33 Comments

PA poll out today showing +2 Trump/+8 Casey. My thought is that a lot of voters are mad at the administration over inflation and other issues caused by the pandemic. If that's the case, Kamala will be in the same or similar spot as Biden. Dems should have run someone from outside the administration.

Expand full comment

Senators up for re-election this year arguably are more to blame for inflation than Joe Biden is, given they were in office when the CARES act was passed in 2020. If we were talking about governor's races or other state level elections this would make sense. I can't think of many problems at the federal level that can be blamed on the Biden admin that can't also be partly blamed on Congress. Foreign policy is all that comes to mind

Expand full comment

I completely agree that Biden and his administration should not be blamed for inflation. The only significant enough legislation to mention would be the pandemic stimulus spending bills, which both Biden and Trump signed and needed to support. Depending on what economist you talk to, that led to 1-3% of the inflation increase. Most of the other causes were also pandemic related and outside of the control of the President or Congress. Not every voter is a poli sci or econ major, and a lot of voters will blame whoever is in office for whatever negative event is going on.

I really dislike, in general, how the media frames the economy as the president's economy. Sure, presidents appoint members to the Federal Reserve, but, outside of that, they really don't have much control over the economy/money supply. Even Congressional spending bills are dealing with money already in the economy.

Expand full comment

Mmm, agree the economy isn't the President's (any President) in a current snapshot (good or bad). However, Treasury is an executive branch function and deficit spending is based their auctions. It is Treasury's responsibility to represent financial sanity. I am comfortable assigning administrative responsibility for: fiscal policy fighting monetary policy (apolitical until we remember the FOMC is made up of appointed humans as you say), the Stiglitz supply chain farse, increased G as a % of GDP and the ensuing demand (can't believe I actually agree with Summers), the greatest legislative gaslighting in history, i.e. "Inflation Reduction Act," and general price manipulation of the underlying basket of goods to game the metric. Not suggesting any president is better at this than any other, frankly I think they all suck. Nevertheless, shit rolls uphill and it is their job to do it better.

Expand full comment

"The buck stops here" argument is the best counter I've heard to my thought that presidents shouldn't be blamed for the economy. The head of the secret service was very unlikely the direct person responsible for not properly securing the former president, but she had to go.

Expand full comment

*I* think the spending that drove a lot of the inflation (of course, people argue about how much) was an inherent feature of the current Democratic coalition. But most lightly-engaged people are probably just going to blame the Biden Administration and I'm not sure how much of that frustration rubs off on Kamala.

Expand full comment

Since the big issues are apparently the economy and illegal immigration what's the point of getting someone from inside the current administration?

Expand full comment

The disconnect between polls for President and Senate in swing states has an obvious interpretation which the NYT has not been pushing: Maybe this is a sign that political polarization in the United States has, after a brutal rise, finally gone into decline? Certainly when split-ticket voting became more rare, it was widely touted as evidence of increasing polarization. Anyone who agreed with that characterization (such as me) ought to consider whether 2024 polling is an early indicator that we have passed peak polarization. Woohoo! But maybe this lens is too optimistic to make for good journalism. :-p

Expand full comment

Literally laughed out loud with the footnote about the NYT paywall!

Expand full comment

Either hit ESC repeatedly as soon as the page loads, or immediately click Reader mode.

Expand full comment

OK I know substacks aren't where the big bucks are made, but you could pay for a NYTimes subscription.... it isn't *that* much.

Expand full comment

Do House races show the same divergence?

Expand full comment

The other missing factor is Presidential-only voters (3-5% in many states).

Expand full comment

Biden's resignation validated the narrative from Republicans that the media and White House insiders were engaged in a cover up regarding his mental decline. They can now present the events of the last few days as proof that the Democrats and their media backers are liars.

If Biden didn't present a significant threat to Democrats running Congressional races, and if Harris is unlikely to prevail, then Democratic leadership like Pelosi and Schumer are guilty of a horrible miscalculation.

Expand full comment

Nonsense. Why would have biden's people have put him in a debate like that all the while knowing that his performance would be horrible. Does not make any sense

Expand full comment

A hypothesis to your question can be found right here on this very site: https://www.natesilver.net/p/what-bidens-debate-gambit-reveals

Expand full comment

I would love to have more reporting on who specifically proposed this June debate. Objectively it was a death-penalty level event for the campaign, as Nate mentioned if this same debate would have happened in September or early October, there would have been no recourse for Dems.

What I mean was, was this Biden's idea? Jill Biden's? Jen O'Malley Dillon? Was there backchannel communication where other party members demanded that Biden do something, this early in the campaign, to prove he was up to it? I still understand specifically who besides the "Biden Campaign" wanted this debate on June 27.

Expand full comment

The last meeting Biden had with House Democrats was in October of 2021 because he became confused while trying to flog the infrastructure bill. George Clooney claimed Biden was a zombie during his fund raiser. Now that the damn has broken the reports are coming out.

Expand full comment

This is why I wondered about the logic that many congressional Dems used to force Biden out. They were saying it was going to be a bloodbath down ballot if Biden stayed on the ticket. But if it was clear throughout that those candidates were running ahead of Biden, it’s hard to justify that argument.

Expand full comment

I am going to start a petition for Nate to pay for Eli's NYT subscription so he doesn't have to get bogged down by the paywall for future posts.

Expand full comment

I petition the JD who kept the model IP attached to Nate for better work on the Content Agreement, potentially with a legal entity that includes Eli and future Silver Bulletin tribe. No way anyone whould be paying them for shiz.

Expand full comment

Is Nate too cheap to pay for a Times subscription?

Expand full comment

It was found to be negative EV.

Expand full comment

Would really be interested to see Presidential polling vs gubernatorial in North Carolina. Outgoing Dem governor won his two elections in years that Trump won the state.

Dem running to replace him is milquetoast AG vs toxic MAGA Lt Governor. Very interested to know how close Harris has to keep it for the Dem to win.

Expand full comment

The flip side of this is: can Trump’s bigger turnout help Republican candidates close the gap, eg Lake.

Expand full comment

This is what they did to Biden. Yes, it's melodramatic. Still, it made me sad.

x.com/yuribezmenov22/status/1816102992396816687

Expand full comment

LOL

Expand full comment

This is encouraging assuming the following:

1. Trumps support doesn't change. ~46%

2. Senate polls are more indicative of dem/rep baseline

3. Biden was polling below dem/rep baseline

4. Reduction of split ticket % to more historically viable levels means Harris does considerably better than biden was.

Expand full comment

One interesting question is having the primary season much later better for the Democratic Party and not end the process by the first Super Tuesday ballot in March. Seems as if the Republicans were somehow caught off guard after two years of saying he could not serve that Biden declined to run. The Vance pick with his extreme positions and the enthusiasm for Biden has jolted the election like no other event in event history Sind Chicago 1968. Next would be June 1968.

Expand full comment

Very interesting analysis and one that comes from digital content not entertainment/news.

Expand full comment