I don't know why Fetterman himself didn't condition his wearing of a suit on Congress funding the government. I feel like he missed an opportunity. Could he not have put a hold on the Senate resolution and then castigated his collegaues for wasting time on matters of dress code while the government wasn't funded?
"This might be the month where Dems blew it" seems overly pessimistic, but I cannot disagree that it was a bad month full of missed opportunities.
In seems like we are in a low enthusiasm part of the cycle for Dems, and the question is whether that is just a cyclical thing or a sign that the anti-Trump forces are exhausted and ready to give up.
Yeah, the Dems should have loudly and proudly expelled Menendez and then explicitly said "Unlike the Republicans, we don't tolerate corruption and we care about national security"
Who will that matter to? Voters who vote for GOP are either MAGA or those who hate the Dems more than they hate corruption and cowardice. Maybe to historians looking back at this horrendous period it matters (and to those of us who wouldn’t vote GOP). This is my point. Everything is focused on Menendez because he’s a D and ooh gold bars! Where was the drumbeat of media outrage over Jim Jordan and the OU wrestling scandal? The media tsk tsk so we Fetterman’s hoodie yet also gives Jordan a pass. Oh, he’s wearing a tie. Come on.
I’m not saying Menendez’s alleged corruption shouldn’t be covered. But there is unequal coverage. Maybe if the media covered the GOP corruption with as much zeal, things might be different. But then again, those who vote for the GOP even when they know they are corrupt cowards still hate Dems more.
I understand the frustration; I really do. But I say this as someone who's worked in the national political news industry for over 15 years: Reporters *cover* political controversy—they very rarely *determine* that something or other should be a point of controversy. They follow cues from elected leaders and others in power. If THEY'RE worked up about something, then reporters join the chase. That insight is the basis for a large portion of my written criticism these days.
Here's an example: Adam Schiff sent his first letter raising concerns about the Ukraine whistleblower weeks before the mainstream news picked up on the fact that something truly scandalous had happened. What tipped them off was when Schiff pivoted from quietly working official channels to sounding the alarm vocally, and demanding more information. That's how we ended up getting the infamous telcon of the call with Zelensky, and ultimately how Dems ended up on the path to impeachment. Dems can't force media to be good, but they absolutely could do a better, more effective job influencing what media chooses to cover and how they choose to cover it.
This is really just naked tribalism speaking. Republicans would absolutely vote to remove him. They know they would look absolutely silly to everyone, including their own people, if they didn’t and there would be no hay to make out of “look at this corrupt Senator who we voted to keep in the Senate.” The only question is do Democrats look worse defending him or agreeing he is most likely corrupt. And can Democrats survive a bloody primary and him as the nominee in New Jersey.
And yes, he is extremely news worthy. Probably one of 3-5 of the most important stories this month.
"Republicans would absolutely vote to remove him." Are you serious? What planet are you living on? Here on Planet Earth, obvious criminals & scumbags like George Santos and Matt Gaetz remain in Congress in good standing...
I largely agree, especially when it comes to the Senate. It’s weird how little they use their power there. But maybe it’s just the media bubble I’m in (I try and cast a wide net, but modern media is an ocean), but I’ve actually felt like Dems ARE more on the offensive. Their best messengers are on mainstream news outlets making these comparisons, definitely on social media too. And they’re making good use of congressional Republicans’ shitshows by generating “viral” (ugh) moments. (Can we ban resistance libs from using the phrase “megaviral”?)
To me, the unabashed support for workers and unions (combined with honest to blog pro-union policies) has given me a big morale boost. THIS is the kind of party I want to see.
But we are, unlike the GOP, not a cult of personality, and as always you present good faith criticisms that mirror my own frustrations with my party (side note: I think I’ve finally become okay with calling the Dems “my party?” I’m a fan of the show Community, and I think of the Democratic Party like Greendale. “Our school is a toilet, but it’s OUR toilet,” dammit)
It’s true. This piece is largely about the Senate, because that’s where Dems have a majority and could in theory use it to set an agenda for the MSM. House Dems are doing a pretty damn good job on defense, but they’re unable to pick the terms of the fight. So it’s HUNTER LAPTOP IMPEACHMENT blaring out of one chamber and…John Roberts should maybe do something about Clarence Thomas? on the other.
