"Bloodbath" gone from Morning Joe!


Also, new polling data: Who will win November's election?

We have no idea. It's our impression that Trump may win if he can survive his criminal trials. It also depends on what happens with the pair of major addiction addicts, Robert Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West.

(Presumably due to their lack of accomplishment, the addicts can attract attention no other way. And so they pretend to be running for president, taking a chance on changing world history as they force-feed their egos.)

We don't know who's going to win in November. That said, the Wall Steet Journal has released new polling figures from seven swing states, and we were struck by the way the results were chyroned on this morning's "cable news" programs.

Let's start with the Journal's news report about the new polling data. Dual headlines included, the report begins like this:

Trump Leads Biden in Six of Seven Swing States, WSJ Poll Finds 
Incumbent trails in most battlegrounds that decided 2016 and 2020 elections

Donald Trump is leading President Biden in six of the seven most competitive states in the 2024 election, propelled by broad voter dissatisfaction with the national economy and deep doubts about Biden’s capabilities and job performance, a new Wall Street Journal poll finds.

The poll of the election’s main battlegrounds shows Trump holding leads of between 2 and 8 percentage points in six states—Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina—on a test ballot that includes third-party and independent candidates. Trump holds similar leads when voters are asked to choose only between him and Biden.

Those numbers aren't great for blue tribe voters. That said, November's a long way off. 

At any rate, the weekday Fox & Friends crew was reporting those numbers by 6:09 this morning. The chyron beneath them said this:


That chyron was perfectly accurate. On Morning Joe, the new numbers were discussed starting at 6:22. As you can see, Mika's initial report was perfectly accurate, but the chyron was soon saying this:


Neither chyron was flatly false. Maybe it all depends on what the meaning of "close" is! 

(As you can see in the WSJ data, Trump charts a seven- or eight-point lead in North Carolina. That's drifting away from "close," but November's a long way off and there's always sampling error.)

November is a long way off—and a (somewhat peculiar) criminal trial may get started in the next few weeks. That (slightly peculiar) criminal trial might hurt Trump extremely badly, or it could conceivably help him. 

Beyond that, there's no conceivable way to know who will win in the end.

That said, we were struck by the way these morning shows treated a second new topic. We refer to Candidate Trump's resurrection of the once-controversial term, "bloodbath."

Yesterday, at a campaign event in Michigan, Candidate Trump began giving prominent play to that term. Politico's report on this matter appears beneath this headline:

Trump rails against ‘border bloodbath’ as Democrats bash him on abortions

The term "Border Bloodbath" was featured on high-visibility signage during Trump's event. More precisely, the Trump campaign's newly prominent term seems to be this:


Plainly, Trump has decided to showcase a word for which he was recently criticized. As you can see by clicking this link, the weekday crew at Fox & Friends was exulting in this decision as of 6:06 a.m. 

During the 5 o'clock hour, the Fox & Friends First team had discussed the choice of words, on two separate occasions, starting with a tease at 5:07 a.m. Quite plainly, Red America's "journalistic" leadership cadre was promoting Trump's use of this term.

On Morning Joe, the treatment of this matter was strikingly different. To wit:

As you can see thanks to the Internet Archive, the term "bloodbath:" was never mentioned, not even once, during today's Morning Joe. 

The program ran its full four hours. The word "bloodbath" was never spoken.

Just a guess:

For better or worse, the White House may have decided that the "bloodbath" play was a loser. More broadly, this may mean that the White House, and their cable news messengers, may have decided that the time has come to stop treating Acyn Torabi like the world's most insightful political strategist.

Our impression would be this:

Donald J. Trump has been conning people his whole life, and he's really quite good at it. He knows what kinds of claims he can sell. Also, he knows how to turn gong-show attacks on his choices of words into political assets.

He seems to think that the "bloodbath" fandango turned out to be a political asset. If so, we'll guess that his judgment is correct, and that Acyn's initial judgment was perhaps miscast.

For four hours today, Morning Joe just let "bloodbath" go! The word wasn't spoken even once. You could score it a technical knockout.

In our view, the situation at the border is astoundingly bad for Biden. We were glad to see Jim Messina say as much on today's Morning Joe.

In our view, the border as it currently stands is astoundingly bad for President Biden's prospects. Quite possibly, so are the sometimes dishonest attempts to beat Trump at his own games.

