I’m suddenly seeing polls that show Biden gaining on Trump …
… and that fills me with dread.
But I’d been feeling dread about the 2024 election already, even when the polls were good. I have distrust for polls – although not as much distrust as some people have, because I think they sometimes measure something that’s valid, especially when they change. But how it translates to an election is anyone’s guess. The 2022 Red Wave is a good example; the GOP did much less well than predicted. And 2016 was a case where the GOP candidate did better than expected.
This year I remain astonished that Joe Biden has more than 20% of the vote. It should be a complete blowout for Trump, but I have no gut feeling that he’ll even win. There are so many ways this can go wrong. There’s the constant lawfare, which new polls indicate might be the reason Biden is doing somewhat better than before (see this). There’s the wild card of fraud and rigging; the only question being whether they will be able to do it effectively, not whether they would do it if they could. There’s the backlash to the repeal of Roe. And of course it’s a long way to November, and a lot can happen in the meantime.
In a very gloomy post, John Hinderaker also mentions that the polls for Congressional candidates aren’t going too well for the GOP either. I haven’t even begun to follow that, and I haven’t checked it out myself, but I don’t like hearing it.
But it’s not just the polls. As I said, I realize polls can mislead and it’s also quite early. What’s far more important to me is that so many people are willing to support another four years of Biden or of Harris. Is it just because they really really hate Trump? I don’t think it’s that simple. Hinderaker seems to think another GOP candidate – perhaps any other GOP candidate – would be blowing Biden away in the polls. I disagree. A great many people would never vote for Trump, it’s true. But a great many of those people wouldn’t vote for any Republican. And there are a significant number of Trump voters who wouldn’t be voting for any other person but Trump. So Trump repels and he attracts.
And yes, the left would try to destroy any other GOP presidential candidate.
I think the thing that really disturbs me is that so many people aren’t disturbed by developments that, even a couple of decades ago, would have outraged a lot more people. The current widespread use of lawfare as a political weapon is a big one. Too many people are very happy with an “ends justifies the means” approach, and the very successful Gramscian march of the left through the institutions is responsible for that and so many other obviously reprehensible things.
I spend a lot of time on this blog analyzing why people think and feel the way they do, especially in the political realm. Sometimes I’m criticized for that, with the argument from the critics that it’s not worth bothering because it doesn’t do much if any good. I’m probably more sympathetic to that argument than one might think. Nevertheless my curiosity about people drives me to wonder and to speculate. Nearly everyone I know is politically on the other side from me, and if there’s one thing that’s been apparent for years it’s that, for the most part, nothing could change their point of view short of something catastrophic – and perhaps not even that. I find this stunning but true, and it seems to be a basic fact of human nature.
And then there are articles such as this one from the NY Post, which isn’t about an American but is relevant to the question of political change (the topic that propelled me to become a blogger in the first place). The article is about an Israeli peace activist who has changed her mind. She is hardly alone in that among Israelis, but she probably has the most dramatic reason for her change:
An Israeli peace activist who was kidnapped and held hostage for 53 days in Gaza said the horrifying experience shattered her longstanding belief that there could be peace between Palestinians and Israelis.
“I don’t believe in peace, I don’t, sorry. I changed my mind,” Ada Sagi, who was captured by Hamas on Oct. 7, at the start of the Israel-Hamas war, told the BBC.
Talk about getting “mugged by reality”!
She’s sorry, and I’m sorry too – sorry that reality dictates that peace there is a pipe dream, unless it’s ultimately accomplished by a larger war. The dream is so much more pleasant. But she had to give it up:
“For many years, I believed in peace. It’s the reason why I started to teach Arabic at school. Maybe it will bring peace between the Arab people in Israel and the Jewish people,” she recalled thinking. “But from year to year, I understand Hamas don’t want it.” …
Sagi recalled during the harrowing 53-day period she was held hostage, students were paid to watch over her and the other hostages inside an apartment in the southern city of Khan Younis.
“I heard them say… 70 shekels ($18.83) for a day,” she said.
It’s a short article and not very illuminating; you have to fill in the blanks yourself. But although it shouldn’t take being kidnapped and savagely treated to effect a political change like that, perhaps for most people it takes something just that dramatic or close to it. The terrorists’ worst tactical move on October 7 may have been that many (and probably most) of the people whom the terrorists tortured, raped, and murdered were on the Israeli left and were peace activists, like this woman. But the events of October 7 and beyond have convinced most of that population that a 2-state negotiated solution must be abandoned.
That’s political change resulting from catastrophe. It can happen. But I hope that’s not what it will take in this country.
I think one reason so few people are disturbed by what’s going on is because it’s very easy to tune in only to things you’re already predisposed to listen to. They’re just not seeing the same things we are.
I’m not eager to return to the media monoculture we used to have, but we’ve traded one giant shared, occasionally false, narrative for ones that can be individually and algorithmically tuned to our existing preferences. It’s different but not much better, in terms of being able to see and adapt to reality.
I don’t see an easy solution for that. Some kind of really unpleasant check from reality is going to be the only thing that breaks through: could be a nuclear attack, fiscal disaster, something like that.