I’m sorry, since when do the Dems “set an agenda” for the media? Political media has gotten lazier and dumber over my lifetime. Obama’s tan suit. The fist bump. But her emails. Now Joe’s sneakers. Political reporters have their narratives and like QAnon believers and whacky conspiracy theories, they stick to them regardless. And those narratives are not favorable or often even fair to Dems.
But yep, keep telling me how it’s all Dems’ fault.
Are the Senate Dems so weak because it is just in their nature to be weak or because if they tried anything bold Manchin and SInema would jump ship and vote it down?
“With a little creative thought, Democrats might have flipped the storylines that have played out to Trump’s benefit in this opening sprint.”
Are you kidding me? The Dems could shout from the rooftops with creative messaging and 1) the political media would ignore it and 2) people like you would criticize it because no matter what the Dems do, in your eyes it is never enough.
Where is your creativity in this? How about you use your platform to do the things you say the Dems aren’t?
Nah, it’s easier to take shots. I’m so disgusted with (almost) all of you. Biden gives a great speech on our democracy yesterday. Why aren’t you talking about that?
No one except historians and writers will look at 9/2023 and say, oh yes, that’s where it went wrong. While the thought of a year long campaign may make you salivate, most Americans loathe it.
Yeesh, how do you expect a party to improve if you’re not even willing to accept modest criticisms from an ally who wants the team to win? Brian IS using his platform to do things the Dems aren’t imo, because Dems are (case in point) typically resistant to even the mildest of suggestions. And it’s not like he’s just complaining for clicks, he literally lays out creative things Dems could be doing in the senate.
In the spirit of keeping our comments section vibrant but generous, here’s what I’d say: I obviously don’t agree with people who think Dems are firing on all cylinders but set back by forces beyond their control. But what I’d encourage them to do is imagine a world where Dems did at least a few of the things I suggested at the end of this edition—and where we could count on them to be on offense like that basically all the time. Wouldn’t that FEEL nice? Wouldn’t you still be rooting for the team? I think so, and the thing is, more of us skeptics would be rooting with you, too. I think that kind of climate is possible, but creating it requires criticism like this.
Counterpoint: In 2019, the media started talking more thoroughly about Trump's corruption re: Ukraine even though it had already been reported in the major newspapers (Giuliani's BS) when Pelosi and the House moved forward on the impeachment inquiries. Before that it was "he is self-impeaching" and the media covered him like a normal politician.
I'd say the GOP resistance to calling for Menendez' resignation has more to do with old-fashioned political advantage than worry about highlighting their own corruption cases.
Menendez would be replaced by a Dem governor and they'd rather run against a scandal-plagued Menendez than a fresh face.
Absolutely. And they will happily make those demands before the 2024 election, it will just be timed to inflict maximum damage on Democrats (e.g. after many Dems are on record, when he’s secured the nomination or inflicted maximum harm on whoever gets the nomination, etc.).
Broadly agree with the shape of all of this. At some point, I would be fascinated to hear about what kinds of people make the kinds of decisions you propose. I know you don't want to name names or critique specific decisions but I would love to hear about common backgrounds or priors in decision makers that might lead to some of the disfunction that you describe. If personnel is policy, I think we could stand to talk a bit more about who exactly makes the decisions you are rightly critiquing.
It’s a fair question. I can think about how to go about that, but the difficulty is it’s not like this problem is easily solved by swapping out one or two weak-kneed strategists. They’ve built a whole bunch of institutions and created a culture where everyone nods along that playing it safe and following issue polls is always the winning move.
So, yes Democratic leadership is far too passive, far too often. Biden's advisers still think competent governance and chirping about Bidenomics is sufficient.
That said, Biden did make 2 bold moves this week: walking the picket line and his speech about democracy.
Biden needs many more bold actions and a platoon of surrogates talking about the dangers to democracy on a weekly basis. The media will still be sychophantically deferential to Republicans, but Democratic messaging will break through.
Biden shouldn't discuss ongoing cases against Trump, he can have a background for speeches listing adjudicated matters: rape, defamation, fraud against veterans (Trump Foundation), fraud against students (Trump University), fraud against taxpayers (Trump Org).
Schumer is an invertebrate, but even he should be able to manage a press conference with the entire Senate Democratic caucus standing behind him, where he clearly denounces Menendez and calls for his resignation.