Also from those data: As you can see from the WSJ data, 48% of respondents said that Trump was "best able to handle the mental and physical fitness needed to be president."

Twenty-eight percent said that Biden was "best able." In response to a somewhat murky set of choices, twenty percent said that neither candidate was "best able." 

Two percent said they didn't know. Three percent said that Biden and Trump were equal. Those numbers may have nothing to do with where this goes in the end.

Also this, for whatever it's worth:

Forty-seven percent of respondents said that they were male. Fifty-two percent of respondents said they were female.

One percent refused to answer. Only two respondents across the seven states—that worked out to zero percent—went with some version of "Other."

(In our view, all such answers are good and decent and are presumably godly. Unless you're watching Fox & Friends Weekend, where "paganism" quickly jumps in.)


  1. "As you can see thanks to the Internet Archive, the term "bloodbath:" was never mentioned, not even once, during today's Morning Joe.

    The program ran its full four hours. The word "bloodbath" was never spoken.

    Just a guess:

    For better or worse, the White House may have decided that the "bloodbath" play was a loser. "

    My guess would be that the White House does not have the time or interest in micromanaging the content of the Morning Joe show. Attributing Joe's word choices to Biden is ridiculous. Biden is busy running the presidency. Unlike Trump, he doesn't call Hannity (or an MSNBC equivalent) to tell them what to say.

    Note that Trump is now saying that it is Biden's bloodbath. What would anyone on the left have to gain by repeating that?

    Somerby assertion that the White House dictates Morning Joe's content is outrageously ridiculous, wrong. But it is in keeping with his new phrase where he calls journalists a leadership cadre and implies they have more manipulative intent than simply reporting news. Somerby is today trying to paint his invented "leadership cadres" as something more than they are, closer to his accusation that they are making news, not reporting it.

    This IS crazy, and bothsiderist, but most of all, it is deceptive on Somerby's part.

  2. Question: if, behind the scene, WH instructed "Morning Joe" to stop his "bloodbath" bullshitting, would this be, technically, a violation of the campaign finance laws?

    1. Or the first amendment?

    2. Why would Somerby suggest such a thing when there is no evidence it has ever happened? Why is Somerby inventing the kind of meddling that RFK Jr. has made part of his campaign? Is that accidental or is he shilling for someone the Republicans hope will be a spoiler against Biden?

      Did Somerby think no one would notice? Or is he just carrying out today's right wing marching orders for his blog?

    3. @2:35 PM
      No, in this case it seems more logical to assume that they are in cahoots.

  3. Anyone who rails on Biden for doing nothing on the border; without discussing Trump ordering Moses Johnson to refuse to put the bi-partisan Senate immigration bill to the floor, (a bill Biden said he would sign), is an ass.

    1. And further thoughts on this. I think we have discussed Democratic strategy before? Hard to tell since there's so many Anons. But in my opinion, this is the issue Democrats should be hounding the Republicans on. Force them to say the bill was no good, then the ball is -still- in the Republicans' court because one of theirs wrote it.

    2. You're assuming (or pretending) that this has something to do with this bill, but it doesn't. Donald Trump didn't have it, and yet he kept the border under control.

    3. The topic was addresing the claim that Biden has done nothing on the border. I don't know whether the bill would re-install the restrictions Biden lifted do you? But it was written by a Republican.

      Your argument has merit also. The stats back you up, I don't think the counter claim that the post-Covid attempted crossings increase can explain the difference in illegal crossings holds up.

    4. I don't think "the claim that Biden has done nothing on the border". I think the claim is that the administration is actively promoting and facilitating illegal border crossings. See the Texas razor wire controversy, for example. As for the bill, my understanding is that the bill would just give the administration more money.

    5. It was the start of the discussion "Anyone who rails on Biden for doing nothing on the border"

      If you don't think anyone does that, I guess we are done?

      "The bill requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to ensure consistent policies for alternatives to detention across all sectors. They would need to put these policies into place within 90 days and make them public."

    6. I feel like the Dem/Rep talking points on this are a non-starter. Like neither side wants anyone to prepared to discuss the issue from an fully informed position.

    7. Sorry about the typos but gotta run. Maybe someone can step in for me and carry on.

    8. "The bill requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to ensure consistent policies for alternatives to detention across all sectors. They would need to put these policies into place within 90 days and make them public."

      No one prevents the administration from ensuring consistent policies, blah, blah, blah. They don't need any bills for that.