I will need to review a few more polls to get a notion, I noted among other things, that they reduced the sample size from 1100 to 1000, for this particular poll, does that shift the balance at the margins,
also one has to calculate the self destructive pattern that the house has taken on,
purging george santos, going along with the funding of ukraine, the persecutors in the doj et al, you notice the dems don’t do that they go pedal to the medal, no matter how much they do, look at the Possums in the Senate that gave us the ruinous inflation,
so they have given their base voters little incentive to vote for, as the Dem apparat has become more insistent on pushing their advantage,
Biden has let into this country at least 10 million illegal aliens. If the Dems get 2m illegals to vote in key states, we’re finished.
My biggest fear is Texas. If the Dems flip TX, we are toast.
Lara Trump and the other new RNC chair are working on this. I just hope they do a good job.
My other fear is that Biden drops out. The new person (Hillary or Gavin) could rationalize their stolen victory on the fact that they were a fresh face.
A consulting firm projects $11.8t in capex to achieve net zero by 2050. All those beneficiaries of the CAGW scam have a huge incentive to steal the election. Same for Google and Facebook.
I’m very nervous.
I think the thing that really disturbs me is that so many people aren’t disturbed by developments that, even a couple of decades ago, would have outraged a lot more people.
______
The thing is there are many on the other side who would say the same about us.
There was a recent episode of The Glenn Show, where Lowry, as he often does, had John McWhorter on. It was a bit shocking how McWhorter could be so clear sighted about Ibram X Kendi, but so completely filled with TDS. I don’t get it. But my sister is like that.
@miguel:I noted among other things, that they reduced the sample size from 1100 to 1000, for this particular poll
I think the weightings applied to the sample are going change results a lot more than the sample size. Anyway the polls in the RCP average are pretty much all within each other’s margin of error anyway. The media loves to invent explanations for noise.
I don’t believe polls, especially since in 2016 they all said Hildabeast was going to win.
At worse, it’s a prediction to cover the fraud they know is coming.
It’s way early, and Sundowner’s mental freeze is just starting to be noticed and tje Democrats Propaganda has to fight that off. It’s not going to get better.
@Eeyore:The thing is there are many on the other side who would say the same about us.
They do, and sometimes they are not wrong.
this was the last poll for comparison
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/may-2024-national-poll-trump-46-biden-44/
11.8 billion to reach full unicorn ok,
well henry rogers is a particularly virulent scammer, but shambling* is pushing his agenda,no matter how much more selective they are being, mcwhorter would seem to have the nub of it, but then he loses the track
*biden isn’t incharge of anything, but the apparat operates under him, in the pentagon with bishop garrison, in the organs of intelligence, in the doj,
Eeyore said: “It was a bit shocking how McWhorter could be so clear sighted about Ibram X Kendi, but so completely filled with TDS.”
I’ve had the same reaction. As much as I like a lot of his work, it’s hard to get that bad taste out of my mouth even when I agree with him.
It is said ALL POLLS are biased, oh but when one kinda goes one’s way, why it’s the answer.
The Left will do anything anything to win, never ever forget that. On a more prosaic note there will be ups and downs. Death does not deter the Left, it should not deter us either.
the emerson poll was tied back in may, a few points in trumps favor now, although the number of independents has shifted,
Cornhead:
In what alternate universe is Hillary a fresh face?
In my view, most public opinion polls are meant to influence public opinion rather than report on it. A great example are the polls that come around every now and then on the question of amnesty for illegals. They go something like “would you support giving undocumented workers legal residency if they paid a fine, paid their back taxes, did not commit any crimes, and learned English?” Why not ask them if they promise to help little old ladies across the street? That is an example of a poll designed to elicit a specific response. You will never see one that asks about legal status “even if they don’t pay a fine or any back taxes, have a criminal record, and refuse to learn English?”
This is why there are “internal polls.” Those are the ones that the campaigns order up so they know with some precision how far ahead they are or how much ground they need to make up.
As for the coming election, I think I agree with the writer John Derbyshire: “My prediction remains the same as the last time I uttered it: the Tutsis (Democrats) will somehow replace Biden and Harris with more plausible candidates and then jigger the vote counts to make sure they win. I hope I’m wrong, but that’s my best guess.”
miguel cervantes:
Funding for Ukraine is less popular among Republican voters than among Democrat voters, but it is still somewhat popular. I think about half of GOP voters support it (I can’t find any current polls in a quick search). It’s my opinion that the Republican members of Congress are reflecting the split in the Republican electorate on this issue.
“…more plausible candidates…”
Meaning what, exactly? Better, smoother, more articulate prevaricators…?
More talented actors?
Less obvious saboteurs?
Personally, I’m waiting (with bated, bad breath) for Decent Joe to set a new record for the popular vote. That’s right! He’ll be even more popular this November than he was in 2020….
File under: Most Vapid President…
Hillary is a fresh face compared to Joe. “Fresh face” is a term of art. And Hillary is not senile.