Biden needs to make a strong speech about his antitrust appointees taking on Big Tech for the first time in decades. People don't connect the dots to understand that more competition leads to lower prices.
Biden (and his platoon of surrogates) needs to put his weight behind getting the John Lewis Voting Rights Act passed. He should have done this 2 years ago, but it's essential that he shows the base that he'll fight for them.
Biden needs to assemble a team of experts to create a plan for immigration, and present it to Congress and the country. Put the burden on Republicans to explain why they won't support it. This should be a weekly discussion.
Schumer should be shamed into cancelling alll recesses and weekends to hold 12/16/24 hour sessions to force through military promotions. Yeah, it's a show, but the media will cover it, and Republicans will be forced to explain why they're punishing the military.
The only way to combat apathy, cynicism, and a hostile media is through action and showmanship.
Remember years ago when Giuliani was running for president and the joke (besides his candidacy) was that all his sentences consisted of noun, verb and 9/11? Dems need to make all their sentences consist of noun, verb and Trump's Corruption.
During the 2016 election, it felt like the constant media focus on Trump helped him much more than it hurt him. Is it a good idea to push for the same approach in 2024? Somehow Trump seems weakest when he’s treated like he’s out of touch and irrelevant.
I think he benefits when the media points cameras at him and gawks, what’s this unpredictable rogue going to do or say next?! But he does NOT benefit when the attention is shaped by accountability actors. The Jan 6 hearings were not good for him, the impeachments were not good for him.
I wonder if the reason why the Ds didn't pummel the Rs with investigations of Trump and otherwise wield the agenda-setting power against them, is because it was part of a quiet deal between Biden and Republican leadership to get so much of his legislation through.
No, they are trying to actually govern. Investigations are paths to perpetual distraction. What do you imagine they would have accomplished that multiple Trump indictment hasn’t already?
I'm unsure as to the usefulness of the 2024-election framing of the events in the past month. We can look at the month as the start of a year-long election, sure, but is it? I don't think anybody's in campaign-mode -- I'm certainly not in that mindset -- though I do take your points that if this is how Democrats respond to things when campaign season does pick up, they'll be making things harder for themselves.
However, in framing this past month in terms of the 2024 election, I'm surprised you didn't mention Biden's speech at opening of the library honoring John McCain.
And as for the polls -- which, I think you and everyone who looks at the history of polling knows -- they're hardly worth paying attention to at this point. Moreover, as Chris Hayes wonderfully showed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwGweHQ2t4s), it's probably better to pay attention to what people are *doing* -- not what they're saying.
I sort of agree just because the economy and possibly crime will decide the election as much as anyone might prefer something different. But these things do cement themselves in certain ways months before the election. If the perception in June is that economy is bad and crime is out of control, Biden will lose if he hasn’t built up significant good will in other ways by then to draw on in a “vote against Trump” campaign. And if he weren’t running against Trump, he wouldn’t have a prayer if those things happened.
I see where you're coming from, but I'm unsure how Schumer putting up votes in the Senate *now* would do to alter perception of crime in June. Moreover, the if people see the economy as bad, I'm not sure how putting up votes in the Senate would change that. And -- correct me if I'm wrong -- but if the voters' view of the economy has changed, then the economy has likely slowed down or sputtered into a recession, and that's not wrong, and there's nothing Schumer can do about it because Republicans control the House.
I think holding message votes are good, don't get me wrong, but there are definitely limits, and there's only so much floor time. There's a balance to these things.
Like, Brian says this: "But apart from that, they have made almost no use of their official or agenda-setting powers. They have scarcely mentioned Trump’s downward legal spiral, or his related, deepening posture of menace."
But here's the thing: do Democrats need to do anything here? Trump is going to be in court for much of the year, and the media is going to cover that. Why do they need to do anything?
Well, I did try to caveat the post heavily at the top. But to whittle it down to a sentence or two: going into what’s almost certain to be a Biden/Trump rematch, you’d ideally like total clarity in survey data and clear narratives in media that Trump is corrupt and Biden isn’t; Biden’s pro-Roe, Trump is anti; Biden’s pro worker; Trump anti-union. But instead it’s very muddy and Dems did far from all they could to help clarify things as Trump and his allies did the muddying.
