Tag: elections

This Presidential Poll May Toll Good News for Biden

Michael Matheron1 Comment

Today’s Emerson College poll, among the few more than a week after Trump’s election interference convictions, signals some good news for the Biden campaign. The poll was conducted June 4-5 among 1,000 registered voters and has a margin of error of 3%. This June 5 poll has the advantage of respondents having had a week to consider the guilty verdicts, as opposed to those polls conducted immediately after the verdict. Below is the “headline” chart (with my notes superimposed):

As for the pregnant question, during the six-weeks of the NY election fraud trial and the convictions, Trump’s strength stayed at 46%, while Biden’s rose from 43% to 45%, a hopeful sign. This is particularly meaningful when you view Trump’s meteoric rise during the Trump indictment period, from 41% to $47% as MAGAites expressed their increased support for a criminally indicted presidential candidate. Biden, though, also rose, from 42.5% to 44% during that time. If one reads the headline chart as a trend, then Trump’s supporters have remained in a flat pattern, even after the May 30 convictions when they usually react positively to Trump’s criminality. Biden’s ratings, however, rose from 43% to 45%. If indeed this is a trend then that’s the hope in hopeful because I, for one, expected this poll to indicate a burst of post-conviction enthusiasm among Trump supporters, particularly when compared to their euphoria during Trump’s indictment season. Some Trumpists have drifted – south.

Also hopeful, the trends among independent and undecided voters were meaningful. Emerson pollsters concluded:

A plurality of independents say it makes no impact (41%), while 38% are less likely to vote for Trump and 21% more likely. 58% of undecided voters say the conviction does not impact their vote; 36% less likely, 6% more likely. [Emphasis added]

The “less likely” versus the “more likely” to vote for Trump, in a likely close election, favor very much the “less likely” choice. That’s, after all, a significant voting bloc.

The next big test, the public reaction to Biden’s Proclamation on border security, now in effect, for an indeterminate time. Should this succeed in stemming the immigration tide, polling data will reflect that. The consequences may – should – move more independents and undecideds into the Biden column, but a weak Biden campaign communications office needs to step up. Bigtime.

Then, on the calendar for June 27th, comes the first debate, which ought to very much rock the presidential polling. If Biden, between now and then, continues his post-Trump conviction upward polling trend, the public may be in a psychologically friendly mood to conceivably lean toward Biden’s debate performance, especially for independents and undecideds. And should Trump act out manically and maniacally as a debater, his usual tactic, then those voters may swing even more towards Biden. Once again, from my typewriter to Goddess’s ears. . .

Arizona Attorney General Gets the Best Gift at Giuliani’s 80th Birthday!

Michael Matheron2 Comments

Lest we forget in the midst of Donald Trump’s New York trial for messing with the 2016 election, we’re still in the midst of doling out indictments for 2020 election mischief. Among the states still trying to clear up their 2020 election schemes, Arizona has finally succeeded in serving Rudy Giuliani with his indictment, the worst birthday surprise. In a real sense, Kristen Mayes, Arizona’s AG, bagged the best and biggest prize. . . Awkward. How did he come to this pass? Well, it was an iconic Rudy self-own, among many, perhaps his finest hour.

Until yesterday, during his Palm Beach shindig, Rudy was the only one of eleven indictments that had not been successfully served. In fact, he taunted Arizona officials trying to find and serve him since the indictment was handed down in late April. Yesterday was, in fact, the final day that Arizona could serve him, so the clock was on Giuliani’s side. But he outed himself as only Giuliani can, stupidly broadcasting on Twitter/X during his birthday bash. At 7:06 pm, with his galactically unearned overconfidence he posted this, with an “I win/You lose” accent.

Why is this man smiling?! And why is he with the Palm Beach H.S. cheerleading squad?! Oh, and how has his house not been seized?! Does he have pants on?!