Cornhead: No, but a lot of people think she’s a lush.
Eeyore:
I am listening to John McWhorter talking about the alphabet right now. He’s a brilliant guy, but he’s too easily distracted by the things going on in his head: references to old commercials and sitcoms and wholly subjective associations between letters and colors and sounds and materials (synesthesia).
McWhorter was always rather conservative on many things, but still a Democrat. Now that he’s at Columbia, he’s not happy about the antics of the left but even more likely to support Democrats than he was in his Manhattan Institute days.
I’ve no doubt that he’s sincere, but not liking Trump must make it easier for him at Columbia. His iconoclastic views about political correctness are already popular with the right and his hostility to Trump probably makes his views (or at least himself) more acceptable to liberals.
__________
Incumbents’ poll numbers usually rise in the fall. They tend to sag around May-June-July. It’s possible that Biden may peak too soon. But one thing to watch out for is that third party candidates usually don’t do as well in the actual election as they do in the early (or even the later) polls. Those who are really discontented with the two major party candidates may just decide to not vote.
Cornhead:
I couldn’t disagree more about Hillary being a fresh face, even compared to Joe. He’s been in politics longer, but her profile has been higher for longer.
I really do think you can’t underestimate the mastery of nudging and mass conditioning the media and tech have mastered.
And yes, part of the panic does come from the realization of how do you have peace with someone who has been convinced you are an absolute monster and any dialog with you will also make them a monster? (The old “what do you have if 10 people sit down at a table with 1 nazi?”)
I mean who has ever seen a fight de-escalate by one side explaining the other side’s “real” motivation and goals? And yet that’s all modern political discourse is now. So I don’t see any path away from violence myself. I keep hoping to find one but I haven’t yet.
Both parties suk – different talking points, and incredibly weak Presidential candidates (*SUPER* WEAK). I’ve been following conservative boards for over a year now, and not a lot of difference between them and progressive boards – ‘The other side really really really sucks.’
Conservative boards are slower at banning tho…
DEMs internal polls have been bad for some time, and maybe they have come up w/ a plan or two. They have cracks in the ranks, e.g., Democratic State Sen. Susan Eggman, Fetterman, and maybe another one I saw swatted away here. Hillary’s name came up big recently.
Maybe they’re thinking about a move to center, and that polled well for them…
A way out? (Or should that be, “back in”?)
Marvelously written by a contemporary HUMANIST (thankfully, they still seem to exist), here’s an article—perhaps “guided meditation” would be more accurate—of remarkable scope and breadth, into which one can sink one’s dentures…and come away with…hope…
“Yesterday’s Men;
“The death of the mythical method””—
https://harpers.org/archive/2024/07/yesterdays-men-alan-jacobs/
H/T Mosaic.
File under: Genesis 2:7
Seems to be that for panicking Democrats, she might be seen as their determined, fearless—charismatic(!)—Joan of Ark.
(Not sure they’re really panicking though, at least not those who are “in the know”.)
I am somewhat more optimistic, since state-by-state polls of the swing states show Trump ahead.
Here in NC, the “red wave” fizzled to some extent because Dems exploited fears over the end of Roe. I don’t think that’s going to work as well this time.
@Nate Winchester:one side explaining the other side’s “real” motivation and goals?
Constantly see that on all sides. A lot of folks online, when a person is labeled by a friendly source, use that labeling to interpret what that person says and does.
Swing state polls from Emerson College:
Arizona: Trump +4
Georgia: Trump +4
Michigan: Trump +1
Minnesota: TIE
Nevada: Trump +3
Pennsylvania: Trump +2
Wisconsin: Trump +3
https://twitter.com/TomBevanRCP/status/1803807121324101673
I spend a lot of time on this blog analyzing why people think and feel the way they do, especially in the political realm. Sometimes I’m criticized for that, with the argument from the critics that it’s not worth bothering because it doesn’t do much if any good.
neo:
Not me. I think analyses such as yours are crucial.
I know I’ve pounded the table often enough on this point — humans are basically more emotional than rational.
Unless we understand the emotional underpinnings of our fellow citizens, especially our opponents, we’re not going to get anywhere.
Too many conservatives seem to think if we find just the right set of arguments, Democrats will, St. Paul-like, realize the errors of their political beliefs are and convert to “truth, justice and the American Way.”
So back in 2016 hillary was five points ahead in the real clear average at this point
Cant handle the truth
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13552389/Why-judges-told-Aileen-Cannon-step-Trump-classified-documents-case-shocking-move.html
Human nature. I’ve long wondered about it because my two brothers and I are so different. Same parents, same schools, same teachers, same adults (coaches, scoutmasters, policemen, etc.), same small-town atmosphere. In other words, our “nurture” was nearly identical.
Yet, my older brother was apolitical. Never ever gave politics a second thought. I don’t think he even voted. If so, he never mentioned it to me.
My younger brother was a Democrat activist. He always worked in helping register people to vote, staffed polling places, put out signs, etc. He was always against business and the rich, but he lived his life in a pretty conservative manner – worked hard, paid his bills, saved money, bought a house, and didn’t have any vices except smoking cigarettes. He saw himself as being for the “underdog.”
I have always been a believer in free marketplace principles as the best path to prosperity. I’ve believed that you work hard, save money, invest, and build a better life for your family. I never got a job from a poor man, and I’m thankful that there are entrepreneurs who are willing to take risks and build a better world for everyone. If they get rich in the process, good for them. I have always been a conservative.
I started thinking more deeply about politics when I was a Navy recruiter during the Vietnam War. Being protested and spit upon by my fellow citizens motivated me to look at how important politics was and how it could affect your life both negatively and positively. My study of Communism and its failures convince me I was on the right path.
These last four years have been an extraordinary example of how bad political decisions can have negative effects on citizens’ wellbeing. Inflation, an open border, the war on fossil fuels, pushing unwanted/expensive EVs, two trillion-dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see, lawfare against political opponents, an increase in crime, rising drug deaths, increased regulations, and much more have impacted every citizen except the very wealthy, who are insulated from the realities of life under Biden.
But back to human nature and why political preferences seem to be more of a trait we are born with. Only those who are open minded, like Neo, and other changers are open to new facts that can allow them to change. At least that’s the way I see it.
I still think Steven Pinker’s book, “The Blank Slate,” explains a lot about intrinsic personality traits that make us who we are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
Unfortunately, it’s the “independents,” who don’t like to even think about politics and don’t seem to see the connection between grocery prices and government policy, who determine elections. And the MSM is working hard to influence them to vote for good-old, decent Joe. That’s why I don’t trust polls and have come to loathe the MSM.
}}} I’m suddenly seeing polls that show Biden gaining on Trump …
…And you BELIEVE them??? 😀
C’mon, Neo, you know better than to trust the merdia on something like this. They’d be lying if he was just barely winning. With him losing badly, they’re certainly going to lie about him “gaining ground back”.
Not saying it’s impossible, but “Bet on the merdia to lie” is certainly The Way To Bet.
More critically, I honestly cannot see how the man makes it to election day without being declared non-compos-mentis.
He is almost certainly going to flub these debates, so any ground he gains will be lost.
TBH, if it actually IS an election between Trump and Biden in November, I think you’re going to see McGovern levels of disaffection, or would without Dem cheating on a grand scale.
In thinking about the comments in reference to Mr. McWhorter, I had the image of a bright light covered by a translucent shade. He can see out but his vision becomes blurred.
In regard to comments along the lines of “it is still a long way to the election…”
1) Nate Winchester on June 20, 2024 at 5:18 pm said:
I really do think you can’t underestimate the mastery of nudging and mass conditioning the media and tech have mastered.
2) While a lot of attention is focused on the presidential race, the congressional races are probably even more important for the longer term success of our preferred agenda.
3) Being an older retiree who watches the days, weeks, and months seeming too rapidly just disappear behind me, …
I don’t think there is much time left at all to work or ensure either Trump or conservatively aligned public servant Republicans will be elected, as only four months remain to ensure so many county, district, state, and national opportunities for election fraud are reduced or corrected or corralled. I don’t hear about too many issues in Florida, but occasionally some issue is raised about someone or another even here. Stories of questionable practices, rules, court rulings, etc., from MI, AZ, et al., are much more disturbing. Attention to the swing states is all to the good, but I don’t see what might be called a real full court press. I hope I am mistaken and missing some great work in many venues.
A bipartisan congress-executive might allow gridlock to keep things from getting worse, but only an R sweep will (potentially) provide the solid and valid underpinning to undo the weaponization of the DOJ/FBI, et al. with suitable legislation.
Neo, thanks for extending the edit correction window from 5 to 10 minutes. It really helps. 🙂
Back in 2016 all of “the polls” said Trump would do nothing but lose, But the polls are just another one of the many ways the leftists lie. It’s a waste of time to trust them. Much like most medical researchers conclude whatever they are paid to conclude. Just like the FBI finds nothing wrong with anyone on the left over and over again.
Trump will win in a landslide. Back in 2020 when the Army seized the Dominion servers in Germany, before the FBI et al kicked in to find no wrongdoing, it was learned that 70% of the nation voted for Trump. It will be no different this time. He will probably get an even larger majority, the left will cheat far worse then last time, and then they will declare they won.
And just like last time every single judge will dismiss the case without actually having any of the evidence reviewed in court or entered into the public record.
Personally I agree with the people who say there is no voting our way out of this. It’s too late for that and has been for a while.
By the way, have you noticed that the woman who is now the President of Mexico is alive when 37 people who also ran for president are dead?
Older voters read their mail, listen to robo-calls and get their news from the major networks nightly news. The name “convicted felon” resonates. Plus, Democrats traditionally claim that Republicans will cut Social Security, and it works.
Republicans need a simple, solid plan to preserve Social Security, and they need to get the message out now.
@ Cornhead > “My other fear is that Biden drops out.”
For some curious reason (mostly genuine concern for Biden), a number of conservative pundits are pleading for the Democrats to convince him to drop out.
They seem to be unconcerned that any replacements (with the possible exception of Harris) will, as you suggested, ascribe their rigged victory to not being a senile crook.
Unless they are senile or a crook, of course; even then the media will cover cover for them.
IMO the polling is supposed to buttress KJP’s recent pronouncements that Biden’s behavior at the G7 was a deep fake or cheap fake, as noted in a prior post. “He can’t be that demented if he’s improving in the polls!”
https://www.thenewneo.com/2024/06/18/bounces-off-me-and-sticks-to-you-says-the-left-of-biden-and-trump-and-their-mental-and-physical-sharpness/#comment-2745955
I have no idea what’s going to happen in November. I’m actually more optimistic about a Trump victory now then I’ve been at any time in the past four years. Basically, I think that Biden’s weaknesses cancel out Trump’s weaknesses, which points to an election on fundamentals. Take that for what you will.
But I’m amazed by how many on the right brush right past Trump’s weaknesses by focusing on the left. And we wonder why people on the outside call the Trump movement a cult. People who are not already partisans on the right are not going to blow past Trump’s (many) faults. They may decide that Biden’s faults are so awful that they reluctantly vote for Trump as an anti-Biden, but that is the ceiling for Trump among a large chunk of the electorate that is necessary to win. (And it’s a lot harder to be the anti-Biden when you are an incumbent president who lost reelection and never cracked a 50% approval rating yourself.)
It’s not just a matter of personality or temperament. But even if it was, that is irrelevant. We know that Trump (i) draws some number of voters who wouldn’t otherwise vote Republican; (ii) repels some number of voters who would have otherwise voted Republican; and (iii) drives turnout for his opponent from people who loathe him. We also know that every time that (i), (ii), and (iii) have been summed, it has come out a few points south of 50%. In 2016, the vote distribution fell in just the right way to allow Trump to eek out an EC win. In 2020, he wasn’t as lucky with vote distribution.
There are reasons this year to believe that the playing field is so slanted against the Democrats that the calculus that held in 2016 and 2020 may not hold and Trump may break through for a comfortable enough win beyond the margin of fraud. But maybe not. The GOP has run as the party of Trump four times now, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022. The results have not been inspiring. Going back to the Trump well one more time in 2024, with so much at stake, was an insane risk.
If Trump can’t win in 2024, against a Democrat who is clearly not up to the job, is suffering from the lowest incumbent approval ratings on record, and with as awful as Democrats have been over the past four years, it should once and for all end the debate about whether Trump can lead the GOP to success. The problem is that, after another four years of Biden or Harris in the White House, it may be all over for the GOP.
@Bauxite – It’s not just a matter of personality or temperament. But even if it was, that is irrelevant. We know that Trump (i) draws some number of voters who wouldn’t otherwise vote Republican; (ii) repels some number of voters who would have otherwise voted Republican; and (iii) drives turnout for his opponent from people who loathe him. We also know that every time that (i), (ii), and (iii) have been summed, it has come out a few points south of 50%. In 2016, the vote distribution fell in just the right way to allow Trump to eek out an EC win. In 2020, he wasn’t as lucky with vote distribution.
——————————————————————————————-
And as I pointed out on another thread – neither did ANY other Republican candidate save Bush 2 in 2004 (gee, I wonder what helped him) and Reagan and Bush 1 over forty years ago.
This is the frustrating part. What will it take before y’all understand how rigged the game is? I know some of you have to be old enough to remember Romney, who was as polar opposite of Trump as one can get, and the media STILL tanked him.
Let’s just play the game a minute. We ditch Trump – for WHOMEVER is your pick. DeSantis, Cruz, Vivek, Haley, I don’t care, pick anybody you want. Then what? What are you going to do as the media machine spins up and begins going through the motions of painting your selection as the latest edition of Hitler? What’s your plans for all the weaknesses of your candidate that the media will suddenly invent and begin to hammer home from now until election day to give everybody all the reasons to not vote for or vote against the Republican you wanted?
Name me ANYBODY that can lead the GOP to success. Because if they’re not taking aim at the real enemies, color me skeptical.
The scary ting is that if Trump loses (which I fear he will), his fans are going to push for him to run in 2028.
HEAR!! HEAR!! Nate Winchester!
Nate gets it. Trump, being a celebrity since the 80s, is not solely defined by the media. Any other GOP candidate is, because not enough people follow politics–as Nate says look what they did to Romney, but if that’s too long ago for you look what they did to DeSantis when it looked like he had a shot against Trump.
The media spent 40 years making Trump into one thing, then they tried to make him something else in 2015-2016, and from 2017-2020 he was actually President despite all the hysterical yammering. They’ve had almost ten years to try to turn him into Hitler but too many people still believe what they saw with their lying eyes, and when Trump was President the country didn’t look like this.
Trump doesn’t win in 2024, the swing states are fortified and the ballot harvesters decide it. But no other GOP candidate wins either. Fortunately it’s a Federal system and if the red states get their act together, people who live in them can be mostly insulated from a lot of the craziness. Still legal to move to another state…
In case no one has noticed – MSM has been on a downturn for years—even before Trump showed up.
