大”或“很大”的责任:2021年12月，27%的共和党人这样说特朗普，而两年后，只有14%的人这样说。相比之下，持这种观点的民主党人的比例下降得更少，从92%降至86%(无党派人士基本上没有变化，从57%降至56%)。

莫妮卡·波茨:正如杰弗里所说，共和党人似乎更加团结在特朗普周围，至少在民调中是这样。

杨:没错。这些投票挑战不仅仅是关于对特朗普的支持，而是关于他在1月6日的行动，以及这些行动是否构成叛乱。我认为有趣的是，甚至民主党人对此的观点也有所软化。

杰弗里·斯凯利:我敢肯定，时间至少在其中起了一些作用。然而，在民意调查询问的其他问题上，自上次民意调查以来的两年里，民主党人和无党派人士之间没有太大的转变——但共和党人相当一致地倾向于对特朗普的行为和袭击国会大厦的人的行动持更少批评的观点。

莫妮卡·波茨:随着时间的推移，我们也看到了可疑说法的增加对国会大厦的袭击被夸大了，以及一种新的阴谋论它是由执法部门煽动的。

杨:是的，三年后，保守派似乎在1月6日左右重新推动叙事。在即将到来的选举中预见和预先设定这样的问题可能会起到这种作用。例如，11月，新任众议院议长迈克·约翰逊发布了国会大厦安全录像从那天起保守派使用了支持他们的论点，即起义是和平抗议，由执法或“内部工作”煽动。

杰弗里·斯凯利:很容易买到你一开始就希望有人卖的东西。

Could efforts to kick Trump off the ballot impact the presidential race?

 

Welcome to 538's politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

tia.yang(Tia Yang, editor/reporter): Voting will officially begin in the GOP primary contest in less than two weeks, but petitioners in several states are still in the thick of efforts to keep former President Donald Trump off their ballots.

Based on his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, Colorado's Supreme Courtruled on Dec. 19that Trump cannot appear on the ballot because he is ineligible for the presidency underSection 3 of the Constitution's 14th Amendment, or the so-called "insurrection clause," which bars from office any current or former public official who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States. Maine's secretary of state made asimilar determinationlast week.

But both these decisions have been appealed, so their effects are on hold pending further review. Outcomes in both states — and the fate of abattery of similar challengesin other states — could ultimately come down to when and how the U.S. Supreme Court takes action. The court hasn't officially indicated that it will hear the Colorado case, whichwas appealed by boththe state GOP and Trump's team, but parties on both sides of the issue haveurged the court to act quickly. The state's ballots will be mailed out on Feb. 12, and the primary will be held on Super Tuesday, March 5, so the clock is ticking.

Today, we're going to chat about possible outcomes to these 14th Amendment challenges, and how they could affect the presidential race. Let's start with the nuts and bolts: What are we looking out for next? Is Trump getting kicked off the ballot in Colorado, Maine or other states even a real possibility here?

geoffrey.skelley(Geoffrey Skelley, senior elections analyst): Depending on the Supreme Court's timeline, it's possible that Trump might not be on a small number of primary ballots. Until the nation's high court weighs in, it will be up to each state as to how to handle any possible ballot ban against Trump. In Colorado, for instance, the secretary of stateactually opted to include Trumpfor now in light of appeals against the state Supreme Court's decision, pending the U.S. Supreme Court's involvement.

Somewhat similarly, Maine's secretary of statehas stayed her decisionuntil the appeals process plays out in state courts. But that doesn't mean Maine and Colorado will have the same eventual outcome, or that the nation's high court will decide this case quickly enough to affect who is on the ballot in states voting early in the presidential nomination process (including Colorado and Maine, which both have March 5 primaries). Still, we're not talking about many states here, consideringmost attempts to use the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot have failed, albeit usually for procedural reasons — not because a court has disputed that Trump behaved in an insurrectionist manner on Jan. 6, 2021.

Monica Potts(Monica Potts, senior politics reporter): I am keeping an open mind about anything being possible. This all really kicked off in the public discourse in August, when two legal scholars, J. Michael Luttig and Lawrence H. Tribe, argued inan article in The Atlanticthat the plain text of the 14th Amendment prohibits Trump from ever being president again because he engaged in insurrection.Liberals and conservatives across the country were already workingthrough the courts to make this a reality, and the two successful bids in Colorado and Maine seemed to agree with Luttig and Tribe's legal arguments that Trump doesn't need to have beenconvictedof insurrectionary activity for the 14th Amendment to apply.

