FRIDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2023
On balance, we pretty much don't: Could Joe Biden be re-elected next year?
Needless to say, he could be!
In a lengthy new column for the New York Times, David Brooks is trying to convince himself that President Biden will win. Again and again and again and again, we suspect that he maybe just won't.
In part, we're speaking about Biden's age, and about the appearance that he possesses a reduced degree of competence. That said, we're also talking about this:
BROOKS (10/6/23): When pollsters ask which party is best positioned to address your concerns, here too, Democrats are trailing. In a recent Gallup poll 53 percent of Americans say Republicans will do a better job of keeping America prosperous over the short term while only 39 percent thought that of the Democrats. Fifty-seven percent of Americans said that the Republicans would do a better job keeping America safe, while only 35 percent favor the Democrats. These are historically high Republican advantages.
Here are the hard, unpleasant facts: The Republicans have a likely nominee who is facing 91 charges. The Republicans in Congress are so controlled by a group of performative narcissists the whole House has been reduced to chaos. And yet they are still leading the Democrats in these sorts of polling measures.
This is about something deeper than Joe Biden’s age. More and more people are telling pollsters that the Republicans, not the Democrats, care about people like me.
"More and more people are telling pollsters that the Republicans, not the Democrats, care about people like me?"
We don't blame people for thinking such things! In our view, Walter Isaacson may have captured the reason:
ISAACSON (9/29/23): There's a lot of reasons, legitimate, for resentments in this country, and it keeps getting stirred up. And I think we have to realize that people got left behind with—when the economy expanded, that we decimated working class jobs.
Even the border. I think people in New York now are getting, finally, what people Down South have felt about the border—
SCARBOROUGH: Right.
ISAACSON: —and about the crime problem in cities. I'm not justifying all of this, but I mean, heavens! There are a lot of reasons to be upset at the old meritocratic elite.
It's stunning to see the sheer stupidity, and the clownish demagoguery, which dominate the rapidly evolving culture of Fox News Channel TV shows.
That said, the stupidity and the demagoguery are directed at unmistakable points of concern. That includes "the border" and "the crime problem in cities," not to mention the problems associated with urban homelessness.
On our own blue channel programs, these problems don't exist. That also seems to be true within the world of the Biden White House.
On blue tribe cable, we discuss our one favorite topic. We've mentioned this sacred topic before:
Trump Trump Trump Trump Jail!
We're served that pleasing pablum all day, then onward into the night. In the hands of our deeply incompetent stars, everything else disappears.
On Fox, they play videos of violent urban street crimes, followed by videos of chaos at the border. They play videos of the urban sprawl of the homeless camps, and of mass shoplifting events.
Quite routinely, they play such tape on Fox News Channel programs. On our blue tribe's corporate TV channel, these places, problems and events don't even seem to exist.
"The Republicans, not the Democrats, care about people like me?" Is it hard to see why so many people might think such things as that?
They play soundbites of lunatic gaffes by our most treasured party leaders.
ReplyDeleteOver and over. Forever.
DeleteBiden’s poll numbers are no worse than other reelected incumbents this long before the election.
ReplyDeleteThis is Somerby concern trolling. Brooks is a Republican. These are not Biden boosters no matter how they feel about Trump.
IMO Biden is a weak candidate. He's not terribly smart. The way he speaks displays that he has lost a lot. He's much too old. Things are going badly in the country in the ways Bob mentioned. Also. there's inflation, particularly fuel and food -- two essentials.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, Biden could win, because the media is so biased. Still, ,some other candidate would be stronger. I think the Dems are smart enough to choose a different candidate. I don't think the Republicans are smart enough to replace Trump as the candidate.
Republicans can't replace Trump. Not openly, anyway. They'll lose half (if not 70%) of their voters, and cease to be.
DeleteThe Democrats should draft David in Cal.
DeleteRe: the biased media
DeleteDavid in Cal,
What are the chances the corporate-owned media only supports the Left, because the Right knows absolutely nothing about economics or basic mathematics?
