Waiting for Joe Biden’s speech to a joint session of Congress to begin this week, I observed at New York that Republicans were struggling to define him consistently, which felt like a familiar problem for them:
When Bill Clinton was at the pre-Lewinsky peak of his powers, he drove Republicans nuts. They alternated between accusing him of “stealing our issues” with his triangulating pitches on welfare reform and crime and the size of government, and of being “liberal, liberal, liberal!” — a sort of boomer love child of George McGovern and Janis Joplin in a deceptive deep-fried southern packaging. Eventually the opportunity to depict him as a lying sexual predator solved the conservative dilemma, though you could argue he never stopped throwing them off-balance.
Republicans are similarly having problems getting a clear focus on Joe Biden, as the Los Angeles Times’ Noah Bierman observes:
“Alex Conant, a Republican consultant who has advised Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, [says] that his party’s two main messages about Biden are at odds with each other, blunting their impact. ‘The thing you hear Republicans say most is that he’s too old for the job, which isn’t consistent with saying he’s doing too much,’ Conant said. ‘You can’t effectively argue that he’s incompetent and that he’s too effective.'”
This dual framing of Biden was evident during the 2020 campaign, when Trump called him “Sleepy Joe” and with his usual lack of subtlety suggested his opponent was senile, even as he assailed Biden’s party of radical socialist aims. The 45th president and his surrogates squared the circle by treating Biden as the half-there puppet of the real powers, particularly the “communist” Kamala Harris.
But now, 100 days into the Biden-Harris administration, even though the new president has kept an unusually low profile, there are no signs of Harris or anyone else manipulating him. Indeed, so far his White House has been remarkably free of the factionalism that often undermines clear presidential leadership. With Clinton as president you had a White House staff famously divided (ironically, given the later reputations of the First Lady and the veep) into progressive “Rodhams” and centrist “Gores” who jockeyed for position and placed their varying stamps on administration policies. George W. Bush’s presidency was also marked by competing power centers (e.g., his terrifying vice-president and the “Boy Genius” Karl Rove); to a lesser extent, so was Obama’s. As for Donald Trump, hardly a week passed without someone — particularly his rotating cast of chiefs-of-staff — being described by “insiders” as the real power behind the throne or perhaps as the wild man’s lion-tamer.
Trump, of course, created some of the same problems for Democrats that Clinton — and now Biden — posed for Republicans. Was he the “toddler president” who ran a hollowed-out administration with no real core of convictions or goals? Or was he a putative Il Duce craftily planning an authoritarian takeover of the country? Up until the day he left office there was evidence for both descriptions. Indeed, the coda of his presidency, the January 6 Capitol riot, was variously regarded as a fascist coup attempt and a clown show.
Trump’s successor will have an opportunity in his first address to a joint session of Congress to add to the impression that he is quietly but firmly in charge of the executive branch, and has imposed order on his fractious party as he unveils yet another massive proposal. Kamala Harris will be sitting (and often standing and applauding) behind him, likely looking more like an adoring protégée than any sort of puppet-master. But if he stumbles at all, or looks tired, or says things that supposedly centrist Democrats like him don’t believe, the knees of many elephants will jerk and out will come the mockery of the old man who is a reassuring front for the Marxists actually running the country.
Such confusion if it continues will be of great service to Biden, much like the current Republican tendency to focus on irrelevant culture-war themes while a mostly united Democratic Party enacts legislative initiatives of a magnitude we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan’s first year in office. For all their political gifts, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — who, lest we forget, both had a much more firmly Democratic Senate and House the first two years of their presidencies — couldn’t come close to the mastery of Congress Biden has exhibited up until now. As Republicans watch Biden’s speech, they should soberly realize that before long it may not matter that much if they bust up the Democratic trifecta in 2022. The damage to GOP policies and priorities wrought by “Uncle Joe” and his “senile socialist regime” could be too large to reverse by then. While Republicans fret about Trump and rage about “cancel culture,” Biden is eating their lunch.
I AM REASSURRED THAT THE ZI POL REFLECTS WHAT I SEE IS THE CLEAREST PICTURE ON THE ELECTION. WITH SOME POLLS GIVING KERRY CALIF WITH ONLY A 50-42% ADVANTAGE I SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE THEM. WHAT I DO SEE HAPPENING IS THE PUBLIC RESPONDING TO EITHER KERRY AND HIS PERHAPS DULL , BUT FORTHWITH SPEECHS THAT DEAL WITH THE ECONOMY AND IRAQ WHICH ARE INTERTWINED, OR THE WAY BUSH HAS DEALT WITH THE ADVERSITY IN IRAQ AND HIS RELUCTANCE TO ADMIT SOME A MOUNT OF FAILURE IN PROCESS. IN MY VIEW THIS IS BRINGING KERRY AND BUSH CLOSER TOGETHER CLOSER TO ELECTION DAY AND THE DEBATES WIL GO A LONG WAY IN DETERMINING THE WINNER.
I never believed bush had that 11 point bounce. They lied about WMD, social security, medicare, taxes, the economy, iraq, and everything else. Why should we believe rethug polls like gallup? “figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”
This may be off topic, but Survey USA strikes (out) again. Speaking as a resident of Maryland, I can say with some conviction that there is no way Bush is even with Kerry here. Other surveys taken just recently (during some of Kerry’s worst campaign coverage) showed Kerry up by 9-10 points. The GOP governor of MD said that Bush would be wasting his time and money campaigning here.
Of course, it’s always possible that SUSA is right and everyone else (myself included) wrong. But this is the same survey that showed Kerry up by only 4 points in Illinois last week and was promptly contradicted by other surveys that showed Kerry with a double digit lead. And that produced a California poll with more Republicans than Democrats that was not shared by other surveys.
Looking at SUSA closely, I find that they have a Democratic edge of only 44-35 among Maryland likely voters (about the same among RV’s) when party registration here is more like 57-30 Democratic (approximately). And Bush is said to be (barely) ahead among suburban voters–apparently they forgot to poll Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. And they have twice as many conservatives as liberals–accurate in many states, but not here.
SUSA is starting to resemble Gallup in its sampling. And I’m not sure about Zogby, either.
I remain highly skeptical of ZI polls, but maybe more wired states may provide more accurate interactive polls. States like WV however, which are less wired, may not work out as well. I mean c’mon, Bush with a double digit lead in WV? When they are handing out ice cream and Bibles in hell, maybe.
What has Zogby’s track record been in terms of accuracy in presidential polling? This latest batch of state news looks like great news for us…but it’s also a little out of line with some other polling data.