Right, right: re: caveat and Dems not doing all they can. You know, I'd be interested in the political science on this. That is, to what extent can politicians do to shape media narratives/public perception, and if so, what are the most effective tools? Like, you personally highlighted putting up things for votes, but is that the most effective thing to do? Is there something more effective?
Talking to someone about this might make for a good article in the future! It'd help inform our discussions, and help focus your writing/criticisms (the "off message").
That's great! Looking forward to that. Love me some political science -- a field, I think, that's woefully underused (in media) and under appreciated (by the general public).
Don’t you get it? The dEMOs play to lose. For the obscenely biological forfeit they must pay. They get off on humiliation, as long as someone gives them a dollar.
That’s why we all are going to lose… a flabby, venal, cowardly and pitifully obsequious dEMOcratic Party.
When your democracy is on its last legs, the very last thing you need to worry about is a schmuck like Bob Menendez (who’s going to be gone before the 2024 election anyway).
The one thing I don't understand here is the notion that Biden doesn't have a lead to begin with. People say this - why? Because some polls show that marginal democratic voters (youths and black men) are disaffected 13 months out from an election? Republicans are more politically engaged when they have a contested primary going on? That feels like a nothing story to me. Its what you'd expect. In 25 special elections in 2023, democrats have outperformed 2020 by a whopping 7.6 points. If Democrats outperform 2020 by 7.6 points they will absolutely crush.
I don't disagree that democrats have been rather aimless this last month and I don't know why Biden isn't HAMMERING trump on his fraud conviction but... I don't think its so dire.
I think it is at best too close to call. Biden won by effectively a hundred or so thousand votes in the only states that matter. People are generally dissatisfied with his performance. The economy is sort of meh, but teetering. That is a certain path to losing against anyone but Trump. Trump is literally the only thing keeping Biden in the game.
I don't know why Fetterman himself didn't condition his wearing of a suit on Congress funding the government. I feel like he missed an opportunity. Could he not have put a hold on the Senate resolution and then castigated his collegaues for wasting time on matters of dress code while the government wasn't funded?
"This might be the month where Dems blew it" seems overly pessimistic, but I cannot disagree that it was a bad month full of missed opportunities.
In seems like we are in a low enthusiasm part of the cycle for Dems, and the question is whether that is just a cyclical thing or a sign that the anti-Trump forces are exhausted and ready to give up.
He did.
Love this idea.
The My Cousin Vinny outfit.
Yeah, the Dems should have loudly and proudly expelled Menendez and then explicitly said "Unlike the Republicans, we don't tolerate corruption and we care about national security"
Dems cannot expel a Senator on their own. It takes 2/3 of the body to do it and there is no way the votes are there.
I’m not sure we know that last part, but it’d be great to have Republicans on record voting NOT to expel the gold-bar bribes guy…
Who will that matter to? Voters who vote for GOP are either MAGA or those who hate the Dems more than they hate corruption and cowardice. Maybe to historians looking back at this horrendous period it matters (and to those of us who wouldn’t vote GOP). This is my point. Everything is focused on Menendez because he’s a D and ooh gold bars! Where was the drumbeat of media outrage over Jim Jordan and the OU wrestling scandal? The media tsk tsk so we Fetterman’s hoodie yet also gives Jordan a pass. Oh, he’s wearing a tie. Come on.
I’m not saying Menendez’s alleged corruption shouldn’t be covered. But there is unequal coverage. Maybe if the media covered the GOP corruption with as much zeal, things might be different. But then again, those who vote for the GOP even when they know they are corrupt cowards still hate Dems more.
I understand the frustration; I really do. But I say this as someone who's worked in the national political news industry for over 15 years: Reporters *cover* political controversy—they very rarely *determine* that something or other should be a point of controversy. They follow cues from elected leaders and others in power. If THEY'RE worked up about something, then reporters join the chase. That insight is the basis for a large portion of my written criticism these days.
Here's an example: Adam Schiff sent his first letter raising concerns about the Ukraine whistleblower weeks before the mainstream news picked up on the fact that something truly scandalous had happened. What tipped them off was when Schiff pivoted from quietly working official channels to sounding the alarm vocally, and demanding more information. That's how we ended up getting the infamous telcon of the call with Zelensky, and ultimately how Dems ended up on the path to impeachment. Dems can't force media to be good, but they absolutely could do a better, more effective job influencing what media chooses to cover and how they choose to cover it.
