Republican Bidens and the Failure of the Democratic Party

[Comrade Ceasefire]

Here are two statements I read yesterday.

(a) Nearly 50,000 voters in Wisconsin’s Democratic presidential primary just cast ballots for nobody. In state after state, the voters Joe Biden needs are registering their fury about US support for Israel's war on Gaza by voting “uncommitted.”

(b) Simultaneously, uncommitted got an even higher percentage of the vote in solid blue Rhode Island — remarkable since there was very little organized effort there to campaign for that outcome.

There are a few things that I'm confused about.

1. I have not seen any exit type polls where those who voted "nobody" responded that they definitely voted that way because of Biden's inaction.
So, is it mostly wishful thinking, a convenient political grab on the part of those groups who support the Palestinian cause in Gaza?

2. I cannot accept without more evidence that it should also automatically apply to Rhode Island, where there was no organized effort.
Could it not just as easily be because of concerns about Biden's age, or some other, perhaps more local issue?

3. I accept that the numbers voting "nobody" or "uncommitted" are significantly greater than in previous years. (And that they are small states.)
But are presidential primaries a highly significant indicator of voter intent come November?

For the record...
Statements (a) and (b) came from Jacobin, which I know perfectly well represents a miniscule number in the US! They were just conveniently sequential there for the purposes of my questions. I have read and heard that Gaza is a thorn for Biden elsewhere, e.g. podcasts like (GOP's) The Bulwark, (Dem's) Pod Save America etc.
The actual issues in Gaza are not important to my questions.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It's hard to know how things will play out. Probably the larger share of those "nobody" votes will vote for Biden (or more precisely, against Trump) in November. They're like the Haley votes on the other side: people just voicing their displeasure at how we're barreling toward a re-match of two unappealing candidates. Nobody voting now against Biden thinks Trump would handle the Israel-Gaza conflict in a way that is more sensitive to the plight of the Gazans. So if that's someone's issue, Biden is the least bad of two. Now, for some, even the least-bad is so bad that they can't cast a vote for Biden. So Biden may lose some actual voters. And if it's in Michigan, then that really matters. But there's no way of knowing what anti-Dobbs turnout might do. The polls will narrow all through the election season. The race will be neck-and-neck right prior to the vote. (The media won't have it any other way). The forces that want to oust are generally more energized than the ones that want to maintain. On the other hand, Trump energizes anti-Trump voters to almost the same degree.

 

[EgonSpengler]

It's hard to know how things will play out. Probably the larger share of those "nobody" votes will vote for Biden (or more precisely, against Trump) in November. They're like the Haley votes on the other side: people just voicing their displeasure at how we're barreling toward a re-match of two unappealing candidates. Nobody voting now against Biden thinks Trump would handle the Israel-Gaza conflict in a way that is more sensitive to the plight of the Gazans. So if that's someone's issue, Biden is the least bad of two. Now, for some, even the least-bad is so bad that they can't cast a vote for Biden. So Biden may lose some actual voters. And if it's in Michigan, then that really matters. But there's no way of knowing what anti-Dobbs turnout might do. The polls will narrow all through the election season. The race will be neck-and-neck right prior to the vote. (The media won't have it any other way). The forces that want to oust are generally more energized than the ones that want to maintain. On the other hand, Trump energizes anti-Trump voters to almost the same degree.

I also wonder how many voters are paying attention to the congressional races. It gets said with every election for President, but every seat in the House of Representatives and 1/3rd of the Senate are up for grabs. This year, 42 seats will not have an incumbent running (there were 68 in 2022, 36 in 2020, 52 in 2018). That's where progressives and #nevertrump conservatives could maybe actually do something, if doing something is what they want (as opposed to merely making a 'protest vote'). Even the most legitimate 3rd-party contender for President is probably a wasted vote. Someone like Cornell West is just not serious about making change as a politician. If he were, he'd be running for the House, not the Presidency. I'm not sure where his biggest impact or best chance would lie. There are 3 districts in California where the incumbent isn't running this Fall - the 16th, 29th & 31st - but I don't know if any of them are notably progressive. Anyway, he's an unserious candidate for public office, he's just trying to sell books and raise his speaking fees.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yeah, I'm not thrilled with the poll. The idea seems to have been "phrase questions in such a way that either side could say that thing is their single issue". And only later ask them what their affiliation is. That's good in one way, as I tried to say, because it at least creates comfortable conditions for someone who is pretty much a single issue voter to end up saying so. If you led with that, almost everyone would say no, because no one likes to be thought of / think of themselves as a single-issue voter.

But then, as you point out, with the possible issues phrased so vaguely that either side could answer yes, what the respondents have in mind isn't really clear. No problem for abortion I don't think. But yes, "protecting democracy" can mean guns. And probably some Rs are single-issue voters with guns being that single issue.

Anyway, its value for me was just to raise the possibility that there is more than a single single-issue.

Your commentary has me thinking about what amount of Biden's potential voters might be "single-issue" in terms of just wanting to prevent another Trump presidency and all the calamity that goes along with that.

It's hard to know how things will play out. Probably the larger share of those "nobody" votes will vote for Biden (or more precisely, against Trump) in November. They're like the Haley votes on the other side: people just voicing their displeasure at how we're barreling toward a re-match of two unappealing candidates. Nobody voting now against Biden thinks Trump would handle the Israel-Gaza conflict in a way that is more sensitive to the plight of the Gazans. So if that's someone's issue, Biden is the least bad of two. Now, for some, even the least-bad is so bad that they can't cast a vote for Biden. So Biden may lose some actual voters. And if it's in Michigan, then that really matters. But there's no way of knowing what anti-Dobbs turnout might do. The polls will narrow all through the election season. The race will be neck-and-neck right prior to the vote. (The media won't have it any other way). The forces that want to oust are generally more energized than the ones that want to maintain. On the other hand, Trump energizes anti-Trump voters to almost the same degree.

What percentage of Haley voters would actually vote for Biden looms large. If they are mostly just going to huff and puff and then vote Trump anyway then the election is going to be much closer. If they actually flip to Biden, then the election result is going to be a shocker for some.

Either way, if Trump loses, I'm still suspecting another Jan 6 type event. Maybe not in the Capitol, which will be armed and ready for such this time, but somewhere else, like Arizona or Florida or Texas.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Your commentary has me thinking about what amount of Biden's potential voters might be "single-issue" in terms of just wanting to prevent another Trump presidency and all the calamity that goes along with that.

I've been chuckling to myself since posting my reflections on the poll that I am perhaps a single-issue voter, with my single issue being: what say we keep this whole "experiment in democracy" going for a while longer, eh?

Either way, if Trump loses, I'm still suspecting another Jan 6 type event. Maybe not in the Capitol, which will be armed and ready for such this time, but somewhere else, like Arizona or Florida or Texas.

But remember 1/6 had at least the theoretical possibility of keeping him in office. There may well be random violence at some particular state capitol or whatever, but what would that accomplish? Here's how I think we should think. Trump and his Eastmans have had four years to think about things. I bet they've centered in on some new vulnerability in our election system, and are preparing there intervention for that spot.

The good minds on CFC should try to outsmart him and figure out what that would be.

Ok, good minds on CFC, what would that be?

Edit: my own answer came to me pretty shortly after posting the question, but I'll let others weigh in.

 

[Comrade Ceasefire]

It's hard to know how things will play out. Probably the larger share of those "nobody" votes will vote for Biden (or more precisely, against Trump) in November. They're like the Haley votes on the other side: people just voicing their displeasure at how we're barreling toward a re-match of two unappealing candidates. Nobody voting now against Biden thinks Trump would handle the Israel-Gaza conflict in a way that is more sensitive to the plight of the Gazans. So if that's someone's issue, Biden is the least bad of two. Now, for some, even the least-bad is so bad that they can't cast a vote for Biden. So Biden may lose some actual voters. And if it's in Michigan, then that really matters. But there's no way of knowing what anti-Dobbs turnout might do. The polls will narrow all through the election season. The race will be neck-and-neck right prior to the vote. (The media won't have it any other way). The forces that want to oust are generally more energized than the ones that want to maintain. On the other hand, Trump energizes anti-Trump voters to almost the same degree.

Thanks.
It was something you posted elsewhere about "single issues" that made me suspicious of the claims.
In particular, anyone implying that all of the "uncommitted" and "nobody" votes are due to Biden's dithering inaction over the Gaza disaster.

 

[Comrade Ceasefire]

I also wonder how many voters are paying attention to the congressional races. It gets said with every election for President, but every seat in the House of Representatives and 1/3rd of the Senate are up for grabs. This year, 42 seats will not have an incumbent running (there were 68 in 2022, 36 in 2020, 52 in 2018). That's where progressives and #nevertrump conservatives could maybe actually do something, if doing something is what they want (as opposed to merely making a 'protest vote'). Even the most legitimate 3rd-party contender for President is probably a wasted vote. Someone like Cornell West is just not serious about making change as a politician. If he were, he'd be running for the House, not the Presidency. I'm not sure where his biggest impact or best chance would lie. There are 3 districts in California where the incumbent isn't running this Fall - the 16th, 29th & 31st - but I don't know if any of them are notably progressive. Anyway, he's an unserious candidate for public office, he's just trying to sell books and raise his speaking fees.