    9. Biden should open the borders through Executive Action just to make the Right cry.
      Sure the media will complain that he shouldn't do something just to piss off the Right, but that just exposes their hypocrisy. After all, the media already treats politics like its entertainment, where the results of policies enacted isn't interesting to them at all.

    10. How can one know that bill would have done any good without having red the bill? For that matter, I don't recall statements predicting just how much good the bill would have done.

    11. David, do you read bills? If so, you're the best informed citizen.

  4. About those polls, Simon Rosenberg says:

    "A few points:

    It is no longer consistent with the data available to us to say Trump leads in the 2024 Presidential election. It is a close, competitive election, and Biden has clearly gained ground in recent weeks. The election is changing, and it is critical that we demand commentators we trust to acknowledge this. Biden’s clear gains in recent weeks is the most important dynamic in the 2024 election now.

    It has long been our view that once the general election began, people came to understand it was Biden vs Trump, and the Biden campaign turned on, Biden’s numbers would improve and by April-May-June would open up a modest lead. It’s possible we are seeing that now.

    In looking at the polling averages note that we are starting to see, as we did in 2022, a difference between independent polls and Republican-aligned polls. Just scrolling through 538 you can find data like the data above, showing Biden leading/tied, and then you get to the many GOP polls which show Trump ahead by 2-5 points. It’s why I don’t really believe in the averages any more. We all need to be far more aggressive about weeding out the many GOP-aligned polls which simply cannot be trusted or taken seriously after what happened in 2022.

    In 2022 when I weeded out the GOP polls I saw a close, competitive election. In 2024 when I weed out the GOP polls I see a close, competitive election with Biden making gains. The election is changing now, and it is getting better for us."

    Today, he adds:

    "As I wrote yesterday, after the GOP’s corruption of polling in 2022, I don’t pay much attention to polls funded by Republican-aligned groups like the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal, and neither should you."

    Add to this that Trump has underperformed his polling in the states where primaries have been held. That means he was predicted to win by larger margins than he actually won by after votes were counted. That happened again yesterday, where Trump lost votes even without opponents in his primary race.

    1. The WSJ poll that Somerby touts is a Murdoch, Republican poll. It is an example of one of the unreliable polls Rosenberg is discussing, that failed to predict election results well in 2022 because it overestimated Republican performance.

    2. The only poll that counts is the poll that is the actual election. At this point no one knows who will win. We'll find out then, the rest is speculation. I don't know why partisans argue about polls - they don't count. We' might be better off without them. Did they have all these polls when Grover Cleveland ran? somehow the country got by without them. TDH is going big into these polls, obviously to warn his blue readers that they should prepare for the unpleasant possibility that the disordered Darth Vader Trump will mount the seat of power again, this time being worse. I could do without TDH's ongoing references to polls - seems there are other topics (not the Iliad) that would be more worthwhile.

    3. Here are some actual election results, with actual voting, from yesterday, where several states held primaries. Notice Trump's poor performance:

      "The results are in from several state primaries Tuesday and Donald Trump continues to have performance issues. New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Wisconsin all held Presidential Primary contests this week, and despite having wrapped up the Republican nomination on Super Tuesday a month ago, the GOP protest vote against Trump remains strong.

      Nikki Haley, despite suspending her campaign after Super Tuesday, received more than 10% of the vote in each of Tuesday's contests. Wisconsin, an important general election swing state, saw Haley winning 13% of the vote, dropping Trump to 79%.

      In Connecticut Haley won 14% of the vote, with "Uncommitted" receiving another 5% in that state, dropping Trump to 78%. By comparison, President Biden received 87% of the Democratic primary vote in Wisconsin, 92% in New York, and 85% in Connecticut."

    4. anon 6:33, these are uncontested primary races and mean nothing

  5. Georgios Mylonas spoke to Agamemnon.


  6. When Bob said “addiction addicts” maybe he meant “attention addicts”. He needs an editor.

  7. Yes, when Joe Biden is running, only the insane and “addiction addicts” would want to run against him.

    1. And those that want to lose elections in landslides (see 2020).

  8. Maybe the omission of “Bloodbath” means the point has been made on this one. Trump always comes up with some new ugly thing for Bob to rationalize or ignore. Again, since Bob has never condemned the violence of Jan 6 anyway, why should we value his take on Trump’s intentions to create violence?