This is really just naked tribalism speaking. Republicans would absolutely vote to remove him. They know they would look absolutely silly to everyone, including their own people, if they didn’t and there would be no hay to make out of “look at this corrupt Senator who we voted to keep in the Senate.” The only question is do Democrats look worse defending him or agreeing he is most likely corrupt. And can Democrats survive a bloody primary and him as the nominee in New Jersey.
And yes, he is extremely news worthy. Probably one of 3-5 of the most important stories this month.
"Republicans would absolutely vote to remove him." Are you serious? What planet are you living on? Here on Planet Earth, obvious criminals & scumbags like George Santos and Matt Gaetz remain in Congress in good standing...
I largely agree, especially when it comes to the Senate. It’s weird how little they use their power there. But maybe it’s just the media bubble I’m in (I try and cast a wide net, but modern media is an ocean), but I’ve actually felt like Dems ARE more on the offensive. Their best messengers are on mainstream news outlets making these comparisons, definitely on social media too. And they’re making good use of congressional Republicans’ shitshows by generating “viral” (ugh) moments. (Can we ban resistance libs from using the phrase “megaviral”?)
To me, the unabashed support for workers and unions (combined with honest to blog pro-union policies) has given me a big morale boost. THIS is the kind of party I want to see.
But we are, unlike the GOP, not a cult of personality, and as always you present good faith criticisms that mirror my own frustrations with my party (side note: I think I’ve finally become okay with calling the Dems “my party?” I’m a fan of the show Community, and I think of the Democratic Party like Greendale. “Our school is a toilet, but it’s OUR toilet,” dammit)
It’s true. This piece is largely about the Senate, because that’s where Dems have a majority and could in theory use it to set an agenda for the MSM. House Dems are doing a pretty damn good job on defense, but they’re unable to pick the terms of the fight. So it’s HUNTER LAPTOP IMPEACHMENT blaring out of one chamber and…John Roberts should maybe do something about Clarence Thomas? on the other.
I’m sorry, since when do the Dems “set an agenda” for the media? Political media has gotten lazier and dumber over my lifetime. Obama’s tan suit. The fist bump. But her emails. Now Joe’s sneakers. Political reporters have their narratives and like QAnon believers and whacky conspiracy theories, they stick to them regardless. And those narratives are not favorable or often even fair to Dems.
But yep, keep telling me how it’s all Dems’ fault.
Are the Senate Dems so weak because it is just in their nature to be weak or because if they tried anything bold Manchin and SInema would jump ship and vote it down?
“With a little creative thought, Democrats might have flipped the storylines that have played out to Trump’s benefit in this opening sprint.”
Are you kidding me? The Dems could shout from the rooftops with creative messaging and 1) the political media would ignore it and 2) people like you would criticize it because no matter what the Dems do, in your eyes it is never enough.
Where is your creativity in this? How about you use your platform to do the things you say the Dems aren’t?
Nah, it’s easier to take shots. I’m so disgusted with (almost) all of you. Biden gives a great speech on our democracy yesterday. Why aren’t you talking about that?
No one except historians and writers will look at 9/2023 and say, oh yes, that’s where it went wrong. While the thought of a year long campaign may make you salivate, most Americans loathe it.
Yeesh, how do you expect a party to improve if you’re not even willing to accept modest criticisms from an ally who wants the team to win? Brian IS using his platform to do things the Dems aren’t imo, because Dems are (case in point) typically resistant to even the mildest of suggestions. And it’s not like he’s just complaining for clicks, he literally lays out creative things Dems could be doing in the senate.
The Team D Defense Squad is out hectoring in full force. No criticism is allowed, ever!
In the spirit of keeping our comments section vibrant but generous, here’s what I’d say: I obviously don’t agree with people who think Dems are firing on all cylinders but set back by forces beyond their control. But what I’d encourage them to do is imagine a world where Dems did at least a few of the things I suggested at the end of this edition—and where we could count on them to be on offense like that basically all the time. Wouldn’t that FEEL nice? Wouldn’t you still be rooting for the team? I think so, and the thing is, more of us skeptics would be rooting with you, too. I think that kind of climate is possible, but creating it requires criticism like this.
Crotch-punching. Also, Democrats don't control the media. Lazy BS, Brian.