I suspect/hope that abortion could be the hidden issue that saves Biden et al, despite the close poll numbers.
My simple (simplistic?) reason is that despite many very vocal opponents of abortion bans, there are many women who will not admit to it to anybody, and definitely not to pollsters.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Kansas and Ohio are pretty strong indicators of this sentiment. Both are red. Both had referenda. Kansas to outlaw abortion. Ohio to secure it in the state constitution. Kansas turned out 60% against such a ban. Ohio 57% for securing the right. In 2020, Trump beat Biden 53-47 in Ohio. What I'd like to see on this is actually what the state races are like. NC, for example, has come onto my radar. If women in NC worry that their state will pass more restrictive laws, maybe they turn out to turn a red governor blue, so as to be able to block any such. Well, then those are mostly (one would presume) also votes for Biden. Or vice versa, reds in such a state who think that with just a little extra push, their state could pass more restrictive bans. Don't know of a website that frames it out that way, but I'd be interested to see. Insofar as Biden's chief negative is age, voters will put that aside (hold their nose) regarding a more pressing issue.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I am not sure that I agree.

The SCOTUS decision to overturn Rose v Wade means the legibility of abortion is now determined by US state legislators.

So abortion may very well be the most significant factor in electing state legislators.

But it may be of very little relevance in voting for Joe Biden or Donald Trump for President.

In other words; I am not convinced that a decision to vote R or D for state legislators
because of abortion, will carry forward to voting for the same party for President.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well, first, if it brings out people to vote on that issue, they will tend to vote as people who favor one side or another of that issue tend to vote. i.e. if they are pro choice, they will tend to vote regarding everything put to them on the ballot how most pro-choice voters vote: Democratic.

But also, this will become an issue in the national race. Many pro-life people now want a federal ban, and Trump will be pressed to say how he comes down on that. He's devised a workaround/evasion. He says that what Dobbs did was win pro-lifers a seat at the negotiating table. So once he's elected, he'll sit down with both sides, and they'll come up with a stage (15 weeks is being thrown around) that's agreeable to everybody. Whether that stance really proves satisfactory to his base, who knows?

 

[Farm Boy]

A ban, a codification of a right within a range, it's fun how people talk about the same thing as if it's different.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Within that group, there's the whole range. Some want, and could only be content with, an outright ban; some are open to setting a ban starting at a particular stage.

Trump will have to satisfy the whole range. His "seat at the negotiating table" is actually a pretty clever way of doing so, since it allows all members to hope for their favored placement.

 

[IglooDame]

Within that group, there's the whole range. Some want, and could only be content with, an outright ban; some are open to setting a ban starting at a particular stage.

Trump will have to satisfy the whole range. His "seat at the negotiating table" is actually a pretty clever way of doing so, since it allows all members to hope for their favored placement.

Time and again, it's turned out that Trumpism is a cult that bends all its adherents' previous single-issue voting concerns to just 'Trump is right'. I have zero expectation that the pro-lifers are going to be any sort of problem for him.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I think you're probably right, Igloo. He floated this formulation way back in his Kristen Welker interview, when she first got Meet the Press, and I didn't hear any, "Say what now?"

 

[EnglishEdward]

Well, first, if it brings out people to vote on that issue, they will tend to vote as people who favor one side or another of that issue tend to vote. i.e. if they are pro choice, they will tend to vote regarding everything put to them on the ballot how most pro-choice voters vote: Democratic.

Yes, but a statistical association doesn't mean that one issue (abortion, and state laws) drives the other (choice of POTUS).

But also, this will become an issue in the national race. Many pro-life people now want a federal ban, and Trump will be pressed to say how he comes down on that. He's devised a workaround/evasion. He says that what Dobbs did was win pro-lifers a seat at the negotiating table. So once he's elected, he'll sit down with both sides, and they'll come up with a stage (15 weeks is being thrown around) that's agreeable to everybody. Whether that stance really proves satisfactory to his base, who knows?

They may want a federal ban, but there is nothing that I know of in the US constitution to support that.

I have read the text of the supreme court's revocation of Roe v Wade:

Full Text Of Supreme Court Ruling Overturning Roe v. Wade

The ruling overturns the landmark 1973 decision that legalized a woman's right to an abortion, leaving access to the procedure up to the states.

www.newsweek.com

and it talks about it being for legislatures.

Now it seems to me that the tenth amendment
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

means that it is the states', not the federal, legislatures.