@6:28 IMO both parties seem to be ignorant of economics. They think they can run enormous deficits without any long-term consequences. We will all pay the price of their spending splurge.
DeleteTrump, now there’s a smart man. He doesn’t know we’ve had electric boats for years, and that you don’t get electrocuted if the battery gets wet. I’ll bet he doesn’t know that Tesla cars float, either.
DeleteAnd yet Trump ran a huge deficit by giving the wealthy tax cuts. But Biden is stupid? I don’t think you’re much of a judge of candidates, David.
DeleteThe wealthiest make the majority of their incomes on investments that get taxed at capital gains rates. The angriest segment of the populace should be those whose income puts them in the 37% tax rate. They make a good paycheck by working, not passive income, and believe that their hard work should allow them better lifestyles than they can afford. US tax rates work out really well for the really wealthy, and that is precisely why republicans always talk about the expenditure side and never talk about the revenue side. Both need to be addressed. Of course you can argue that Democrats do not concern themselves with the expenditure side. But on balance you would be more wrong to side with the republicans on this matter.
DeleteDavid in Cal,
DeletePlease, with the deficit crap. . Stick with bigotry and white supremacy, things you actually care about.
It is an easy matter to research how much deficit each party ran up by President since Ronald Reagan, or before for that matter. But Reaganomics has been the republican platform economically since that administration, and so it is a good starting point.There is this thing called the internet. It contains this stuff called information. DIC might well acquaint himself with the Google search bar . Republican presidencies have been far worse than Democratic ones when viewed from the standpoint of deficit reduction for precisely this reason: supply side Laffer curve bullshit. The kind of mental excrement that results in a vice president pronouncing that "Deficits don't matter". Politifact breaks this down president by president through Trump. Part of the reason for this, as well, was remarked upon by none other than the Donald himself, who said in an interview well before his presidency and mental decline, that for some reason the economy as a whole does better under Democratic presidents. The statement can likewise be verified. Voting according to economic performance and deficit reduction requires one to engage in facts and reality, neither of which DIC nor his favorite libertarian supply side economist appear to have any inclination towards.
Delete"IMO both parties seem to be ignorant of economics"
DeleteThey may or may not be ignorant of economics, but both are utterly corrupt. They serve the oligarchy, and not just American oligarchy (especially true of the Democrats these days).
6:46,
DeleteOf course the Democrats serve the oligarchy. After all, they are led by a Commie Marxist, who hates business, and wants to give refugees from foreign countries free Obama phones and healthcare, forgiving student loans.
As long as the middle class is paying for all that, how does it hurt the oligarchy? It doesn't.
DeleteMore iphones and pfizer shit will be purchased using taxpayers' money, plus whatever shit is purchased instead of paying those loans back to the taxpayers.
And anywho, get back to me when your "party" expropriates George Soros' billions.
DeleteGiving people healthcare and forgiving their student loans is just a ruse to make you think he's helping the people. You gotta admit, it's pretty clever for an old guy.
DeleteWasting working people's hard-earned tax money on criminals and free-riders doesn't make me think of "helping the people". It's quite the opposite.
Delete"criminals and free-riders"
DeleteSpoken like someone who loves the oligarchy, and only sees people for what they can do for the corporate bottom line.
I assume your problem with the corruption in both parties, is they don't serve the oligarchy enough.
Substantial differences in tax policy differentiate Democrats from Republicans. Comments 6:46-3:28 are thoughtless drivel, hopefully by the same uneducated troll.
DeleteI am an oligarch. Serve me.
Delete“More voters trust Republicans on economy as interest in midterms hits high, polls say”
ReplyDelete10/23/2022
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/23/voters-trust-republicans-economy-midterms-poll-00063062
“Among registered voters, the Republican Party holds a 9 percentage point edge over the Democrats on the issue of being better able to handle the economy”
AUGUST 13, 2020
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/08/13/important-issues-in-the-2020-election/
Etc…
“Since World War II, the United States economy has performed worse on average under the administration of Republican presidents than Democrat presidents. “
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents
If I were Somerby, I would just keep worrying about the perception that Republicans are better for the economy, rather than talking about the facts. (Leave that to Kevin Drum, I guess). Granted, Democrats need to shout these facts from the rooftops, albeit at the risk of piercing the Others’ fact-free bubble and pissing them off.
I was unable to ascertain Biden’s age until read this blog post.
ReplyDeleteMy God, he’s old!
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr was born November 20, 1942.
DeleteFDR would be 141 years old if he was still alive, yet Biden, who is the best President we've had since FDR is way younger if you compare their ages.
DeleteYes @6:20, he's old. Biden will turn 81 in November. My bigger concern is that he would be 86 in late 2028, when he would still be President. Trump isn't much better on the age matter. He's only a little younger than Biden. They are both ridiculous candidates IMO.
DeleteBiden is still sharp and doing fine. When he stops, that’s the time to replace him.
DeleteKamala Devi Harris was born October 20, 1964.
DeleteIn America, age is not a serious or reasonable concern for the POTUS since we have various in depth contingency plans for dealing with an incapacitated POTUS.
DeleteTrump has more mental and physical slips than Biden, but they are largely ignored by corporate media because Trump is more profitable to them than Biden.
There is a reason why Trump as president had an unscheduled visit to Walter Reed Hospital to answer questions that are normally applied to patients being assessed for dementia. The reason for this visit was never adequately explained. It was not routine. It almost certainly has to do with the preposterous statements he routinely makes, far in excess to Biden's. But correctly identifying the silhouettes of zoo animals apparently is enough to qualify one as leader of the free world. Of course there is precedence for this in Saint Ronald.
ReplyDeleteThis week, the Wall Street Journal and New York Times finally acknowledged the complete failure of the Ukrainian "counteroffensive."
ReplyDeleteNonsense in multiple ways, here is what is currently the most popular WSJ article in the world:
Deletehttps://www.wsj.com/world/russia-withdraws-black-sea-fleet-vessels-from-crimea-base-after-ukrainian-attacks-51d6d4f5?mod=russia_trendingnow_article_pos1
NY Times, behind a pay wall, has similar articles about Ukraine gaining on retaking Bakhmut, Russian tanks destroyed, Russian commanders killed, large areas littered with the dead bodies of Russian soldiers, etc.
From you're article:
Delete"But the withdrawal is a timely boost for Ukraine as its counteroffensive advances more slowly than planned amid heavy losses and political ructions in the U.S. raise questions about funding for Kyiv’s efforts to expel Russian occupying forces."
Backing up my friend, this week, the Wall Street Journal and New York Times finally acknowledged the complete failure of the Ukrainian "counteroffensive." This claim is beyond dispute.
Nytimes:
Deletehttps://russialist.org/jrl-newswatch-russian-troops-cede-ground-and-strike-back-frustrating-ukraines-counteroffensive-new-york-times/
“Russian Troops Cede Ground and Strike Back, Frustrating Ukraine’s Counteroffensive”
"Russian forces pull back to a second line of positions, encouraging Ukrainian troops to advance … then strike back when … opposing forces are vulnerable — … moving across open ground or … arriv[ing] at … recently abandoned [former] Russian positions. The goal is to prevent Ukrainian troops from actually securing a position and using it as a base for further advances [as] in … Robotyne …. This [Russian] tactic [reportedly] is just one of several factors … imped[ing] more rapid progress … [along with] … dense minefields, networks of [Russian] trenches and tank barriers, and the reluctance of [Ukraine’s] NATO allies to supply advanced fighter jets and longer-range weapons sooner ….”
Maybe this will make you feel better?
"Military experts believe that Russia, too, has suffered significant losses in the course of Ukraine’s counteroffensive, though it has slowed Ukraine’s military to a crawl, in part through its elastic defense."
The counter offensive is over. It was always bullshit. Now these major news orgs are allowed to drip out that reality in small doses. Sorry.
Yes, thank you New York Times for informing us that in a war, some tanks were destroyed, some commanders were killed and that there were dead bodies.
DeleteAnd thank you for making us all aware of that amazing fact!! While slowly copping to the fact the counteroffensive is an utter failure, the NYTimes uncovered a tremendous scoop that in our proxy war with Russia ... some tanks were destroyed!
"“Perhaps the most formidable problem for Ukraine is Russia’s large stockpiles of artillery, which have been deployed throughout the conflict and not least to repel the counteroffensive that began in June,” New York Times stated."
DeleteWe, of course, ran out of artillery to sent to Ukraine and have resorted to send them cluster bombs and even seized Iranian AK-47's "amid concerns about dwindling Western artillery ammunition".
Too bad propaganda prevents you from seeing the reality of this disaster Biden led us into. It's fascinating but not pretty. It's just like Iraq - it was always bullshit and we will eventually have to leave with our tail between our legs but not after the MIC runs through trillions of our money.
Nytimes today:
Delete"But after 20 months, the war appears to be settling into a grinding stalemate.
Several Republican presidential candidates — including former President Donald J. Trump — are insisting that money for Ukraine would be better spent on domestic priorities like border control."
I think in a separate article they reported that in the war, some people were killed. Which people like yourself seem to think is "news".
Trump thinks RFK Jr takes more votes from him than from Biden.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.semafor.com/article/10/06/2023/team-trump-readies-attacks-on-rfk-jr-as-spoiler-anxiety-grows
With good reason, RFK jr is a neoliberal that espouses right wing conspiracy theories tinged with racism, he has little to zero appeal for Dems.
DeleteAOC explains the removal of the Speaker:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8K9mVU-dUI
Responding to Brooks’ unevidenced theory of economic anxiety driving Trump’s popularity, an article at Vox offers actual evidence:
ReplyDelete“A 2022 paper by two political scientists, Kristin Lunz Trujillo and Zack Crowley, examined this theory explicitly: testing a sense of political and cultural alienation (what they call “symbolic” concerns) versus a sense of economic deprivation in predicting rural voter support for Trump.
They found that “only the symbolic subdimensions of rural consciousness positively and significantly correlate with Trump support.” If anything, they found, rural voters who feel more economically deprived are less likely to vote for Trump than their peers.
Similarly, a 2020 paper found that Trump supporters in poorer areas tend to be the “locally affluent whites:” people whose incomes might not put them in the national one percent, but who are doing a fair sight better than others in the same zip code. Think plumbers and auto dealers, not laid-off factory workers.”
Then the article suggests Trump voters are motivated by cultural anxiety, and unlike Brooks, offered evidence:
“For example, in 2018, a trio of scholars used survey data to compare explanations of Trump support based on racism, sexism, and a sense of economic alienation. The former two are far more powerful predictors than the latter, almost entirely explaining Trump’s surge in support among white non-college voters. “Controlling for racism and sexism effectively restores the education gap among whites to what it had been in every election since 2000,” they write.
A 2018 report from the Voter Study Group, authored by pollster Robert Griffin and political scientist John Sides, tested what they called the “prevailing narrative” of the 2016 election that “focused heavily on the economic concerns of [the white working class].” They found that typical methods of measuring economic distress were flawed and that more precise measurements show little effect on the 2016 outcome. “Instead,” they write, “attitudes about race and ethnicity were more strongly related to how people voted.”
A 2018 paper by Alan Abramowitz and Jennifer McCoy, two leading political scientists, tested correlations between white voters’ favorable views of Hillary Clinton and Trump and a battery of different variables. What they found, at this point, shouldn’t surprise you.
“After party identification, racial/ethnic resentment was by far the strongest predictor of relative ratings of Trump and Clinton — the higher the score on the racial/ethnic resentment scale, the more favorably white voters rated Trump relative to Clinton,” they write. “The impact of the racial/ethnic resentment scale was much stronger than that of any of the economic variables included in the analysis, including opinions about free trade deals and economic mobility.”
8:41 we can get that from the media; your comment is superfluous
ReplyDeleteYou’ve hurt my feelings.
Delete