More Stupid Poll Tricks
Corrupt and crazy versus old and confused.
AP (“Biden is ‘old,’ Trump is ‘corrupt’: AP-NORC poll has ominous signs for both in possible 2024 rematch“):
President Joe Biden is “old” and “confused,” and former President Donald Trump is “corrupt” and “dishonest.” Those are among the top terms Americans use when they’re asked to describe the Democrat in the White House and the Republican best positioned to face him in next year’s election.
Unflattering portraits of Biden and Trump emerge clearly in a new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, which asked an open-ended question about what comes to mind when people think of them.
For Biden, the largest share of U.S. adults — including both Democrats and Republicans — mentioned his age. At 80, Biden is just three years older than Trump, but many Americans expressed real concerns about his ability to continue as president.
Trump, meanwhile, has been indicted in four cases featuring 91 total criminal counts and elicits words such as “corrupt” and “crooked” (named by 15%), along with “bad” and other generally negative comments (11%). Not far behind are words like “liar” and “dishonest” (8%). Another 8% offered generally positive comments like “good,” though.
A deeper look doesn’t improve things much for Biden or Trump. And while many of the criticisms reflect a familiar partisan divide, the poll shows neither man is immune to criticism from within his own party.
[…]
Fully 26% of respondents use words like “old” or “outdated” to describe Biden, and another 15% mention things like “slow” and “confused.”
Another 10% give generally negative comments about the president, and 6% use words like “corrupt” and “crooked.” Just 6% offer words like “president” and “leader,” and 5% use those like “strong” and “capable” — the top positive comments made about Biden.
Biden’s age was referenced frequently even among Democrats, 28% of whom mention it — a significantly higher percentage than those who point to the presidency or leadership (11%) or strength and capability (11%).
Trump’s negative comments center not on age but on his moral standing and conduct, along with things like “loudmouth” and “angry” (6%), “crazy” and “dangerous” (6%) and “narcissist” (6%). Some 5% use words like “strong” and “capable.”
Aside from the point I made yesterday morning about these sort of surveys—that they really offer no meaningful insights, since both of these men are incredibly likely to be their party’s nominee and thus present the public with a binary choice—this one is especially frustrating in its equivalency.
“You’re corrupt, crooked, crazy, dangerous, and a narcissist!”
“Yeah, well, you’re old!”
Sick burn, bro.
Polls are media filler, close races garner more attention/money, therefore the polls must show a close race so the media gets content and money. Ask Les Moonves – the former CBS president who noted that “Trump may be bad for the country, but he is good for us.”
As long as polling questions are being woefully crafted, how about, “Are you more likely to vote for a law breaking, angry old man, who started a government insurrection leading to violence and death or are you more likley to vote for a stuttering, affable old man, who has managed a less vitriolic administration?”
There have been occasions when I’ve wondered about Biden’s competence, such as when he held a press conference a few years ago and a reporter asked him a question about Ukraine. Biden’s response was to sit silent, a goofy smile on his face, and then start picking his lower front teeth with his thumbnail. That was weird.
Then I remind myself that anything is better than Trump.
If this useless poll was worth taking seriously…
I would find it frustrating that the spread on “corrupt” and “crooked” was only 9 points.
On the other hand, 6% seems low for J. Biden given the amount of ink spilled, energy expended, and 1 keys broken highlighting H. Biden’s laptop.
On the Ricochet Podcast, Henry Olsen, “conservative” WaPo columnist, opined, caveated as “out there”, that Biden would collect the primary delegates then “unexpectedly” need to drop out before the convention. But controlling most of the delegates would be able to anoint the Dem general candidate. Like I said, “out there”. But no one with eyes expects Biden to make it another 5 years and Kamala just isn’t able to reinvent herself. Even if Joe would love to anoint the first woman of color to the presidency. We should know by November when the deadline arrives for any primary candidates.
Scott Adams has offered the theory that the scattershot of indictments and such indicate Biden isn’t in charge. The indictments do have a news cycle correlation to pushing Hunter Biden investigation news off the front page. I’ve noticed that James has been fastidious in avoiding posts on the Biden news even when Garland moved to name Weiss as Special Counsel. But few worries Weiss has carefully kept the statute of limitations running so as to let it all end in time. “oopsy we investigated for 5 years but just never could file an indictment to stop the statute of limitations clock. what’s a prosecutor to do?”
Alan Dershowitz has us up at 6 bananas after the Trump trial date in 180 days, with the government having turned over 12 million+ pages of discovery meaning Trump’s lawyers need to read tens of thousands of pages a day to give adequate counsel. Ten bananas on his scale is the US gone full banana republic.
On the other side, if Trump is removed from the General, there will be several candidates who have primary exposure on the Republican side.
On the contrary, the insight is that these will likely be the nominees despite being very unpopular. The insight is about how broken our system is at picking Presiential candidates that represent and are popular with the whole country and not a minority or partisans. The insight is that it’s likely one of these two will “win” despite -60% of the population believing that someone else should be in office. The insight is demonstrating not only the problems of aforementioned primary system, but also our system generally which only allows room for a binary choice. Showing how unpopular the two binary choices will likely be is entirely relevant and meaningful.
Plus it potentially matters a great deal in determining who will win. The last time we had an election with two candidates this unpopular was 2016, and a decisive number of people voted third party. Also, a substantial number of votes will not be voting for a particular candidate but will voting against the candidate they really hate.
In short the actual popularity of candidates among the whole population is important and relevant.
And if you are like me and will likely support Biden, then you should be worried that Biden’s unpopularity will result in another Trump presidency. The fact that Biden’s approval rating among the public is about the same as Trump’s at this stage ought to worry you – it certainly worries me.