#DoBetter
Counterpoint: In 2019, the media started talking more thoroughly about Trump's corruption re: Ukraine even though it had already been reported in the major newspapers (Giuliani's BS) when Pelosi and the House moved forward on the impeachment inquiries. Before that it was "he is self-impeaching" and the media covered him like a normal politician.
They still do.
I'd say the GOP resistance to calling for Menendez' resignation has more to do with old-fashioned political advantage than worry about highlighting their own corruption cases.
Menendez would be replaced by a Dem governor and they'd rather run against a scandal-plagued Menendez than a fresh face.
Absolutely. And they will happily make those demands before the 2024 election, it will just be timed to inflict maximum damage on Democrats (e.g. after many Dems are on record, when he’s secured the nomination or inflicted maximum harm on whoever gets the nomination, etc.).
Broadly agree with the shape of all of this. At some point, I would be fascinated to hear about what kinds of people make the kinds of decisions you propose. I know you don't want to name names or critique specific decisions but I would love to hear about common backgrounds or priors in decision makers that might lead to some of the disfunction that you describe. If personnel is policy, I think we could stand to talk a bit more about who exactly makes the decisions you are rightly critiquing.
It’s a fair question. I can think about how to go about that, but the difficulty is it’s not like this problem is easily solved by swapping out one or two weak-kneed strategists. They’ve built a whole bunch of institutions and created a culture where everyone nods along that playing it safe and following issue polls is always the winning move.
So, yes Democratic leadership is far too passive, far too often. Biden's advisers still think competent governance and chirping about Bidenomics is sufficient.
That said, Biden did make 2 bold moves this week: walking the picket line and his speech about democracy.
Biden needs many more bold actions and a platoon of surrogates talking about the dangers to democracy on a weekly basis. The media will still be sychophantically deferential to Republicans, but Democratic messaging will break through.
Biden shouldn't discuss ongoing cases against Trump, he can have a background for speeches listing adjudicated matters: rape, defamation, fraud against veterans (Trump Foundation), fraud against students (Trump University), fraud against taxpayers (Trump Org).
Schumer is an invertebrate, but even he should be able to manage a press conference with the entire Senate Democratic caucus standing behind him, where he clearly denounces Menendez and calls for his resignation.
Biden needs to make a strong speech about his antitrust appointees taking on Big Tech for the first time in decades. People don't connect the dots to understand that more competition leads to lower prices.
Biden (and his platoon of surrogates) needs to put his weight behind getting the John Lewis Voting Rights Act passed. He should have done this 2 years ago, but it's essential that he shows the base that he'll fight for them.
Biden needs to assemble a team of experts to create a plan for immigration, and present it to Congress and the country. Put the burden on Republicans to explain why they won't support it. This should be a weekly discussion.
Schumer should be shamed into cancelling alll recesses and weekends to hold 12/16/24 hour sessions to force through military promotions. Yeah, it's a show, but the media will cover it, and Republicans will be forced to explain why they're punishing the military.
The only way to combat apathy, cynicism, and a hostile media is through action and showmanship.
Remember years ago when Giuliani was running for president and the joke (besides his candidacy) was that all his sentences consisted of noun, verb and 9/11? Dems need to make all their sentences consist of noun, verb and Trump's Corruption.
During the 2016 election, it felt like the constant media focus on Trump helped him much more than it hurt him. Is it a good idea to push for the same approach in 2024? Somehow Trump seems weakest when he’s treated like he’s out of touch and irrelevant.
I think he benefits when the media points cameras at him and gawks, what’s this unpredictable rogue going to do or say next?! But he does NOT benefit when the attention is shaped by accountability actors. The Jan 6 hearings were not good for him, the impeachments were not good for him.
I have a minor conspiracy theory on this.
I wonder if the reason why the Ds didn't pummel the Rs with investigations of Trump and otherwise wield the agenda-setting power against them, is because it was part of a quiet deal between Biden and Republican leadership to get so much of his legislation through.
No, they are trying to actually govern. Investigations are paths to perpetual distraction. What do you imagine they would have accomplished that multiple Trump indictment hasn’t already?
I'm unsure as to the usefulness of the 2024-election framing of the events in the past month. We can look at the month as the start of a year-long election, sure, but is it? I don't think anybody's in campaign-mode -- I'm certainly not in that mindset -- though I do take your points that if this is how Democrats respond to things when campaign season does pick up, they'll be making things harder for themselves.