Well, by shortly after eleven o’clock the bigmouth was served on his way to a car. He was full, one supposes, of his jubilant sense of (1) having made it to his 80th year at home rather than prison, and (2) having bamboozled the Arizona judicial system. In fact, he zoomed from penthouse to doghouse, clutching in his paws an indictment birthday gift grab bag full of lovely felonies:

1) FRAUDULENT SCHEMES AND ARTIFICES, in violation of A.R.S. §13-2310{A);
2) FRAUDULENT SCHEMES AND PRACTICES, in violation of A.R.S. §13-2311{A);
3) FORGERY, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2002{A){1) & {A){3);
4) CHANGING VOTE OF ELECTOR BY CORRUPT MEANS OR INDUCEMENT, in violation of A.R.S. § 16-1006{A){3);
5) TAMPERING WITH A PUBLIC RECORD, in violation A.R.S. § 13-2407{A){3);
6) PRESENTMENT OF FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING, in violation of A.R.S. § 39-161.

Now for the denouement: Attorney General Mayes, with great aplomb posted this:

With more, much more, to come . . .

The Truly Crucial Election 2024: “Not the odds, but the stakes”

Michael Matheron1 Comment

Elections Have Consequences, Let’s Report Them With That In Mind

Months ago, Joe Rosen, an NYU journalism professor and writer for PressThink, coined a valuable phrase, well-aimed at the media, about our upcoming 2024 election: “Not the odds, but the stakes.” A concise phrase, easily memorable, it’d make a great tee shirt. And it ought to be repeated, hopefully helping to create a national “organizing principle,” as he calls it. We most certainly need an organizing principle to replace the near universal betting sheet analysis of election 2024 by media outlets.

Personally, I enjoy and like MSNBC’s Steve Kornacke, yet he epitomizes the genre, and in his case, his on-air delivery at breakneck speed resembles nothing less than the running of the Kentucky Derby. This approach creates a sense of emotional excitement that short circuits viewers’ more considered thinking about the election. As a country we often view elections as sports events, in candor, there is more than a scintilla of horseracing about elections. But in a crucial election, when this characterization becomes primary, as it is in this upcoming election, it can have a numbing effect on the mind’s ability to view elections soberly: too much adrenalin as an election year lifestyle.

Now, Perhaps More Than Ever Before

Most importantly, this election is truly, explosively, undeniably crucial. Though it’s trite to say so, a trite observation isn’t always and forever wrong, particularly when Donald Trump is the likely GOP candidate. As I wrote in “Is This Election “Crucial”? You Bet It Is!”:

We don’t need to wonder if this election is crucial. No waiting for hindsight is required. Drop the debate about it. Use time, especially air time, more productively. We’ve already witnessed Trump and company at work; they openly showed their cards to the entire nation. He earned two impeachments, 90 some odd criminal charges for actions he feels entitled to, and near universal disdain here and abroad for using the nuclear option against our electoral college and his own Vice President. If this was the warm-up act, imagine the main event. Despite my admission that hindsight plays an important role in labeling presidential elections “crucial,” we don’t need hindsight to label this election crucial. We’ve been to the circus and we saw the elephants.

Hopefully, Professor Rosen’s memorable phrase will explode off the Twitter/X page and infiltrate editorial and producers’ weekly meetings of media actors everywhere. Let’s replace the odds with the stakes, and soon.

First in a Series: If Not Biden Then Who? Part 1: Introduction to the Series

Michael Matheron1 Comment

Near Panic Ensues . . .

“[A recent poll] triggered another round of agonizing among Democrats over whether Biden should have passed on a run for a second term – even if no realistic challenger for the nomination has emerged in a new generation of the party.” CNN Politics commenting on an early November New York Times/Siena College poll

For many reasons many wonder whether President Biden has the “right stuff” to defeat probable GOP presidential candidate Trump. His age (soon to be 81) and mental acuity are the most publicized concerns among many who think he ought to step aside (although Trump has lately been viewed as having similar electoral drawbacks, not to mention 91 pending criminal charges).

Biden’s poor performance in an early November New York Times/Siena College poll shows Trump with a lead in five out of six crucial battleground states. Among scaredy-cat Democrats this has caused signs of panic and visits to the wailing wall. Moreover, his approval rating has dropped from his approximate average as of March 13, 2023 to 38.5% (with 55.7% disapproval) on November 8, according to ABC’s 538 polling monitor:

At first glance, this seems a terrible place to be within one year of election day. However, 38.5% is not his lowest approval rating; he was at 37.9% in early July 2022. As well, his disapproval score is not his highest at 55.7%; he was at 56.2% in early July 2022. Scant solace if you’re worried, I’d agree.