Some commenters are crediting MSM with more power than it actually has. Trump and the MAGA mob were as destructive (possible more so) on other GOP candidates as MSM was, IMHO.
If MSM had real power, then the last Trump/Biden match-up would not have been so close.
@Karmi:Trump and the MAGA mob were as destructive (possible more so) on other GOP candidates as MSM was, IMHO.
My read’s a little different, that you’re giving Trump way too much credit. The GOP has been destructive of the GOP. They have not offered an alternative vision of government for thirty years, and spent most of that thirty years betraying the one they had then. That’s how “Trump and the MAGA mob” were able to make so many inroads. Trump is the symptom, not the disease; he’s the surfboard and not the wave.
A lot of people don’t remember that Trump has run for President before and participated at the fringes of Republican party politics for a long time. But before 2015, people who vote Republican hadn’t got so disgusted with the GOP’s offerings yet to pay him any heed.
I agree with you that MSM has been squandering their ability to influence public opinion for long before Trump and they’ve accelerated that pace since then.
@Niketas, you will probably enjoy Raz0rfist’s latest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1TiB2xlsjU
As for the MSM, if you think that’s the only enemy, you’re fooling yourself. Mollie Hemmingway on her latest podcast on Wed nailed it: “The Right doesn’t realize it is in the midst of an information war.”
She also had a great rant after that about all the lawfare that’s been done to republicans which has had almost no pushback, hence why a lot of us are looking at November in trepidation.
AARP is solidly behind Democrats. They call themselves the protectors of Social Security. That drives votes with older voters.
Stocks on a downward trend often make mild gains before potentially going negative again.
It’s called retracement.
and yet the aarp has largely contributed to policies that will sink social security and medicare through excessive debt,
@Nate:As for the MSM, if you think that’s the only enemy, you’re fooling yourself.
I don’t, no.
all the lawfare that’s been done to republicans which has had almost no pushback
I’ve been banging this drum a while, for what it’s worth, because it’s been going on over 20 years now (Ted Stevens, Tom Delay, Rick Perry being three prominent examples). Republicans who dominate red districts in blue states aren’t doing anything to retaliate, and I hear a lot of apologetics for why that might not be.
But every Democrat politician has used an estimate of the valuation of their house somewhere, and every Democrat politician has tried to keep something out of the news in an election year, and every Democrat politician owns property or a share of a business in their home state or somewhere else, and the very same things that were done to Donald Trump could be done to just about any Democrat Congressman or Senator if the will were there. Failing that, they were at some wild party or department store changing room at some unnamed address in some unnamed year where there were no other witnesses.
@miguel:the aarp has largely contributed to policies that will sink social security and medicare through excessive debt
Lol, that’s not THEIR problem. That’s the problem of AARP members in the future. What has posterity ever done for us?
Nate Winchester – You’re cherry-picking data.
– 2000 was a year of relative prosperity and a popular incumbent. Bush did well to get it as close as he did – in my view likely due to the drag of Clinton fatigue.
– In 2008, we had an unpopular war, an unpopular incumbent, and a financial crises that hit its zenith little more than a month before the election. McCain likely hurt himself with the “will he or won’t he” narrative about the debate and by picking Palin, who was not (yet?) ready for prime time. Bottom line – this was almost certainly an unwinnable election for the GOP.
– In 2004, you had a popular GOP incumbent running with a strong economy and what, at that time, looked like two successful wars. This was a great GOP environment.
– In 2012, you had the first African American president running for reelection, albeit with a mediocre approval. I think this election was a mirage. It took nearly 250 years for the United States to have an African American president. Turning him out after one term was always going to be a gargantuan challenge.This was never going to be a great GOP year.
In contrast, 2016 was probably the best GOP environment of the past few decades, excepting maybe 2004. The two-term incumbent was not popular, and the Democrat’s nominee was even less popular. The economy was just OK.
2020, with Trump’s economic record prior to the pandemic coupled with voters’ recent reluctance to turn out incumbents, was less favorable than 2016, but probably more favorable than 2012 and certainly more favorable than 2008.
That context has to be considered when you make sweeping generalizations about the past two or more decades. In context, it’s not quite as hopeless as you make it out. Over the past four cycles the GOP has run a questionable candidate in a terrible year (McCain in 2008), a milquetoast candidate in a tough GOP year (Romney in 2012), and then a weak candidate in a very good GOP year and a close-to-even year (Trump in 2016 and 2020).
Running a candidate with Trump’s limitations in two of the three most GOP-favorable cycles of the past 20 years skews the results. This year is the real test. 2024 should be one of the most GOP-favorable cycles of my lifetime. If Trump fails to win, we’ll know definitively that (i) the problem is Trump; or (ii) no GOP candidate is likely to win in the near future.
I would have preferred not to run this test, because I think we have more than enough data to know the likely outcome, but running it we are.
CC™ puts his spin on history. He still doesn’t like Sara Palin but gives the Maverick and the Mittens a pass for the damage inflicted by BHO and FJB. But then BHO and FJB fundamentally transformed the standards of how bad a president could be.
If the Biden Team knew they were going to be facing Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis in November, they might have conducted themselves differently. Among other things, they might have recognized that they had to secure the border. Believing that Trump would be easier to beat, they didn’t make those course corrections. It may seem like another Republican would have a better chance of beating Biden, but in addition to the other objections that have been brought up, consider that the political and economic environment might be rather different now if a different Republican were the presumptive nominee.
__________
With COVID, impeachment, and vote by mail, 2020 was not going to be a good year for Republicans. Given that it’s the electoral college that decides who is president, it’s not at all clear that another Republican (Cruz, Rubio, Rick Perry, etc) could have won in 2016. Cracking Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin wasn’t necessarily in the cards for a conventional sunbelt Republican.
The fact that Trump was assumed to be so bad a candidate that Democrats neglected to campaign in those Northern industrial states also played a major role in the results. Democrats wouldn’t have been so overconfident and so negligent faced with a different GOP nominee.
they believed their own polls
https://nypost.com/2024/06/20/us-news/how-biden-dhs-intel-experts-group-plotted-to-get-mothers-and-teachers-to-report-dissent/
“There are reasons this year to believe that the playing field is so slanted against the Democrats that the calculus that held in 2016 and 2020 may not hold and Trump may break through for a comfortable enough win beyond the margin of fraud.” – Bauxite
What an odd way of framing the problems the Democrats face with average Americans. Who did the slanting?
Did the media do the slanting? Did conservatives do the slanting? Is the Democrat/leftist agenda just right for America and their opponents are just lying about what the effects are?
Donald Trump is supported by a majority of Neo’s readers because of his policies/agenda, not because of his personality. That is probably the case with the majority of people voting for him.
I recognized early in the 2016 election cycle that Trump was the only candidate that could beat Hillary, that because of the nature of his wealth through real estate he was unlikely beholden/part of the Wall St. mentality.
His policies on trade were not formed by some late desire to appeal to voters, but he was consistently addressing issues he had talked about for decades. It took time to decide his flaws were outweighed by his policies.
@Niketas Choniates
I’ve been banging this drum a while, for what it’s worth, because it’s been going on over 20 years now (Ted Stevens, Tom Delay, Rick Perry being three prominent examples). Republicans who dominate red districts in blue states aren’t doing anything to retaliate, and I hear a lot of apologetics for why that might not be.
————————————————————————–
Right on! I realize I misphrased my post. I should have made it clearer I agree with you and am amplifying your points.
————————————————————————–
@Bauxite
Nate Winchester – You’re cherry-picking data.
————————————————————————–
How? it’s LITERALLY all presidental elections to 76. There’s nothing left out. Here I’ll post it again. Straight from https://www.270towin.com/, each candidate’s results as a percentage of the total votes cast. The * mark times they won.
/157,351,334 = 47.2% (2020 – Trump)
/135,516,892 = 46.5% (2016 – Trump*)
/128,125,270 = 47.6% (2012 – Romney)
/129,446,839 = 44% (2008 – McCain)
/121,069,054 = 51.2% (2004 – W.Bush*)
/104,338,914 = 48.4% (2000 – W.Bush*)
/94,686,514 = 41.4% (1996 – Dole)
/103,756,701 = 37.7% (1992 – Bush)
/90,695,671 = 53.9% (1988 – Bush*)
/92,032,260 = 59.2% (1984 – Reagan*)
/86,026,610 = 51% (1980 – Reagan*)
/79,973,609 = 49% (1976 – Ford)
As you can see, which I stated, Nobody broke 50% save both Bushes once and Reagan twice. Otherwise Trump has performed comparably to every other candidate.
also one has to calculate the self destructive pattern that the house has taken on,
purging george santos, going along with the funding of ukraine, the persecutors in the doj et al, you notice the dems don’t do that they go pedal to the medal, no matter how much they do, look at the Possums in the Senate that gave us the ruinous inflation,
so they have given their base voters little incentive to vote for, as the Dem apparat has become more insistent on pushing their advantage,
This is true plus the voters elected GOP majorities in 1994 and 2010. What good did that do them? The uniparty has discouraged GOP voters and I fear that they will not turn out as they did not in 2022. Only Trump has provided hope but the Congress has been disappointing even with GOP majorities.
There is not much good to being 86 years old but not facing the next decade if Trump loses is one.
Mike K:
In 2010 Obama was president and had veto power; the Senate was also still controlled by Democrats. In 1994 Clinton, had veto power, and though in 1994 the Republicans got control of the Senate too, they only had 52 seats and some were RINOs. Here’s a list of what the 1994 Congress did.
@Mike K:This is true plus the voters elected GOP majorities in 1994 and 2010. What good did that do them?
The contrast between 1994 and 2010 is instructive. The “Contract with America” Congress got a lot done, as neo points out. But the 2010 House was led by John Boehner, and I’d agree with all your criticisms there. Today’s GOP is not an opposition party. I’m not sure what the right word is, but they’re primarily concerned with using their leverage to extract appropriations and they act as the pawl to the Democrats’ ratchet.
