NORFOLK, Va. — Only time will tell how much of an impact the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump could have on the 2024 Presidential Election.
13News Now spoke with political professors, Ben Melusky of Old Dominion University and Leslie Caughell of Virginia Wesleyan University, to analyze the fallout and political conversation surrounding it. The following is their analysis.
How will we remember this moment in history, when considering the political candidate of former President Donald Trump as well as the social media era we live in right now?
Ben Melusky: "I wouldn't say what we saw was unique. It was, from the sense someone was injured, and an attempt was taken on the former President's life, that is unique. But the threats of violence for political officials over recent years has increased. A couple of studies in recent years, from 2017 to 2021, threats to members of Congress have reached almost historical highs: 3,900 in 2017 to almost 10,000 in 2021. Threats in general are escalating since the January 6 insurrection. Threats to lawmakers of both parties, state officials etc. Surveys were done asking individuals about political violence. In 2021, a study out of Johns Hopkins and University of Wisconsin found 20% of Republicans and 12% of Democrats said violence is warranted these days; 25% of Republicans and 17% of Democrats said threats to opposing parties were defensible. I wouldn't say this is unique, it's just becoming more prevalent. It's just this toppled over into an event, injured someone and killed an individual and wasn't able to be stopped ahead of time."
Leslie Caughell: "You will never think of an assassination attempt in any way that isn't negative. I think we'll see how pivotal this is to the campaign. I do think though one of the things likely to be a story about this particular assassination attempt as opposed to Ronald Reagan's from 1981, is social media makes it possible for information and sometimes inaccurate information to spread more quickly. Also, it comes from within their own echo chambers, the narrative will be constructed in a much more partisan way compared to 1981 or 1963 when most people were getting their news from the same four network news sources."
How might we see the Republican party use this as the basis for change in election strategies?
Melusky: "Former President Trump has re-written his speech for the RNC, less attacking Biden and more calls for unity. Same from the Democratic side. In the short term, calls from both parties -- much like the 2010 shooting of Gabby Giffords and recent shooting of Republican Steve Scalise -- there are calls from both parties to cool down rhetoric. To bring the country together, speak to how political violence is not the way. How you can disagree with someone but political violence is not the way. For Republicans, that's a good message given that for the ticket, Donald Trump has been looked at as a divisive character. This gives them a bit of a platform to stand on and say, 'Let's bring the country together.' It does change, however, the tactic, it's been an attack mode. But at least for the foreseeable future, the short term, they won't be on the attack. It will be very much speaking to the electorate as a whole and maybe we'll see more policy discussion as a result."
Caughell: "I think there are certainly two avenues, one would be the sense in which this is a unifying event, that reminds us we share certain political values. Those political values are rooted in the idea that election power in this country is determined by who wins an election, determined at the ballot box. Not by force. From my perspective, that's the rhetoric you'd want to hear, unifying rhetoric that reminds us violence and evil exists but shouldn't be part of the mainstream. To kind of demonize our opponents. We could also see politicians engage in partisan framework, saying 'This is an attempted assassination on our presidential candidate, by the other side. An attack on us, internally, by our political opposition.'"
There are reports that the shooter is a registered Republican, how does that change the narrative for both parties surrounding this act of violence?
Melusky: "It's tricky because of the age of the shooter and the state he's from. He only recently was being able to vote, and in Pennsylvania, they have a closed primary system so you have to register with a party to vote in that party's primary. This is where the stories are being taken in different directions. Although he was a registered Republican, he made a donation to a pro-Democratic PAC. So, some arguments are being made he was a Democrat and registered as a Republican to vote against Trump.
"There is a lot of information we just don't know, and that's throwing some cold water from both sides of the conversation."
Caughell: "The narrative was changed by the fact he's a registered Republican, in that there was a divisive message that could have been put out that was taken off the table. It reminds me of the history of political assassinations, for the most part, people who have attempted or succeeded have been motivated by things outside the realm of politics. We can often put a political lens on things that weren't political. I think it behooves us, we should take a pause as more information comes in, at least right now there doesn't seem to be a particular political narrative we can see."
Will we see the Democratic party use this as the basis for change in election strategies?
Melusky: "For Democrats, it's a tricky one. It's not tricky to say, 'We're glad the former president was not assassinated, our thoughts and prayers for his family.' That's a natural human response. If it happened to a top Democrat the same would happen from Republicans. But the question is where do you go from here? If you're a Democratic strategist, try to understand the weapon used in this attack. Is this a chance for Democrats post-convention to talk about bans and restrictions. Is it a platform to say, 'We're glad the former President was not seriously harmed in this attempt, but moving forward could reasonable restrictions that we as a party put forward be the way to go moving forward.'"
Caughell: "The only way this is tricky for democrats, is you're seeing this sense in cable news media, that this is a representation of the political rhetoric of the time. Rhetoric that is extremist. You have seen a number of Republicans point to the fact that many Democrats have pointed out statements Trump has made about being anti-Democratic or maybe even authoritarian. To the extent they were using that rhetoric in the near-future, that's more complicated. That is a different type of rhetoric now than it was before this weekend. It seemed inflammatory in a way it wasn't before."
Will Trump carry an element of support rooted in "sympathy" now?
Melusky: "You'll see some of the terms thrown around are 'martyr,' from social media. We still don't know the degree this moves the needle. Will this drive people to say, 'I will vote for Donald Trump now'? There is some literature that says it could garner some support. We saw it with Ronald Reagan after that attempt back in the day, he got a slight bump in favorability ratings. However, how durable that would be, we're not sure. The second thing, for some individuals this motivates some people to say, we've seen this matched in public opinion polling, saying there is too much divisiveness and incentivize people to stay home on election day. Thinking the system is 'divisive' and 'harmful' and not turning out."
Caughell: "Historically, the sympathies presidents get, the boosts they get when we see big things happening like the killing of Osama Bin Laden, or September 11, those rally around the flag events are short-lived. We're talking about something from mid-July, and November is a long way's away in campaign terms. There is a sympathetic response because there should be, but electoral effects though may have worn off by the time of the election. We also live in a partisan environment, there are a lot of people who vote for Biden but are sympathetic to Trump and think political violence isn't the answer. But this isn't going to move them."