So, the Republicans rally around a convicted felon and sexual assaulter. The Democrats choose to eat their own. If Harris would be the nominee if Biden drops out, why not stick with Biden with the knowledge Harris will take over at some point?
I think that 99% of Democrats will vote for President Biden no matter what, as will the diehard never-Trump Republicans. The low-information voters who get their "news" from Tik Tok, etc., and who see nothing but clips of a physically frail President and a ranting orange faced "entertainer" will go for the latter, alas. They know not what they do.
Actually Michael, a lot of them do know what they do. Put policy, ideology and political philosophy aside long enough to consider that the debate (and a bunch of other incidents) have revealed Biden to be qualitatively unfit to carry out his job. This has been said about Trump for many years, and I think it was true, for the most part, but it isn’t true right now, not with Trump pitted against Biden anyway. Look at it this way: if you needed a chauffeur to drive you from Chicago to Los Angeles, traversing thousands of miles of interstate highways, navigating treacherous mountain terrain, and other potential hazards, and you had to select either Biden or Trump as your driver, which one would you pick? Do you see what I mean?
This, by the way, is why that quote from Neil Steinberg is so dumb. It’s like saying, “The key question, when deciding which heart surgeon you’re going to allow to open your chest, is which candidate most appreciates Mandarin cuisine, has expertise in the intricacies of Swiss yodelling, and is an avid listener of “Those Were the Days” with host Steve Darnall, Saturday afternoons on WDCB?” Whatever value these traits have, they’ve got nothing to do with the immediate task at hand.
You are going to vote for Trump and Project 2025 because you believe that President Biden is less fit for the job than Trump? My view, which has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with the threat to US democracy and the world security, is that anyone who votes for Trump is a nincompoop, ignoramus, neo-fascist, someone who cares only about his or her money, racist, or any combination of the above.
No, I’m not voting for Trump. Unless Biden steps down, I’m not going to cast a vote for President this year since there are no 3rd party candidates that I find appealing.
this is totally false, mathematically incorrect. let's start with: i'm a never-trumper.
a vote for biden puts biden 1 vote further ahead, or 1 vote closer if he's behind. a vote for a 3rd party candidate means no mathematical impact on the outcome.
as both of the major party candidates are unfit to serve as prez, i will vote for a 3rd party candidate.
and don't blame me, or any others who vote 3rd party [or choose not to vote for prez] if biden loses to trump. blame biden, WH staff and his campaign staff.
If I needed a chauffeur to drive me from Chicago to Los Angeles, I’d pick Biden. Trump would dump me on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere because I am transgender.
Yo Joanie, yeah he would probably dump you, but you would put up a hell of a fight. He would arrive in Los Angeles looking pretty bad…and image is everything to Trump.
I doubt that he’d dump you, at least as long as he was paid. He seems to admire Cailtlyn Jenner, and I seem to recall that he used to speak highly of Divine.
Biden would be liable to drive you over a cliff or into a head on collision with a semi, even if he meant well.
Trump has pledged to issue an executive order to the effect that there are only two genders and everyone’s gender will be what they were assigned at birth. So under this policy, I will have to use men’s locker rooms and bathrooms even though I have breasts and female private parts. I’m not a self-hating transgender person like Caitlyn Jenner. I’m quite sure Trump would dump me by the side of the road, probably after sexually assaulting me.
Right, but should we go with the other guy who‘ll surround himself with unqualified assistants and nurses, refuse to use tested, best-practice methods because he can’t take credit for them, and refuse to take any responsibility if something goes wrong on the table? I’ll take that NPR guy.
I would too, but in that case you’re citing some very specific defects in surgeon “B” that are certainly pertinent to the job at hand. The flaw with Steinberg’s analysis is that he conflates a set of ideals that are totally irrelevant to the situation at hand with the far more pressing question of whether the president is cognizant and able to function capably when he gets a call about a global crisis at 2 in the morning.
I think what you may be overlooking in pointing out the dangers in having Biden respond to an international crisis is that Trump is the kind of President who would cause an international crisis.