However, in framing this past month in terms of the 2024 election, I'm surprised you didn't mention Biden's speech at opening of the library honoring John McCain.
And as for the polls -- which, I think you and everyone who looks at the history of polling knows -- they're hardly worth paying attention to at this point. Moreover, as Chris Hayes wonderfully showed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwGweHQ2t4s), it's probably better to pay attention to what people are *doing* -- not what they're saying.
I sort of agree just because the economy and possibly crime will decide the election as much as anyone might prefer something different. But these things do cement themselves in certain ways months before the election. If the perception in June is that economy is bad and crime is out of control, Biden will lose if he hasn’t built up significant good will in other ways by then to draw on in a “vote against Trump” campaign. And if he weren’t running against Trump, he wouldn’t have a prayer if those things happened.
I see where you're coming from, but I'm unsure how Schumer putting up votes in the Senate *now* would do to alter perception of crime in June. Moreover, the if people see the economy as bad, I'm not sure how putting up votes in the Senate would change that. And -- correct me if I'm wrong -- but if the voters' view of the economy has changed, then the economy has likely slowed down or sputtered into a recession, and that's not wrong, and there's nothing Schumer can do about it because Republicans control the House.
I think holding message votes are good, don't get me wrong, but there are definitely limits, and there's only so much floor time. There's a balance to these things.
Like, Brian says this: "But apart from that, they have made almost no use of their official or agenda-setting powers. They have scarcely mentioned Trump’s downward legal spiral, or his related, deepening posture of menace."
But here's the thing: do Democrats need to do anything here? Trump is going to be in court for much of the year, and the media is going to cover that. Why do they need to do anything?
Well, I did try to caveat the post heavily at the top. But to whittle it down to a sentence or two: going into what’s almost certain to be a Biden/Trump rematch, you’d ideally like total clarity in survey data and clear narratives in media that Trump is corrupt and Biden isn’t; Biden’s pro-Roe, Trump is anti; Biden’s pro worker; Trump anti-union. But instead it’s very muddy and Dems did far from all they could to help clarify things as Trump and his allies did the muddying.
Right, right: re: caveat and Dems not doing all they can. You know, I'd be interested in the political science on this. That is, to what extent can politicians do to shape media narratives/public perception, and if so, what are the most effective tools? Like, you personally highlighted putting up things for votes, but is that the most effective thing to do? Is there something more effective?
Talking to someone about this might make for a good article in the future! It'd help inform our discussions, and help focus your writing/criticisms (the "off message").
I could write a book about it! But I’ll start with an article for y’all.
That's great! Looking forward to that. Love me some political science -- a field, I think, that's woefully underused (in media) and under appreciated (by the general public).
Jennifer Rubin agrees with you Today’s column:https://wapo.st/48viKyZ
Don’t you get it? The dEMOs play to lose. For the obscenely biological forfeit they must pay. They get off on humiliation, as long as someone gives them a dollar.
That’s why we all are going to lose… a flabby, venal, cowardly and pitifully obsequious dEMOcratic Party.
When your democracy is on its last legs, the very last thing you need to worry about is a schmuck like Bob Menendez (who’s going to be gone before the 2024 election anyway).
The one thing I don't understand here is the notion that Biden doesn't have a lead to begin with. People say this - why? Because some polls show that marginal democratic voters (youths and black men) are disaffected 13 months out from an election? Republicans are more politically engaged when they have a contested primary going on? That feels like a nothing story to me. Its what you'd expect. In 25 special elections in 2023, democrats have outperformed 2020 by a whopping 7.6 points. If Democrats outperform 2020 by 7.6 points they will absolutely crush.
I don't disagree that democrats have been rather aimless this last month and I don't know why Biden isn't HAMMERING trump on his fraud conviction but... I don't think its so dire.
I think it is at best too close to call. Biden won by effectively a hundred or so thousand votes in the only states that matter. People are generally dissatisfied with his performance. The economy is sort of meh, but teetering. That is a certain path to losing against anyone but Trump. Trump is literally the only thing keeping Biden in the game.
Of course its too close to call, its 13 months out. But saying Trump has a lead when all elections show Dems winning big just seems strange.
Mmm, delicious gold bouillon.