The sense I get from the Biden administration is a bubble.
1. The pandemic. There was plenty of evidence, very early on, that mutating strains were reinfecting large numbers of people. I remember reading the news and being boggled that everybody was talking like the vaccines meant that the pandemic was done. Either the Biden admin wasn't paying attention or they just buried their heads in the sand.
2. Inflation. Economists like Larry Summers and Mohamed el-Erian warned the Biden team not to pass the third stimulus package because of the risks of reigniting inflation. Then when inflation rose the official line from the administration was that inflation was "transitory". Both the Fed and the WH were so slow to react that by the time they did anything inflation was baked into the economy, a condition that still persists to the present day.
3. Illegal immigration. Anybody with half a brain could have predicted that there would be issues with allowing millions of people into the country unvetted. Surely there would be some criminal element? What about the impact on local resources and communities?
4. Ukraine. The Biden admin was convinced Ukraine would be toast within a few weeks. The country's survival caught the administration by surprise. Consequently there was no plan for supplying military aid to the Ukrainians: what level would be unacceptable to the Russians? Thus the slow leak of wartime materiel--no long range missiles or artillery because it could allow Ukraine to strike targets inside of Russia, followed by a decision to provide long range missiles. Then no tanks would be provided, followed by a reversal and a decision to send M1's. Then no fighter jets, followed by a reversal and a decision to provide F-16's. Then ATACMS...
Even worse is there exit strategy at all in Ukraine? When would the US be able to declare victory? I doubt that anyone in the WH or State Department has any idea and so there has been zero effort to communicate anything to the public. Is it surprising that the public decided that aid to Ukraine represented a "forever war" with possible existential consequences and turned to Trump for a solution?
Over and over again we see the Biden admin unable to ever get out in front of an issue. They were blindsided over and over again even when what was coming down the pipe was obvious to anybody with an iota of common sense. The Biden campaign sold the country on a message that it represented a return to competence. When it became apparent that the opposite was the case that marked the start of Trump's return to power.
2. Inflation: Didja see the WSJ this morning saying food inflation is heating up again now? My favorite kind -----
3.Illegal immigration: it does seem a tad careless of the Biden administration ----
4. Ukraine: I've studied wars for many years now and I can tell you, EVERYBODY thinks their war will be over in a few weeks. The Kaiser: "We'll be back before the leaves fall! (August 4, 1914). His officers wondering if they should pack dress uniforms for luncheons in Paris. In WWII, the answer was yes; in WWI, not so much. My personal rule of thumb is that every war is supposed to be over in a few weeks, but usually it takes four years or so.
2. I keep saying that inflation isn't "fixed" until the Fed can reduce interest rates to 2% or less. All of those idiots talking about a "soft landing" are waaaaay too premature.
If inflation takes off again Jerome Powell should lose his job. If he had jacked up rates high enough the country would have entered into a short, sharp recession and that would probably have been it for inflation. Now if he has to raise interest rates after cutting that's tantamount to a confession of incompetence.
The Dems handed trump a pretty good situation vis a vis the economy, all he has to do is not screw it up. But how does his half baked obsession with tariffs and mass deportation translate into anything but higher prices and massive defection from Latino voters? I'm not betting on that not happening....
Inflation feed through takes time, that's what the 1970s taught (across both R and D administrations) - although evidently Biden Administration contributed on its own.
Trump own actions clearly contributed to an inflationary foundation. Then Biden added. So both are inflation bunglers in the end.
I agree with most of this, except I’m not sure we should ever return to 2% or lower interest rates. Those rates stimulate crazy growth but are also like a sugar high for the economy and have created more problems than they have solved imo
Well, you have to admit Powell had a little pressure on him to lower those rates! Okay, it seems he was over-optimistic. More inflation, though the Journal does say a lot of the foods problem is with the foods: disease in a number of cases, crop problems.
It should be understood that it is journalist laziness to reference Powell deciding rates. The Fed Cmte decides and they're own independent power centers.
Fed CMtee getting too optimistic under pressure, yes probably - everyone hoping, but the 70s risk of re-escalation (the popular mental collapsing of 70s into one continuous stagflation is inaccurate, re-accelerations after too-early-victory... better or worse after decades of 70s not being super relevant to Central Bank policy, it's relevant again)
Monetary policy is a blunt tool. The idea that the Fed could cause a "short, sharp recession" and then just turn things around is foolhardy because it takes months after monetary policy actions to fully understand how they have affected the economy. The effects of recessions also trigger feedback loops that just lowering the Fed Funds Rate back to 0% would not be able to stop. Additionally, this 2% target for inflation has no basis in economic science but was instead and arbitrary figure "plucked out of the air to influence the public’s expectations". The costs of changing the figure to a better-supported (higher) target % would make the public lose trust in the Fed and lead to economic instability.
I think it's pretty clear that the Fed leveled off way too soon. Now there are increasing concerns that inflation could experience a resurgence. El-Erian said that the Fed faced a binary choice--cut enough to start a recession and deal with inflation or avoid a recession with lower rates but bake inflation in.
The future is always uncertain but the risk associated with resurgent inflation is of a different magnitude compared to putting the economy into recession.
Ah to have that self-assured hubris of certainty. I do recall your vociferous argument from a few months back that we were in fact already in a recession. You seemed so certain, yet now you are implying that no such recession occurred, but that it should have to avoid a resurgence in inflation. Forgive me if I feel a bit of whiplash. I have learned that wisdom is being aware of not being, in fact, certain about something. By taking this to heart, I have avoided many occasions where I would have otherwise looked extremely foolish.
My point was that the economy was either in recession or on the precipice. Unfortunately on election night as the results came in and it became increasingly apparent that Trump would win the markets responded with increasing enthusiasm. As one CEO put it bankers were dancing in the streets. That shot of economic confidence has delayed the day of economic reckoning with the potential outcome that a downturn will be much more severe than it needed to be if it had not been postponed.
Data indicate that is unlikely the crime spike really has anything much to do with illegal immigration. Illegal immigration inaction was politically stupid all on its own - as the Progressives found out with Latino reaction, mistaking as like on youth the views of the College educated elite for that of wider population (without taking a view on right or wrong on views as such - self-deception is a path to losing in war and politics).
Inflation wrong-footed is more understandable as this is seen globally (and the Progressive Lefty Left current excuse making about it is not entirely unfounded, although it remains excuse making - Pandemic disruption did lay a base for inflation no matter what. That of course does not mean that the late-in-the-game insistance on pouring more gasoliine on the fire was a good idea, it wasn't of course.
UKraine is of course fighting its own war against a Russian agression. Really it's up to Ukraine to declare when it wants to stop, hardly terribly problematic for US to give arms - really neither here nor there for Biden's political problems.
Crime, like all significant real world issues, is multivariate. Adding 11 million people to the country is going to have some effect on crime. Even if you buy the (dubious) argument that illegals commit crime at a lower level than the native born millions of new residents is inevitably going to produce a significant uptick in crime in terms of absolute numbers of incidents.
Zelensky/Ukraine publicly announced that the war would be over when Crimea was reclaimed. Russia considers control there to be an existential issue. There is no way that Putin (or anybody else) would ever surrender that region and open ended US support until that is achieved means continued conflict with ongoing military aid for decades.
The so-called "dubious" argument is supported by ***all*** of the data and studies out there. I thought I was going to post a couple studies for you until I realized that EVERY SINGLE ONE supported that undocumented immigrants commit crime at a lower level than the native born. I could not find a single source to dispute or even to throw doubt on this evidence. This has to do with the fact that most undocumented immigrants have chosen to take the risk of deportation for a chance to make their lives better and are thus hyper-aware of their status and avoid committing crimes because they would increase the risk of being deported. Simply because you do not like and choose to call the evidence "dubious" does not change the fact that it exists and that there is mountains of it.
Also, it is trivial to find studies that show HIGHER rates of lawbreaking on the part of illegals than the native born. You seriously couldn't find any? Your google-fu is lacking.
If we cannot agree on the fact that the vast majority of the studies about this matter conclude that there is no positive relationship (direction of correlation) between immigration and crime in the US, then we cannot have an academic conversation about this, as that is a bad faith representation. While I ought not to do your work for you, here is a metastudy that reviewed many different studies on this matter and determined that most (62%) studies concluded either no association or a statistically insignificant association between immigration and crime, while the **vast majority** of the remaining 38% of the studies that are statistically significant demonstrated a negative association between immigration and crime (more immigration + lower crime rates). Sure, there are partisan agendas for some studies included in this meta-analysis, but studies both right- and left-biased are captured in the survey. If there was a positive relationship between immigration and crime, then it would be simple for a non-partisan or even a right-partisan organization to complete it and publish the results. It is simple deduction to conclude that if that were the case, then it would be done, as that would add significant weight to their side of the argument, don't you think? https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092026
In addition have your internet search skills improved to the point where you can now use a search engine to find the numerous examples of studies that claim that illegals commit crimes at a rate greater than the native born?
Allow me to explain this to you in the simplest possible terms.
Let us say you have a town of 1,000 people. Approximately 5% of the population will require jail cells every night. How many beds in the local prison does the government need to account for?
1000 x 0.05 = 50.
Easily understood?
Now let us say that an additional 500 people move to town. Let us say that for the sake of argument that they have an even lower rate of incarceration, perhaps 3%. How many of them will require jail beds?
500 x 0.03 = 15.
What is the total number of jail beds required for this town now?
50 + 15 = 65.
Are we all together still? This is math that is taught at the grade school level I believe.
Where do those extra beds come from, plus the jailers required to oversee the new prisoners and the extra meals required to feed them?
