Previous | Next | Senate page
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA ME MI NV PA WI
Biden Tries to Thread the Needle on Campus Protests...
Joe Biden is a centrist at heart. He defeated multiple progressive candidates in the 2020 Democratic primaries and thinks he has a good feeling for what the average voter—at least, the average Democrat—wants. He is also surely aware of what happened in 1968. On the other hand, if young voters stay home en masse on Nov. 5, he's in deep doodoo. So he is trying to stay out of the campus wars as much as he can.
But he knows he can't continue to pretend nothing is going on indefinitely. So now he has taken a position designed to aggravate as few people as possible. He is saying that of course students have the right to protest anything they want to but that violence is not protected and will be dealt with by campus and local authorities. He might have struck the right tone. Even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) seems to agree with him. Sanders said: "He's exactly right that we don't want protests that are violent, and we absolutely will not tolerate antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, or any form of bigotry."
A new poll from YouGov speaks to the political challenge that Biden faces. It says that among Democrats, 46% support the pro-Palestinian protesters, 31% oppose them, and 23% don't know what to think. Among independents, 24% support, 44% oppose, and 32% don't know what to think. A person who needs both Democratic and independent votes cannot strongly support or oppose the protests, as either position will alienate roughly 40% of the voters that person is trying to court. Hence Biden's tentative support for the protesting, but strong opposition to extreme/violent activity.
Donald Trump is trying to cast Biden as part of the woke mob and, in fact, accused the President this weekend of running a "gestapo" administration. If Biden can project an image of reasonableness, that could work with many voters, also with the majority of students, most of whom are not involved with protests and just want to get on with their classes. Also, Trump calling for violence on campus may remind voters of Jan. 6, 2021, which probably does not work for him. Similarly, Trump might want to pause for a moment and think about if he really wants to invite voters to ponder parallels between the current presidential candidates and Nazi Germany.
All of this said, the best solution for Biden would be for the violence in the Middle East to come to an end. But, well, read on. (V & Z)
...But Netanyahu, War Cabinet Not Being Helpful
Joe Biden is a religious man and frequently goes to church. He hasn't posted his prayers on the White House website, but we suspect he is asking God for a small favor: Smite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is not only prolonging the war in Gaza for political reasons, but is also an obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Biden and Saudi Arabia's de facto leader Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) are very close to a deal to work together on security in the Middle East to counter Iran. All that is needed is for Israel to end the war in Gaza, stop the settlers in the West Bank, and accept a two-state solution. But Netanyahu is in the way.
There have been several news stories in the past few days that do not give one hope for peace, and that do not speak well for the Israeli government. In chronological order, the first involves Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, whose extremist rhetoric would put John Bolton or Stephen Miller to shame. For example, last week, he decreed "There are no half measures. Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat—total annihilation. You will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven—there's no place under heaven." The latter portion of that is a reference to the Book of Deuteronomy, and a battle in which the Amalek, who are described as enemies of Israel, were wiped out entirely. Needless to say, for those of us who have argued that Israel is not committing genocide, such verbiage does not help the case.
Next up, again in chronological order, is the news that the War Cabinet has granted Netanyahu and Israeli Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi authority to shut down any foreign news outlet they see fit, and they have promptly used that power to shut down the Israeli bureau of Al Jazeera and to seize all of that outlet's equipment. The explanation given is that Al Jazeera is a "mouthpiece for Hamas."
There is little question that Al Jazeera has been critical of the Israeli government, but the outlet is known for being primarily investigative and analytical, and tends to be critical of... everyone, including Hamas (see here and here for a couple of examples). And Al Jazeera has a stellar reputation internationally, on par with just about any news organization in the world. So, shutting them down, even if justifiable—and we have not seen the evidence that it was, and that the outlet crossed the line—has a decidedly Putin-esque odor to it.
And finally, the third and biggest story is that ceasefire talks have broken down again, and Israel is now preparing to launch its planned offensive against Rafah. The basic deal was reportedly that Hamas would return the hostages it has taken in exchange for an end to combat operations, and that framework was rejected by the Israeli War Cabinet.
As we have noted many times, this subject—which has become shockingly relevant to American politics—is way outside our area of expertise. That said, the great majority of American voters are no more expert or informed than we are. And we cannot avoid the conclusion that the War Cabinet is just not interested in ending this war. We think it likely that the majority of Americans will reach that conclusion soon, if they haven't already. That's also the view of Haaretz, which is certainly staunchly anti-Netanyahu, but is also way better informed than we are. In a piece published this weekend, reporter Yossi Verter writes:
"Hysteria for political reasons," Minister Benny Gantz termed the statement issued over the weekend by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (also known as "the diplomatic official"), in which he reiterated that with or without a temporary pause in the fighting for the release of our hostages, "We will enter Rafah and eliminate the remaining Hamas battalions."