@Andy:
Well this far out you should be looking at how large the delta is between the two candidates because those are the people who aren’t paying attention and frankly that is were the elections are won or lost. Head to head polling shows there are a significant number of undecideds and the game is figuring out which way they will break. There is also a new cohort of young voters and no telling how many will show up and which way they will break. Biden’s “unpopularity” is mostly made up of people wouldn’t vote for the the Democrats under any circumstance (as is Trump’s to be fair). But Trump fatigue seems to be setting in with all the indictment porn and while this does seem to animate his base, it does nothing to grow support for the former guy.
@Andy: Everyone seems to want “someone else” without there ever being consensus on who that could be.
It’s the Manic Pixie Dream Candidate conundrum.
@Jen:
I’m reminded of the situation where 3 or more people who often dine at the same restaurant, decide they want to go somewhere else this time. Usually there follows a lengthy interval where other places are proposed and rejected by one or more in the group. 9 times out of ten, they wind up going to their usual place 20 to 60 minutes later,
@JKB:
I don’t think you know how to use scare quotes. Or your definition of conservatism is frightening.
Or are you admitting that conservatism as defined by the current GOP has little in common with any traditional understandings of conservatism and is much better described as right-wing to far-right?
Why would anyone find Scott Adams’s analysis worthwhile as anything other than a target of ridicule?
Your post was a lot of words to add absolutely nothing.
@Jen:
You can’t find alternatives if you refuse to look for them.
Plus, places with strong parties, it’s common for the party to replace an unpopular leader with someone more popular. Our problem is that we have weak parties and a bad system for deciding which candidates to run.
@Rick DeMent:
Sure, but that’s because they will have a binary choice. It’s what I noted earlier, Biden is likely to win not because he’s popular, but because in a constrained binary contest, people will strategically vote for the lesser evil. Relying on that dynamic to win elections instead actual popularity is, at best, rolling the dice.
@Andy:
Who Andy? Who? Just give me a fucking name. I’m tired of all the armchair pundits saying “We want someone other than Biden.” Fine. Who? Give me someone who can primary Biden, beat him, then win a General Election.
Who?
Give me a name, or STFU.
@Jen: @Kathy: From the same question category that brings us this type of poll result: What would you like to have for dinner tonight: broccoli, eggplant, or something else?
@EddieInCA: I think Gavin Newsome could possibly do it, but I also think he’s smart enough to wait for 2028 – the reason is that Biden is a fantastic president, doing fantastic work, and there is really nothing to campaign against him on. What are you going to complain about? Yeah, he’s old – but he spent last weekend bicycling with his family.
Imagine Trump on a bicycle – better yet don’t if you’ve recently eaten.
Bidens policies are mainstream, centrist, competent, and responsive to the idea that the most liberal folks will never vote for Trump – and will turn up to reject him because he’s that awful. Centrists, likewise, are turned off by Trump, and the threat of him might repeat the 2020 situation.
Biden will probably win in 2024. So Gavin is focused on 2028.
@EddieInCA:
I don’t know who. To find out, Democrats – like you – would need to actually want to find out and then take the necessary steps to figure out who might be more popular or a more competitive candidate. Which we both know isn’t going to happen as long as Biden wants to run. And your comment is illustrative of that.
And the same thing goes for Trump and Republicans. The amount of self-delusion happening in trying to make Trump out to be a competitive general election candidate still boggles my mind, but that’s partisan thinking for you.
So as much as you may want to stick your head in the sand, you can’t ignore Biden’s weaknesses as problematic for his reelection. Which is why the OP is incorrect. Understanding where the public actually is is important and the idea that such polling offers “no meaningful insights” is wrong.
I say this as a guy who voted for Biden, is generally happy with Biden’s performance, and will likely vote for him again assuming he’s not in a coma.
@Andy:
Thanks for the response, but you illustrate my point perfectly. Who?
No one can give me a name of someone who can beat Biden in a primary yet still win the general election. I ask and ask and ask, and even the most anti-Biden voices can give me a name. So why not get on board, and try to make the case that Biden’s presidency – based on actual results, not his age – has been very successful. Inflation down. Jobs up. Russia neutered. No recession. Infrastructure bill passed. Keeping China in line. And so on…. But it’s all about his age, without any attention to doing the actual job of president, at which he’s been pretty damn good.
Until someone actually gives me a real name, I’m going to keep asking who or tell them to shut shut up, and quit giving ammunition to the other side.
And just as a meta-comment – note how almost everyone in this thread assumes that my pointing out that Biden is unpopular must mean that I want to replace him. Says volumes.
@Andy: I don’t see it that way. You identified as a Biden voter at the outset. Comments are emulating the “you”=”Everyman” diction common in American English.
ETA: But if you prefer to see yourself as judged or persecuted, feel free!
@Tony W:
Exactly. Newsom is supporting Biden 100%. So is Klobuchar, Buttegig, Booker, Harris, Warren, etc.
Here’s a list of the most popular Democrats.
Pick one that can beat Biden then win a general.
There isn’t one. And if someone is going to tell me that someone NOT on that list is going to magically jump into the race and beat Biden, I want whatever they’re smoking or ingesting, because they are delusional.
To steal from Rick Pitino “Barack Obama is not waking through that door. Bill Clinton is not walking through that door. Jimmy Carter is not walking through that door. But if they do, they’ll be old and grey.”
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
I know how to make broccoli edible: don’t ever steam or boil it. I’ve even used it in pasta primavera, and now and then in a few other things.
Eggplant, though, I know it’s not egg, and possibly not really a plant.
@Andy:
… and “popularity” is probably not the greatest benchmark of a successful president. So there’s that 🙂
@Tony W:
No one triggers negative partisanship and D voter turnout better than Trump. He lost the popular vote in 2016 and squeaked in due to the EC. In four years he did nothing to broaden his appeal and lost the popular vote by even more. He’s done nothing since to broaden his appeal and is under indictment on multiple charges. IMHO Trump wins only if Biden suffers a health issue or is harmed politically by some other crisis. And such a crisis is entirely possible. Chairman Powell really, really wants to create a recession for Biden.