If the new arrivals commit crimes at the same rate as the local population there will no _per capita_ increase in crime rates even as the _absolute_ number of crimes increases. What's more, even if the new population commits crimes at a much higher rate their impact on the town as a whole may be limited if they represent a small percentage of the overall population. Regardless, arguments about the per capita rate of crime among immigrants ignores the completely obvious fact (to the non brainwashed) that it will not be zero. These are after all human beings rather than angels that we're talking about here and some percentage will commit crimes, some serious, that require incarceration. Who pays for the extra beds?
In addition to the math I would also point out that reading is a skill taught at the basic grade school level and my initial point was that the per capita crime rate of illegal immigrants is up for debate. I have just produced a lengthy post to flesh out what should be a completely obvious conclusion. What about my initial statement is false?
"Even if you buy the (dubious) argument that illegals commit crime at a lower level than the native born millions of new residents is inevitably going to produce a significant uptick in crime in terms of absolute numbers of incidents."
Considering worldwide inflation trends, what would have been a better anti-inflationary stance to take and would it have worked in the face of such a wave of pent-up demand and supply issues?
The articles is replete with back handed swipes at various issues that are frankly, sad. Sad because the perpetuate why Dems lost the election instead of explaining it.
Consider the back handed swipe at Musk, accusing him of sucking up to Trump for his own financial gain. Excuse me? If the accusation was levelled at say Zuckerberg, that would be fair. But Musk?
First of all, Musk became the wealthiest man on earth on the backs of Dem policies. All he had to do is keep his mouth shut and continue to reap the rewards of the gravy train he was on, regardless of which party came to power.
Musk began questioning the sanity of the left before he even became a Trump supporter, AND he openly became a Trump supporter BEFORE the election, not after. In fact he was far more anti-woke than he was pro-Trump. He only became an ardent Trump supporter after he got to know the man on a personal level.
In fact, Musk risked everything by supporting Trump and by buying X. Had either of those two decisions gone sideways for him, he would still be a very wealthy man. Just not longer in the top 10. He had little to gain and much to lose.
His acquisition of X however is one of the greatest altruistic actions in modern history. Without Musk buying X, we would never have seen the exposes by Taibi and Schellenberger, bot writers who themselves were life long left of center but shocked by the extremism that the left was embracing. They risked their careers, but they could only do so because Musk enabled them. Without them and Musk, most of the population would still be labouring under the myth that the Hunter laptop was fake, they would still believe the "fine people hoax" and Zuckerberg would still be swearing up and down that the Biden whitehouse never pressured him.
So, after leaving the Dems because their "progressive" policies were insane, spending a large portion of his personal fortune to preserve free speech at he risk of losing it, openly backing a Trump candidacy because he saw what the left was becoming and it frightened him, Silver now waves all that away with a backhanded comment up Musk sucking up to Trump for financial gain.
On the weekend, Karen Bass declined help from Elon Musk to restore internet connectivity for fire fighters because the help came from someone associated with Trump.
What kind of insanity is that? You can save lives and property due to the altruistic actions of Elon Musk, but you'd rather people die and property be destroyed because Elon supports Trump? How stupid, how evil, how partisan in defiance of all morals and logic does one have to be to say no, let's let those people die, let's let their homes burn?
The backhanded comment summing up as Musk nothing more than a sycophant lining up to fill his pockets is in the same vein. An accusation based not on history and facts, but in hate for Trump and anything associated with Trump.
And that's just ONE of the "are you fcking kidding me" statements in this hot mess of a "balanced" article. You want to know why the Dems lost the presidency? Its precisely because of things like this. Keep doing it, and you'll lose the next two in a row as well, and you will deserve to lose. 12 years from now it may not just be people like Musk, Ackman, Gabbard and Kennedy who walked away from the Dems. It might be a matter of making a list of who is left instead.
UNSUBSCRIBE
I'm not paying for the same drivel that kept the Dems in their bubble to be trotted out to me in defiance of facts and logic. I thought Silver had what it took to stand objectively outside that bubble. Instead, he reinforces it and after a couple of months, this is the last straw, no more money for you. The people who live in the bubble can keep living in the bubble.
But four years from now there's going to be a lost less of them.
UNSUBSCRIBE. If you love your country. UNSUBSCRIBE.
The is the only sentence in the entire piece that mentions Musk:
> Trump is also subject to all sorts of unelected, outside influence, including from Elon Musk — only instead of Biden’s susceptibility to peer pressure, he’s unashamed of his pay-to-play tendencies.
There is no "accusing [Musk] of sucking up to Trump for his own financial gain" in that sentence.
That Musk has "pay-to-play tendencies" is an uncontestable fact. By his own statements, Musk bought Twitter to have greater influence over political discourse. He is now very clearly trying to influence government policy. That's what "playing' is. And Musk has lost a ton of money on his purchase. That is the very definition of "pay to play".
> Trump is also subject to all sorts of unelected, outside influence, including from Elon Musk — only instead of Biden’s susceptibility to peer pressure, he’s unashamed of his pay-to-play tendencies.
Wait, what about this sentence implied that Musk was cozying up to Trump for financial gain? The implication is that *Trump* is making decisions for financial gain, not that Elon is.
Trump is also subject to all sorts of unelected, outside influence, including from Elon Musk — only instead of Biden’s susceptibility to peer pressure, he’s unashamed of his pay-to-play tendencies.
Implying that Trump is influenced by outside actors on a pay-to-play basis, and names Musk as an example. Musk indeed paid, Trump got not one cent of it, that went into the campaign. But the "play" part of pay-to-play implies influence for personal gain. I pointed out that Musk took enormous risks when he didn't have to, opening up twitter to the truth was an act of altruism, and all his actions suggest he is acting honourably. If he starts lobbying for a change in subsidies to help Tesla, or wants some juicy NASA contract that would have gone elsewhere, then that would be the "play" part. So far, he's not playing. The pay-to-play accusation has no foundation.
You know what the thing about wealthy people though? They are never satisfied. There is always a drive for more money and more power. Sucking up to Trump gives him exactly that. Off the top of my head: Elon was appointed to DOGE (power), Trump has vowed to eliminate the EV tax credit (more money for Tesla/Musk due to the fact that the credit has allowed other auto companies to gain market share), Trump can ease the government investigation headaches for Tesla/Musk (NHTSA; SEC; this is money and power). Just because you are willfully blind to how being in bed with Trump can materially benefit Musk does not change the facts of the matter.
I heard nothing about billionaires when Soros was funding far left District Attorneys across the country who then proceeded to ignore laws and refuse to prosecute certain classes of criminal while turning up the heat on others including specific individuals.
Then there's Reid Hoffman, Michael Bloomberg, Dustin Moskovitz, Jeffrey Katzenberger and Sam Bankman-Fried who all used the money they donated to leverage contacts and lobby for beneficial policies. These aren't secrets, its quite public, but they got little to no mention in the media. Musk isn't getting accusations of self interest because he is a billionaire. He's getting those accusations only because he is a TRUMP supporting billionaire.
So who's wilfully blind again?
Further, I judge billionaires like I judge everyone else. Not by what they say they will do, not by what others say they will do, but by what they actually do. Soros did untold damage to society by funding far left District Attorneys who then put into practice his far left progressive views.
So, when Must actually does something unethical, I have no doubt that the entire MSM will jump on it and scream bloody murder to credulous viewers like you. So far, nothing. He says he can cut costs for government. I'm watching and will judge him on his results, not on what he says he will do.
Be careful who you throw the wilfully blind accusation at. It certainly isn't me. By your argument above that carefully ignores the exact same kind of influencers that the Dems have, and the damage they have done, I rather suspect that the wilfully blind person is the one throwing the accusation a lot. Happens a lot to people who don't step back and look at both sides to see if they are being fair.
forgive the spelling and grammar, I don't have time to go back and fix it.
Oh, and one more thing.
UNSUBSCRIBE. Stop filling your head with poison, stop looking for ways to fool yourself. During this election Bill Ackman evolved from a hardcore Dem to a man tweeting his shock at the lies he was fed that only became apparent to him after he stepped out of his bubble and started getting his news from multiple sources. He became a Trump supporter at the end. He encouraged others to do the same.
I encourage others to do the same as well. Start by getting out of THIS bubble, because, as I was shocked to learn, that's all it is, and I will not provide with my financial support no matter how small it may be.
As I received requests to explain my position down thread, I shall repost my answer here as well. I committed to expanding on a SINGLE point, and that is all this is. One point.
The article is replete with back handed swipes at various issues that are frankly, sad. Sad because they perpetuate why Dems lost the election instead of explaining it.
Consider the back handed swipe at Musk, accusing him of sucking up to Trump for his own financial gain. Excuse me? If the accusation was levelled at say Zuckerberg, that would be fair. But Musk?
First of all, Musk became the wealthiest man on earth on the backs of Dem policies. All he had to do is keep his mouth shut and continue to reap the rewards of the gravy train he was on, regardless of which party came to power.
Musk began questioning the sanity of the left before he even became a Trump supporter, AND he openly became a Trump supporter BEFORE the election, not after. In fact he was far more anti-woke than he was pro-Trump. He only became an ardent Trump supporter after he got to know the man on a personal level.
In fact, Musk risked everything by supporting Trump and by buying X. Had either of those two decisions gone sideways for him, he would still be a very wealthy man. Just not longer in the top 10. He had little to gain and much to lose.
His acquisition of X however is one of the greatest altruistic actions in modern history. Without Musk buying X, we would never have seen the exposes by Taibi and Schellenberger, bot writers who themselves were life long left of center but shocked by the extremism that the left was embracing. They risked their careers, but they could only do so because Musk enabled them. Without them and Musk, most of the population would still be labouring under the myth that the Hunter laptop was fake, they would still believe the "fine people hoax" and Zuckerberg would still be swearing up and down that the Biden whitehouse never pressured him.