Nonetheless, since FDR, eight presidents have suffered lower approval ratings than Biden, notably, Harry Truman (lowest ever) at 22%, and Trump at 34% (note, polling occurred on January 15, 2021, while he was still president, but ten weeks after he LOST the 2020 election and nine days following January 6th when his MAGA “troops” attempted to overturn the electoral college vote). Nice finish, eh? In any event, historically, Biden’s present 38.5% approval rating is by no means outside the norm. Summing up: eight of the 14 presidents from FDR through Barack Obama “earned” lower approval ratings than Joe Biden has today. So, perhaps, less reason to panic?

At Times Panic Is Appropriate

RFK Jr.’s entry into the presidential steeplechase as an independent was first considered an insane gambit. He has lately emerged as a contender or spoiler as well, despite his status as a rigid anti-vaxxer, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, a stubborn position that there ought to be virtually no limits to free speech, and other ideas that border on MAGA extremism. However, the same New York Times/Siena College poll that deflated Biden’s job approval , provided RFK Jr. quite a boost in his among Americans aged 18 to 44:

“[A]ccording to the results of the New York Times/Siena College poll, one quarter of 3,662 registered voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin said they’d go for RFK Jr. in a hypothetical matchup between him, Biden, and Trump. And among voters under 45? He beats both the 45th and 46th presidents.” [emphasis added]

Although a debate rages as to whether RFK Jr. will draw more votes away from Trump or Biden, (or, perhaps, neither), seismic movements in the 18-44 traditionally Democratic voting bloc appear. Finally, biting at Biden’s heels, Jill Stein threw her biodegradable hat into the ring yesterday. Cornel West is also in the race. And pesky Joe Manchin is considering a presidential run as well. Others may lurk as yet unseen.

If approval ratings, and “who would you vote for today” questions are not dispositive measures, especially one-year out from election day 2024, they nevertheless have heightened the swearing and swooning of many Democrats everywhere.

“. . . even if no realistic challenger . . . has emerged”

“We have to be careful about predictions, even about yesterday.” Michael V. Matheron

Predictions about tomorrow and tomorrows are dangerous (who thought George Santos would be thinking about reelection?). At its outset, this post quoted a CNN article that asserted Biden’s age, acuity, and, especially, the results of the NYT/Sienna poll left Democrats “agonizing” over whether Biden ought to step aside “even if no realistic challenger for the nomination has emerged in a new generation of the party.” I recognize poppycock when I see it and CNN’s judgment is covered in poppycock. This, and future posts in this series, will, I hope, dispel that CNN conclusion about possible Dem presidential challengers. There are many “new generation” potential Democratic presidential candidates who are eminently “realistic.” Each has her or his talents that recommend them. Here, in the weeks ahead, we’ll have a look at some of them, for example, Kentucky’s Governor Andy Beshear, Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, and some longshots, like RFK Jr. and Bernie Sanders, and some surprises, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

One final note: The deadline for Democratic primary challengers are fast upon us and by the end of November deadlines in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina, and others will have passed. So, to mount a primary challenge to President Biden, time flies . . .

Is This Election “Crucial”? You Bet It Is

Michael Matheron3 Comments

Crucial Elections Are a Moveable Feast

Once again we enter the one-year countdown until our next presidential election, and, as always, this is a crucial one. Trite as that observation may be, trite is not always wrong. At 74, I’m old enough to recall the 1959 election and every one since. Each of those was labeled crucial by many. Yet, “crucial” is a moveable feast: what were the perceived stakes then, in each presidential election? In hindsight, FDR’s election in 1932 was crucial for the nation. Abraham Lincoln, elected in 1860, became crucial for the Union of the States. George Washington, elected to serve in 1789 was a crucial election, perhaps most importantly because he refused to accept the mantle of king, and calmly retired to Mount Vernon.

Mostly and realistically, the crucialness of an election is a post facto consensus. For one example among many, especially during the conservative resurgence since 1980, people still argue, for instance, that Herbert Hoover’s laissez faire policies would have brought us out of the depression more swiftly and satisfactorily. Liberals see Ronald Reagan’s two terms as a wrecking ball to all we believe in; conservatives sanctify him, calling his elections crucial to the birthing of the Tea Party and the MAGA movement. We need not talk about Nixon, he was always obvious.

