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.
AirBlair-
Depends on whether those independents are representative of independents as a whole. If you’re only getting 20% or so of people responding, it’s quite plausible that those independents inclined to support Bush are oversampled.
The party ID information wasn’t there. I used their information on how people who gave a party preference voted and solved backward based on the overall precentages.
In other words, I used Algebra.
If you want details to check whether I’m mistaken I’d be happy to provide them.
Mark
What I don’t like about this poll is that independents are skewing for Bush, 47-42%. This ain’t good and it ain’t related to party ID.
Mark, how did you find that party ID break-down in the Washington Post/ABC News poll? I can’t find it anywhere on the Post’s “Poll Vault” Web site.
What I can find is the last poll WP/ABC News did in Wisconsin, and it had an oversample of Republicans in it of 6 points.
Washington Post polls have always been favorable to Bush, though, and have always had him near or above 50% even at his lowest. Even at Kerry’s high, he was never more than a few points up. Either the Post is completely accurate and other polls with distinguished track records, like Harris, are wrong, or there’s something about it’s methodology that skews Bush.
to mark- where did you get the party ID info from?
Well, it now seems obvious that Gallup isn;t the only one weighing their polls. The Post poll also had more R identifiers than the national average.
And just to drive the paranoia home, their headline mentioned a “solid lead,” despite the fact that the lead was only 6-7 points.
It appears as though the Party ID here was roughly 37 % R 40% D and 23% Ind. No good news here.
Mark
I couldn’t find a breakdown by party ID for this poll. Does anyone have that?
Let’s toss out the silly Gallup poll— I’m convinced it’s another stinker. This poll is the one that disturbs me. The WaPo ABC one has more Ds than Rs in it, but it has Kerry trailing by 6 (LVs) or 7 (RVs) anyway– he trails in every age group, and trails by three among women, though interestingly he’s winning college graduates. (Perhaps their high school grads skew white, and their college grads skew towards those with postgrad degrees?) It also has Bush over 50, an even worse sign than a 6-7 point lead by itself– and it’s not like our guy lacks name ID.
On the other hand Gore came back from pretty much this situation with this amount of clock left– and Kerry has more money, and a better media team than Gore (though he seemed not to have any until after the RNC).
Ruy:
Do we know what the internals are for the WaPo poll? Does this poll suffer from Gallup’s problems?
I guess it’s pretty clear Bush has the edge going into the debates. Bummer.