Later, before the end of Shabbat, Netanyahu sent another announcement, in which he denied reports saying Israel had agreed to a cease-fire as part of a deal.
Gantz hit the nail on the head this time. Netanyahu is fleeing from a hostage deal. The closer it gets, the faster he runs to avoid it. At least twice in recent months he has sabotaged the sensitive moves toward a deal, whether through public statements or covert messages, or by curbing the mandate of the negotiating team. It was no different this time.
This was not the only article of this sort that Haaretz published this weekend.
Thomas Friedman of The New York Times has astutely noted that MBS and Netanyahu have traded places. MBS has put all his extremists in prison. Netanyahu has put his extremists in his cabinet. MBS' priority is not war or eliminating Israel. He wants to build up the Saudi economy so the country will do well even when oil is no longer important in the world. Friedman has earlier said that peace will not come to the Middle East until there is regime change in three countries: Israel, Iran, and Palestine. The leaders of the former two have no interest in peace and the leader of the Palestinian Authority, the 88-year-old Mahmoud Abbas, is more corrupt than Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) plus Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) to the fifth power.
The day may soon come that Biden decides that it is either the politic thing, or the right thing, to pull back from the current Israeli government. What happens if he announces, for example, that "I continue to be a firm friend to the people of Israel, but I cannot aid and abet a government that will not seriously consider peace." Then what? For what it is worth, the news also broke this weekend that the White House put a hold on an arms shipment bound for Israel last week. Nobody knows why yet, but that's the first time that has happened since hostilities broke out on October 7 of last year. (V & Z)
Biden's Best Bet Is in the Blue Wall States
Fundamentally, Joe Biden can go one of two routes: the northern route or the southern route. The northern route consists of trying to hang onto the so-called "blue-wall states" of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The southern route consists of Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. It's all about the math. He has a lot of money, so he can advertise everywhere, but he has only so much time for campaigning, and he has to decide where to spend most of his campaign time.
Here is the final 2020 map:
In 2020, Biden got 306 electoral votes to Donald Trump's 232. However, reapportionment has cost him one EV in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York each, bringing his total to 303 if he wins the same states as last time. Now suppose Biden goes the northern route and loses Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. This gets him to exactly 270, which is the bare minimum. If Nebraska goes to winner-take-all, that would cost him a crucial electoral vote and result in a 269-269 tie, and thus force a contingent election in the House. But it seems unlikely Nebraska will pull the trigger because then Maine will do the same thing and cancel Nebraska out, so let's assume Nebraska doesn't change the law. Consequently, just holding the three northern states will do the job for Biden. But barely.
These three states are probably easier than the southern states. In each of the northern states, Biden trails Trump by 1-2 points. That is somewhat less than in the southern states, although that changes day by day. But the demographics favor the blue-wall states. They are heavily populated by older and whiter voters, many of whom are union members. Biden is doing well with these voters, and they are largely on his side on Middle East policy. The southern states are younger and browner, and Biden is losing support with those groups.
Now consider what happens if he loses the three blue-wall states but holds Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia (without picking up North Carolina). We start with 303, then subtract 10 (Wisconsin), 15 (Michigan), and 19 (Pennsylvania). This gives Biden 259. That's clearly much worse.
Basically, the blue-wall states have more EVs and are also demographically more friendly. Georgia will be especially tough with no Senate race this time. However, Arizona will have a bitterly contested Senate race and that may help Biden. If he loses Wisconsin but holds Arizona, together with Michigan and Pennsylvania, he still wins. In any event, Biden campaigning in the blue-wall states seems like a better bet and Biden is probably going to do that. (V)
New Poll Hints at (Potentially) Important Dynamic in Presidential Race
The newest poll from ABC News/Ipsos came out this weekend, and it has some very interesting numbers. Among all adults nationwide, Donald Trump leads Joe Biden 46% to 44%. Among registered voters, Biden leads 46% to 45%. And among likely voters, Biden leads 49% to 45%.
ABC describes the variance between the "all adults" result and the "likely voters" result as "not a significant difference." We wouldn't quite put it that way. It is true that a 1- or 2- or even 4-point gap is within the margin of error for most polls. However, when the conditions being compared involve the same set of respondents, then there's a pretty good chance that the numbers are capturing something real.
If Biden is doing significantly better among people who definitely plan to vote, there are at least two possibilities that suggest themselves. The first is that because of realignments in the electorate, the most reliable voters (seniors, middle-class suburbanites, educated people) now skew Democratic, while some of the less reliable voters (non-union, non-college whites) now skew Republican. The second is that, due to abortion, Biden supporters are more committed to getting to the polls this year than Trump supporters.