You want common sense on this issue? Good luck! I know Eric gave us a long list of reasons that defense of Biden running g don't hold water. Personally, I don't believe there is another Democrat that can defeat Trump. Right or wrong, Republicans are unified around him. Democrats are fractured like the San Andreas fault. I also need to disagree with Eric that there is enough time to replace Biden before the convention and the election. That might be true if there were a single super Democrat that everyone would back. There are strong Democrats. But I said someone that everyone would back. I don't see it, at least not yet. It's not impossible. Find the right candidate without a lot of baggage and simply remind liberals, independents, and undecideds that it is either this person or Trump. But who is it? I am also very disappointed in the many personal attacks I am now seeing against Biden. He is being painted as very selfish and egotistical for not dropping out. If that were true, why wasn't it true before announcing he was staying in the race? Frankly, I believe it is as much strategic as it is personal. It would be a disaster for him to drop out before a strong replacement with the needed support is announced. It would leave a void that would make the Democrats look worse than they do already. LBJ announced in 1968 that he would not run again. It produced a feeding frenzy among Democrats that made it easy for Richard Nixon. I am for Biden until Demicrats produce someone I believe can beat Trump. I repeat, not just a strong candidate but someone that can beat Trump. I don't want to sit around and praise great Democrats while the Great Dictator occupies the White House.
I wish we'd start cutting RBG some slack. The time when it would have helped if she resigned was 2015
(we know how the 2016 vacancy worked out), when I'm sure she felt great, the Senate had republican majority that would have stopped a truly progressive nominee and the prospects were slim that a republican would win the presidency in 2016. Hindsight is 20/20. And in any case, Dobbs was decided 6-3. Would we feel better if it was 5-4?
Blaming her for guessing the future wrong and exercising her right to stay, instead of blaming republicans for pushing through three incompetent lying ideologues feels a bit like victim blaming - "if only she didn't dress so skimpily" or "if only she she didn't have that fifth margarita" or "if only she had the forethought to resign while we were in charge".
The real problem is not that old people won't get out of the way. The real problem is that half the country votes for and donates money to hateful ignorant bigots of all ages at all levels of government.
Maybe, in hindsight sure, but again it would have been a guess, and again, all these horrible decisions of late were 6-3, if she'd been replaced they would have been 5-4, with the same outcome.
He had the benefit of a taste of a Trump presidency and the experience of a shocking election loss in 2016, so he was smarter about it and more prudent.
Possibly, I doubt it, but of course it's all a bunch of "woulda coulda shoulda", the kinds of things losers lament about in the face of catastrophic disasters (I'm including myself in that group)
At this point, Biden feels like kicking a field goal into the wind, while putting someone else in is a Hail Mary into the End Zone with receivers with uncertain hands.
Correction, Josh Hawley is the senator from Missouri not Arkansas. I believe we need to be accurate as to his origins. And also give him a Trump name of “Running Josh Hawley” a world class hypocrite.
I'm wondering what the Democratic Convention is going to look like. Big nominations speeches for President Biden met with lukewarm applause? "Illinois, the Prairie State, the Land of Lincoln, casts its ____ delegates for our great current and next president..." Big applause and cheering? Not looking forward to it.
I think that the issue with the media on many issues is the emphasis on the most recent and most emotional, as opposed to the long term. This goes hand-in-hand with the statistical, economic, and historical ignorance of the reporters which is only leavened by the occasional quote from an 'expert'. The quotes must be punchy and short of course, which also makes them generally of low value.
Gas price is a good example. July 4 gas prices may be the lowest in 4 years and a holiday gas spike would probably have gotten noticeable coverage. But there is zero coverage of the fact that the average gas price in 2020 was $2.57 and that it is now $3.75 -11.75% per year increase. The price change is due to inflation (not the cause of inflation), increases in taxes tied to gas price, and increases in crude oil costs ($48/BBL in 2020, $83/BBL in 2024). And then the political yakkers marvel that the ignorant masses can't see that they are better off.
Umm, pretty sure that gas was so cheap in July 2020 because we were at the height of Covid, things were shut down and no one was traveling. It’s simply supply and demand - we had plenty of supply and almost zero demand. It’s not magic and the president had almost nothing to do with the price of gasoline. And that’s true today as well.
Good point. 2021 would have been a better year. Gas was $3.00 a gallon and oil was $71, with demand fairly stable after that. I also agree on the relevance of the president. I was using an annual national average.
Pounding on Trump is obvious, and necessary to try to get the most turnout from the base. Getting the progressive left to reel in their fringe is necessary. The Dems also need to put their time and money into the Senate and House races. But success will depend on winning the center independents. Why have people that were leaning Biden started leaning Trump? The Dems need to ask themselves what issues those people are concerned about and how to persuade them. Vociferously proclaiming those voters to be ignorant, racist, fascist, and stupid is probably not a winning strategy. The Dems need a 'we hear your concerns' and 'we are not your enemy' messages that will give them confidence. Otherwise, they might stay home or vote GOP.
How would you define people who will vote for a congenital liar, a proven sexual assaulter, fraudster, racist, xenophobe, convicted felon, and fascist-curious (to put it mildly), anti-science person whose moronic, inept behavior during 2020 caused the death of thousands of Americans? What baffles me is the apparent Trump voters' credulousness in thinking such a person will resolve the "issues that concern them."
Michael, what do you make of the fact that black support for Trump has more than doubled since 2016, and that Latino support has gone from 29% in 2016 to around 50% now? Are they all a bunch of sexist racist fascist ignoramuses, or is there something else that is persuading them?
Assuming that shaming people isn't a good tool of political persuasion, then what? It is possible that a totally negative anti-trump campaign and a 'comatose Joe is better than Trump' bumper sticker is a winning strategy. But I would think that a recognition of concerns and a commitment to address them would help bring people over.
I agree. I think that it is best that President Biden step aside as the hero of democracy that he is; that the next phase is full of peril; and the overriding aim is to defeat the MAGA menace. My "pounding on Trump" and his supporters is not aimed at winning votes or persuading anybody, just at stating my position to the small group of Zornistas who contribute to this discussion, even to the person who has deemed VP Harris as not "authentically Black," something that I believe was said by such people about former president Obama.
Claiming that Biden Admin has 'created 14.1 million new jobs' sort of ignores the fact that nearly 7 million of those jobs were people returning to work after covid shutdowns. The folks that got back to work probably don't feel like they got a new job. This also does not change the fact that 25% of new jobs were federal, state, or local government. A net ok story, particularly compared to other countries. This message is also undermined by the media and activists with the continuous stream of stories about people struggling to find jobs and getting less than living wages. These stories also emphasize the disproportionate effect on POC, which makes it hard for Dems to claim they have delivered. I am not saying the swine on the other side would be better, just that this is not the winning issue for the Dems.
Who is right? You are EZ! All the data, including the medical science behind aging, is on your side. And voters now not only see Biden's cognitive decline but that he is as egotistical and self serving as Trump. They also see that the Democratic Party leaders really don't think our democracy is in enough danger to actually put any of their reputations on the line to fix this. I will vote for Biden in a coffin over Trump, but my kids are telling me they are so mad they will write in a name or leave it blank. The Democratic Party is creating lasting damage with the younger voters as they are showing that they are as feckless and as slimy as Republicans.
The stock market is now up on an inflation adjusted basis, by about 7% annually. That is about the same as the 50-year inflation adjusted 7.39% annual rate. This is a good indicator of a stable, healthy economy. Both the market returns and the healthy economy benefit everyone. This should be a good story for Dems.
But it is tough for them to wave this banner. The Dem message has been that the markets only benefit the wealthy and the oligarchs. The returns are excessive and unearned and should be taxed away. The profits and stock values have been driven by greedflation - corporations screwing the public. And market gains are a key driver of income and wealth inequality. But 'yay, markets are up!'.
The inflation rate by year was 1.2% (2020), 4.7% (2021), 8.0% (2022), 4.1% (2023), and is running 3% in 2024. Still above the 2% target but improved and without a recession, with job and wage gains, and with stable unemployment. A generally good outcome, which I credit almost entirely to the Federal Reserve. In spite of Federal revenues increasing by $1.4 trillion annually (40% from 2020 to 2024) the Federal deficit for 2024 will be $2 trillion. This deficit spending is the opposite of inflation fighting and also the opposite of traditional Keynesian policy of increasing deficits in recessions and reducing them in a good economy.
But it is hard for the Dems to fashion a good political message for several reasons. First, many would say they created the problem, so thanks for sort of fixing it. The average person is still acutely aware of the 21.5% cumulative effect of inflation on prices and has a weak sense of improvement. Biden and the Dems told us there was no inflation, then it was transitory, then it was supply chains, then it was nobody's fault because it was global, then it was caused by greedy corporations. They also told people that prices would come down, which is obviously not happening. So, what exactly did they do to improve the situation? And of course, they want to loudly proclaim the massive federal spending bills that they passed. Sort of counterintuitive.