The point is that we ought to belay the crucialness game. It’s hindsight alone that generally makes the case whether the previous election was crucial. On the whole, most presidential elections have had but a modicum of cruciality. In hindsight, few presidencies threatened to utterly unhinge our governmental and constitutional foundations, although admittedly, FDR gave many a Republican a scare during that worldwide period of enthusiasm for socialism, ever more an honest threat then to many in the gilded class than now. Nixon frightened the Democratic party into an uncharacteristically fighting stance. The Bush-Cheney alliance accelerated the decimation of even the concept of truth.

Belay Waiting for Hindsight

And then there was Trump. Among the despicable and degenerate presidencies, his was the worst we’ve faced as a nation, and we barely survived him. Pardon me if I don’t waste time demonstrating that he swung a wrecking ball to all we hold dear. And far from just retiring to Mar-A-Lago, like Washington did to Mount Vernon, he is now more than ever before front and center, bringing fear and trembling to the majority of Americans, from old-fashioned conservatives to card-carrying socialists. Despite his very real legal jeopardy in courtrooms throughout the land, he confidently speaks openly about his policies for his next attack on his own country: martial law using armed services troops on our soil; presidentially ordered selective prosecutions; destruction of the civil service system; frightening cabinet picks; wildly disturbing pardons; historical revision. What else? Do we need mention the whole that would likely be worse than its parts?

As a looming dictatorship of the Kleptocrats, i.e., government by thieves, Trump’s enabler’s plan to steal not only wealth in all its material forms, but moral, intellectual, and cultural wealth. Moreover, they plan – are already planning – to use our legal, electoral, and constitutional systems to do so, and in so doing, to destroy those systems and install authoritarian rule, in a way they will maintain was “lawful.” And by and large, the opposition, particularly the moribund and reticent Democratic party, treats this election surprisingly lightly, as if an historically unprecedented malevolent threat were simply another presidential election. This despite Trump’s first term presidential record of abuse at every turn.

We don’t need to wonder if this election is crucial. No waiting for hindsight is required. Drop the debate about it. Use time, especially air time, more productively. We’ve already witnessed Trump and company at work; they openly showed their cards to the entire nation. He earned two impeachments, 90 some odd criminal charges for actions he feels entitled to, and near universal disdain here and abroad for using the nuclear option against our electoral college, and his own Vice President. If this was the warm-up act, imagine the main event. Despite my admission that hindsight plays an important role in labeling presidential elections crucial, we don’t need hindsight to label this election crucial.

We’ve been to the circus and we saw the elephants.

DeSantis Slides Downhill Into Halloween Dream

Michael Matheron1 Comment
Resting fun guy face

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has proved to most voters who have flirted with his presidential candidacy that one cannot be so boring that one induces sleep and manage to maintain presidential status. Even his position farther out on the right-wing than Trump cannot make up for his unique form of vapidness. And those odd attempts at spontaneous smiling and laughing make the process of camaraderie seem unnatural, as if he were an extraterrestrial trying to fit in on Halloween night. All he’s accomplished is to prove he does not fit any puzzle space known to humankind. He may as well be from Mars, then he’d be an object of universal excitement, until, of course, we realized he was a fascist space alien, of course.

He wanted the presidency so much, too. He felt that he could out-fascist the entire GOP primary field. He made a bold attempt, but perhaps he proved something else: pure unadulterated fascism doesn’t play well even to the portions of the Fascista MAGA. That provides hope to the rest of us that perhaps DeSantis was the high water mark of American Modern Day Fascism. So this louse bag of lost charisma has some redeeming value in his deflated presidential run, which, note, he has not yet abandoned.

Nonetheless, DeSantis, in his noticeable loneliness on the campaign trail, must have been beaten down by the constant reminders of his leadership failings. None more than by Trump, who hounds him whenever his name appears for more than 30-seconds of air time. Trump is heartlessly relentless, and there is no gag order in place to restrain him in the political space.

So, poor Ron DeSantis. One may imagine he may be visited around 3 o’clock on Halloween morning by a dream that only Trump could inspire. As F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, “In a real dark night of the soul it is always three o’clock in the morning, day after day.” Indeed.