So, after leaving the Dems because their "progressive" policies were insane, spending a large portion of his personal fortune to preserve free speech at he risk of losing it, openly backing a Trump candidacy because he saw what the left was becoming and it frightened him, Silver now waves all that away with a backhanded comment up Musk sucking up to Trump for financial gain.
On the weekend, Karen Bass declined help from Elon Musk to restore internet connectivity for fire fighters because the help came from someone associated with Trump.
What kind of insanity is that? You can save lives and property due to the altruistic actions of Elon Musk, but you'd rather people die and property be destroyed because Elon supports Trump? How stupid, how evil, how partisan in defiance of all morals and logic does one have to be to say no, let's let those people die, let's let their homes burn?
The backhanded comment summing up as Musk nothing more than a sycophant lining up to fill his pockets is in the same vein. An accusation based not on history and facts, but in hate for Trump and anything associated with Trump.
And that's just ONE of the "are you fcking kidding me" statements in this hot mess of a "balanced" article. You want to know why the Dems lost the presidency? Its precisely because of things like this. Keep doing it, and you'll lose the next two in a row as well, and you will deserve to lose. 12 years from now it may not just be people like Musk, Ackman, Gabbard and Kennedy who walked away from the Dems. It might be a matter of making a list of who is left instead.
UNSUBSCRIBE
I'm not paying for the same drivel that kept the Dems in their bubble to be trotted out to me in defiance of facts and logic. I thought Silver had what it took to stand objectively outside that bubble. Instead, he reinforces it and after a couple of months, this is the last straw, no more money for you. The people who live in the bubble can keep living in the bubble.
But four years from now there's going to be a lost less of them.
UNSUBSCRIBE. If you love your country. UNSUBSCRIBE.
"Trump is also subject to all sorts of unelected, outside influence, including from Elon Musk — only instead of Biden’s susceptibility to peer pressure, he’s unashamed of his pay-to-play tendencies."
He is was referring to outside influence such as Elon Musk. Trump is unashamed of his pay-to-play tendencies. The sentence could read fine without the Musk mention at all.
"Trump is also subject to all sorts of unelected, outside influence, only instead of Biden’s susceptibility to peer pressure, he’s unashamed of his pay-to-play tendencies.
For you to go on a whole rant about Elon Musk when this article has nothing to do with him is as funny as you admitting you didn't even read the article.
I said there was a slew of backhanded comments that I considered partisan and I'm not looking for partisan analysis. I was asked for specifics, and I agreed to provide detail on a single example out of many. The entire article is replete with just these kinds of references with subtle negative connotations.
I provided fast based evidence that the negative connotation was not fair, again as a single example from among many other negative connotations that are clearly not fair and partisan in nature.
This is one of the challenges with subtle negative connotations. It takes a sentence to imply something, it takes paragraphs to explain why its unfair or outright wrong.
You mentioned Musk more than a dozen times in your response when it was clearly a misread sentence on your part. He made no backhanded comment about Musk. You misread it.
I mentioned Musk a dozen times because in a detailed response to a complex manner you have to be clear about who you are talking about on each point. So now you're using the clarity I sought to prove the opposite?
It was a slimeball comment that circled both Musk and Trump into a negative connotation buried in a series of exactly the same from one end of the article to the other. I expanded on this single one to explain why I was unsubscribing.
If you think I misread that, I'm sorry, that's the kind of slimeball messaging that has been coming out of the MSM for years. Its why they have no viewers left and why Dem support is circling the sewer. Feel free to keep telling the same lies to yourself over and over. Its all backfired on you, and Dem support keeps bleeding.
I don't know why I bother, letting the Dems continue to bleed is actually just fine with me. So go ahead, pull that bubble ever so more tightly around yourself. I will just watch from the sidelines.
The "em dash" typically signifies a separate thought. If you think it is implying Musk is paying to play then that is your interpretation. But I did not interpret it that way.
So we're down to a dash? That's the tiny little grammatical construct you now grasp onto in order to justify your conclusion?
The sentence reads as intended, to reinforce that Trump is subject to improper influence just like Biden was, and then singles out Musk as an example.
Not many people parse a sentence down to the last dash mark to justify their interpretation. It would take weeks to read that article if that's the standard to which you read it. You didn't, I didn't, no one did, until I called out the deliberate impression it was intended to give.
Your analysis is missing the censorship regime. You underestimate the importance of this and thats pretty terrible. Trump won because of it. Heavy hands brought about a wide coalition. You would do well to pay attention to the blue dogs and libertarians that brought trump from his loss in 2020 to his win in 2024. Millions who did not vote for him in 16 and 20 voted for him in 24 for this reason. His success depends on this coalition going forward. He knows this. You should know it as well.
Great column, extremely insightful and convincing. That we had to depend on Biden, a 2nd tier talent, in this time of crisis is a tragedy. He sadly did not rise to the occasion.
This is a very good take and I agree with the majority of your points. One thing that you mentioned but I don't think gets enough attention is the Afghanistan withdrawal, which I think was a crucial factor in Biden's downfall. People can plausibly argue that Biden shouldn't get all the blame for the boondoggle that ensued because Trump negotiated the deal originally (though I do think Biden should get some of the blame for how he handled it). But I think the point is more how the event was perceived. It seems like when it comes to presidential approval, it takes a blatant, watershed moment of incompetence to break people out of a paradigm of beliefs that the president is competent and well intentioned etc. Once that paradigm is broken, people start questioning all sorts of decisions the president makes (no longer willing to give him the benefit of the doubt) and his approval rating goes into freefall.
The same thing happened to Bush after Hurricane Katrina. Bush was coasting on good vibes and patriotism for a long time after 9/11, well into the Iraq war that was (arguably) a totally unjustified and costly occupation under false pretenses (no weapons of mass destruction) that ended up being totally counterproductive. It took the naked incompetence of the Katrina response for people to really start to reevaluate Bush critically. The main difference with Biden was that the Afghanistan withdrawal happened much earlier in his administration so people started losing faith in him quickly, but I think we witnessed the same phenomenon.
Honestly, I think the Afghanistan withdrawal is one of the few things that Biden did that he should be commended for. It was always going to result in the newly formed Afghanistan troops failing, a la Vietnam after the withdrawal there. But neither Trump nor Obama was willing to catch the falling knife, so the war dragged on over a decade after we should have withdrawn. Was Biden's withdrawal messy? Sure. But he did at least do the thing that others were unwilling to do. If there had been a withdrawal under Obama or Trump, I doubt it would have gone any better.
I agree with you. A lot of people mention Afghanistan as a political disaster, but it WAS a "forever war," and we now officially hate those. God forbid we have a war during the Trump administration, but I bet it would be quick (and decisive). I mainly thought, about Afghanistan, after watching aghast like all of us, well, at least we're out of there!
The reason it doesn't get enough attention is because Nate looks at data and Biden's approval rating started dropping before the Afghanistan withdrawal.
It's naive to contend that Biden "failed." He managed Covid well and passed a major infrastructure bill as well as maintained a decent foreign policy in the face of a world that has changed since America saved Europe and America's essential rebuilding of Europe after WWII. Biden faced a mindless Progressive wing of Democrats that made it impossible to move a realistic domestic agenda. And yes, he should have stuck to his promise to be a one-term "bridge" president. But history will be kinder to him than the chattering class of pundits who have never run for office, never managed a campaign, were never responsible for enacting a policy agenda, and never had to administer anything greater than an ego.
But he should have quit and the fair number of smart analysts including Ezra Klein called for him to not run again. We all saw his shocking decline in the debate with trump. And it took pelosi, Clooney and a small army of democratic representatives convince his stubborn ass to quit
True 'nuff. I always thought he decided to run again because, looking at the field of potential candidates, he didn't see anyone else who could have beaten Trump. I think he was right about that. Biden's decline was physical and an inexorable fact of aging. I think he had a mini-stroke during the debate with Trump which, to my mind, is the only explanation for his inability to respond. The major problem, however, is that the Democratic Party seems to have run out of steam. They have failed to respond to Trump in any meaningful way and the only thing the party seems to be competent at is sending me daily demands for money.
Completely disagree on Biden v Field. There were definitely stronger candidates in the field in a proper primary.
He was a second-rater from the get-go and that was widely acknowledged at the time of 2020 nomination. Everyone’s second choice. And he owed the black coalition so he picked Harris, everyone’s 5th choice.
If he was a great pol, why did Obama sell him out v Hillary in 2016? 8 years as his VP and meh.
Biden will come to rest in the great sand trap of presidents. Top of Bottom third.
This. The Democrats had better keep anointing their chosen king candidate or else they might actually stumble on someone actually electable!
Remember Mayor Pete? Fairly likable dude that made an unreasonably deep run on the credentials of being mayor of a small city? The Democrats shoved him down a hole so deep that his political career might never really recover (aka being Transportation Secretary). He's but one example, there are at least a half dozen others. And for what? Obama's gaffe-prone VP and a 2nd year senator from San Francisco's extremely swampy politics?
I identify as a centrist left-leaning / right-leaning depending on the issue, and the amount of strategic own-goals that the left has punted is just beyond the pale in the past 12 years.
You're kidding. You think a "married" homosexual raising two children (that he had to use a woman to bear) with his male "wife" HAS a political career??????????? I'm thinking not so much.
I think he has a political career locally, statewide, including the Senate or the House. He's likable, smart, doesn't flaunt his sexuality, has made sensible decisions, able to compromise to get things done, doesn't personally offend the opposition, and most telling is not a nut case. But I think you're right about presidential aspirations. From my point of view, I simply don't care, but as a nation we're not there yet.
Speaking of which (from the Republican side) -- you know the new subscription model, where they have a little box to check that you'll be glad to give that amount monthly? Back right out of any such website, because they check the box for you! It happened to both my husband and me. This new subscription model for all charities that is currently going on is rife for corruption and dishonesty.