My view is narrowly local, but it is hard to appreciate how much the crime rate has improved after 100 people were shot, with 20 deaths, over the July 4 holiday. At least the mayor acknowledged that individual people decided to shoot (the guns didn't magically do it) and that they need to be 'accountable'. But then he said the answer conflict resolution and anger management. The Superintendent said the shootings were 'interpersonal' conflicts. Gee, I thought that street gangs were shooting up each other and neighborhoods for gang reasons.
But as a political message for the Dems, to what exactly are they attributing the decline in crime? And what more are they proposing, since crime is still too high for most people. Particularly when crime prosecutions and 'clearance' rates have also declined. And we know that 'clearing' a case frequently just means they stopped working on it. This could be a good hook, but again it is hard to square with their traditional messages.
Illegal border crossings hit a four-year low, is probably the most difficult 'fact' to spin. The 84,000 is more than twice the 29,205 from January 2020. In 2020 the Biden Admin removed many Trump policies and changed asylum processes. In addition to many public statements welcoming immigrants. The chart in your link tells the whole story of the gigantic surge in 2021 through 2023. Belatedly acting after Democratic mayors complained and blaming loss of a 2024 immigration bill doesn't have much of a ring to it. The administration also told us there was no crisis, no problem well into 2023. And again, what are the proposals? The Biden Admin is under fire from the left for the current actions. The problem is that the Administration wants to have its cake and eat it too. Open, welcoming, compassionate, supportive and yet tough and hardnosed.
So, the Republicans rally around a convicted felon and sexual assaulter. The Democrats choose to eat their own. If Harris would be the nominee if Biden drops out, why not stick with Biden with the knowledge Harris will take over at some point?
I think that 99% of Democrats will vote for President Biden no matter what, as will the diehard never-Trump Republicans. The low-information voters who get their "news" from Tik Tok, etc., and who see nothing but clips of a physically frail President and a ranting orange faced "entertainer" will go for the latter, alas. They know not what they do.
Actually Michael, a lot of them do know what they do. Put policy, ideology and political philosophy aside long enough to consider that the debate (and a bunch of other incidents) have revealed Biden to be qualitatively unfit to carry out his job. This has been said about Trump for many years, and I think it was true, for the most part, but it isn’t true right now, not with Trump pitted against Biden anyway. Look at it this way: if you needed a chauffeur to drive you from Chicago to Los Angeles, traversing thousands of miles of interstate highways, navigating treacherous mountain terrain, and other potential hazards, and you had to select either Biden or Trump as your driver, which one would you pick? Do you see what I mean?
This, by the way, is why that quote from Neil Steinberg is so dumb. It’s like saying, “The key question, when deciding which heart surgeon you’re going to allow to open your chest, is which candidate most appreciates Mandarin cuisine, has expertise in the intricacies of Swiss yodelling, and is an avid listener of “Those Were the Days” with host Steve Darnall, Saturday afternoons on WDCB?” Whatever value these traits have, they’ve got nothing to do with the immediate task at hand.
You are going to vote for Trump and Project 2025 because you believe that President Biden is less fit for the job than Trump? My view, which has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with the threat to US democracy and the world security, is that anyone who votes for Trump is a nincompoop, ignoramus, neo-fascist, someone who cares only about his or her money, racist, or any combination of the above.
No, I’m not voting for Trump. Unless Biden steps down, I’m not going to cast a vote for President this year since there are no 3rd party candidates that I find appealing.
If you're not voting, then you're actually voting for the fat orange traitor!
No it doesn’t, it means that I’m not encouraging the Democratic party’s ritualistic mass suicide.
this is totally false, mathematically incorrect. let's start with: i'm a never-trumper.
a vote for biden puts biden 1 vote further ahead, or 1 vote closer if he's behind. a vote for a 3rd party candidate means no mathematical impact on the outcome.
as both of the major party candidates are unfit to serve as prez, i will vote for a 3rd party candidate.
and don't blame me, or any others who vote 3rd party [or choose not to vote for prez] if biden loses to trump. blame biden, WH staff and his campaign staff.
If I needed a chauffeur to drive me from Chicago to Los Angeles, I’d pick Biden. Trump would dump me on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere because I am transgender.
Unless you wore a 'trans for Trump' t-shirt and brought a bag of burgers. But he would still shove you out in Tulsa.
Yo Joanie, yeah he would probably dump you, but you would put up a hell of a fight. He would arrive in Los Angeles looking pretty bad…and image is everything to Trump.
I doubt that he’d dump you, at least as long as he was paid. He seems to admire Cailtlyn Jenner, and I seem to recall that he used to speak highly of Divine.
Biden would be liable to drive you over a cliff or into a head on collision with a semi, even if he meant well.
Trump has pledged to issue an executive order to the effect that there are only two genders and everyone’s gender will be what they were assigned at birth. So under this policy, I will have to use men’s locker rooms and bathrooms even though I have breasts and female private parts. I’m not a self-hating transgender person like Caitlyn Jenner. I’m quite sure Trump would dump me by the side of the road, probably after sexually assaulting me.
Again, dumped on the side of a road, or driven into an oncoming trailer truck? Is that really a tough choice?
Right, but should we go with the other guy who‘ll surround himself with unqualified assistants and nurses, refuse to use tested, best-practice methods because he can’t take credit for them, and refuse to take any responsibility if something goes wrong on the table? I’ll take that NPR guy.
I would too, but in that case you’re citing some very specific defects in surgeon “B” that are certainly pertinent to the job at hand. The flaw with Steinberg’s analysis is that he conflates a set of ideals that are totally irrelevant to the situation at hand with the far more pressing question of whether the president is cognizant and able to function capably when he gets a call about a global crisis at 2 in the morning.
I think what you may be overlooking in pointing out the dangers in having Biden respond to an international crisis is that Trump is the kind of President who would cause an international crisis.
Yes, probably.
You want common sense on this issue? Good luck! I know Eric gave us a long list of reasons that defense of Biden running g don't hold water. Personally, I don't believe there is another Democrat that can defeat Trump. Right or wrong, Republicans are unified around him. Democrats are fractured like the San Andreas fault. I also need to disagree with Eric that there is enough time to replace Biden before the convention and the election. That might be true if there were a single super Democrat that everyone would back. There are strong Democrats. But I said someone that everyone would back. I don't see it, at least not yet. It's not impossible. Find the right candidate without a lot of baggage and simply remind liberals, independents, and undecideds that it is either this person or Trump. But who is it? I am also very disappointed in the many personal attacks I am now seeing against Biden. He is being painted as very selfish and egotistical for not dropping out. If that were true, why wasn't it true before announcing he was staying in the race? Frankly, I believe it is as much strategic as it is personal. It would be a disaster for him to drop out before a strong replacement with the needed support is announced. It would leave a void that would make the Democrats look worse than they do already. LBJ announced in 1968 that he would not run again. It produced a feeding frenzy among Democrats that made it easy for Richard Nixon. I am for Biden until Demicrats produce someone I believe can beat Trump. I repeat, not just a strong candidate but someone that can beat Trump. I don't want to sit around and praise great Democrats while the Great Dictator occupies the White House.
That's already a Rep rally cry. Placing her in top seat will drive them all crazy. (Well, crazier)
I wish we'd start cutting RBG some slack. The time when it would have helped if she resigned was 2015
(we know how the 2016 vacancy worked out), when I'm sure she felt great, the Senate had republican majority that would have stopped a truly progressive nominee and the prospects were slim that a republican would win the presidency in 2016. Hindsight is 20/20. And in any case, Dobbs was decided 6-3. Would we feel better if it was 5-4?
Blaming her for guessing the future wrong and exercising her right to stay, instead of blaming republicans for pushing through three incompetent lying ideologues feels a bit like victim blaming - "if only she didn't dress so skimpily" or "if only she she didn't have that fifth margarita" or "if only she had the forethought to resign while we were in charge".
The real problem is not that old people won't get out of the way. The real problem is that half the country votes for and donates money to hateful ignorant bigots of all ages at all levels of government.
This is the damn mic drop. EZ, please consider closing the comments right now.
How about 2014 when the Democrats controlled the Senate?
Maybe, in hindsight sure, but again it would have been a guess, and again, all these horrible decisions of late were 6-3, if she'd been replaced they would have been 5-4, with the same outcome.
Steven Breyer seemed to be able to work out this problem. Pretty sure he said he was retiring in 2022 while Biden had a Senate majority.
He had the benefit of a taste of a Trump presidency and the experience of a shocking election loss in 2016, so he was smarter about it and more prudent.
No the Senate wouldn't have refused to seat an Obama nominee who was progressive.
Possibly, I doubt it, but of course it's all a bunch of "woulda coulda shoulda", the kinds of things losers lament about in the face of catastrophic disasters (I'm including myself in that group)
At this point, Biden feels like kicking a field goal into the wind, while putting someone else in is a Hail Mary into the End Zone with receivers with uncertain hands.
Normalcy is returning to the world: the tweet I voted for is dead last.
Correction, Josh Hawley is the senator from Missouri not Arkansas. I believe we need to be accurate as to his origins. And also give him a Trump name of “Running Josh Hawley” a world class hypocrite.
Fixed online, thanks.
Eric, right back at you. Appreciate your focus on accuracy. One reason I am a subscriber.
I'm wondering what the Democratic Convention is going to look like. Big nominations speeches for President Biden met with lukewarm applause? "Illinois, the Prairie State, the Land of Lincoln, casts its ____ delegates for our great current and next president..." Big applause and cheering? Not looking forward to it.
I think that the issue with the media on many issues is the emphasis on the most recent and most emotional, as opposed to the long term. This goes hand-in-hand with the statistical, economic, and historical ignorance of the reporters which is only leavened by the occasional quote from an 'expert'. The quotes must be punchy and short of course, which also makes them generally of low value.
Gas price is a good example. July 4 gas prices may be the lowest in 4 years and a holiday gas spike would probably have gotten noticeable coverage. But there is zero coverage of the fact that the average gas price in 2020 was $2.57 and that it is now $3.75 -11.75% per year increase. The price change is due to inflation (not the cause of inflation), increases in taxes tied to gas price, and increases in crude oil costs ($48/BBL in 2020, $83/BBL in 2024). And then the political yakkers marvel that the ignorant masses can't see that they are better off.
Umm, pretty sure that gas was so cheap in July 2020 because we were at the height of Covid, things were shut down and no one was traveling. It’s simply supply and demand - we had plenty of supply and almost zero demand. It’s not magic and the president had almost nothing to do with the price of gasoline. And that’s true today as well.
Good point. 2021 would have been a better year. Gas was $3.00 a gallon and oil was $71, with demand fairly stable after that. I also agree on the relevance of the president. I was using an annual national average.
Pounding on Trump is obvious, and necessary to try to get the most turnout from the base. Getting the progressive left to reel in their fringe is necessary. The Dems also need to put their time and money into the Senate and House races. But success will depend on winning the center independents. Why have people that were leaning Biden started leaning Trump? The Dems need to ask themselves what issues those people are concerned about and how to persuade them. Vociferously proclaiming those voters to be ignorant, racist, fascist, and stupid is probably not a winning strategy. The Dems need a 'we hear your concerns' and 'we are not your enemy' messages that will give them confidence. Otherwise, they might stay home or vote GOP.
How would you define people who will vote for a congenital liar, a proven sexual assaulter, fraudster, racist, xenophobe, convicted felon, and fascist-curious (to put it mildly), anti-science person whose moronic, inept behavior during 2020 caused the death of thousands of Americans? What baffles me is the apparent Trump voters' credulousness in thinking such a person will resolve the "issues that concern them."
Michael, what do you make of the fact that black support for Trump has more than doubled since 2016, and that Latino support has gone from 29% in 2016 to around 50% now? Are they all a bunch of sexist racist fascist ignoramuses, or is there something else that is persuading them?
Assuming that shaming people isn't a good tool of political persuasion, then what? It is possible that a totally negative anti-trump campaign and a 'comatose Joe is better than Trump' bumper sticker is a winning strategy. But I would think that a recognition of concerns and a commitment to address them would help bring people over.
I agree. I think that it is best that President Biden step aside as the hero of democracy that he is; that the next phase is full of peril; and the overriding aim is to defeat the MAGA menace. My "pounding on Trump" and his supporters is not aimed at winning votes or persuading anybody, just at stating my position to the small group of Zornistas who contribute to this discussion, even to the person who has deemed VP Harris as not "authentically Black," something that I believe was said by such people about former president Obama.
Claiming that Biden Admin has 'created 14.1 million new jobs' sort of ignores the fact that nearly 7 million of those jobs were people returning to work after covid shutdowns. The folks that got back to work probably don't feel like they got a new job. This also does not change the fact that 25% of new jobs were federal, state, or local government. A net ok story, particularly compared to other countries. This message is also undermined by the media and activists with the continuous stream of stories about people struggling to find jobs and getting less than living wages. These stories also emphasize the disproportionate effect on POC, which makes it hard for Dems to claim they have delivered. I am not saying the swine on the other side would be better, just that this is not the winning issue for the Dems.
I would like to question one thing Eric said. Trump is "playing" dumb? I think he does quite well without a script.
Who is right? You are EZ! All the data, including the medical science behind aging, is on your side. And voters now not only see Biden's cognitive decline but that he is as egotistical and self serving as Trump. They also see that the Democratic Party leaders really don't think our democracy is in enough danger to actually put any of their reputations on the line to fix this. I will vote for Biden in a coffin over Trump, but my kids are telling me they are so mad they will write in a name or leave it blank. The Democratic Party is creating lasting damage with the younger voters as they are showing that they are as feckless and as slimy as Republicans.
Young voters are idiots!
Many support Hamas, an actual terrorist group.
Not my kids...they are 40 yr. old Never Trumper Independents. They are angered that both political parties have given them such bad choices.
Then common sense, which many of them don't have says to choose the least bad option, which of course is Biden or any Democrat!
The stock market is now up on an inflation adjusted basis, by about 7% annually. That is about the same as the 50-year inflation adjusted 7.39% annual rate. This is a good indicator of a stable, healthy economy. Both the market returns and the healthy economy benefit everyone. This should be a good story for Dems.
But it is tough for them to wave this banner. The Dem message has been that the markets only benefit the wealthy and the oligarchs. The returns are excessive and unearned and should be taxed away. The profits and stock values have been driven by greedflation - corporations screwing the public. And market gains are a key driver of income and wealth inequality. But 'yay, markets are up!'.
The inflation rate by year was 1.2% (2020), 4.7% (2021), 8.0% (2022), 4.1% (2023), and is running 3% in 2024. Still above the 2% target but improved and without a recession, with job and wage gains, and with stable unemployment. A generally good outcome, which I credit almost entirely to the Federal Reserve. In spite of Federal revenues increasing by $1.4 trillion annually (40% from 2020 to 2024) the Federal deficit for 2024 will be $2 trillion. This deficit spending is the opposite of inflation fighting and also the opposite of traditional Keynesian policy of increasing deficits in recessions and reducing them in a good economy.
But it is hard for the Dems to fashion a good political message for several reasons. First, many would say they created the problem, so thanks for sort of fixing it. The average person is still acutely aware of the 21.5% cumulative effect of inflation on prices and has a weak sense of improvement. Biden and the Dems told us there was no inflation, then it was transitory, then it was supply chains, then it was nobody's fault because it was global, then it was caused by greedy corporations. They also told people that prices would come down, which is obviously not happening. So, what exactly did they do to improve the situation? And of course, they want to loudly proclaim the massive federal spending bills that they passed. Sort of counterintuitive.
The reason for keeping Biden in the race? 1968 (also in Chicago)
My view is narrowly local, but it is hard to appreciate how much the crime rate has improved after 100 people were shot, with 20 deaths, over the July 4 holiday. At least the mayor acknowledged that individual people decided to shoot (the guns didn't magically do it) and that they need to be 'accountable'. But then he said the answer conflict resolution and anger management. The Superintendent said the shootings were 'interpersonal' conflicts. Gee, I thought that street gangs were shooting up each other and neighborhoods for gang reasons.
But as a political message for the Dems, to what exactly are they attributing the decline in crime? And what more are they proposing, since crime is still too high for most people. Particularly when crime prosecutions and 'clearance' rates have also declined. And we know that 'clearing' a case frequently just means they stopped working on it. This could be a good hook, but again it is hard to square with their traditional messages.
Illegal border crossings hit a four-year low, is probably the most difficult 'fact' to spin. The 84,000 is more than twice the 29,205 from January 2020. In 2020 the Biden Admin removed many Trump policies and changed asylum processes. In addition to many public statements welcoming immigrants. The chart in your link tells the whole story of the gigantic surge in 2021 through 2023. Belatedly acting after Democratic mayors complained and blaming loss of a 2024 immigration bill doesn't have much of a ring to it. The administration also told us there was no crisis, no problem well into 2023. And again, what are the proposals? The Biden Admin is under fire from the left for the current actions. The problem is that the Administration wants to have its cake and eat it too. Open, welcoming, compassionate, supportive and yet tough and hardnosed.