DO VOTERS WHO AREN'T COMMITTED PARTISANS REALLY CARE ABOUT TRUMP'S REVENGE PLANS?

Greg Sargent is appalled by the way Donald Trump's revenge plans are being presented in the media:

During just this week, two of Donald Trump’s friendliest interviewers handed him big prime-time opportunities to unequivocally renounce any intention to retaliate against Democrats for his criminal conviction by a jury of his peers in Manhattan. Both times, Trump demurred.

“Sometimes revenge can be justified,” Trump told Dr. Phil McGraw, after he suggested that seeking retribution for Trump’s criminal charges would harm the country. Though Trump graciously said he was “open” to showing forbearance toward Democrats, he suggested revenge would be tempting, given “what I’ve been through.”

Trump voiced similar sentiments to Sean Hannity after the Fox News host practically begged him to deny he’d pursue his opponents. “I would have every right to go after them,” Trump said. Though Trump nodded along with Hannity’s suggestion that “weaponizing” law enforcement is bad, Trump added, “I don’t want to look naïve” ...

Sargent doesn't like the framing:

Whereas Trump is being prosecuted on the basis of evidence that law enforcement gathered before asking grand juries to indict him, he is expressly declaring that he will prosecute President Biden and Democrats solely because this is what he endured, meaning explicitly that evidence will not be the initiating impulse.

You might think this distinction is obvious—one most voters will grasp instinctually. But why would they grasp this? It’s not uncommon to encounter news stories about Trump’s threats—see here, here, or here—that don’t explain those basic contours of the situation. Such stories often don’t take the elementary step of explaining the fundamental difference between bringing prosecutions in keeping with what evidence and the rule of law dictate and bringing them as purported “retaliation.” Why would casual readers simply infer that prosecutions against Trump are legally predicated while those he is threatening are not?

But do persuadable voters care why Trump wants to get revenge on his political enemies? Those of us who loathe Trump find this alarming, and his base thinks it's wonderful -- but I'm not sure other voters care. I've made the argument in the past that many voters think Trump's presidency, at least for the first three years, was fairly normal, for the simple reason that while Trump said and did terrible things, they mostly didn't affect average voters. A suburbanite in Iowa wasn't being subjected to family separation, and wasn't under attack in Charlottesville. COVID happened, but voters don't blame Trump for that. These voters remember lower prices and less war, so the rest of it was just noise.

If I'm right about this, these voters won't care about Trump's efforts to prosecute his political enemies, whether or not there's any evidence -- they're not being prosecuted, so why should they care what happens to Joe Biden or Alvin Bragg?

It would be nice if swing voters concluded that Trump's priorities are skewed -- he should prioritize lowering grocery prices, not getting vengeance on his politcal enemies! (Of course, he doesn't have a plan for lowering prices, and some of his policies -- deporting immigrant workers, imposing huge tariffs -- could very well raise prices.) And maybe that will happen. Maybe on-the-fence voters will conclude that he's unhealthily obsessed with vengeance. Let's hope so, but let's not be surprised if stories about his vengeance plans are shrugged off by voters.