But 2028 is my real worry. We Ds have good candidates in the wings, including Newsom. But the electorate seem pretty set on changing parties in the White House every eight years. And I expect Trump, as a driver of D hatred, will have faded out of sight one way or another. The more serious GOPs are also looking at 2028.
@Andy: That certainly wasn’t my point. My feeling is that it’s very much like that Yogi Berra comment of “nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.”
Everyone complains, but pursuing any other option is both ephemeral and expensive. Right through the primaries people complain about their choices–it’s literally happening right now on the Republican side. There ARE alternatives. They just aren’t THE ONE, none is quite right.
As I said, the Manic Pixie Dream Candidate.
I didn’t want Biden as the nominee in 2020. One of the reasons was that I anticipated we’d end up in the present situation. But now that we’re here, I don’t see any way that his bowing out would help us. I’m a big believer in the power of incumbency. There are a variety of reasons for it, and a crucial one is party unity. If Biden isn’t the nominee next year, Kamala wouldn’t be a sure thing to replace him. At that point a lot more people would enter the field, and it would create division in the party that we absolutely do not need right now.
There’s a reason why the only challengers are RFK and crystal lady, and why all the mainstream elected Dems from Newsom to Bernie and AOC have gotten strongly behind Biden. They’re aware of the stakes in this election.
I’m not in any way suggesting that Biden has this in the bag, and I think you have to be deluded to believe that he is. I am in fact deeply concerned about his low approval ratings as well as his being neck-and-neck with Trump in the horse-race polls.
But if you believe his stepping aside would improve the Dems’ chances next year, you’re just as deluded.
@EddieinCA:
Well, this is very typically you. I remember you suggesting I’m a Nazi for not towing the Democratic party line in a similar convo a while back.
But I think you are wrong here again in attacking me for not being the team player you want me to be. I disagree that I’m “giving ammunition” to the other side. It’s being realistic and pragmatic about the reality of the situation. The problem I have with your view is that you just want everyone to gloss over problems, play nice with the party line, and that somehow Biden’s political weaknesses will magically go away with the voters who aren’t already in the tank for Biden like you are.
I analogize it to the Ukraine war. The strongest Ukrainian partisans keep doing this, keep assuming that Ukraine is stronger and Russia is weaker because that’s what they want to believe is true. The claims over the last many months that Ukraine would “cut like a hot knife through butter” in this offensive and the repeated statements over the last year that “Russia is on the verge of collapse” have been shown to be foolish confirmation bias. And the Ukrainian partisans attacked me viciously in other fora as “taking Russia’s side” for not drinking their kool-aid, even though I’m very strongly on the side of Ukraine in this conflict. And guess who was right in the end…
Well, that same kind of confirmation bias is also very strong and common among partisans. Me attempting to get partisans like you to grapple with the reality of Biden’s political weaknesses with the voters that he needs to win is actually helping you. Because if you want Biden to win, then you need to understand his weaknesses so that you can -at a minimum – have a counter-argument when one of these marginal voters expresses their concerns about Biden. And to do that, you have to know what those people think, and what those concerns are. Which, again, is why James is wrong in the OP.
Rudely demanding that people who voice or express those concerns have to give an alternative candidate or STFU is what, in reality, gives ammunition to the other side because all it does is make you look like an asshole. But if you think that’s effective, knock yourself out. But you should know me well enough at this point that such behavior doesn’t work on me, so one wonders why you continue to do it.
@EddieInCA:
People today have the same inability to get past age and look at performance as previous generations had seeing women or Blacks or gays as capable. The argument that most people at his age are not in good shape is irrelevant unless we’ve decided not to judge the individual, but the category. It’s frustrating when the supposedly open-minded, fact-based, objective party shows its intellectual limits this way.
He’s doing a good job! Yeah, but he’s Black, brown, gay, not even a ‘he’ at all!
Pete Buttigieg is smart, young, competent and a great communicator. Does anyone here believe that a President Buttigieg could have gotten the America Rescue Plan or the IRA past Congress? Does anyone here think he’d have done a better job keeping NATO united on Ukraine? Does anyone think Buttigieg would do a better job of getting Japan and South Korea to co-operate? I love Buttigieg, and some day I hope he can be a great president. But the answer to the above questions is, no. No, Pete, as smart and charming as he is, could not do what Biden has done.
I won’t say Dems are anywhere near as close-minded as Republicans, but Jesus, people, see what is there, evaluate on the basis of evidence. It is astonishing to me that Democrats are watching the best presidential performance in my lifetime and are incapable of appreciating it because the guy doing the juggling act is old. Young Obama was a good president; Biden is better.
@Andy:
I have an 11am tee time at Moorpark CC, so I will respond when I finish and get back home.
Thanks for the response.
BTW, if we want to obsess over age, here’s the SSA’s actuarial table.
Trump, age 77 has a life expectancy of 9.3 years. Biden, age 80, has a life expectancy of 7.7 years. The difference would be 1.6 years. Would be. If we completely ignore the fact that Trump is morbidly obese and does no exercise. (No, golf is not exercise.) If we look objectively at the two men, and if we had to bet the house on which man would still be alive ten years from now, a rational better would call the odds even, or favoring Biden by a bit.
And let’s also acknowledge another reality about the commentariat here and not just you. There is no one in this comment section, except probably JKB, for me to give ammunition.
This comment section is filled with Democratic partisans who are either ideologically on that team or, like James and perhaps me, are on that team for strategic reasons. The bulk of regulars here are mostly from the left wing of the party, and everyone here – including me -spends -including me a lot of their free time following and talking about politics. This is an extremely unrepresentative group compared to the median American and the median voter.
You may not like to hear it, but I think that results in a lot of groupthink, which is why – outside of JKB – James and I probably get attacked the most because we are not ideologically on your team and therefore we are not team players.
And anyone remotely conservative or conservative-adjacent who wanders through the door here is quickly made to be unwelcome, and they leave, because you all treat them with contempt and seem giddy that you finally have a real political enemy to attack. So frankly, if it weren’t for the few people like me who take heterodox stances and question the dogma here, and who have thick enough skins to keep coming back after being called Nazis and the other dumb insults, the comment section here would be one large kumbaya circle jerk on the big political questions.
No one would challenge fundamental but important assumptions, like the fact that your (and my) preferred likely nominee has weaknesses that could cost him the election, that those weaknesses can’t be ignored or papered over.
Honestly, you should be thanking me and the handful of others who sometimes question your orthodoxy, because if you can’t formulate a cogent and convincing argument to me without being a dick about it, then you are sure to fail with the large numbers of people who aren’t political hobbyists, who don’t tolerate your dickish behavior as I do, and who need some persuasion to decisively bring them into the Biden camp on election day.
@EddieInCA:
With honest sincerity, I look forward to it. And I have to get back to work too. I really don’t have much time for commenting this week and I probably should have, for my own work-life balance, avoided commenting to this thread.
Also, I want to make clear that I don’t have a personal grudge against you and don’t think you are a bad or dishonest person, but the way you sometimes engage in your disagreements is often quite vexing. I try to think that everyone here is a good person at heart and that the medium makes us more strident and dickish than we are in real life. That is certainly true for me – I’m much more confrontational online than in person.
@Andy: You’re certainly right. It’s been awhile since we’ve had a genuinely popular President. John Kennedy was the last one to spend all of his presidency above 50 percent in the polls.
Do I wish our system offered more choices? Yep. But there’s no obvious way around the current situation and Biden and Trump are going to be the nominees absent something truly remarkable.
@EddieInCA: I don’t see any problem with noting that 1) Biden is light years better than Trump but 2) it would be preferable to have a system that allowed us realistic choices that weren’t Biden or Trump.
@Michael Reynolds: It’s a fair point. Biden is almost undeniably slipping as a public speaker and his long-term concentration seems to be on the decline as well. At the same time, while I don’t support significant pieces of his domestic agenda, has been remarkably effective at getting it passed under trying circumstances.
This discussion of replacing candidates reminded me of a German word, verschlimmbesserung.
It means an attempt at improvement that actually makes things worse.
@Andy:
I get attacked at least as much as you do, and for the same reason: failure to hew to the party line. And you and I have had our own go-rounds, largely on my part because I am always going to be suspicious of anyone who has worked in intelligence. People in manipulative occupations – very much including writers like me – are, and probably should be, looked at skeptically. You’ll counter that as an analyst you strive to be objective, to which I would counter with the fact that intel people do sometimes gloss over or minimize their types and levels of activity.
I’m over that, and apologize that I have on more than one occasion been, shall we say, prosecutorial.
I suspect, like me, Eddie is frustrated by the fact that the call is coming from inside the house. The Biden is too old meme is bad enough coming from the Right, it’s infuriating coming from the Left, and to the extent that we repeat that same line we are indeed helping the enemy because, again as Eddie is pointing out: it’s not a problem we can realistically fix, so pointing at it is just, well, to repeat the word, frustrating and self-harming.
It also gets in the way of the message we should be promoting if we love our country and hope to see our democracy survive. That message being: Biden’s doing a good job. The ‘Biden’s doing a good job’ message runs smack into Democrats muttering that he’s too old. Now, if Michael Jordan, age 60, suddenly returned to the NBA and started dominating games we’d all be talking about how amazing it is that a guy that age can do the job. Right? Why isn’t that our position with Biden? The old man is getting it done. We should not be in a cringe over that.
Do I think our conversations here have impact in the world beyond? Nah. We’re mostly old dudes obsessing over politics the way normal people obsess over sports. But it’s disturbing to hear friends seemingly buying into anti-Biden attacks that are simply not based in reality. See: actuarial tables linked above. See also: the news.
@JKB: While I applaud your efforts to read something about politics that less than a hundred years old, I think you could do better than Scott Adams and Alan Dershowitz.
And Harry Olsen was clearly high when he suggested that Biden would step aside before the convention and anoint an unpopular successor for the general campaign. That would be a great way to ensure that successor loses.
If the goal is to install Harris, Biden would resign after the next inauguration.
Just wanted to pop in and say that noted right-wing crank Ruy Texeira makes some good points along the same lines as what I’ve tried to argue here.
Edited to add: Michael, you make good points worth responding to, I will try to later.
A bit more on age:
Trump is obese. Probable BMI around 35 (6’1″, 265). I am no one’s idea of an athlete, (6’2″, 210) but my BMI is 27. Biden’s (6’0″, 178) appears to be 24.
IOW, in terms of life expectancy Biden is younger than Trump.
@EddieInCA:
I’m pretty sure that the scenario the “Biden is told old” crowd envision starts with Biden announcing he will not run again, because he is an ancient relic of a bygone civilization.
You then just need someone who can win an open primary, and who has a broad appeal that can win the general election by connecting well enough white, working class people while holding the base.
At that point, all sorts of names make sense: Sherrod Brown, Gavin Newsome, Gretchen Whitmer, and my personal favorite… George Clooney (America wants a spokesman, not a President)
Of course, Biden has already announced he is running, so barring a medical emergency…
@James Joyner:
We wish, but what is this system and from whence it cometh? The American system is the American people. Biden and Trump didn’t appear out of thin air. They both ran in competitive primaries — against much younger candidates — and both were chosen by voters.
The vast majority calling for alternatives are wishcasting and don’t want to cop to our flaws: we are largely lazy do-nothings. We are the problem and are not ready to own that.
We want different candidates — but it’s someone else’s job to name and find those candidates and work to make them viable. Okay sure.
We want viable alternative parties — but it’s someone else’s job to put in the time, effort and money to build those parties. Right.
This is why, as EddieInCA notes, it’s impossible to take the American people seriously here. Talk is cheap. We want this, we wish that…as long as someone else does the heavy lifting.
And then, as @Jen alludes to, once these magical more-perfect popular alternative unicorn candidates show up, guess what? They’ll quickly be made to be unpopular too. Because Americans gonna American. When Hillary Clinton left the State Department to run for president she had sky high approval ratings. Oops. For all of JFK’s popularity, he ended up assassinated. Can’t win em all over I guess.
Anyone who runs for president — young, old, Democratic, Republican, fit, unfit, nice, or jerk — is going to end up despised by wide swaths of the country, doubly so for those who actually get the gig. That’s just the job, and that’s just how we whiny, complainy, never-satisfied (but guaranteed to not get off our lazy butts and do much) Americans are. So is this built-in “unpopularity” a massive electoral liability? Meh.
Was there some grand consensus of unifying joy and love for Obama, Dubya, Slick Willie, and Reagan when they won re-election?
Oh.
Biden’s approval rating is hovering in the low 40s. Reagan’s approval rating was 35% in 1983. In 1984, Reagan won 489 electoral votes and 49 states. So.
@DK:
Yep! And, going back a bit further in time, George H.W. Bush had such high approval ratings after the first Iraq war, Dems didn’t think he would be beatable. It’s how a little-known governor from Arkansas got in the race…
Americans are incredibly fickle.
@DK:
But the party primaries are very much not representative of “the American people.” Most Americans aren’t ideological enough to participate in primaries and, even if they were, the primary process (which is somewhat different in both parties) is itself wildy undemocratic for half a dozen reasons that we’ve beaten here to death over the years.
Biden is effectively unopposed this time and Trump has no serious opposition. The polls consistently show that the American people—and even pluralities of their own party—would prefer someone else but they have no meaningful way to get that.
@Andy: @Andy: The bulk of regulars here are mostly from the left wing of the party, and everyone here – including me -spends -including me a lot of their free time following and talking about politics.
Are we talking about Outside the Beltway, or is it some version of OTB in alternate universe? I look at four blogs at least semi-regularly, OTB, Balloon Juice, Digby, and Juanita Jean. The other three are certainly more liberal than OTB. When I first started following OTB it was actually pretty conservative, certainly not left in any way. Most of the commentors here are Democrats because the Republican party has shown that it is underserving of support from anyone who cares about the country. Few people here are what I would say are hard left.
@Andy: “To find out, Democrats – like you – would need to actually want to find out and then take the necessary steps to figure out who might be more popular or a more competitive candidate. Which we both know isn’t going to happen as long as Biden wants to run.”
Wow, it’s really ungenerous of us Democrats to refuse to search for a candidate who will make a non-Democrat like you happy, especially since your only desired attribute seems to be “not him.” I guess we could urge candidate after candidate to run and see if they meet your approval, or we could simply back the president we have and like.
And you can vote for whoever you like.
@James Joyner:
True except the American people are not potted plants. Republicans do not *have* to nominate Trump. Independents *could* vote in the Republican primary.
History shows and human nature indicates Americans would end up disliking that someone else, too. The intimation we’d have a contest between unifying consensus popular candidates but not for ‘that blasted system’ blocking our way is a fantasy.
At the national level, this is a country of contentious tenuous coalition politics. It can be no other way: the US is vast and far flung, multicultural, and heterogeneous — with 50 different federalist mini-republics and a population of 330+ million descended from tribes that spanned the globe.
When the US was much more homogenous, we still had a catastrophically bloody civil war and assasinated four presidents. As we become more diverse with information more democratized, of course national politicians will be controversial and our politics rowdy.
That means when a faction manages to push their guy or gal into the White House, the rest of us will either have to grin and bear it or stay mad for 4-8 years. That’s why nobody can name these unicorn alternative candidates who, unlike Biden and Trump, would satisfy most of country. They can’t exist at the national level anymore, if they ever did.
Replace the names “Biden” and “Trump” with any two other names in politics, and the majority of the country would still want someone else. Replace our current “system” with a bunch of smaller parties, and you still end up with endless, internicine political fights (see Isreal and the UK).
Americans complaining about parties, politics, and candidate choices is a national pastime as old as Biden, Trump, McConnell, and Feinstein combined. We need to make our peace with that part of politics, cuz it ain’t changin.
@Michael Reynolds:
The Fulton County Sheriff’s Office does not seem to do a bang-up job of recording anyone’s height or weight or even hair color accurately.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/24/trump-height-weight/
@DK:
I really don’t know anything about political parties in Colonial America around 1700. My education really did no justice to that period, and was incredibly one sided.
I have no idea whether you are being hyperbolic, or entirely factually correct.
That you for revealing a giant gap in my education that I had not thought to even look for. I expect I will forget about this hole before long, and never get around to filling it, but it’s a good reminder that we can all learn something (but usually don’t)
@Jen:
This. And lazy.
Independents and/or swing voters and/or centrists do this same tired song-and-dance every four years. If the people who were whining and complaining about lack of choices when I was kid had actually done something about it back then, they’d have viable alternative choices by now.
All I hear is talk talk talk from mushes who want to sit astride the fence and tell everyone else what they should do. If we don’t actually do anything but talk and complain, eventually we are not going to be taken seriously, nor should we be.
My favorite tell is “primaries are controlled by the most committed ideologues.” Um, yeah. Politics is most responsive to those who actually put in the work, not those who think democracy is a spectator sport. Quelle surprise. What else did we expect?
@Gustopher: Lol did you actually take time to lookup and add up their ages? I’m impressed at the pedantry.
But surely you are aware of President Washington’s famous 1796 farewell address?
@CSK: One of the early sources for Trump’s arrest noted that the Sheriff’s Office simply took whatever was said by whoever spoke on his behalf (I don’t know if he did his own talking or not) for his height, etc. I would assume that the same is true for most or all of the others, too.
All that “everyone gets measured and weighed at booking” stuff from the Sheriff was just a load of Trump–as I noted earlier.
@DK:
TL:DR: The fault lies not in our stars, but in our fractious, heterogenous, generally ignorant selves. The politicians don’t elect themselves, and the thing with people power is that it comes with people responsibility.
@SenyorDave: Indeed, the problem is really that “sane conservatives” – those who legitimately want to pursue policies that are not batshit crazy – now find themselves having to vote for the party they still largely disagree with. Because the options are “mildly progressive” vs “wtf is wrong these nutters”.
There’s a 99% chance Andy votes for Joe Biden, because he’s got a functioning brain in that noggin. I may massively disagree with many of his desired outcomes, but the Democratic Party is not going to bend over backwards to find a candidate who’s more his style just to court his vote. And they don’t care that Joe Biden registers as “old” in this kind of poll.
The party as a whole understands that the electoral lines are:
(1) A large contingent of committed people who should be committed but are voting for the Republican even if it’s Trump because…well, who knows why?
(2) A slim minority of people who are actually “swing voters” who (a) really understand the depth and seriousness of the problem with the Republican Party and will vote consciously for the Democrat or (b) won’t vote for the Democrat but sure as hell aren’t voting for the Other Guy.
(3) A large contingent that’s going to vote D anyway.
Who are you attracting by even talking about changing candidates? Some number of (2)(b)? Maybe the cap is 10% of the 50% of the slender 10% in the middle? (That’s 0.5% for those of you keeping score at home.) The big problem is, if you switch and it turns out the person you pick turns out to be even half as odious as the Republican nutjob, you’ve just lost even more from that column. The potential cost is high, the potential benefit is low.
Joe Biden is the slow, grinding drive to run out the clock with a 3-point lead. He’s boring, he’s predictable, he’s still going to make the fans sweat, but the odds of winning are high. Picking a new person is like calling only deep pass plays to try to drive in the dagger. It might look exciting and if it succeeds it puts you in the driver’s seat, but a small mistake is costly, and it puts the ball in the opponent’s hands with a lot of time left on the clock.
@DK:
I can’t speak for Gustopher, but as for me, I have about the same level of familiarity from history class of Washington’s famous 1796 farewell address as most Evangelicals have with the teachings of John Calvin (or Jesus Christ for that matter, it would seem). Which is to say that I’ve been told that George Washington made a farewell address when he left the Presidency, and I think that it made reference to avoiding “foreign entanglements” but my knowledge there is limited to remembering someone mentioning it sometime, somewhere–contingent on my having remembered the conversation correctly.
Gustopher expressed it well: “we can all learn something (but usually don’t).”
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
In typical XVIII century fashion, it’s too long and verbose to read while working.
@Michael Reynolds:
And that’s a fact, Jack!
Other countries have viable, winning political parties that are either younger me or whose viability is younger than me.
The Americans who claim they want more choices have to, at some point, actually do something. Otherwise it’s just noise. Sure you can cite polling, but responding to a poll requires no effort. A better question than “Would you prefer alternative to Trump and Biden?” would be its natural followup: “Are you donating to, holding events for, and making calls for candidates other than Trump and Biden, and who are they?” the second question will tell you who Americans really are. Which is decent people who are also frequently full of it.
When I was still doing clinical work, I had a client who would constantly bemoan his inability to have the monogamous relationship he wanted. Then when he was in a relationship, he would always cheat. So I told him, “You can say whatever you want. Your actions demonstrate you do not want a monogamous relationship as much as you claim.”
I don’t believe Americans want more choices that badly. I think Americans think ‘Sue, more choices would be nice. But also: whatever.’
@DK:
Sure. But isn’t there also a factor involving what we would like to be conflicting with what we are that complicates the question whether we’re talking political relationships or personal ones?
@Andy:
What if Biden delivers the lowest unemployment rate in decades, rising wages, and the greatest investment in US manufacturing infrastructure in 30 years? Or staffs a much better NLRB? Or further backstops the working class’s health insurance coverage? Will that do the trick at least somewhat? As well, fun fact, if Trump gets elected his economic plan #1 is to broaden the China tariffs to the entire world. China tariffs alone cost every family in this country in the hundreds of dollars each year.. Trump’s next administration would make that an order of magnitude worse.
The problem with taking the easy way out of a difficult discussion by letting yourself sharpshoot is that you miss clear answers – but tell yourself that you’re believing something Only Special People Can Conclude.
Don’t oppose, propose — because when you are forced to defend the totality of someone else you throw out there, it’s pretty easily clear that the best D candidate is already running. The question isn’t if Biden could beat Lyndon Johnson, the question is if Biden can beat Trump.
@Andy:
Oh Andy, Andy, Andy… You’re a better human than I am, no doubt about that. And I’m being sincere. I’m an asshole. I know it, and I’m okay with it. I’m much more confrontational in person than I am online – mostly because I have to be given what I do for a living, and being in showbiz for 40+ years. But I respect your positions, even when I don’t understand them or agree with them. They’re honest and yours.
Simply put, I’m a pragmatist, first and foremost. Back in 2018, on this very site, I predicted it would be Biden/Harris, when no one was even thinking of that possibility. Why? Because, to me, it made the most sense. In 2020, I thought the whole idea of a “red wave” was a mirage due to Trump’s toxicity. For 2024, Biden will romp to reelection if Dems focus on the actual accomplishments of this administration and not Biden’s age. There is no secret Democrat coming to primary Biden.
