Call me a biased Lib if you want, but the "Biden is too old and bumbling" just boggles my mind when the other candidate is Donald Trump. Trump is only a few years younger than Biden and last I checked isn't exactly great on living a healthy lifestyle. But beyond that, what about anything Trump says out loud screams a man with mental acumen right now? I though that McKay Coppins article in The Atlantic was extremely instructive. It's like too many people (and unfortunately too many reporters) have this mental image of Trump rallies from 2016 they refuse to shake when if you go to one its very obvious his ramblings have gotten...well more rambling. Also, there seems to be this weird unspoken "pass" Trump gets when he gets basic geopolitical facts wrong. Like, whatever slack you thought he deserved in 2016 he was president for four years. Either he learned nothing, or his own mental faculties are declining fast (answer is both).
I'm sorry, this dichotomy really speaks to a real failure of media as though they learned nothing from 2016.
Trump benefits from the fact that he has an idiosyncratic grasp on reality to begin with. Biden's mental decline looks familiar to people who have experienced a similar situation with family members. Whereas Trump has always been kind of strange and still appears to be relatively energetic.
I don't think this is the media's fault. Something like 86% of voters are concerned with Biden's age. 86% of voters are not regular consumers of news. Blaming the media is the equivalent of wet roads causing rain.
Separate topic: Bill Ackman challenged Biden to a series of debates. Obviously Biden shouldn’t debate him, but there could be a path to a landslide win by publicly insulting Ackman again. Anyone who’s heard of him hates that guy.
Seems like on point analysis to me. I share the bafflement you mentioned. Perhaps it’s due to perfectionist staffers who worry they have to spin mistakes like the Sisi/Mexico screw up? They may only see downsides to media hits but the aggregate effect is to reinforce the view that the old guy doesn’t have it anymore.
Other than a few political nerds who keeps track of how often the president appears at events? Most people won't notice and he can avoid the risk of taking a fall or other embarrassing fuck up and let his ads do the talking.
Here’s my question: in a previous post , you theorized that largely staying out of the public eye and preaching to his base has helped Trump in a strange way. Maybe Biden is doing this too, going for quality over quantity?
Also, what’s your take on the Economist’s article re polling? You mention Quinnipiac’s poll, then mention ABC news’s - with all due respect to the latter, is it the same quality of the former? I ask because the Economist argues that when you eliminate low sample polling (ie, the type practiced by most news outlets), Trump’s lead essentially evaporates.
Sure, there are a few undecided voters but the country is pretty polarized making turn out a huge issue. Running against Trump means Biden's turn out is locked in unless he does something dumb like get filmed falling down or looking really old. Convincing MAGA voters to turn out against an old white moderate like Biden whose image is pro blue collar is a harder task.
On top of that, unlike Trump, Biden's strength has never been reaching people via grand rallies. Those present risks to him while sitting back and letting ads do the talking doesn't.
As Yglesias points out the Dems win in a low turnout election. Don't risk trying to persuade people -- you might also remind them what they dislike and increase engagement. Just focus on negative campaigning -- run ads accusing Trump of abandoning the border to serve his political interests etc..
While I respect Yglesias' sobering take, I think he misses a few points:
First, while election data from 2022 shows that more Republicans turned out, isn't it always the case that the opposing party comes on strong for midterms?
Second, he points out that winning Democratic candidates like Warnock and Kelly won because they have qualities that Biden doesn't have. I think the impact of these qualities is overstated - those guys won simply because they were better candidates than the MAGA clowns they ran against; after all, what put them over the top was not Democratic turnout, necessarily, but...Republicans voting for them! I'll go further and argue that its their more "Bideny" qualities, ironically, that may have helped them in that regard.
Third, if turnout is what's gonna decide the election, than maybe strengthening the base, especially with the Israel/Palestine debate being especially hot, is probably the smarter move, no? Yglesias argues that catering the to base is a bad move, but then makes the argument that turnout is key. Huh.
Finally, I find there's one narrative that most (not all, but most) talking heads and media types are ignoring - is the MAGA base as powerful as we think it is? It's loyal, sure, and very, very, oh so painfully very loud.
But consider this - in the two GOP primaries so far, Trump underperformed polling. All this media chatter about "crushing, decisive" victories, and yet, in both contests, he won just over 50% of the vote, meaning half of all Republicans want someone else. (No joke, fewer than 2% of registered Iowa voters picked Trump). True, the bandwagon affect will likely kick in on Super Tuesday, and the most of the other half that don't want him will likely surrender and coalesce around him, but if even a small percentage vote Biden, third party, or stay home, this can be fatal for Trump in a close election. That Biden is "historically unpopular," yet the best his presumptive opponent can do is within the margin of error, poll wise, is telling.
I agree with most of that except catering to the democratic base. Negative partisanship is stronger at the moment so you get all the advantage of base mobilization by just talking up the dangers of Trump.
OTOH any attempt to positively excite the democratic base is itself going to help whip up the republican base (and risk division on the left if its, eg, on Israel/Palestine).
Biden's big advantage is being non-threatening. Don't blow that.
"As Yglesias points out the Dems win in a low turnout election."
Except this actually isn't true - in nearly every presidential election, save for 2004, Democrats have represented a bigger portion of the electorate. I know that this electorate is not allocated effectively across states (there are more democrats in Brooklyn than voters in all of Montana), but in each presidential election since W's win, Democrats have outpaced Republicans. There is no "great Republican Silent Majority." And if there is one, it doesn't always necessarily vote Republican.
The thinking here is the effect of high/low turnout changed pretty dramatically the last few years - the types of voters who vote in every election have swung towards the Democrats, while the types of voters who vote infrequently have swung towards the Republicans.
Also have you seen Biden lately? I believe he's still mentally sharp but he just **looks** soo old. I think there is a justified fear that rather than reassuring the populace he'd lock in a bad image. And it just takes one clip of him looking like he's having a senior moment that the Trump campaign can play on repeat to sink him.
Call me a biased Lib if you want, but the "Biden is too old and bumbling" just boggles my mind when the other candidate is Donald Trump. Trump is only a few years younger than Biden and last I checked isn't exactly great on living a healthy lifestyle. But beyond that, what about anything Trump says out loud screams a man with mental acumen right now? I though that McKay Coppins article in The Atlantic was extremely instructive. It's like too many people (and unfortunately too many reporters) have this mental image of Trump rallies from 2016 they refuse to shake when if you go to one its very obvious his ramblings have gotten...well more rambling. Also, there seems to be this weird unspoken "pass" Trump gets when he gets basic geopolitical facts wrong. Like, whatever slack you thought he deserved in 2016 he was president for four years. Either he learned nothing, or his own mental faculties are declining fast (answer is both).
I'm sorry, this dichotomy really speaks to a real failure of media as though they learned nothing from 2016.
Trump benefits from the fact that he has an idiosyncratic grasp on reality to begin with. Biden's mental decline looks familiar to people who have experienced a similar situation with family members. Whereas Trump has always been kind of strange and still appears to be relatively energetic.
I don't think this is the media's fault. Something like 86% of voters are concerned with Biden's age. 86% of voters are not regular consumers of news. Blaming the media is the equivalent of wet roads causing rain.
Separate topic: Bill Ackman challenged Biden to a series of debates. Obviously Biden shouldn’t debate him, but there could be a path to a landslide win by publicly insulting Ackman again. Anyone who’s heard of him hates that guy.
“There is no chance he will run for another term.” Ackman is shorting Biden. How has that worked out in the past.
Seems like on point analysis to me. I share the bafflement you mentioned. Perhaps it’s due to perfectionist staffers who worry they have to spin mistakes like the Sisi/Mexico screw up? They may only see downsides to media hits but the aggregate effect is to reinforce the view that the old guy doesn’t have it anymore.
Other than a few political nerds who keeps track of how often the president appears at events? Most people won't notice and he can avoid the risk of taking a fall or other embarrassing fuck up and let his ads do the talking.
Here’s my question: in a previous post , you theorized that largely staying out of the public eye and preaching to his base has helped Trump in a strange way. Maybe Biden is doing this too, going for quality over quantity?
