Seriously versus literally - the same MSM mistake being made again

Ann Althouse has another example of the mainstream media's incapacity to report news based on evidence, logic, and reason.  The MSM are desperate for column inches which can  be produced quickly and cheaply.  Hence, the press release journalism and emotive innumeracy.  

She is posting about Trump's indictments: Polling shows half of Americans want him to suspend his campaign, and more takeaways by Tal Axelrod.  The subheading is Despite what he claims, he isn't getting a continued bounce in support.  ABC is the news organization.

They did a poll.  It found the same numbers as other recent polls.  Both Biden are equally popular and unpopular.  No new news.  But there is an argument to be made but Axelrod whirls around it like bumper car at an amusement fair.  A lot of noise and flashing lights but little movement towards a reasoned argument or report.

Trump is making the argument that the more he indicted, the more support he garners from the public.

"Any time they file an indictment, we go way up in the polls," Trump boasted during a Republican Party dinner in Montgomery, Alabama, earlier this month. "We need one more indictment to close out this election. One more indictment, and this election is closed out."

Is that true?  Axelrod does not answer.  We are back to the same issue we dealt with in 2016, neatly captured by Salena Zito.  Back in 2020, I noted,

Everything I am reading is more subtle than that and comes back to Salena Zito's key observation during the 2016 campaign.  That Trump's supporters take him seriously but not literally.  That his opponents take him literally but not seriously

Once again, Trump is making a bombastic argument - that the more indicted he is, the better he does in the polls.  Taken literally, that does not appear to be true.  The more he is indicted appears to have little or no affect on his polling results.  But there we are again with the mainstream media idiocy.  You should always steel-man your opponent's arguments.  

If the general polls don't fluctuate much, is there any other empirical evidence that might support his bombastic argument?  

Sure.  From ABC:

At the same time, Trump remains the clear favorite so far for the Republican presidential nomination according to FiveThirtyEight’s polling average, with a nearly 40-point lead nationally over nearest rival Ron DeSantis

Apparently, indictments are either irrelevant or beneficial in the Republican Primary.  Further:

According to FiveThirtyEight, the former president did see a primary polling boost after his first indictment, in New York. His fundraising in the second quarter of 2023, amid his mounting legal troubles, was also nearly double the previous period.

So, if we are talking about the Republican Primary, there is at least some evidence to suggest that Trumps argument is correct.  The more the indictments, the more the Republican Party base support.

But that is not the report Axelrod wants to write.  Consequently he seems to choose to focus on the general election fifteen months from now, which is absurd.  The predictive power of underpowered push-polls fifteen months in advance of a national election are de minimus.  

Instead, Axelrod starts careening around with declarative statements which don't really withstand scrutiny.

Early this month, 49% of adults said in the ABC News/Ipsos poll that Trump should suspend his campaign -- and 50% say the same in the most recent survey. Only about a third of Americans in these polls don’t think Trump should suspend his campaign, with the rest undecided.

Well, yes.  Broadly half the electorate will vote Democrat and half will vote Republican.  If you survey the electorate, the half that will vote Democrat are likely to support Trump suspending his campaign.  Congratulations ABC, your poll reveals that Democrats would like an easy win.  I am sure that is true.  I am also certain that it is irrelevant.

I view both Biden and Trump as challenging candidates with significant baggage.  I have no idea whether either or both will win their respective parties' nominations.  I have currently, no strong view as to who might win in a straight up competition in fifteen months.

I can be certain that Axelrod has written a meaningless and sloppy article making political points he wants to score but without the evidence, logic or reasoning to support the argument he wishes to make.  

Let's move away from Axelrod's literal argument.  What is the serious version of Trumps bombastic literal argument?  I suspect it would look something like this:

The more my Democratic opponents use the institutions of government to indict me on obviously frivolous charges which I will eventually defeat; the more my Democratic opponents behave like banana republic autocrats by obviously trying to jail their political opposition; the more the Democrats appear to ignore the interests and issues of a plurality or majority of Americans, the more likely it is that I will win both the Republican nomination and win the general election.

What does this poll contribute in considering that argument?  Really, almost nothing.  The indictments might indeed turn out to be a benefit in the general election.  None of us wants government power wielded nakedly for political benefit, and we especially don't want to see the rule of law set aside for political gain.  

Might Trump's non-literal, serious argument end up being true?  Possibly.  Possibly not.  I don't know and Axelrod does not even think to engage with the serious argument rather than the cheap and easy literal bombast.  He is making the same mistake as in 2016.