It's really a question of whether the Supreme Court takes the case up quickly and/or other states follow suit. But they will need to act fast, and the Supreme Court would need to uphold those decisions. Luttig, the conservative legal scholar of the pair, has said hethinks the Supreme Court will affirm the Colorado rulingif it takes the case, but that's no certainty. It's also possible the Supreme Court could just pass on taking up the Colorado case altogether.

geoffrey.skelley:I would assume the Supreme Court will try to move relatively quickly — for it, anyway — given the stakes of this question.It has never ruled onSection 3 of the 14th Amendment before, so there is plenty of room for the court to interpret things narrowly or broadly. Just how the justices go about crafting a ruling is hard to know, but a judgmentcould delve intowhether state officials have the authority to remove someone from the ballot, or if Section 3 even applies to the presidency — the list of offices it covers does not specifically name the presidency. I will say that it's hard to imagine a conservative-led court deciding in favor of keeping the likely Republican presidential nominee off the ballot. Although stranger things have happened, I guess.

Monica Potts:I agree, Geoffrey. It's all so unprecedented. But it's hard to imagine a decision where this Supreme Court removes Trump from the ballot in every state.

tia.yang:It's worth noting thatTrump's relationship with the conservative majority he builthasn't always been hunky-dory, particularly after he left office. But even so, a decision to strip him from the ballot here would be surprising. And a ruling on whether the insurrection clause applies wouldallow the court to sidestep a political landmineand avoid directly weighing in on whether Trump did engage in insurrection.

Relatedly, Geoffrey mentioned earlier that some challenges have been dismissed at the state level for procedural reasons, and some of these rulings (namely those inMinnesotaandMichigan) left the door open for further challenges in the general election. In both those states, courts rejected efforts to remove Trump from primary ballots because primaries are internal party affairs, not direct contests for public office. But they did not rule on Trump's eligibility for office under the insurrection clause.

Monica Potts:Right. We could see these cases surfacing again in the general election if Trump wins the primary and the Supreme Court hasn't issued a conclusive ruling preventing further challenges.

geoffrey.skelley:Eligibility for the general election ballot is really the important question here. Keeping Trump off a handful of ballots in the GOP primary wouldn't stop him from becoming the presidential nominee. After all, state Republican parties in Colorado and Maine responded to the Trump ballot decisionsby threateningto shiftto party-run caucusesto decide presidential preference in their states. In other words, the primaries in those places might not end up deciding anything regarding delegates to the GOP's national convention in July.

tia.yang:In addition to providing certainty heading into the primaries, avoiding having to face this issue again in the general is another incentive for the Supreme Court to issue a quick and decisive ruling in the Colorado case.

But given the crunched timeline and high level of uncertainty (and because we love a wonky election discussion!), what would it look like if wedohead into the primaries without a definitive answer from the nation's high court on Trump's eligibility? If it's up to individual states to determine whether Trump can be on their primary ballots, does that outcome come down to differences in state election law, partisan affiliation of state governments, or a mix of both?

Monica Potts:Probably a mix of both! We've already seen Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrickthreaten to take President Joe Biden off the ballotin the state in retaliation against the Colorado ruling. And there'd probably be a write-in campaign for Trump in the states where he's off the ballot, at the very least. It would be pure chaos.

geoffrey.skelley:If Trump ends up not making the primary ballot in some states, it will create a mess. But considering how Trumpian the GOP has become, the Republican National Committee could be amenable to state Republican parties filing for emergency waivers to switch to caucuses, instead of state-run primaries where Trump isn't on the ballot.

tia.yang:Would a move like this by the GOP represent a major departure in how the primary process works? Would it introduce any new problems?

geoffrey.skelley:Broadly speaking, holding a meaningless primary wouldn't be unusual. Throughoutthe history of presidential nominations, there are many instances where state parties opted against using a state-run presidential primary for determining delegates and instead used a party-run process (typically a caucus), which resulted in the state-run primary becoming a "beauty contest." This cycle, Nevada is a notable example on the Republican side — the state GOP's Feb. 8 caucuses willallocate national delegates, but there will still be a state-run Republican primary on Feb. 6 that won't affect delegate allocation.

But trying to make a last-minute shift like this would be unusual because state parties have to let the national party know how they plan to conduct their process well in advance. For Republicans,that deadline was Oct. 1. So, any state GOP contemplating a switch from using a state-run primary to implementing a party-run caucuswould face a number of administrative and logistical challenges. But again, there's only a small number of states where this is even a possibility. Take the Super Tuesday states: Besides Colorado and Maine, Trump is currently on the ballot in the other 11 states that will hold government-run Republican primaries on that day, and officials and courts in some of those states — likeCaliforniaandMinnesota— have declined to remove Trump.

tia.yang:And there isn't really an equivalent workaround in the general election — I'd think it's even less likely that a state-by-state patchwork happens there. Presumably the Supreme Court will make a decision before we get to that point.

Monica Potts:Agreed. I think they'd want to weigh in for that. I don't think they'd want to let the states decide something so consequential piecemeal.

tia.yang:Whether efforts to remove Trump from the ballots drag on or end quickly, there's another obvious way they could affect the race. Let's talk about how both sides have been playing this issue, messaging-wise. Conservatives seem solidly unified behind Trump. As much as his primary opponents are hoping for something to change the state of the race and knock Trump down a peg,all of them — even outspoken Trump critic Chris Christie — came out against the Colorado ruling.

How are Republicans viewing this issue so far? Will it affect the primary contest at all?

geoffrey.skelley:Yep, just another thing to help cement Trump's support among the GOP base. Not that he needed much help at this point, but thismarks the umpteenth timein this primary when the only candidates with even a pencil-thin chance of defeating Trump for the GOP nomination have found themselves essentially supporting Trump or his position in the face of a legal challenge.

Now, we don't have much polling yet to know for sure about how much this may have helped Trump in the primary — I'm skeptical it could have hurt him — because the decisioncame out Dec. 19, just before the Christmas holiday, and few pollsters have conducted polls in the interim. So I'll be watching the early January polls to see if there's any sign of this having affected things.

Monica Potts:Right, according to aYouGov/The Economistpoll that just concluded on Jan. 2, 90 percent of Trump voters and 86 percent of Republicans thought Trump should be eligible to run for president this year. When it comes to Jan. 6, the basis of the ballot disqualification arguments, Democrats think Trump is responsible for the events that day and, when asked, not eligible to run, while Republicans increasingly think he's not responsible and that the insurrection wasn't that violent. They've actually softened their view over time.

Acrossotherpollsasking whether respondents agree with the Colorado decision, a solid majority of Republicans opposed it, while an even greater majority of Democrats supported it. Ultimately, we've seen consistent numbers indicating that about a third of Americans, or a little more, think Trump can do no wrong, and about a third of Americans, or a little more, intensely disapprove of Trump.

That said, a majority of Americans in the YouGov/The Economist survey, 54 percent, thought the Supreme Court would decide he's eligible, no matter what they personally think. That's probably because, as we've mentioned, the court has a conservative majority thanks to three justices appointed by Trump himself.

geoffrey.skelley:Overall, 46 percent of Americans thought Trump was eligible to run for president in that survey, while 40 percent thought he wasn't (14 percent weren't sure). And as Monica noted, this question and others all provoked huge partisan divides.

tia.yang:As you alluded to, Geoffrey, Trump's dominant position in the primary polls has seemingly not suffered at all from the slew of legal troubles he's faced throughout this campaign. Many conservatives see these 14th Amendment challenges as the latest in a long line of attacks hurled at Trump as part of apartisan witch hunt. Even Democrats seem to see this as a losing issue, and arewary that it could work to Trump's benefit. How do these latest challenges play within the scheme of Trump's other legal challenges? At this point, will the Republican base seeanylegal challenges against Trump as legitimate?

Monica Potts:I really don't think they will. In fact, I think they see every legal challenge and indictment as further proof of some of the most out-there conspiracy theories: that the Deep State is out to get Trump.

geoffrey.skelley:Almost certainly not. In mid-December, before the Colorado ruling, apoll from The Washington Post and University of Marylandasked about attitudes toward the Justice Department's criminal charges against Trump over his actions on Jan. 6. Overall, 57 percent of Americans thought the Justice Department was holding Trump accountable under the law like anyone else, while 41 percent felt it was unfairly targeting Trump for political reasons. But among Republicans, 77 percent viewed the Justice Department's charges as politically motivated, while only 20 percent said it aimed to hold Trump accountable.

And in that same poll, Republicans became notably less likely to say Trump bore a "great deal" or "good amount" of responsibility for the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol: In December 2021, 27 percent of Republicans said this of Trump, while two years later just 14 percent said the same. By comparison, the share of Democrats who said this slipped by far less, going from 92 percent to 86 percent (independents were basically unchanged, going from 57 percent to 56 percent).

Monica Potts:As Geoffrey said, Republicans seem to be rallying around Trump even more, at least in polls.

tia.yang:Right. These ballot challenges aren't just about support for Trump, but about his actions on Jan. 6 and whether they constituted insurrection. I thought it was interesting that even Democrats' views on this softened a bit.

geoffrey.skelley:Time played at least some role in that, I'm sure. On other questions the poll asked, though, there wasn't much of a shift to speak of among Democrats and independents in the two years since the last poll ran — but Republicans pretty consistently moved toward an even less critical view of Trump's behavior and the actions of those who attacked the Capitol.

Monica Potts:Over time, we've also seen a rise in the dubious claimsthat the attack on the Capitol was overhyped, anda new conspiracy theorythat it was instigated by law enforcement.

tia.yang:Yeah, three years later, conservatives have seemingly made a renewed push to reframe narratives around Jan. 6. Foreseeing and prebutting issues like this in the upcoming election could play into that. For example, in November, newly minted House Speaker Mike Johnsonreleased Capitol security video footagefrom that day, whichconservatives have usedto bolster their arguments that the insurrection was a peaceful protest, instigated by law enforcement or an "inside job."

geoffrey.skelley:Easy to buy what you hoped someone was selling in the first place.