Also, what’s your take on the Economist’s article re polling? You mention Quinnipiac’s poll, then mention ABC news’s - with all due respect to the latter, is it the same quality of the former? I ask because the Economist argues that when you eliminate low sample polling (ie, the type practiced by most news outlets), Trump’s lead essentially evaporates.
I think Biden's strategy is the smart one.
Sure, there are a few undecided voters but the country is pretty polarized making turn out a huge issue. Running against Trump means Biden's turn out is locked in unless he does something dumb like get filmed falling down or looking really old. Convincing MAGA voters to turn out against an old white moderate like Biden whose image is pro blue collar is a harder task.
On top of that, unlike Trump, Biden's strength has never been reaching people via grand rallies. Those present risks to him while sitting back and letting ads do the talking doesn't.
As Yglesias points out the Dems win in a low turnout election. Don't risk trying to persuade people -- you might also remind them what they dislike and increase engagement. Just focus on negative campaigning -- run ads accusing Trump of abandoning the border to serve his political interests etc..
While I respect Yglesias' sobering take, I think he misses a few points:
First, while election data from 2022 shows that more Republicans turned out, isn't it always the case that the opposing party comes on strong for midterms?
Second, he points out that winning Democratic candidates like Warnock and Kelly won because they have qualities that Biden doesn't have. I think the impact of these qualities is overstated - those guys won simply because they were better candidates than the MAGA clowns they ran against; after all, what put them over the top was not Democratic turnout, necessarily, but...Republicans voting for them! I'll go further and argue that its their more "Bideny" qualities, ironically, that may have helped them in that regard.
Third, if turnout is what's gonna decide the election, than maybe strengthening the base, especially with the Israel/Palestine debate being especially hot, is probably the smarter move, no? Yglesias argues that catering the to base is a bad move, but then makes the argument that turnout is key. Huh.
Finally, I find there's one narrative that most (not all, but most) talking heads and media types are ignoring - is the MAGA base as powerful as we think it is? It's loyal, sure, and very, very, oh so painfully very loud.
But consider this - in the two GOP primaries so far, Trump underperformed polling. All this media chatter about "crushing, decisive" victories, and yet, in both contests, he won just over 50% of the vote, meaning half of all Republicans want someone else. (No joke, fewer than 2% of registered Iowa voters picked Trump). True, the bandwagon affect will likely kick in on Super Tuesday, and the most of the other half that don't want him will likely surrender and coalesce around him, but if even a small percentage vote Biden, third party, or stay home, this can be fatal for Trump in a close election. That Biden is "historically unpopular," yet the best his presumptive opponent can do is within the margin of error, poll wise, is telling.
I agree with most of that except catering to the democratic base. Negative partisanship is stronger at the moment so you get all the advantage of base mobilization by just talking up the dangers of Trump.
OTOH any attempt to positively excite the democratic base is itself going to help whip up the republican base (and risk division on the left if its, eg, on Israel/Palestine).
Biden's big advantage is being non-threatening. Don't blow that.
One more thought:
"As Yglesias points out the Dems win in a low turnout election."
Except this actually isn't true - in nearly every presidential election, save for 2004, Democrats have represented a bigger portion of the electorate. I know that this electorate is not allocated effectively across states (there are more democrats in Brooklyn than voters in all of Montana), but in each presidential election since W's win, Democrats have outpaced Republicans. There is no "great Republican Silent Majority." And if there is one, it doesn't always necessarily vote Republican.
The thinking here is the effect of high/low turnout changed pretty dramatically the last few years - the types of voters who vote in every election have swung towards the Democrats, while the types of voters who vote infrequently have swung towards the Republicans.
“February’s was revised upward”? Is this a *projection* that was revised, or do I not understand how time works?
Also have you seen Biden lately? I believe he's still mentally sharp but he just **looks** soo old. I think there is a justified fear that rather than reassuring the populace he'd lock in a bad image. And it just takes one clip of him looking like he's having a senior moment that the Trump campaign can play on repeat to sink him.
Maybe write a letter here on the effects migrants are having on city budgets. We could use some clarity.
I agree. He doesn't need to blanket the airwaves, either. Just needs to get out there enough to dispel the notion that he is hiding.