We do not propose that either of these theses is true, as there just isn't enough hard evidence yet. What it really is, more than anything, is a reminder that until voters' intentions become clearer, this race is simply too close to meaningfully predict. That applies to people who say right now that they are undecided/third-party, but it also applies to people who are loyal partisans but may or may not vote.
Incidentally, we sometimes get e-mails about why we're tracking the polls if we don't have much confidence in them right now. One answer to that is that it's better than putting nothing at the top of the page. But the other answer is that while the polls might not be terribly predictive at this point, they do give some sense as to what might move the needle. When Joe Biden gave a solid SOTU, or if he makes a major policy announcement on Israel, or Donald Trump is convicted of a crime, or chooses his running mate, we can get a sense of how those things are affecting the race. (Z)
Biden Is Trying to Attract Latino Men on Abortion
While abortion is sometimes seen as a "women's issue," it is also important to many young men, especially if they have recently gotten a woman pregnant, or if they might do so in the future. Also, some men have daughters for whom an abortion might be needed in the future. Joe Biden understands this, and also understands that he is bleeding support among Latino men. So he is now trying to shore up support with Latino men by advertising in English and Spanish about abortion. The ad will run in the battleground states especially on Spanish-language media. Here it is:
The ad features a Latino named Cesar Carreon, a Marine Corps veteran who is a carpenter working in Las Vegas. In it, he says: "I'm a Marine. I know what tough is. And a guy like Donald Trump—that attacks women and brags about it—that's not tough. I'm with Joe Biden because he'll give my daughters their freedom back." We shall see if the ad lands as expected, though it is worth remembering that Biden's campaign manager is a Latina, and so probably has a pretty good sense of how to connect with the Latino/a community. (V)
How Extreme Can Texans Get on Abortion?
Now that Roe is no longer the law of the land, folks in Texas seem to be in competition with each other to see who can come up with the harshest, most unpopular anti-abortion maneuvers. There were two stories of this sort this weekend.
To start, Amarillo is currently wrestling with an ordinance that several other, smaller Texas cities have already adopted. What it would do, if passed, is criminalize the use of local roads for travel in order to get an abortion. The people behind these measures say they wouldn't prosecute the person actually having an abortion, just those who assist. Maybe that's true, maybe not, but even with that interpretation it would mean that if, say, a person picked up their girlfriend in Lubbock, and then passed through Amarillo on the way to Colorado for an abortion, they could be prosecuted in Amarillo for having used that city's roadways. Since two major highways (I-27 and I-40) pass through Amarillo, then many people seeking out-of-state reproductive care will be using "Amarillo roadways."
Meanwhile, a Texas man named Collin Davis is taking steps to explore a brave new world in anti-abortion litigation. Davis and his former romantic partner split at some point in between her becoming pregnant, and her procuring an abortion in Colorado. He is now threatening to use the legal system to bring heaven and earth down upon his ex-partner and upon anyone who aided her in her quest for reproductive healthcare. And Davis, who is very probably being backed by one or more national anti-choice organizations, is talking about pursuing both civil and criminal litigation. In other words, he wants to have people thrown in prison while also taking a chunk of their money.
As a purely tactical matter, these maneuvers are exceedingly unwise. There are some important elections coming up in Texas, including some House races that will be close, and a U.S. Senate race that could be close. On top of that, there is a close presidential race, and there are lots of close congressional races nationwide. It is true that Joe Biden is very unlikely to win Texas, and it is also the case that Amarillo is not Peoria. But the most extreme and outlandish anti-abortion maneuvers are going to be fodder for every Democrat in the land running on abortion (which is going to be most of them). Amarillo, Davis, and Davis' likely backers are just providing ammunition for the blue team. The smart move would be to wait until December of this year, 2 years removed from the next election cycle, and 4 years removed from the next presidential cycle. But apparently the crackdown must happen NOW. (Z)
Elon Musk Is Going Whole-Hog Bigot
Elon Musk just loves owning the libs, so he has now reinstated the eX-Twitter account of Nick Fuentes, an openly-white-supremacist Holocaust denier. With all the turmoil on campuses now, having a proud antisemite out there pouring gasoline on the fire every day is sure to get him plenty of attention. Musk said that since Fuentes hasn't been convicted of any crimes, it would be unfair to ban him, but he did note that putting Fuentes back on the site is likely to cause even more advertisers to pack their bags and leave, causing the site to lose even more money than it is already losing. Musk already has so many billions, however, that losing a few more doesn't faze him at all.
If Fuentes starts posting some really racist sh**, which wouldn't surprise anyone, he will get quite a bit of what electrical engineers called "negative feedback" from other users. On the whole, his reappearance could even backfire in a way, because the conflict on campuses is now framed as pro-Palestinian students vs. pro-Israeli students. If the frame changes to outright bigots and white supremacists vs. pro-Israeli students, that doesn't actually help the Palestinian cause much. (V)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers