Previous | Next | Senate page
New polls: IA
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA ME NV PA WI
Biden to Announce New Protections for Undocumented Immigrants
The predictable result of a Congress that can't get anything done is that presidents will use executive orders very liberally and very creatively. So it is with Joe Biden and the Mexican border.
A few weeks ago, of course, Biden issued an XO that empowered the Dept. of Homeland Security to summarily eject asylum-seekers if: (1) the total number of border crossings averaged 2,500+ per day for a week or more, and (2) those asylum-seekers crossed at places other than official processing centers.
A new poll from Monmouth indicates that Biden's XO has relatively broad support. Overall, 40% of respondents liked the move while 27% opposed it. Among Republicans, it's 44% and 29%; among Democrats, it's 40% and 22%; among independents, it's 38% and 30%. Those totals for the independents are a little strange, but in any event, the President will take these numbers every day and twice on Saturday. He doesn't really need to "win" on this issue, he just needs to blunt it as a weapon for Donald Trump. And if the XO has significantly more supporters than opponents across the spectrum, then it's serving his political goals.
There's another new poll out, this one from CBS/YouGov, that kinda suggests that Biden could maybe try to flog this issue even harder, if he wanted. According to the results, 62% of Americans would support a program to deport all undocumented immigrants from the country, as opposed to 30% who would oppose it. By party, that notion has the support of 38% of Democrats (62% oppose), 60% of independents (40% oppose) and 88% of Republicans (12% oppose). By ethnicity, it has the support of 67% of white respondents, 53% of Latino respondents and 47% of Black respondents.
Biden would never actually try something like this, of course. First of all, we're not so sure the numbers pass the smell test. Second, even if you take the numbers at face value, it's pretty risky to do something that two-thirds of your base opposes, in hopes of attracting some fence-sitting votes. Third, mass-ejection of undocumented immigrants would be an enormously difficult undertaking, especially without new funding from Congress. Fourth, and finally, Biden and his team are clever enough to know that Americans tend not to be great about thinking through the consequences of their desires. If some large segment of the undocumented population were to be ejected, do you know what would happen to the availability and prices of the fresh foods—produce, meat, seafood, etc.—at the grocery store? Not to mention the prices of restaurant food? Of hotel rooms? Of new construction?
Instead, the President will go in a very different direction today. This week is the 12th anniversary of DACA, which protects undocumented children who have been in the country for 10 years or more. Although the official reason for announcing that program in mid-June of 2012 was to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Plyler v. Doe, which made it illegal for public schools to charge tuition to undocumented students, it did not escape notice at the time that Barack Obama was in the midst of a heated reelection battle. Just to give a little context, there were ten national preference polls released that week, and Obama led in four, Romney led in five, and one was tied. In all but one, the gap between them was 4 points or fewer. Sound like any other presidential race you've heard about?
As someone who took careful notes during his time as VP, Biden will use the anniversary of DACA as pretext for issuing an XO that might as well be called DASA—Deferred Action for Spousal Arrivals. The order is built around an existing legal authority called "parole in place," which allows undocumented immigrants to adjust their immigration status while remaining in the United States. In the past, this has primarily been utilized by undocumented relatives of service members, but the new XO will extend it to all undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens, if those undocumented spouses have been in the U.S. for at least 10 years. And not only will the undocumented spouses be protected from deportation, they will have a path to citizenship.
Undoubtedly, the new XO will be challenged in court. We wouldn't be terribly surprised if Texas AG Ken Paxton camped out on the steps of the federal courthouse in Amarillo last night, just so he could get his suit on Matthew Kacsmaryk's docket at the first possible second. However, the wheels of justice turn slowly, and there certainly won't be a resolution on this new XO anytime soon. Even if Kacsmaryk or some other judge issues one of those national injunctions, well, it will be clear who is trying to help the DASAs and who is not. And while the folks being affected by Biden's first XO cannot vote, the spouses of the DASAs most certainly can. It's estimated there are roughly 800,000 such voters, and they are disproportionately resident in swing states. Note also that DACA is broadly popular, even with Republicans, so it figures the new program will be popular, too.
In short, you're seeing a wily, veteran politico at work here. We'll soon see if his approach pays dividends. (Z)
This Week's Show Votes
Another consequence of a Congress that cannot get anything done is a whole bunch of show votes. Last week, we saw the House do it with the criminal referral of AG Merrick Garland to the Department of Justice, and we saw the Senate do it with the IVF bill.
This week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will cue up another show vote, this one on a bump-stock ban. We suppose it's at least possible that the legislation could pass the Senate, since the original ban was adopted by the Trump White House, and since in last week's bump-stock ruling, the Supreme Court basically told Congress "this is your job, not the president's." But we seriously doubt it will pass. And even if the bill does get through the Senate, it won't pass the House, or even come up for a vote there. So, the only result will be to give the Democrats a talking point about which party is trying to curtail gun violence and which party is not.
There may also be a second show vote this week that, oddly, goes the other way. The House has already passed a tax bill that would re-institute the child tax credit that expired last year. Vulnerable Senate Democrats, including Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Jon Tester (D-MT) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV), would very much like to hold a vote in their chamber, so they can tell voters about how much they support the idea. However, it appears that there are enough Republicans in the Senate who oppose the measure that it will end up in filibuster purgatory (filibusgatory?).
As with the bump-stock bill, it's at least possible this one will pass the Senate. But probably not, especially since Senate Republicans are under orders from Donald Trump not to give Joe Biden any "wins." That means that the calculation for Schumer is likely to be based on how many show votes he wants to hold. On one hand, they are a useful way of getting the Republicans on record on the unpopular side of hot-button issues. On the other hand, if you go to the well too often, you also end up highlighting that the Democrats aren't getting much done. Even if there is a good reason for that (the filibuster, the Republican majority in the House), it could nonetheless put voters in a "throw the bums out" frame of mind. (Z)
Mudslinging, Part I: The Criminal...
Yesterday, we had an item about how the presidential campaign is about to get very negative, particularly in the days leading up to the first debate (June 27). We hope you liked that item, because you're about to get three more on the same subject.
To put this first item in context, let's start by talking about yet another new poll, this one from Politico/IPSOS. The pollster asked a whole bunch of questions about the justice system (executive summary: nobody likes the Supreme Court) and about the Donald Trump criminal fraud trial in particular. And there are two takeaways that really matter when it comes to the 2024 presidential election.
The first of those is that among voters who identify as independents, 32% say that the felony convictions make it less likely they will vote for Trump. Of course, that could mean 99% less likely or it could mean .000099% less likely. So, the pollster followed up by asking exactly how important the felony conviction would be. And 21% of independent respondents said that not only would the conviction make them less likely to vote for Trump, but that it would be an important factor in their vote. If you speculate that half those folks were Biden votes before the trial and half were Trump votes (not an unreasonable assumption), and you further imagine that 50%/50% has now become 60%/40%, then that is most certainly enough to swing some close states.
The second finding, meanwhile, is that the attacks made by Trump on the verdict and on the justice system are reaching at least some voters. In particular, 44% of independents think that Trump was prosecuted in order to help Joe Biden (50% think that wasn't the case), while 27% of independents think the trial was not fair and impartial (46% think it was).
We don't think that the Biden campaign is looking to Politico and IPSOS for guidance, but we do think that the Democrats have internal polling telling them the same things. And the lesson here could not be more clear. There is benefit in putting the "Trump the felon" narrative out there, early and often. And, perhaps equally importantly, if Biden and the Democrats fail to put that out there, Trump and the Republicans might well be able to re-seize the initiative, and replace "Trump the felon" with "Trump the victim of a corrupt justice system."
Given that, it's no surprise that Biden is now leaning hard into Trump's criminal convictions. In the item yesterday, we talked about the strong words that both Biden and Barack Obama had for their successor/predecessor at this weekend's big-dollar Democratic fundraiser. Shortly thereafter, the Biden campaign released a new ad entitled "Character Matters":
In case you don't care to watch, here is what the narrator (actor John Goodman) says:
In the courtroom, we see Donald Trump for who he is.
He's been convicted of 34 felonies, found liable for sexual assault, and he committed financial fraud!
Meanwhile, Joe Biden's been working lowering health care costs and making big corporations pay their fair share.
This election is between a convicted criminal who's only out for himself, and a president who's fighting for your family.
The ad began airing yesterday in heavy rotation in swing states. It's part of a $50 million spend that Biden '24 has planned for the remainder of the month of June. And, just maybe, Trump's convictions might come up at the debate. For example: "President Biden, can you summarize your views on farm subsidies? Well, Jake, as the only candidate on stage who is not a convicted felon..."
At this weekend's fundraiser, Biden also introduced another justice-related theme that he's sure to return to, over and over. Noting that nobody likes the Supreme Court (only 7% of Democrats and 11% of independents have "a great deal" of trust in the Court, according to the Politico/IPSOS poll), the President pointed out that if Trump is returned to the White House, he will likely get to appoint at least two more Supreme Court justices (since Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would probably retire). Somebody in Biden's orbit came up with a pretty good way to put it: "He's going to appoint two more [justices] flying flags upside down." That's a pretty good soundbite, we'd say. Anyhow, this just might come up at the debate, too. (Z)
Mudslinging, Part II: ...and Crime
While Joe Biden is focused on the criminal behavior of Donald Trump, Trump is focused on the criminal behavior of the American people. As he has been doing for the last 10 years (actually, more like the last 35 years, if you include the Central Park Five), the former president is doing everything he can to paint the U.S. as a criminal wasteland, where nobody is safe. Implicit in this, of course, is the notion that only Trump can fix it. And unanswered, of course, is why Trump didn't fix it in his first term if he's able to do so.
Every year the FBI does a massive data dump of crime statistics, and over the weekend, the Bureau released this year's update. The topline conclusion is that crime is way down, with both violent crimes and property crimes down by double digits.
To be more specific, here's how the Bureau has it by category:
- Murder: Down 26%
- Rape: Down 25.7%
- Robbery: Down 17.8%
- Aggravated assault reports: Down 12.5%
- Property crime: Down 15%
Not all law enforcement agencies report their data (roughly 15% opt out) and, of course, the FBI can't provide data on crimes that were not reported. Nonetheless, violent crime is at a 50-year low, while the drop in the murder rate is the biggest since the FBI began collecting statistics.
We doubt that Biden deserves direct credit for all of this. Maybe some indirect credit, if you believe that the American Recovery Act has reduced poverty/unemployment, since reducing those things tends to reduce crime. But surely the biggest explanation for the drop has to be the winding down of the pandemic. Not only were tensions and unemployment both high during those years, it is also the case that it's a lot easier to obscure one's identity and to get away with certain crimes if everyone is wearing a mask.
The important thing here is that there's no basis for an argument that Biden has unleashed an epidemic of crime on America, because it just isn't so. That is not going to stop Trump from making the claim, of course. And working in Trump's favor here is the unholy synergy between the media and confirmation bias. News outlets do not report on crimes that did not happen, nor on people/businesses who were not victimized. That's dog-bites-man territory. But when they write up violent crime X, or robbery Y, and someone who already believes crime is out of control reads about/sees that, then it seems to confirm what Trump is saying.
Consider, to take one example, a story that was all over the place yesterday, under the headline "Secret Service agent robbed at gunpoint after Biden fundraiser." Several hours after the fundraiser ended, the agent (whose name has been withheld) was in the city of Tustin, which is about 40 miles south of where the fundraiser took place. His bag was taken at gunpoint, he fired at least one shot at the perpetrator, and... that's about all that's known, since the thief has not yet been apprehended.
As chance would have it, (Z) grew up in Tustin and went to high school there. He knows well the spot where the robbery took place. And he can confirm that, as you should surely expect, this incident is an extreme outlier. (Z) was never robbed at gunpoint, nor did he know anyone who was robbed at gunpoint. And even if you wanted to go somewhere and flaunt your diamond rings in hopes of getting robbed (say, to collect the insurance), that would be a lousy place to do it. And yet, there is no question that hundreds of thousands or millions of people heard about this news—which, by the way, is of dubious newsworthiness—and said, "Yep, California is out of control. And crime is out of control." If you have any doubts, read the comments on Fox's version of the story.
In short, when it comes to crime, the facts are on Biden's side, but human cognitive biases definitely are not. This is going to be very tough for the campaign to counter. (Z)
Mudslinging, Part III: Who's the Dotard?
So, the Biden campaign is slamming Donald Trump for being a criminal, and the Trump campaign is slamming Biden for letting crime rage out of control. There is one thing that both campaigns can agree upon, however, and that is that the cheese has slipped off the other party's candidate's cracker.
In what sure looks like a classic case of "he doth protest too much, methinks," it is actually Trump who is most aggressive in pushing this particular narrative. Over the weekend, during an appearance in Detroit, the former president demanded that Biden take a cognitive test prior to their debate (and don't be terribly surprised if Trump uses that, or some other flimsy excuse, to back out). On top of that, the Trump campaign put out a video this weekend taken from Biden's high-dollar Hollywood fundraiser:
The video is on Rumble, which is not only full of racists, but is also not very well programmed. So, that embedded version may not work. If so, then the link above ("a video") will take you to the site so you can watch, if you wish. Alternatively, the title of the video tells the tale: "Biden Has To Be Coaxed and Led Off Stage By Obama At Mega Fundraiser."
But while the video is legitimate, it's taken aggressively out of context. To use Internet parlance, it's not a "deepfake," but it is a "cheapfake." If all you see is the last 40 or so seconds, accompanied by a very leading description, it does maybe look like Biden lost himself and had to be helped by Obama. It is also instructive that the three outlets that have given the misleading clip the most attention are Fox, The New York Post and Sky News Australia. Probably just a coincidence that all three outlets are, or were, owned by Rupert Murdoch, right?
If you see the full sequence, by contrast, it's clear that Biden was acknowledging the crowd for a couple of minutes while Obama receded into the background. Then Obama came back on stage, and he and Biden left together. We can't find an embeddable version of the full clip, but you can watch it on eX-Twitter here, or you can read a commentary about the two different versions of the video here.