Niketas Choniates:
I am always astounded when anyone speaks of today’s GOP as a unit and generalizes about its members. There is a huge variation. There is indeed a wing that functions exactly as you say. And there is a wing that does not and is more dedicated to conservative policy and action.
There is also the usual and inevitable corruption for some, that always comes with politics and power. I still see the GOP as a million times better than the Democrats at present.
Bill West on June 21, 2024 at 1:38 am said:
“Republicans need a simple, solid plan to preserve Social Security, and they need to get the message out now.”
The message needed to go out 30 years ago, but better late than never.
Something like “We are bankrupt and have been for many years now. To correct this, major changes are needed. Therefore, if you are over 55 you will be fully protected; between 35 to 55 and you will get 50% of what you may have been previously promised; under 35 and you will be toast, so plan on maximizing your private sector IRA/ 401K options (possibly being partly mandatory that you do so?)???
[Surely someone can come up with an even more compelling sales campaign than that?]
Bill West on June 21, 2024 at 10:16 am said:
“AARP is solidly behind Democrats. They call themselves the protectors of Social Security. That drives votes with older voters.”
And their short sighted position on protecting (the existing program for) SS at the expense of the grandchildren of those 50+ members was exactly why I never became an AARP member when I turned 50, several decades ago.
@neo:I am always astounded when anyone speaks of today’s GOP as a unit and generalizes about its members. There is a huge variation.
Of course the variation exists, but I’m sure it’s not inadmissible to generalize about the GOP, just as we do routinely with Democrats, Muslims, and the Left. If you consider the huge variety of interests and points of view summarized by those terms, how could it be inadmissible to generalize? I usually qualify it by saying “national GOP”, the kinds of people you find in Congress or those who seek the Presidential nomination. As you get into state, county, local politics the parties look different from how they do at the national level.
There is indeed a wing that functions exactly as you say. And there is a wing that does not and is more dedicated to conservative policy and action.
I can think of a handful of names who are principled, sure, and so can you. We might not think of the same names, however. And I don’t think it would be easy to make the case that principled conservatives are in the driver’s seat of the national GOP right now, or the majority of the national GOP, or have been either much of the last twenty years.
I still see the GOP as a million times better than the Democrats at present.
The pawl might be a million times “better” than the ratchet, but they nonetheless work together to allow motion in only one direction.
@R2L:so plan on maximizing your private sector IRA/ 401K options (possibly being partly mandatory that you do so?)???
When Social Security goes broke in a way impossible to paper over with accounting entries as they have been, they’re not going to let you keep “private sector” options like 401(k)s. They’ll take them over, and give you in exchange a promise that you’ll still get as much in benefits as you deserve–they decide who’s deserving, of course. The assets of the rich and powerful will be left alone….
The fundamental issue is there’s too many retirees relative to working people and it’s getting worse because people aren’t having enough kids. In the end it won’t matter if all the 401(k)s are taken to plug the gap, but they’ll still do it.
OK, when the GOP is all in on DEI, universal franchise for all peoples (and species) of the world, fealty to the Party and only the Party, abolotion of biology in favor of transmadness, …., I’ll consider them working towards the same goals of the Democrats (the fundamental transformationists).
Until then, the ratchet trope is just lazy.
Niketas Choniates:
I think it’s misleading to generalize about any group that is as split as the GOP is. To take another example, I usually am very careful to separate Democrats into the leftists and the liberals, the activists and the useful idiots, etc. etc.. I believe it is very important to make such distinctions. I know Democrats who are fairly moderate and just do not realize how the party has been taken over by radicals. I also know radical leftists. The two groups all vote for Democrats but they are very very different.
I do sometimes generalize about certain things that are almost universally true of a group, but otherwise I try to stay away from sweeping statements because they don’t reflect reality.
The GOP in particular features a split in which each wing of the party is quite large. It’s not as though it’s 95% one thing and 5% the other. The split is real and it represents two sizable factions.
Your generalizations about the GOP are simply untrue. They are also, in my opinion, counter-productive. I’ve seen sentiments such as yours about the GOP for my entire time blogging, which is now nearly 20 years. I have called many people out on it over the years.
@neo:Your generalizations about the GOP are simply untrue.
Without some kind of evidentiary standard we agree on, we’re at “is not / is too”, unfortunately. Setting up a framework that would get beyond that would require putting a lot of time in. It’s not something I could reasonably ask you to work with me on, but I’m willing to try. At any rate it sounds like we agree on there being two factions, but disagree on the relative sizes of them, and reaching agreement would require definitions we both accept and then counting them up.
They are also, in my opinion, counter-productive.
Depends on the end you consider productive. I do have ideas about how to make the national GOP more like an effective opposition and less like part of the problem. I mention them from time to time when it’s on topic.
I’ve read your change story. If the national GOP did something that it would cost you your self-respect to defend, I’m sure you’d follow your principles. That already happened for me, that’s part of my change story.