Excellent analysis. Biden was an average long term democrat politician who never held true leadership positions. He was an accidental president as the only moderate in a primary the party was terrified Sanders would win.
Unfortunately, part of his “averageness” was a self image of much greater competence than he actually possessed. A lack of self awareness of one’s own capabilities rarely ends well. The history of “gaffs” was a clue. With better self awareness he might have built a more balanced team. But his overestimation of his skills made progressive utopian goals seductive. The denouement was sad…his overestimation of his skills was actually delusional hubris which the party did not have the capacity to stop in time. His behavior since the debate which laid bare the actual level of his cognitive decline has been very sad.
Biden solicited and received bribes from foreign entities to influence US policy. He ordered the DoJ to indict, arrest and prosecute his political opponents. He pursued a foreign policy of war with Russia. He tilted toward Iran and against Israel. Need I go on....?
Over the past four years Biden has allowed Iran to develop weapons-grade U-235 and to develop medium-range ballistic missiles for the purpose of delivering that uranium to Israel in order to destroy it, perhaps on Iran's annual "Death to Israel Day". At the same time he has ignored the Abraham Accords and done nothing to advance relations between Israel and the major Sunni states. He has exploited the Khashoggi murder in order to injure US-KSA relations. MBS could explain this to you but you wouldn't understand it because it is nuanced.
Trump is a mafia president. Crime needs to pay. If anything they were far too weak on him. Country is going to suffer because of it. Pay to play in this new America.
I’ve said this many times that Biden was a B or C lister in the Democratic Party who became a President under unusual circumstances, always had a chip on his shoulder about being a mediocre and inferior to Obama and overreached to prove his critics wrong, destroying his own brand as a moderate and hurting his Party in 2024.
My take on Biden has always been that no one expected him to win. Presidents typically win a second term and early in 2020 Trump's approval rating hovered around +-1 or 2. The Party needed someone to run, Biden's nomination was a reward for 50 years of service to the Party. A throw away candidate. When he did squeak out a victory he had no real agenda just a mishmash of special interest objectives from the various left wing groups that had taken over the Democratic party. So he stumbled from one crisis to the next. Covid, Afghanistan, Immigration, Ukraine, Gaza, DEI, all while trying to please everyone except the majority of the American people.
I think you are greatly overthinking this. (Superb laundry list with data of all the problems, though). Biden was a mediocre president who lost his bid for reelection because he's always been a mediocre politician. HIs main accomplishment was getting elected to the Senate in the first place. Once in, he had a safe Senate seat in DE that he kept by serving the interests in DE who cared about who had the seat (aka "the Senator from MBNA"), he never accomplished anything significant as a senator, was always a blowhard. His main claims to fame were his appalling behavior during the Bork confirmation hearings, that launched us on the road to highly politicized judicial confirmations, and a vicious crime bill. (Matt Taibibi just published a pretty exhaustive takedown of Biden's career on his substack).
He got away with this because he had a safe Senate seat. Before Obama made him VP, his presidential campaigns had been shambolic and failures. Indeed, his initial 2020 campaign was truly awful (Harris - who we know isn't the best politician around - almost knocked him out with her "I was that little girl" busing line). He was rescued from a dismal finish by a party leadership looking to stop Sanders and pretty desperate for a reassuring face. He then campaigned largely from his basement, was given a free ride on his various bizarre pronouncements ("lying dog faced pony soldiers" - imagine if Trump had said that) by a press determined to ensure Trump lost. Yet - despite Trump's own many, many mistakes that should have produced a D landslide - he won by a surprisingly small margin (as you point out, his margin in WI was tiny).
In short, he was never more than a hack politician at his best and at no point from the 2020 campaign on was he ever at his best because of his age and declining mental abilities (and he didn't start from a high point there - nothing about his record suggests more than a mediocre intellect, e.g. his law school record and the idiocy of plagiarizing Neal Kinnock plus his recent delusional statements that he would have won had he been the candidate). Go for the simple answer here - mediocre hack got lucky but, because he was a mediocre hack, couldn't rise to the occasion and, once people realized he was a mediocre hack, even Trump looked better.
"A group of left-leaning public health officials had sent a letter to Pfizer urging it to change its protocols so a vaccine announcement wouldn’t be made until after the election, and Pfizer complied." (Footnote 3)
This is one of a long list of things that sound like right wing conspiracy fever dreams and are 100% verifiably true even if you only look at mainstream, left-leaning media. At the time, they thought it was the most sensible thing in the world: delay a vaccine that could save 10,000 people every week in order to make sure people didn't think Trump had futzed with the results. Even if you think that there is a tradeoff between saving lives faster and ensuring public trust in the process, their model of public trust did not consider conservatives to be part of the public.
It must be said: George Floyd was not murdered, and it is silly for you to maintain the fiction that he was. He died of a self-inflicted drug overdose that was already apparent before the police even arrived.
In the immediate aftermath even portions of the political right were in agreement that what they saw was a wrongful death of a suspected criminal. BLM spiked in popularity (before crashing hard).
But then the “Fiery but mostly peaceful protests” happened.
At that point in time, any liberal leader could have stepped up and said: “We know what you saw was bad, but we are at a critical phase in the pandemic and it’s important that you stay at home and don’t co-mingle”
But instead, left leadership, followed by media and left-leaning institutions, scrambled to justify what we were witnessing live. This simultaneously signaled to many that both George Floyd and the pandemic were highly political in their eyes.
At a minimum it signaled that left leadership was not actually scared for their lives from the pandemic and can thus consider thinking entirely in a political frame.
Yes, some wrongly believed that Floyd was wrongfully killed because the media narrative was a carefully-woven tissue of lies designed to manipulate the gullible. But it became clear very quickly to those who looked at the evidence that Floyd died of the overdose he had taken.
I think it's pretty simple why Biden lost. They overcorrected from what Trump did instead of finding a middle ground.
1. Trump was inhumane at the border, so they just went back on all of his policies. This led to a spike in crossings.
2. Trump handled COVID poorly, they went all in on vaccine boosters, mask mandates, and school closures. People realized by this point that if you had gotten the vaccine or COVID by then, you were very unlikely to get seriously ill. And they still kept everything closed in a lot of places despite that.
3. Trump was seen as prejudiced/racist, so they went all in on poluce reform, BLM, etc at the same time when crime spiked.
They course corrected on most things eventually, but it was too late. They also gaslit people on inflation before taking it more seriously.
Nate: Except for age, Democratic Congressional and Party Leadership hurt Biden more than the other factors. It took two years for them to pass a third of Biden's legislative agenda. They dropped the ball on passage of the PRO Act, codification of Roe, raising taxes on the .1 percent, bipartisan immigration legislation, and the ban on Congressional stock trading. Jonathan W. Fink, JD, Biden-Harris and Harris Walz Utah Digital Media Co-Coordinator and Western States Volunteer Coordinator.
Even if you waved a magic wand and somehow hypnotized Manchin and Sinema into going along (how?), killing the filibuster would have removed the only real block on Trump right now, which is terrifying.
I have to say some of those things would have been absolute lightning rods that would have gotten the Democrats annihilated in the next election. The Biden administration did not do enough administrating, but IMHO those (except the ban on Congressional stock trading) are far too out there for where the electorate is at.
Issues he should have hammered far earlier in his term: LiveNation's vice grip on live entertainment (suit was brought in May this year), insane price gouging across the board from grocery stores to rent, and putting the Ukraine war to bed quickly instead of drip feeding them just enough to keep going but not nearly enough to expel the Russians and declare victory. Oh also he should have leaned far harder on Israel to maybe not commit genocide in Gaza. I am not saying they couldn't fight Hamas, but the bullshit like bombing humanitarian aid convoys had to stop.
Israel was not committing genocide in Gaza. Even if they actually bombed convoys without justification, that isn't genocide. And they were justified since Hamas was stealing the aid.
The sense I get from the Biden administration is a bubble.
1. The pandemic. There was plenty of evidence, very early on, that mutating strains were reinfecting large numbers of people. I remember reading the news and being boggled that everybody was talking like the vaccines meant that the pandemic was done. Either the Biden admin wasn't paying attention or they just buried their heads in the sand.
2. Inflation. Economists like Larry Summers and Mohamed el-Erian warned the Biden team not to pass the third stimulus package because of the risks of reigniting inflation. Then when inflation rose the official line from the administration was that inflation was "transitory". Both the Fed and the WH were so slow to react that by the time they did anything inflation was baked into the economy, a condition that still persists to the present day.
3. Illegal immigration. Anybody with half a brain could have predicted that there would be issues with allowing millions of people into the country unvetted. Surely there would be some criminal element? What about the impact on local resources and communities?
4. Ukraine. The Biden admin was convinced Ukraine would be toast within a few weeks. The country's survival caught the administration by surprise. Consequently there was no plan for supplying military aid to the Ukrainians: what level would be unacceptable to the Russians? Thus the slow leak of wartime materiel--no long range missiles or artillery because it could allow Ukraine to strike targets inside of Russia, followed by a decision to provide long range missiles. Then no tanks would be provided, followed by a reversal and a decision to send M1's. Then no fighter jets, followed by a reversal and a decision to provide F-16's. Then ATACMS...
Even worse is there exit strategy at all in Ukraine? When would the US be able to declare victory? I doubt that anyone in the WH or State Department has any idea and so there has been zero effort to communicate anything to the public. Is it surprising that the public decided that aid to Ukraine represented a "forever war" with possible existential consequences and turned to Trump for a solution?
Over and over again we see the Biden admin unable to ever get out in front of an issue. They were blindsided over and over again even when what was coming down the pipe was obvious to anybody with an iota of common sense. The Biden campaign sold the country on a message that it represented a return to competence. When it became apparent that the opposite was the case that marked the start of Trump's return to power.
2. Inflation: Didja see the WSJ this morning saying food inflation is heating up again now? My favorite kind -----
3.Illegal immigration: it does seem a tad careless of the Biden administration ----
4. Ukraine: I've studied wars for many years now and I can tell you, EVERYBODY thinks their war will be over in a few weeks. The Kaiser: "We'll be back before the leaves fall! (August 4, 1914). His officers wondering if they should pack dress uniforms for luncheons in Paris. In WWII, the answer was yes; in WWI, not so much. My personal rule of thumb is that every war is supposed to be over in a few weeks, but usually it takes four years or so.
2. I keep saying that inflation isn't "fixed" until the Fed can reduce interest rates to 2% or less. All of those idiots talking about a "soft landing" are waaaaay too premature.
If inflation takes off again Jerome Powell should lose his job. If he had jacked up rates high enough the country would have entered into a short, sharp recession and that would probably have been it for inflation. Now if he has to raise interest rates after cutting that's tantamount to a confession of incompetence.
Translation: when Trump's massive tax cuts, deficits and tariffs cause inflation, it's actual Powell's fault because Trump can't do anything wrong.
The Dems handed trump a pretty good situation vis a vis the economy, all he has to do is not screw it up. But how does his half baked obsession with tariffs and mass deportation translate into anything but higher prices and massive defection from Latino voters? I'm not betting on that not happening....
Inflation peaked around June of 2022, more than two years after Trump left office.
sif is talking about the future, not the past
I have to admit I'm curious as to see what happens with inflation. Unlike sif I'm not so confident about which direction it goes.
Although I am pretty sure that crypto is a terrible idea.
Inflation feed through takes time, that's what the 1970s taught (across both R and D administrations) - although evidently Biden Administration contributed on its own.
Trump own actions clearly contributed to an inflationary foundation. Then Biden added. So both are inflation bunglers in the end.
Trump was dealing with a pandemic and a recession. On the other hand Biden juiced the economy after the country was well into recovery.
I agree with most of this, except I’m not sure we should ever return to 2% or lower interest rates. Those rates stimulate crazy growth but are also like a sugar high for the economy and have created more problems than they have solved imo
Either way at some point the Fed will announce that they are done with cuts and are at "equilibrium". Until then any celebration is premature.
Well, you have to admit Powell had a little pressure on him to lower those rates! Okay, it seems he was over-optimistic. More inflation, though the Journal does say a lot of the foods problem is with the foods: disease in a number of cases, crop problems.
It should be understood that it is journalist laziness to reference Powell deciding rates. The Fed Cmte decides and they're own independent power centers.
Fed CMtee getting too optimistic under pressure, yes probably - everyone hoping, but the 70s risk of re-escalation (the popular mental collapsing of 70s into one continuous stagflation is inaccurate, re-accelerations after too-early-victory... better or worse after decades of 70s not being super relevant to Central Bank policy, it's relevant again)
Monetary policy is a blunt tool. The idea that the Fed could cause a "short, sharp recession" and then just turn things around is foolhardy because it takes months after monetary policy actions to fully understand how they have affected the economy. The effects of recessions also trigger feedback loops that just lowering the Fed Funds Rate back to 0% would not be able to stop. Additionally, this 2% target for inflation has no basis in economic science but was instead and arbitrary figure "plucked out of the air to influence the public’s expectations". The costs of changing the figure to a better-supported (higher) target % would make the public lose trust in the Fed and lead to economic instability.
I think it's pretty clear that the Fed leveled off way too soon. Now there are increasing concerns that inflation could experience a resurgence. El-Erian said that the Fed faced a binary choice--cut enough to start a recession and deal with inflation or avoid a recession with lower rates but bake inflation in.
The future is always uncertain but the risk associated with resurgent inflation is of a different magnitude compared to putting the economy into recession.
Ah to have that self-assured hubris of certainty. I do recall your vociferous argument from a few months back that we were in fact already in a recession. You seemed so certain, yet now you are implying that no such recession occurred, but that it should have to avoid a resurgence in inflation. Forgive me if I feel a bit of whiplash. I have learned that wisdom is being aware of not being, in fact, certain about something. By taking this to heart, I have avoided many occasions where I would have otherwise looked extremely foolish.
What was your prediction regarding Trump?
My point was that the economy was either in recession or on the precipice. Unfortunately on election night as the results came in and it became increasingly apparent that Trump would win the markets responded with increasing enthusiasm. As one CEO put it bankers were dancing in the streets. That shot of economic confidence has delayed the day of economic reckoning with the potential outcome that a downturn will be much more severe than it needed to be if it had not been postponed.
Data indicate that is unlikely the crime spike really has anything much to do with illegal immigration. Illegal immigration inaction was politically stupid all on its own - as the Progressives found out with Latino reaction, mistaking as like on youth the views of the College educated elite for that of wider population (without taking a view on right or wrong on views as such - self-deception is a path to losing in war and politics).
Inflation wrong-footed is more understandable as this is seen globally (and the Progressive Lefty Left current excuse making about it is not entirely unfounded, although it remains excuse making - Pandemic disruption did lay a base for inflation no matter what. That of course does not mean that the late-in-the-game insistance on pouring more gasoliine on the fire was a good idea, it wasn't of course.
UKraine is of course fighting its own war against a Russian agression. Really it's up to Ukraine to declare when it wants to stop, hardly terribly problematic for US to give arms - really neither here nor there for Biden's political problems.
Crime, like all significant real world issues, is multivariate. Adding 11 million people to the country is going to have some effect on crime. Even if you buy the (dubious) argument that illegals commit crime at a lower level than the native born millions of new residents is inevitably going to produce a significant uptick in crime in terms of absolute numbers of incidents.
Zelensky/Ukraine publicly announced that the war would be over when Crimea was reclaimed. Russia considers control there to be an existential issue. There is no way that Putin (or anybody else) would ever surrender that region and open ended US support until that is achieved means continued conflict with ongoing military aid for decades.
The so-called "dubious" argument is supported by ***all*** of the data and studies out there. I thought I was going to post a couple studies for you until I realized that EVERY SINGLE ONE supported that undocumented immigrants commit crime at a lower level than the native born. I could not find a single source to dispute or even to throw doubt on this evidence. This has to do with the fact that most undocumented immigrants have chosen to take the risk of deportation for a chance to make their lives better and are thus hyper-aware of their status and avoid committing crimes because they would increase the risk of being deported. Simply because you do not like and choose to call the evidence "dubious" does not change the fact that it exists and that there is mountains of it.
Also, it is trivial to find studies that show HIGHER rates of lawbreaking on the part of illegals than the native born. You seriously couldn't find any? Your google-fu is lacking.
If we cannot agree on the fact that the vast majority of the studies about this matter conclude that there is no positive relationship (direction of correlation) between immigration and crime in the US, then we cannot have an academic conversation about this, as that is a bad faith representation. While I ought not to do your work for you, here is a metastudy that reviewed many different studies on this matter and determined that most (62%) studies concluded either no association or a statistically insignificant association between immigration and crime, while the **vast majority** of the remaining 38% of the studies that are statistically significant demonstrated a negative association between immigration and crime (more immigration + lower crime rates). Sure, there are partisan agendas for some studies included in this meta-analysis, but studies both right- and left-biased are captured in the survey. If there was a positive relationship between immigration and crime, then it would be simple for a non-partisan or even a right-partisan organization to complete it and publish the results. It is simple deduction to conclude that if that were the case, then it would be done, as that would add significant weight to their side of the argument, don't you think? https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092026
In addition have your internet search skills improved to the point where you can now use a search engine to find the numerous examples of studies that claim that illegals commit crimes at a rate greater than the native born?
Allow me to explain this to you in the simplest possible terms.
Let us say you have a town of 1,000 people. Approximately 5% of the population will require jail cells every night. How many beds in the local prison does the government need to account for?
1000 x 0.05 = 50.
Easily understood?
Now let us say that an additional 500 people move to town. Let us say that for the sake of argument that they have an even lower rate of incarceration, perhaps 3%. How many of them will require jail beds?
500 x 0.03 = 15.
What is the total number of jail beds required for this town now?
50 + 15 = 65.
Are we all together still? This is math that is taught at the grade school level I believe.
Where do those extra beds come from, plus the jailers required to oversee the new prisoners and the extra meals required to feed them?
If the new arrivals commit crimes at the same rate as the local population there will no _per capita_ increase in crime rates even as the _absolute_ number of crimes increases. What's more, even if the new population commits crimes at a much higher rate their impact on the town as a whole may be limited if they represent a small percentage of the overall population. Regardless, arguments about the per capita rate of crime among immigrants ignores the completely obvious fact (to the non brainwashed) that it will not be zero. These are after all human beings rather than angels that we're talking about here and some percentage will commit crimes, some serious, that require incarceration. Who pays for the extra beds?
In addition to the math I would also point out that reading is a skill taught at the basic grade school level and my initial point was that the per capita crime rate of illegal immigrants is up for debate. I have just produced a lengthy post to flesh out what should be a completely obvious conclusion. What about my initial statement is false?
"Even if you buy the (dubious) argument that illegals commit crime at a lower level than the native born millions of new residents is inevitably going to produce a significant uptick in crime in terms of absolute numbers of incidents."
Let's see your sources then. I have yet to see a high quality study/survey and the entire field is rife with partisan agendas.
Considering worldwide inflation trends, what would have been a better anti-inflationary stance to take and would it have worked in the face of such a wave of pent-up demand and supply issues?
Suspending stimulus once the crisis was past probably would have been a good starting point.
Thankfully now we can amass our troops on Greenland border.
I hope we still have ski troops ---
Nuke them until they glow.
Trump has already given up on populist economics on day 1 … quel surprise!
Nuke them until they glow.
Too much work for Trump. He is more focused on issuing shitcoins and imposing the kleptocracy.
Sounds like a problem that calls for nuclear weapons.
I did not make it to the end of the article.
For every good point there 5 more that are absurd.
I thought I was signing up for considered opinion, not partisan politics dressed up like considered opinion.
Unsubscribing.
Nate might have to get a real job next year. Gasp!
I'm hoping for election fundamentals.
However, Nate is a writer: my husband and I are reading both his books. Well, Hubby has just finished both and now it's over to me.
Lol doubt it, he's raking in $10k+ per post here.
Genuine question: Did you feel this piece was too critical of Biden? Or not critical enough?
Genuine answer. Neither.
Then your complaint that the piece was "partisan politics dressed up like considered opinion" is hard to understand.
The articles is replete with back handed swipes at various issues that are frankly, sad. Sad because the perpetuate why Dems lost the election instead of explaining it.
Consider the back handed swipe at Musk, accusing him of sucking up to Trump for his own financial gain. Excuse me? If the accusation was levelled at say Zuckerberg, that would be fair. But Musk?
First of all, Musk became the wealthiest man on earth on the backs of Dem policies. All he had to do is keep his mouth shut and continue to reap the rewards of the gravy train he was on, regardless of which party came to power.
Musk began questioning the sanity of the left before he even became a Trump supporter, AND he openly became a Trump supporter BEFORE the election, not after. In fact he was far more anti-woke than he was pro-Trump. He only became an ardent Trump supporter after he got to know the man on a personal level.
In fact, Musk risked everything by supporting Trump and by buying X. Had either of those two decisions gone sideways for him, he would still be a very wealthy man. Just not longer in the top 10. He had little to gain and much to lose.
His acquisition of X however is one of the greatest altruistic actions in modern history. Without Musk buying X, we would never have seen the exposes by Taibi and Schellenberger, bot writers who themselves were life long left of center but shocked by the extremism that the left was embracing. They risked their careers, but they could only do so because Musk enabled them. Without them and Musk, most of the population would still be labouring under the myth that the Hunter laptop was fake, they would still believe the "fine people hoax" and Zuckerberg would still be swearing up and down that the Biden whitehouse never pressured him.
So, after leaving the Dems because their "progressive" policies were insane, spending a large portion of his personal fortune to preserve free speech at he risk of losing it, openly backing a Trump candidacy because he saw what the left was becoming and it frightened him, Silver now waves all that away with a backhanded comment up Musk sucking up to Trump for financial gain.
On the weekend, Karen Bass declined help from Elon Musk to restore internet connectivity for fire fighters because the help came from someone associated with Trump.
What kind of insanity is that? You can save lives and property due to the altruistic actions of Elon Musk, but you'd rather people die and property be destroyed because Elon supports Trump? How stupid, how evil, how partisan in defiance of all morals and logic does one have to be to say no, let's let those people die, let's let their homes burn?
The backhanded comment summing up as Musk nothing more than a sycophant lining up to fill his pockets is in the same vein. An accusation based not on history and facts, but in hate for Trump and anything associated with Trump.
And that's just ONE of the "are you fcking kidding me" statements in this hot mess of a "balanced" article. You want to know why the Dems lost the presidency? Its precisely because of things like this. Keep doing it, and you'll lose the next two in a row as well, and you will deserve to lose. 12 years from now it may not just be people like Musk, Ackman, Gabbard and Kennedy who walked away from the Dems. It might be a matter of making a list of who is left instead.
UNSUBSCRIBE
I'm not paying for the same drivel that kept the Dems in their bubble to be trotted out to me in defiance of facts and logic. I thought Silver had what it took to stand objectively outside that bubble. Instead, he reinforces it and after a couple of months, this is the last straw, no more money for you. The people who live in the bubble can keep living in the bubble.
But four years from now there's going to be a lost less of them.
UNSUBSCRIBE. If you love your country. UNSUBSCRIBE.
The is the only sentence in the entire piece that mentions Musk:
> Trump is also subject to all sorts of unelected, outside influence, including from Elon Musk — only instead of Biden’s susceptibility to peer pressure, he’s unashamed of his pay-to-play tendencies.
There is no "accusing [Musk] of sucking up to Trump for his own financial gain" in that sentence.
That Musk has "pay-to-play tendencies" is an uncontestable fact. By his own statements, Musk bought Twitter to have greater influence over political discourse. He is now very clearly trying to influence government policy. That's what "playing' is. And Musk has lost a ton of money on his purchase. That is the very definition of "pay to play".
Wow. The bubble is strong with you.
Sorry, the mind virus is too deep in your subconscious, there's no saving you.
> Trump is also subject to all sorts of unelected, outside influence, including from Elon Musk — only instead of Biden’s susceptibility to peer pressure, he’s unashamed of his pay-to-play tendencies.
Wait, what about this sentence implied that Musk was cozying up to Trump for financial gain? The implication is that *Trump* is making decisions for financial gain, not that Elon is.
The sentence reads, and I quote:
Trump is also subject to all sorts of unelected, outside influence, including from Elon Musk — only instead of Biden’s susceptibility to peer pressure, he’s unashamed of his pay-to-play tendencies.
Implying that Trump is influenced by outside actors on a pay-to-play basis, and names Musk as an example. Musk indeed paid, Trump got not one cent of it, that went into the campaign. But the "play" part of pay-to-play implies influence for personal gain. I pointed out that Musk took enormous risks when he didn't have to, opening up twitter to the truth was an act of altruism, and all his actions suggest he is acting honourably. If he starts lobbying for a change in subsidies to help Tesla, or wants some juicy NASA contract that would have gone elsewhere, then that would be the "play" part. So far, he's not playing. The pay-to-play accusation has no foundation.
In others words, it is a smear.
You know what the thing about wealthy people though? They are never satisfied. There is always a drive for more money and more power. Sucking up to Trump gives him exactly that. Off the top of my head: Elon was appointed to DOGE (power), Trump has vowed to eliminate the EV tax credit (more money for Tesla/Musk due to the fact that the credit has allowed other auto companies to gain market share), Trump can ease the government investigation headaches for Tesla/Musk (NHTSA; SEC; this is money and power). Just because you are willfully blind to how being in bed with Trump can materially benefit Musk does not change the facts of the matter.
I heard nothing about billionaires when Soros was funding far left District Attorneys across the country who then proceeded to ignore laws and refuse to prosecute certain classes of criminal while turning up the heat on others including specific individuals.
Then there's Reid Hoffman, Michael Bloomberg, Dustin Moskovitz, Jeffrey Katzenberger and Sam Bankman-Fried who all used the money they donated to leverage contacts and lobby for beneficial policies. These aren't secrets, its quite public, but they got little to no mention in the media. Musk isn't getting accusations of self interest because he is a billionaire. He's getting those accusations only because he is a TRUMP supporting billionaire.
So who's wilfully blind again?
Further, I judge billionaires like I judge everyone else. Not by what they say they will do, not by what others say they will do, but by what they actually do. Soros did untold damage to society by funding far left District Attorneys who then put into practice his far left progressive views.
So, when Must actually does something unethical, I have no doubt that the entire MSM will jump on it and scream bloody murder to credulous viewers like you. So far, nothing. He says he can cut costs for government. I'm watching and will judge him on his results, not on what he says he will do.
Be careful who you throw the wilfully blind accusation at. It certainly isn't me. By your argument above that carefully ignores the exact same kind of influencers that the Dems have, and the damage they have done, I rather suspect that the wilfully blind person is the one throwing the accusation a lot. Happens a lot to people who don't step back and look at both sides to see if they are being fair.
forgive the spelling and grammar, I don't have time to go back and fix it.
Oh, and one more thing.
UNSUBSCRIBE. Stop filling your head with poison, stop looking for ways to fool yourself. During this election Bill Ackman evolved from a hardcore Dem to a man tweeting his shock at the lies he was fed that only became apparent to him after he stepped out of his bubble and started getting his news from multiple sources. He became a Trump supporter at the end. He encouraged others to do the same.
I encourage others to do the same as well. Start by getting out of THIS bubble, because, as I was shocked to learn, that's all it is, and I will not provide with my financial support no matter how small it may be.
Stay with us, dmh555. You're smart and so is this Forum, and frankly, that doesn't grow on trees.
I shall give you a single example in the morning after work issues have been dealt with. G'night.
I stopped at "distinguished career." What a joke.
kthnxbai
Yes, a very disappointing article.
As I received requests to explain my position down thread, I shall repost my answer here as well. I committed to expanding on a SINGLE point, and that is all this is. One point.
The article is replete with back handed swipes at various issues that are frankly, sad. Sad because they perpetuate why Dems lost the election instead of explaining it.
Consider the back handed swipe at Musk, accusing him of sucking up to Trump for his own financial gain. Excuse me? If the accusation was levelled at say Zuckerberg, that would be fair. But Musk?
First of all, Musk became the wealthiest man on earth on the backs of Dem policies. All he had to do is keep his mouth shut and continue to reap the rewards of the gravy train he was on, regardless of which party came to power.
Musk began questioning the sanity of the left before he even became a Trump supporter, AND he openly became a Trump supporter BEFORE the election, not after. In fact he was far more anti-woke than he was pro-Trump. He only became an ardent Trump supporter after he got to know the man on a personal level.
In fact, Musk risked everything by supporting Trump and by buying X. Had either of those two decisions gone sideways for him, he would still be a very wealthy man. Just not longer in the top 10. He had little to gain and much to lose.
His acquisition of X however is one of the greatest altruistic actions in modern history. Without Musk buying X, we would never have seen the exposes by Taibi and Schellenberger, bot writers who themselves were life long left of center but shocked by the extremism that the left was embracing. They risked their careers, but they could only do so because Musk enabled them. Without them and Musk, most of the population would still be labouring under the myth that the Hunter laptop was fake, they would still believe the "fine people hoax" and Zuckerberg would still be swearing up and down that the Biden whitehouse never pressured him.
So, after leaving the Dems because their "progressive" policies were insane, spending a large portion of his personal fortune to preserve free speech at he risk of losing it, openly backing a Trump candidacy because he saw what the left was becoming and it frightened him, Silver now waves all that away with a backhanded comment up Musk sucking up to Trump for financial gain.
On the weekend, Karen Bass declined help from Elon Musk to restore internet connectivity for fire fighters because the help came from someone associated with Trump.
What kind of insanity is that? You can save lives and property due to the altruistic actions of Elon Musk, but you'd rather people die and property be destroyed because Elon supports Trump? How stupid, how evil, how partisan in defiance of all morals and logic does one have to be to say no, let's let those people die, let's let their homes burn?
The backhanded comment summing up as Musk nothing more than a sycophant lining up to fill his pockets is in the same vein. An accusation based not on history and facts, but in hate for Trump and anything associated with Trump.
And that's just ONE of the "are you fcking kidding me" statements in this hot mess of a "balanced" article. You want to know why the Dems lost the presidency? Its precisely because of things like this. Keep doing it, and you'll lose the next two in a row as well, and you will deserve to lose. 12 years from now it may not just be people like Musk, Ackman, Gabbard and Kennedy who walked away from the Dems. It might be a matter of making a list of who is left instead.
UNSUBSCRIBE
I'm not paying for the same drivel that kept the Dems in their bubble to be trotted out to me in defiance of facts and logic. I thought Silver had what it took to stand objectively outside that bubble. Instead, he reinforces it and after a couple of months, this is the last straw, no more money for you. The people who live in the bubble can keep living in the bubble.
But four years from now there's going to be a lost less of them.
UNSUBSCRIBE. If you love your country. UNSUBSCRIBE.
I think you misread the one mention of Musk.
"Trump is also subject to all sorts of unelected, outside influence, including from Elon Musk — only instead of Biden’s susceptibility to peer pressure, he’s unashamed of his pay-to-play tendencies."
He is was referring to outside influence such as Elon Musk. Trump is unashamed of his pay-to-play tendencies. The sentence could read fine without the Musk mention at all.
"Trump is also subject to all sorts of unelected, outside influence, only instead of Biden’s susceptibility to peer pressure, he’s unashamed of his pay-to-play tendencies.
For you to go on a whole rant about Elon Musk when this article has nothing to do with him is as funny as you admitting you didn't even read the article.
I did not go on a rant.
I said there was a slew of backhanded comments that I considered partisan and I'm not looking for partisan analysis. I was asked for specifics, and I agreed to provide detail on a single example out of many. The entire article is replete with just these kinds of references with subtle negative connotations.
I provided fast based evidence that the negative connotation was not fair, again as a single example from among many other negative connotations that are clearly not fair and partisan in nature.
This is one of the challenges with subtle negative connotations. It takes a sentence to imply something, it takes paragraphs to explain why its unfair or outright wrong.
That's not a rant, that's just an explanation.
You mentioned Musk more than a dozen times in your response when it was clearly a misread sentence on your part. He made no backhanded comment about Musk. You misread it.
I mentioned Musk a dozen times because in a detailed response to a complex manner you have to be clear about who you are talking about on each point. So now you're using the clarity I sought to prove the opposite?
It was a slimeball comment that circled both Musk and Trump into a negative connotation buried in a series of exactly the same from one end of the article to the other. I expanded on this single one to explain why I was unsubscribing.
If you think I misread that, I'm sorry, that's the kind of slimeball messaging that has been coming out of the MSM for years. Its why they have no viewers left and why Dem support is circling the sewer. Feel free to keep telling the same lies to yourself over and over. Its all backfired on you, and Dem support keeps bleeding.
I don't know why I bother, letting the Dems continue to bleed is actually just fine with me. So go ahead, pull that bubble ever so more tightly around yourself. I will just watch from the sidelines.
The "em dash" typically signifies a separate thought. If you think it is implying Musk is paying to play then that is your interpretation. But I did not interpret it that way.
So we're down to a dash? That's the tiny little grammatical construct you now grasp onto in order to justify your conclusion?
The sentence reads as intended, to reinforce that Trump is subject to improper influence just like Biden was, and then singles out Musk as an example.
Not many people parse a sentence down to the last dash mark to justify their interpretation. It would take weeks to read that article if that's the standard to which you read it. You didn't, I didn't, no one did, until I called out the deliberate impression it was intended to give.
Lol
Ah pity da fool who unsubs from Nate!
Your analysis is missing the censorship regime. You underestimate the importance of this and thats pretty terrible. Trump won because of it. Heavy hands brought about a wide coalition. You would do well to pay attention to the blue dogs and libertarians that brought trump from his loss in 2020 to his win in 2024. Millions who did not vote for him in 16 and 20 voted for him in 24 for this reason. His success depends on this coalition going forward. He knows this. You should know it as well.
Yeah, good. I wonder if I'm more of a libertarian than a good conservative: I'm pro-abortion, for instance.
Great column, extremely insightful and convincing. That we had to depend on Biden, a 2nd tier talent, in this time of crisis is a tragedy. He sadly did not rise to the occasion.
Thank you Joe Manchin for tanking the Build Back Better bill which would have fueled even more inflation!
Insert "they hated Jesus because he told them the truth" meme
This is a very good take and I agree with the majority of your points. One thing that you mentioned but I don't think gets enough attention is the Afghanistan withdrawal, which I think was a crucial factor in Biden's downfall. People can plausibly argue that Biden shouldn't get all the blame for the boondoggle that ensued because Trump negotiated the deal originally (though I do think Biden should get some of the blame for how he handled it). But I think the point is more how the event was perceived. It seems like when it comes to presidential approval, it takes a blatant, watershed moment of incompetence to break people out of a paradigm of beliefs that the president is competent and well intentioned etc. Once that paradigm is broken, people start questioning all sorts of decisions the president makes (no longer willing to give him the benefit of the doubt) and his approval rating goes into freefall.
The same thing happened to Bush after Hurricane Katrina. Bush was coasting on good vibes and patriotism for a long time after 9/11, well into the Iraq war that was (arguably) a totally unjustified and costly occupation under false pretenses (no weapons of mass destruction) that ended up being totally counterproductive. It took the naked incompetence of the Katrina response for people to really start to reevaluate Bush critically. The main difference with Biden was that the Afghanistan withdrawal happened much earlier in his administration so people started losing faith in him quickly, but I think we witnessed the same phenomenon.
Honestly, I think the Afghanistan withdrawal is one of the few things that Biden did that he should be commended for. It was always going to result in the newly formed Afghanistan troops failing, a la Vietnam after the withdrawal there. But neither Trump nor Obama was willing to catch the falling knife, so the war dragged on over a decade after we should have withdrawn. Was Biden's withdrawal messy? Sure. But he did at least do the thing that others were unwilling to do. If there had been a withdrawal under Obama or Trump, I doubt it would have gone any better.
Commended for doing, yes but the execution was shocking inept and chaotic. Biden was commander in chief, the blame was ultimately his
I agree with you. A lot of people mention Afghanistan as a political disaster, but it WAS a "forever war," and we now officially hate those. God forbid we have a war during the Trump administration, but I bet it would be quick (and decisive). I mainly thought, about Afghanistan, after watching aghast like all of us, well, at least we're out of there!
Yes this is very true.
1. Never execute a military plan approved by your predecessor, especially when that predecessor is Donald Trump.
2. Excellent analogy with W and Katrina. Shocking hubris and incompetence at the highest levels resulting sickening and disgraceful loss of life
3. Nobody important in the Admin got fired.
The reason it doesn't get enough attention is because Nate looks at data and Biden's approval rating started dropping before the Afghanistan withdrawal.
It's naive to contend that Biden "failed." He managed Covid well and passed a major infrastructure bill as well as maintained a decent foreign policy in the face of a world that has changed since America saved Europe and America's essential rebuilding of Europe after WWII. Biden faced a mindless Progressive wing of Democrats that made it impossible to move a realistic domestic agenda. And yes, he should have stuck to his promise to be a one-term "bridge" president. But history will be kinder to him than the chattering class of pundits who have never run for office, never managed a campaign, were never responsible for enacting a policy agenda, and never had to administer anything greater than an ego.
But he should have quit and the fair number of smart analysts including Ezra Klein called for him to not run again. We all saw his shocking decline in the debate with trump. And it took pelosi, Clooney and a small army of democratic representatives convince his stubborn ass to quit
True 'nuff. I always thought he decided to run again because, looking at the field of potential candidates, he didn't see anyone else who could have beaten Trump. I think he was right about that. Biden's decline was physical and an inexorable fact of aging. I think he had a mini-stroke during the debate with Trump which, to my mind, is the only explanation for his inability to respond. The major problem, however, is that the Democratic Party seems to have run out of steam. They have failed to respond to Trump in any meaningful way and the only thing the party seems to be competent at is sending me daily demands for money.
Completely disagree on Biden v Field. There were definitely stronger candidates in the field in a proper primary.
He was a second-rater from the get-go and that was widely acknowledged at the time of 2020 nomination. Everyone’s second choice. And he owed the black coalition so he picked Harris, everyone’s 5th choice.
If he was a great pol, why did Obama sell him out v Hillary in 2016? 8 years as his VP and meh.
Biden will come to rest in the great sand trap of presidents. Top of Bottom third.
This. The Democrats had better keep anointing their chosen king candidate or else they might actually stumble on someone actually electable!
Remember Mayor Pete? Fairly likable dude that made an unreasonably deep run on the credentials of being mayor of a small city? The Democrats shoved him down a hole so deep that his political career might never really recover (aka being Transportation Secretary). He's but one example, there are at least a half dozen others. And for what? Obama's gaffe-prone VP and a 2nd year senator from San Francisco's extremely swampy politics?
I identify as a centrist left-leaning / right-leaning depending on the issue, and the amount of strategic own-goals that the left has punted is just beyond the pale in the past 12 years.
You're kidding. You think a "married" homosexual raising two children (that he had to use a woman to bear) with his male "wife" HAS a political career??????????? I'm thinking not so much.
I think he has a political career locally, statewide, including the Senate or the House. He's likable, smart, doesn't flaunt his sexuality, has made sensible decisions, able to compromise to get things done, doesn't personally offend the opposition, and most telling is not a nut case. But I think you're right about presidential aspirations. From my point of view, I simply don't care, but as a nation we're not there yet.
Speaking of which (from the Republican side) -- you know the new subscription model, where they have a little box to check that you'll be glad to give that amount monthly? Back right out of any such website, because they check the box for you! It happened to both my husband and me. This new subscription model for all charities that is currently going on is rife for corruption and dishonesty.
Your reminder that Biden explicitly refused to make a one-term pledge.
Excellent analysis. Biden was an average long term democrat politician who never held true leadership positions. He was an accidental president as the only moderate in a primary the party was terrified Sanders would win.
Unfortunately, part of his “averageness” was a self image of much greater competence than he actually possessed. A lack of self awareness of one’s own capabilities rarely ends well. The history of “gaffs” was a clue. With better self awareness he might have built a more balanced team. But his overestimation of his skills made progressive utopian goals seductive. The denouement was sad…his overestimation of his skills was actually delusional hubris which the party did not have the capacity to stop in time. His behavior since the debate which laid bare the actual level of his cognitive decline has been very sad.
Biden solicited and received bribes from foreign entities to influence US policy. He ordered the DoJ to indict, arrest and prosecute his political opponents. He pursued a foreign policy of war with Russia. He tilted toward Iran and against Israel. Need I go on....?
Yes. Please go on. But this time tell the truth.
Please explain this tilting from Israel to Iran in light of unfettered unwavering unlimited support for Israel in their war v Hamas and Hezbollah.
Trump could not have been a more steadfast ally.
Ridiculous argument.
Over the past four years Biden has allowed Iran to develop weapons-grade U-235 and to develop medium-range ballistic missiles for the purpose of delivering that uranium to Israel in order to destroy it, perhaps on Iran's annual "Death to Israel Day". At the same time he has ignored the Abraham Accords and done nothing to advance relations between Israel and the major Sunni states. He has exploited the Khashoggi murder in order to injure US-KSA relations. MBS could explain this to you but you wouldn't understand it because it is nuanced.
Trump is a mafia president. Crime needs to pay. If anything they were far too weak on him. Country is going to suffer because of it. Pay to play in this new America.
I’ve said this many times that Biden was a B or C lister in the Democratic Party who became a President under unusual circumstances, always had a chip on his shoulder about being a mediocre and inferior to Obama and overreached to prove his critics wrong, destroying his own brand as a moderate and hurting his Party in 2024.
My take on Biden has always been that no one expected him to win. Presidents typically win a second term and early in 2020 Trump's approval rating hovered around +-1 or 2. The Party needed someone to run, Biden's nomination was a reward for 50 years of service to the Party. A throw away candidate. When he did squeak out a victory he had no real agenda just a mishmash of special interest objectives from the various left wing groups that had taken over the Democratic party. So he stumbled from one crisis to the next. Covid, Afghanistan, Immigration, Ukraine, Gaza, DEI, all while trying to please everyone except the majority of the American people.
I think you are greatly overthinking this. (Superb laundry list with data of all the problems, though). Biden was a mediocre president who lost his bid for reelection because he's always been a mediocre politician. HIs main accomplishment was getting elected to the Senate in the first place. Once in, he had a safe Senate seat in DE that he kept by serving the interests in DE who cared about who had the seat (aka "the Senator from MBNA"), he never accomplished anything significant as a senator, was always a blowhard. His main claims to fame were his appalling behavior during the Bork confirmation hearings, that launched us on the road to highly politicized judicial confirmations, and a vicious crime bill. (Matt Taibibi just published a pretty exhaustive takedown of Biden's career on his substack).
He got away with this because he had a safe Senate seat. Before Obama made him VP, his presidential campaigns had been shambolic and failures. Indeed, his initial 2020 campaign was truly awful (Harris - who we know isn't the best politician around - almost knocked him out with her "I was that little girl" busing line). He was rescued from a dismal finish by a party leadership looking to stop Sanders and pretty desperate for a reassuring face. He then campaigned largely from his basement, was given a free ride on his various bizarre pronouncements ("lying dog faced pony soldiers" - imagine if Trump had said that) by a press determined to ensure Trump lost. Yet - despite Trump's own many, many mistakes that should have produced a D landslide - he won by a surprisingly small margin (as you point out, his margin in WI was tiny).
In short, he was never more than a hack politician at his best and at no point from the 2020 campaign on was he ever at his best because of his age and declining mental abilities (and he didn't start from a high point there - nothing about his record suggests more than a mediocre intellect, e.g. his law school record and the idiocy of plagiarizing Neal Kinnock plus his recent delusional statements that he would have won had he been the candidate). Go for the simple answer here - mediocre hack got lucky but, because he was a mediocre hack, couldn't rise to the occasion and, once people realized he was a mediocre hack, even Trump looked better.
"A group of left-leaning public health officials had sent a letter to Pfizer urging it to change its protocols so a vaccine announcement wouldn’t be made until after the election, and Pfizer complied." (Footnote 3)
This is one of a long list of things that sound like right wing conspiracy fever dreams and are 100% verifiably true even if you only look at mainstream, left-leaning media. At the time, they thought it was the most sensible thing in the world: delay a vaccine that could save 10,000 people every week in order to make sure people didn't think Trump had futzed with the results. Even if you think that there is a tradeoff between saving lives faster and ensuring public trust in the process, their model of public trust did not consider conservatives to be part of the public.
It must be said: George Floyd was not murdered, and it is silly for you to maintain the fiction that he was. He died of a self-inflicted drug overdose that was already apparent before the police even arrived.
In the immediate aftermath even portions of the political right were in agreement that what they saw was a wrongful death of a suspected criminal. BLM spiked in popularity (before crashing hard).
But then the “Fiery but mostly peaceful protests” happened.
At that point in time, any liberal leader could have stepped up and said: “We know what you saw was bad, but we are at a critical phase in the pandemic and it’s important that you stay at home and don’t co-mingle”
But instead, left leadership, followed by media and left-leaning institutions, scrambled to justify what we were witnessing live. This simultaneously signaled to many that both George Floyd and the pandemic were highly political in their eyes.
At a minimum it signaled that left leadership was not actually scared for their lives from the pandemic and can thus consider thinking entirely in a political frame.
Yes, some wrongly believed that Floyd was wrongfully killed because the media narrative was a carefully-woven tissue of lies designed to manipulate the gullible. But it became clear very quickly to those who looked at the evidence that Floyd died of the overdose he had taken.
How do we know this for sure?
I think it's pretty simple why Biden lost. They overcorrected from what Trump did instead of finding a middle ground.
1. Trump was inhumane at the border, so they just went back on all of his policies. This led to a spike in crossings.
2. Trump handled COVID poorly, they went all in on vaccine boosters, mask mandates, and school closures. People realized by this point that if you had gotten the vaccine or COVID by then, you were very unlikely to get seriously ill. And they still kept everything closed in a lot of places despite that.
3. Trump was seen as prejudiced/racist, so they went all in on poluce reform, BLM, etc at the same time when crime spiked.
They course corrected on most things eventually, but it was too late. They also gaslit people on inflation before taking it more seriously.
Sounds like you're not a big Trump fan. . .just a guess.
yyyyep😎
Nate: Except for age, Democratic Congressional and Party Leadership hurt Biden more than the other factors. It took two years for them to pass a third of Biden's legislative agenda. They dropped the ball on passage of the PRO Act, codification of Roe, raising taxes on the .1 percent, bipartisan immigration legislation, and the ban on Congressional stock trading. Jonathan W. Fink, JD, Biden-Harris and Harris Walz Utah Digital Media Co-Coordinator and Western States Volunteer Coordinator.
Even if you waved a magic wand and somehow hypnotized Manchin and Sinema into going along (how?), killing the filibuster would have removed the only real block on Trump right now, which is terrifying.
I wish the Dems had killed the filibuster: talk about Karma!! They'd deserve it. Republicans are too responsible for their own good, maybe.
If they'd killed the filibuster, Trump would not be president today.
I have to say some of those things would have been absolute lightning rods that would have gotten the Democrats annihilated in the next election. The Biden administration did not do enough administrating, but IMHO those (except the ban on Congressional stock trading) are far too out there for where the electorate is at.
Issues he should have hammered far earlier in his term: LiveNation's vice grip on live entertainment (suit was brought in May this year), insane price gouging across the board from grocery stores to rent, and putting the Ukraine war to bed quickly instead of drip feeding them just enough to keep going but not nearly enough to expel the Russians and declare victory. Oh also he should have leaned far harder on Israel to maybe not commit genocide in Gaza. I am not saying they couldn't fight Hamas, but the bullshit like bombing humanitarian aid convoys had to stop.
Israel was not committing genocide in Gaza. Even if they actually bombed convoys without justification, that isn't genocide. And they were justified since Hamas was stealing the aid.