The only way Biden loses is if Dems stay home, as happened to HIllary. Harping about Biden’s age, when there is no way to turn back the clock, is no way to motivate voters. Praying for a magic generic Democrat that everyone wants to replace Biden is no way to get undecideds [who hate Trump] over to your side.
So my frustration at you was just the tipping point due to so many others saying the same thing, “We want’ someone other than Biden!”, but no name.
It’s maddening.
@JKB:
Or it means that Scott Adams doesn’t understand how any of this works.
Indeed, that is exactly what is means.
@Andy:
I think it is quite likely that any set of candidates capable of being nominated as the R and the D will end up both being very unpopular.
Given our polarized politics the R and the D will have 50% approval at best. Then end side will have people on their own side who are unhappy with their candidate.
I would need more thought to fully flesh out the point, but I think the basics are pretty straightforward.
@Andy:
On the one hand, it does worry me.
But on the other, why is Biden’s unpopularity a reason Trump might win, but not vice versa? To some degree to my point above, doesn’t it all kind of cancel itself out?
@Michael Reynolds:
Except this is clearly not the case. We are going to likely have 12 years of 70+ presidents, and yet no women in sight (or gays).
People worry about age because it is simply true that all our bodies and minds wear out and it is not unreasonable to be concerned that maybe a guy in his 80s might have serious problems develop without much warning (or die).
Having said that, while I would prefer that Biden was younger, I will definitely be voting for him.
I mean, ageism is a real thing, but given the fact that we are governed by a lot of folks in their 70s and 80s, it is not the problem that racism is, nor sexism, etc.
@Steven L. Taylor:
No, of course ageism is not as bad as racism. Not unless we go full Soylent Green and start offing old people to Beethoven’s Sixth and turn them into crackers. I meant more the mental fail involved any time we have actual reality available and ignore it in favor of our presuppositions.
ETA: As soon as I wrote that I realized blissing out on opiates while deer frolic to Beethoven and then being turned into something edible sounded pretty good. You had to see the movie, otherwise this comment would seem insane.
@JKB: “Alan Dershowitz has us up at 6 bananas after the Trump trial date in 180 days, with the government having turned over 12 million+ pages of discovery meaning Trump’s lawyers need to read tens of thousands of pages a day to give adequate counsel. Ten bananas on his scale is the US gone full banana republic.”
That man looks upon injuries as healing and healing as injuries.
@JKB: “Alan Dershowitz has us up at 6 bananas after the Trump trial date in 180 days, with the government having turned over 12 million+ pages of discovery meaning Trump’s lawyers need to read tens of thousands of pages a day to give adequate counsel. Ten bananas on his scale is the US gone full banana republic.”
Didn’t one of his lawyers say the Trump knew everything?
@Michael Reynolds:
That is rather hyperbolic and elides my obvious point.
In all seriousness, the comparison of ageism to sexism, racism, et al, is just empirically false.
We are objectively governed by older people in a way we clearly are not governed by Blacks, LGBTQ+ people, or even women.
The Senate’s median age is something like 65. But it is overwhelmingly white, male, and straight.
@Steven L. Taylor:
My mom is 75 and she worries about Biden’s age even though she’s going to vote for him. Guess there are plenty of ageist old people.
It’s telling that the same people who enjoy lecturing the left about how they have to tone it down regarding basic civil rights can’t handle something which is one of the oldest themes in human history. People hanging onto power past their prime is not a leftist meme. It’s a story central to human existence.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Again, not my point. I’m talking about the logic, the reasoning, the fundamental mental error of ignoring what is and choosing instead to see what we expect to see. It’s an epistemological point, a matter of what we decide to believe. It’s about lazy thinking, a lacks rigor. There is clear epistemological connective tissue between generalizing about race or gender and generalizing about age.
Ok, I have time for some quick responses:
@SenyorDave:
That commentariat here is the least liberal of the blogs you read doesn’t mean the commentariat here isn’t overwhelmingly liberal. And yes, I’ve been here a very long time and have seen the ideological sorting of the comment in which pretty much every who isn’t liberal left.
@wr:
As I stated at the outset, I’m generally happy with Biden and plan to vote for him. I was answering the hypothetical about how one would find out who might be more popular and not advocating a contested primary. As per usual, you can’t seem to tell the difference between analysis and advocacy.
@Micael Reynolds:
Yes we have, and I don’t hold a grudge against you. I also understand the suspicion of people who worked in intelligence, but I think you ought to focus that suspicion on the senior levels and not cogs in the system like I was.
I agree there aren’t many good answers to questions about Biden’s age. I think your arguments about the comparison to Trump are directionally correct. And yes, a lot of concerns about Biden’s age are coming from inside your tent. That ought to worry you a great deal, because the people outside your tent are likely to take it even more seriously.
But Biden’s problems aren’t just about his age. Helping Biden win means you have to understand what his political vulnerabilities are and at least consider ways to address them in ways that are compelling to the normie voters needed for him to win. Sticking one’s head in the sand, bullying people who bring it up, or asserting nothing to see here are not, IMO good strategies.
@ptfe:
Just to clarify, I have long had eclectic political positions that don’t neatly fit with either party. I was never a part of, nor did I openly support, the Republican party back when it was more sane, unlike James Joyner and the ex-GOP nevertrumpers.
I want to make clear that I’m not a mushy centrist either – many of my policy preferences lie outside the right-left, Dem-GoP binary. And yes, that makes me perpetually dissatisfied with my political choices, but on the things I care about in a President (foreign policy and the effective running of the Executive), Biden has probably been the best along those criteria since GHWB, even though I disagree with many of Biden’s positions. My favorite politician currently is Jared Polis, the governor of my state.
@Gavin:
Yes, those are good arguments and are somewhat effective.
@EddieInCA:
Thanks for you response.
As I noted earlier, I’m not advocating for replacing Biden and never have. And age isn’t his only issue and political vulnerability.
I disagree with you that Biden just needs the base to turn out. The base is rabidly anti-Trump, and they will turn out regardless. Biden has also been much friendlier to the base than most people expected in terms of his tone and domestic policy priorities. I think they have his back.
My view is that Biden needs marginal voters, and to get marginal voters you (generic “you”) need to be able to address their concerns, even for things that are practically difficult like age. And the GoP will be hammering Biden’s age and putting out media and videos showing all his foibles, trips, and painting a bad picture for normie disconnected voters who don’t follow politics. My view is you can’t just stick your head in the sand and ignore it because defending against those attacks is difficult.
And this is why I advocated long ago that the administration needs to start raising Harris’ profile and work on improving her perception with the public. You can ameliorate some of the concerns about Biden’s age if people think that Harris is ready to take over should Biden die or require 25th Amendment removal from office. The administration seems to be taking small steps, but not much so far.
And much will depend on the economy over the next year. That is currently another big Biden vulnerability with normie voters. If it improves and we don’t get a recession, then that will be great for his chances. If not, then that will be another vulnerability that can’t be ignored.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I think you’re probably right about this but I’d point out that Biden had an over 50% approval rating until the debacle in Afghanistan.
Well, all you have to do is look at 2016. Trump’s unpopularity eclipsed Clinton’s, yet he still won. You can’t rely on your opponent being more bad than you to win because, as you’ve frequently noted, a lot of people are Pavlovian partisan voters. Besides, despite Trump being an objectively unpopular President, he got more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016, expanding his support in surprising ways, and came close to winning again.
I think it depends. It’s one thing to wish for fewer old people in government; it’s quite another to say, as some do, that old people are generally bad. Insulting someone because of something they have no control over – like age, is certainly aegist in my view. In a similar way, it’s one thing to wish the government had fewer white men in leadership positions, but it’s quite another to believe that white men are bad or the source of evil in the world, or insult groups or individuals due to inherent characteristics they were born with. That’s objectively racist and sexist in my view.
@Michael Reynolds:
Completely off topic, that scene is far more powerful than it should be. I think in part it’s Heston’s reaction at seeing the nature video, but the larger part is Beethoven’s Pastoral symphony pulling emotional strings.
@Andy:
As a former subscriber who often agrees with him, my main and ongoing critique of Ruy Texeira is that his arguments are too reliant on vibes. He does not present consistent evidence to back his overly-assured claims and never seriously grapples with contradictory data. Thus, Texeira often finds himself screaming into the wind, lacking proof and unable to persuade — especially since his overly-confident assertions get proven wrong.
Texeira is fond of saying Democrats are not the party of “common-sense, normie” voters. Okay, says who? First, what is a “normie” voter? Ruy never tells us. I suspect he defines “common-sense, normie voter” as ‘people who agree with me’ but that’s narcissism, not evidence.
Among the data points are thus: for a generation Democrats have won the presidential popular vote in every election but one. Biden and Hillary won households making under $50k yearly by ten points. Democratic senators represent tens of millions more Americans than Republican ones.
The median general voter and average working class voter is more likely to vote Democratic than not, so why aren’t these folks “normie” voters?
And while Texeira was largely wrong about 2022, Biden’s instincts defied predictions and pundits in the 2020 primaries and 2022 midterms. There’s little proof Ruy Texeira has his finger on the pulse of American voters better than Biden, Democrats, and their army of pollsters and focus group researchers.
Texeira makes good points but only if like me you mostly agree. If he wants Democratic electeds to take his advice, he needs more than ‘Because I say so.’
@DK:
Yeah, Texeira’s points are all points in a vacuum.
Going down the list of them:
Equality of opportunity is a fundamental American principle; equality of outcome is not. (73 percent agree/13 percent disagree)
America is not perfect but it is good to be patriotic and proud of the country. (81 percent agree/14 percent disagree)
Discrimination and racism are bad but they are not the cause of all disparities in American society. (70 percent agree/24 percent disagree)
No one is completely without bias but calling all white people racists who benefit from white privilege and American society a white supremacist society is not right or fair. (77 percent agree/15 percent disagree)
America benefits from the presence of immigrants and no immigrant, even if illegal, should be mistreated. But border security is still important, as is an enforceable system that fairly decides who can enter the country. (78 percent agree/14 percent disagree)
Police misconduct and brutality against people of any race is wrong and we need to reform police conduct and recruitment. More and better policing is needed for public safety and that cannot be provided by “defunding the police.” (79 percent agree/15 percent disagree)
There are underlying differences between men and women but discrimination on the basis of gender is wrong. (82 percent agree/12 percent disagree)
There are basically two genders, but people who want to live as a gender different from their biological sex should have that right and not be discriminated against. However, there are issues around child consent to transitioning and participation in women’s sports that are complicated and far from settled. (73 percent agree/17 percent disagree)
Racial achievement gaps are bad and we should seek to close them. However, they are not due just to racism and standards of high achievement should be maintained for people of all races. (74 percent agree/16 percent disagree)
Language policing has gone too far; by and large, people should be able to express their views without fear of sanction by employer, school, institution or government. Good faith should be assumed, not bad faith. (76 percent agree/14 percetn disagree)
—there’s only one which has any mainstream political meaning and that’s the one about trans kids. And re: trans kids Biden has left it up to the schools to deal on their own with sports. Most trans activists were not happy with the decision, but they aren’t making a big deal about it. With gender-affirming care, doctors and patients agree that it works. The people who have problems are people who have no stake in the process at all.
Everything else is just the bad-faith pretense that somehow the Democrats are in the pocket of someone like me. Is any politician saying don’t have border security or be patriotic? Is Biden saying defund the policy? The Senate vetoed sensible changes to sentencing in DC in order to prove how tough they are.
@Michael Reynolds:
I gotta say, I am not sure what you are claiming here.