As all who care are aware, recently the New York Times and Sienna published results of a poll taken from October 22 to November 3, 2023, of registered voters in the swing states Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In a matchup between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, Mr. Biden trailed Mr. Trump by an average of 5 points in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The outliers were Nevada – where the poll indicated that Mr. Biden trailed Mr. Trump by a whopping 11 points – and Wisconsin, where Mr. Biden was leading Mr. Trump by 2. I actually have less faith in the accuracy of outliers than in the rest; it’s hard to believe that Mr. Biden is trailing by double digits in a state he won in 2020, and speaking as a Wisconsin resident, Mr. Trump fared better in the Badger State on Election Day in both 2016 and 2020 than preliminary polls indicated he would. Averaging the two outliers together, I would venture that Mr. Biden is currently trailing Mr. Trump by about 5 points in all the polled swing states. If one asserts that a majority of citizens will be concerned enough in the ballot box about preserving democracy or the emotive issue of abortion for Mr. Biden to overcome the apparent difference, I would counter: the Times/Sienna poll shows Mr. Trump beating Mr. Biden by double digits on the Economy, the Israeli/Hamas conflict, National Security, and Immigration – the first three findings inexplicable to me, but it is what it is — so Mr. Biden’s relatively lesser overall deficit to Mr. Trump in these states arguably indicates that Mr. Biden’s advantages on democracy and women’s reproductive rights are already baked into the candidates’ top line numbers.
Given Mr. Biden’s effective – I would go so far as to say, save his decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, top-tier — performance in office, a reasonable observer in a vacuum would presumably find the poll results perplexing. Given our real-world hyper-toxic environment and the virulent effectiveness of the alt-right propaganda machine, I confess that I didn’t find them much of a surprise, although — judging by the thinly-veiled hand wringing by liberal talking heads I’ve seen since they were published – they were apparently a shock among some liberal political professionals and pundits.
Hearkening back to President Abraham Lincoln’s 1858 remarks recently quoted in these pages, which he uttered in circumstances in some ways completely different on the surface from, while in other ways strikingly similar at their core to, those we face today: it’s now tenably clear “where we are, and whither we are tending”; it’s time to “judge what to do, and how to do it [Emphasis Mr. Lincoln’s].”
Mr. Biden’s subjective challenge lies in a telling characteristic of the voters he needs to retain the presidency: they are engaging in critical thinking. His doddering bearing and concerns about his continued health for another six years is an aspect that even those favorably disposed toward him are weighing. (I would suggest that those pointing out the relatively small difference in the ages of Messrs. Biden and Trump are missing a key psychological factor: on Election Day 2024, of the two only Mr. Biden will have turned … 80. Then Republican Party Presidential Nominee Ronald Reagan first challenged the 70 barrier 43 years ago, and even in an electorate that had thereafter become conditioned by Mr. Reagan’s age, Mr. Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were considered pretty old at 70 when they ran in 2016.) At the same time, the President has apparently lost support among some demographics he will need – minorities and the young – due to their perception that he hasn’t done enough for them (which I would submit is unfair, given the closely divided Congress with which he has had to deal). Open-minded citizens can be justifiably concerned about inflation, the southern border, or what have you, and those focusing on concrete issues rather than preserving democracy are apparently considering whether Mr. Trump might do better than Mr. Biden has done; although one may question their discernment, priorities, or approach, the point here is that they are thinking. Mr. Biden should already have surrogates out to persuade and reassure these critical electoral segments.
Without wishing to be too cavalier, I would suggest that Mr. Trump’s supporters have willingly suspended their capacity for critical thought with regard to his candidacy. Even if one wants to institute an American Apartheid, one might logically conclude that MAGA FL Gov. Ron DeSantis, while boring, has the same instincts as Mr. Trump but stirs less enmity, and thus arguably has a better chance to win swing state swing voters to win the general election. Mr. Trump’s cult nevertheless clings to him.
Irish Poet William Butler Yeats seemingly summed up Messrs. Biden’s and Trump’s current relative positions in verses of “The Second Coming,” published in November, 1920:
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.”
Mr. Biden’s risk is erosion; his support is subject to apathy and doubt. (His turnout will be boosted in Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania if, as I have seen reported, there are abortion rights measures on the 2024 ballot in these states.) Mr. Trump’s challenge is addition; his supporters are an unbreakable bulwark, but those voters who detest him have such antipathy for him that he will never gain their support. The issue is whether Mr. Biden’s support will erode in the swing states to the point that Mr. Trump’s militant support overtakes it.
In a note a while back suggesting what Mr. Biden should do to retain his office, I offered:
“ … [S]tick to the knitting. … Recall that Mr. Biden entered the 2020 race with the avowed strategy of retaining all of the [Electoral College] votes that [Ms.] Clinton had won in 2016, and adding the EC votes of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin … He succeeded in that endeavor, while surprisingly (at least to me) winning Arizona and Georgia as well. These latter two states gave Mr. Biden some breathing room against Mr. Trump’s subsequent seditious lies about election integrity, but weren’t numerically necessary to win the White House. Mr. Biden and his team need to focus their efforts on the swing states they are most likely to win …”
Something I didn’t focus on then, but am now: the effect of the 2020 Census. On net, the states Mr. Biden won in 2020 have lost 3 Electoral College votes, while the states Mr. Trump won have correspondingly gained 3 Electoral College votes. In 2020, it would have made no difference; Mr. Biden would have prevailed 303 – 235 rather than 306 – 232. However, if in 2024 Mr. Biden were to lose Arizona (11) and Georgia (16) – potential outcomes which today, a handicapper has to take seriously – his margin shrinks to 276. If he loses Nevada (6), it shrinks to 270 – literally the minimum. There is no margin for error in a contest that seems destined to be determined by courts or partisan legislatures.
I’ll test neither my arithmetical expertise nor your patience by attempting to scope out all of the potential Electoral College outcomes (if I could do math, I might not have gone into law 😉 ). That said, I suspect that if Archimedes, the “Father of Mathematics,” born in Sicily in 287 B.C., was here today and surveyed Mr. Biden’s challenge, he’d advise: “Winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin is not enough. Nevada, even if you hold it, is too small to make a difference. You need a bigger buffer.” Recall that of the seven states with the closest margins in 2020, only one was a Trump state: Mr. Trump won North Carolina (15 Electoral College votes) by 1.4%. The Times/Sienna poll did not include the candidates’ current standing in the Tar Heel State. I am encouraged by reports that the Biden Campaign is starting to make significant effort in North Carolina. I think the President needs North Carolina; other 2020 Trump states seem beyond his reach.
Finally, a note of frustration: Mr. Biden and his team seemingly remain focused on trying to win the election by reminding voters about their accomplishments. I’ve seen a recent report indicating that the Biden Team has thus far spent millions on ads touting its achievements, and only about one hundred thousand dollars on negative ads about Mr. Trump. I’m just a retired Midwest blogger and they’re political pros, but if this report was accurate, their current strategy is political malpractice. If they stick to it, Mr. Biden will lose. It is beyond dispute that negative ads work; the Biden Campaign needs to place its overwhelming emphasis on pounding Mr. Trump in the swing states. Its reported “emphasize the positive” strategy has brought to my mind the legendary Hall of Fame Major League Manager Casey Stengel, who, after winning seven World Championships and 10 pennants with the New York Yankees, took over the helm of the expansion New York Mets. If Mr. Stengel was here today and reviewed the state of the Biden Campaign efforts to date, he’d moan as he did in the midst of the Mets’ 42-120 season in 1962: “Can’t anyone here play this game?”
McCoy's Noise 