And Donald Trump is right to be as evasive as possible to avoid entangling his election campaign with the abortion issue.

The assumption that people often seem to make is that because Donald Trump appointed the
balance of the SCOTUS members who reversed Rose v Wade; Donald Trump is himself anti-abortion.
I suspect that the roman catholic Joe Biden is less comfortable with abortion than Donald Trump.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, but unless something is prohibited, the interstate commerce clause is pretty much unlimited in application and scope under current interpretation.

Edit: the states can get ornery, which is why if you can't force force them to do something like raise the drinking age to 21, such as in the case of Wisconsin, a bill linking federal funds to roads can be contingent upon the driving age being right.

 

[Arwon]

Still a surprising amount of commentary talking like the US system is still normal, and is discussing things as though a close balance of states, and close results within states, are just going to be allowed to play out neutrally.

The law abiding republic is already failed in this sense, the crisis of democracy is already therev and I don't think it'll just be averted by one more Democratic Party presidential win.

The wife of a supreme court judge can plot to overthrow election and the judge still doesn't have to recuse from the trial. That same court is currently deciding if a president can steal information and stalling until he can reelect himself and kill the case. That same person already actually actively engaged in treasonous activity and that's been basically fine too.

And the secret service can destroy all their communications regarding the attempted seizure of power, and their leadership isn't all replaced.

A bunch of legislatures can re-write their electoral rules so they can cancel the results of an election, and those laws aren't getting struck down as unconstitutional.

In a normal system if Biden wins by one vote in one key state, he wins plain and simple.

But in the world's richest and most nuclear armed banana republic he's going to have to rack up a strong and substantial win in multiple redundant states to be allowed to hold power. Needs it to be too many states for them to bother going to the mat over it.

Anything remotely close, if it's down to one or two states to decide the outcome? They'll steal it brazenly and dare the other mob to stop them. They didn't pass those laws to just sit on them, after all.

Foreign correspondents covering it like a dangerous and unstable moment of potential regime change would be the ones getting closest to the right vibe.

 

[Farm Boy]

Being a student of the political history of this does help with "the end of times panic" response.

There were guys yelling while wearing placards back then, too.

There are actual scary things, but a lot of this is unfortunately mundane. I mean, New York state just brazenly jerrymandered two seats in congress to try and tip the balance. It's how Illinois has been run forever. These are not one offs. Nor does the gamesmanship disappear just because the line being toyed with is supermajority instead of simple majority. The higher line is more dangerous. That starts changing the rules so that it's against the rules for the writers of the rules to lose.

One of the unfortunate things about getting older is that your understandings run farther and farther down the rabbit holes.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Yes, but a statistical association doesn't mean that one issue (abortion, and state laws) drives the other (choice of POTUS).



They may want a federal ban, but there is nothing that I know of in the US constitution to support that.

I have read the text of the supreme court's revocation of Roe v Wade:

Full Text Of Supreme Court Ruling Overturning Roe v. Wade

The ruling overturns the landmark 1973 decision that legalized a woman's right to an abortion, leaving access to the procedure up to the states.

www.newsweek.com

and it talks about it being for legislatures.

Now it seems to me that the tenth amendment
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

means that it is the states', not the federal, legislatures.

And Donald Trump is right to be as evasive as possible to avoid entangling his election campaign with the abortion issue.

The assumption that people often seem to make is that because Donald Trump appointed the
balance of the SCOTUS members who reversed Rose v Wade; Donald Trump is himself anti-abortion.
I suspect that the roman catholic Joe Biden is less comfortable with abortion than Donald Trump.

The attempt to ban abortion at the federal level in the US is, and I've no doubt, a scare tactic meant to motivate voters in the opposite direction. Personally I don't see why anti-abortion advocates would want to throw away more assured victories at the state levels by risking a national debate over the issue where focus against them would be much more intense. Which is the way it should be...

 

[Arwon]

Being a student of the political history of this does help with "the end of times panic" response.

There were guys yelling while wearing placards back then, too.

There are actual scary things, but a lot of this is unfortunately mundane. I mean, New York state just brazenly jerrymandered two seats in congress to try and tip the balance. It's how Illinois has been run forever. These are not one offs. Nor does the gamesmanship disappear just because the line being toyed with is supermajority instead of simple majority. The higher line is more dangerous. That starts changing the rules so that it's against the rules for the writers of the rules to lose.

One of the unfortunate things about getting older is that your understandings run farther and farther down the rabbit holes.

Not the end of the world, just notable when a place as big and rich as the US does the slide into irregular and hybrid regime territory instead of, like, Hungary or Turkey.