Meanwhile, with the same exact breath that he used this weekend to demand that Biden take a cognitive test, Trump bragged about his own test results (recall that it was a very basic skills test, and nothing to brag about) and then suggested that the same doctor, "Doc Ronny Johnson" should be the one to administer a test to Biden. It's Ronny Jackson, of course, not Ronny Johnson. And it didn't take long for the Biden campaign to pounce, posting both the footage and a paraphrasing of Trump's remarks on on eX-Twitter and other social media platforms.
The irony of making a cognitive error while in the midst of attacking someone else for poor cognition is thick but, beyond that, we don't actually think this is a big deal. High-profile politicians have to remember lots of names, and are entitled to botch one every once in a while. Further, "Jackson" and "Johnson" are pretty similar, and there actually is a Ronny Johnson (well, a Ron Johnson) that Trump interacts with on a regular basis, namely the senior U.S. Senator from Wisconsin.
On the other hand, it may not get a fraction of the attention, but we do think the remarks that Variety co-editor-in-chief Ramin Setoodeh shared yesterday on Morning Joe ARE a big deal:
[T]he other thing that I think is really interesting, because I really got to know Donald Trump post-presidency, and I got to see what he was like. And over the weekend, he was talking about how Joe Biden needs to take a cognitive test. Joe Biden, you know, "isn't all there." Donald Trump had severe memory issues. As the journalist who spent the most time with him, I have to say, he couldn't remember things. He couldn't even remember me. We spent an hour together in 2021, in May, and then a few months later, I went back to the White House, I went back to Trump Tower to talk to him about his time in the White House. And I said, he had this vacant look on his face. And I said, Do you remember me?" And he said, "No." He had no recollection of our lengthy interview that we had, and he wasn't doing a lot of interviews at that time. So I think that the American public really needs to see this portrait of Donald Trump, because this shows what he is like and who he is and who he has always been.
Setoodeh has a new book, Apprentice in Wonderland: How Donald Trump and Mark Burnett Took America Through the Looking Glass, so he has some basis for the claims he makes. It's certainly possible that he is motivated to launch some slings and arrows in hopes of getting attention for the book, or that he's politically biased. But there are so many people who have spent time in close proximity to Trump, and have come away with tales like this one. At some point, there's gotta be some fire behind all that smoke, right? (Z)
Today's Trans News
Regardless of where you stand on trans equality, we've got one item for you today that's good news, and one item today that's bad news.
First up, as we noted in yesterday's posting, the Biden administration has engaged in some creative interpretation of Title IX, so as to apply it to trans students. Since trans people were barely on the radar in 1972, you cannot say that Congress intended the legislation to apply to them. On the other hand, you also cannot say that Congress DID NOT intend the legislation to apply to them. There are a bunch of lawsuits pushing back against the new interpretation, and as we noted yesterday, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty put the new rules on hold in Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho. Shortly after yesterday's post went live, U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves issued a ruling that added six more states to the list: Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia and West Virginia.
In case you are wondering, Doughty is a Donald Trump appointee and Reeves is a George W. Bush appointee. However, the legal issues here are tricky enough that you can't reflexively assume this is naked partisanship rearing its head. It certainly could be naked partisanship, but it could also be that times have changed, and it's time to figure out what a half-century-old law means in a modern context. The careful reader might also notice that this is implicitly an argument against originalism, since the members of Congress in 1972 barely knew about trans people, and the folks who wrote the Constitution knew even less. Put another way, if you can't make a compelling, evidence-based argument for what James Madison would have thought about trans people using bump-stock-enhanced guns to acquire mifepristone, then originalism is bullsh**.
The second story, meanwhile, involves Delaware state Sen. Sarah McBride (D), a trans woman who is running for Congress. Given how very blue the state is, the primaries are the de facto election for the next person to hold Delaware's only House seat, which is being vacated by Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D) as she tries for a promotion to the U.S. Senate seat that is being vacated by Sen. Tom Carper (D). McBride's only competition in the primary was Eugene Young (D), but this weekend, he dropped out of the race.
What that means is that, roughly 3 weeks before the filing deadline (July 9), there is only one Democrat running for that seat (i.e., McBride) and there are no Republicans. It is possible some other Democrat could jump in, and somehow make up for lost time. It is possible a Republican could jump in and somehow use transphobia to overcome Delaware's blueness (the state is D+7). It is possible that someone could mount a successful write-in campaign. But these are all longshots, and so the odds are very high that the House of Representatives is about to get its first openly trans member. It could become a certainly on Sept. 10, when Delawareans head to the polls. (Z)
Today's Presidential Polls
A couple of polls this cycle suggested Iowa might be in play. We didn't really believe it. Now than Ann Selzer has weighed in, we really don't believe it. (Z)
| State | Joe Biden | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| Iowa | 32% | 50% | Jun 09 | Jun 14 | Selzer |
Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers