Biden’s bold move!

May 16, 2025

President Biden challenged Defendant Trump to a presidential debate. The invitation was a bold move. Biden seized the initiative by defining the terms of the debate—limited to two candidates and microphones to be cut-off when the candidate is not speaking.

Biden’s video invitation to debate said the following:

Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020. Since then, he hasn’t shown up for a debate. Now he’s acting like he wants to debate me again.

Well, make my day, pal. I will even do it twice.

So, let’s pick the dates, Donald.

I hear you’re free on Wednesdays.

The “free on Wednesdays” refers to the day when his current criminal trial in Manhattan takes a break.

The history of debates between the candidates shows that President Biden will prove himself to be a knowledgeable, mature, stable leader who should be re-elected. Trump will show himself to be Trump—i.e., uniquely unfit to occupy the presidency (or any office of public or private trust).

As usual, Democratic pundits immediately began second-guessing Biden, worrying that he had made a mistake because “he is not an attack dog” like Trump. That fear wrongly assumes that behaving like an “attack dog” is a winning strategy. It was not in 2020.

Indeed, it was in 2020 that Trump refused to condemn white nationalism, telling the Proud Boys to “Stand back and stand by.” He also refused to commit to the peaceful transfer of power. See The Guardian (9/30/2020), Trump plunges presidential debate into chaos as he repeatedly talks over Biden. Trump’s “take no prisoners” debating style contributed to his defeat in 2020.

Trump will, of course, be asked about his commitment to accepting the results of the 2020 and 2024 elections. His answers will not go well for Trump. Nor will his answers to questions about the civil finding of sexual assault against E. Jean Carroll and his indictment in Manhattan for falsification of business records to cover up his sexual encounter with Stormy Daniels.

Worse for Trump, the former president and his right-wing media boosters have created a “no-lose” framework for President Biden (as they did in 2020). They have created the false belief that Biden is senile and incapable of speaking without a teleprompter. They have apparently forgotten that when Biden went “off-script” in the previous two State of the Union addresses, he bested the entire GOP congressional caucus. Twice. Indeed, after the last State of the Union, they complained that Biden was too aggressive in his speech!

Democrats should be confident that the debates will turn out well for Biden. Trump avoided debates in the GOP primaries because he knew that he could not handle questions about his role in the insurrection, attempted coup, extortion attempt of Ukraine, botched Covid response, massive debt increase, and responsibility for Dobbs.

Wednesday was a good day for Joe Biden. And not just because of the debate invitation. Read on!

---

Inflation decreased slightly in April

Consumer inflation decreased slightly in April, for an annual rate of 3.4%. The core inflation rate (excluding volatile items like food and gas) decreased to its lowest level in three years. See PBS NewsHour, U.S. inflation ticked down slightly last month in the first drop of 2024.

---

More good news for President Biden on the polling front

No, I haven’t gone to the dark side. I am not going to cite polls that are favorable to President Biden after telling you to “ignore the polls.” I am going to point out evidence that proves that the poll flaunted by the NYTimes on Monday should not be taken seriously.

First, in the Maryland primary on Tuesday, Nikki Haley again garnered 20% of the vote even though she dropped out three months ago. Haley also won 18% in Nebraska. That pattern now seems to be a permanent feature of Trump's victories in uncontested GOP primaries. See Haley draws support from Trump in Maryland, Nebraska, West Virginia primaries. Trump's inability to vanquish non-candidate Haley is not reflected in the NYTimes’ breathless analysis of its favorable polls for Trump.

Second, in Maryland, Angela Alsobrooks beat David Trone for the Democratic nomination for US Senator. Alsobrooks will run against former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan. Why is that fact relevant to the NYTimes poll? Because virtually all polls showed that Angela Alsobrooks would lose by 3 points or more! Instead, she beat Trone by 10 percentage points!

Third, the Times conducted a second poll with a different polling organization (Ipsos). The second poll casts significant doubt on the first poll. Of course, the NYTimes did not highlight that result with front-page analysis similar to the Sienna poll it covered on Monday. Instead, the information was buried in a newsletter analyzing the strength of a third-party candidate (RFK Jr.) based on his placement in poll survey questions.

Surprisingly, the Ipsos poll showed that support for RFK Jr. varied significantly depending on where his name appeared in the poll survey. See NYTimes, A Simple Experiment Reveals Why It’s So Hard to Measure R.F.K. Jr.’s Support. (This article is accessible to all.)

Buried within the article on RFK polling is a link to the “experimental” poll conducted by the Times and Ipsos. That poll shows that among two samples of likely voters, Biden is leading Trump by 3 points in a head-to-head question that identifies only Biden and Trump by name. The Times had that information in hand when it ran front-page coverage about Trump allegedly beating Biden in five swing states. Did the Times mention additional information in its blitzkrieg coverage of the Sienna poll? I couldn’t find it.

Finally, Jay Kuo published an excellent analysis on the factors that suggest Democrats should be feeling good about Biden’s prospects. See Jay Kuo, The Big Picture, Ten Reasons To Be Cautiously Optimistic About Biden's Chances in November (substack.com). If you are still nervous about the NYTimes poll, Jay Kuo’s article will give you a boost! I highly recommend it.

---

Supreme Court orders Louisiana to use map creating second congressional district with majority of Black voters

In a victory for voters in Louisiana, civil rights advocates, and Democrats in Louisiana and Congress, the US Supreme Court reinstituted a redrawn congressional map that includes a second Black majority district in Louisiana. See WaPO, Supreme Court restores Louisiana voting map with majority-Black district.  

The Supreme Court’s decision was unusual because liberal justices on the Court objected to the late intervention by the Court. Louisiana officials said they needed to know this week if the Court would change the congressional map.

Unfortunately, the status of the second majority Black district is not settled. Despite the Supreme Court’s order, the status of the district is subject to ongoing litigation. But for 2024, at least, Democrats have a chance to expand their reach into Louisiana’s congressional delegation.

---

Final report on Colin Allred fundraiser by Today’s Edition readers

Thanks to all the readers of this newsletter who supported our fundraiser for Rep. Colin Allred—who is running to replace Senator Ted Cruz. The final report is that 600 readers contributed $45,000 to Colin’s campaign! When Colin beats Ted Cruz, each of you should take pride and satisfaction in the part you played! Thank you for your generosity!

---

Reader meeting in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, May 25

Please join me and my wife in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, May 25 for a meeting with readers at 10:30 am. The sign-up sheet is here: Washington, D.C. Reader Meeting

As with other meetings, we are looking for a reader who can host up to 30 guests for one hour. If you can host, please indicate your availability on the sign-up sheet.

Looking forward to seeing you!

---

Concluding Thoughts

I frequently receive emails from readers that include new articles, op-eds, and polls that contain bad news. Sometimes, the readers do not include any commentary. On other occasions, the bad news includes a worried note in which the reader agonizes over the bad news and then concludes, “If Biden doesn’t do something, he is going to lose.”

We have been through waves of stories that were (allegedly) the end of Joe Biden’s candidacy: He’s too old. He’s senile. Inflation. Ukraine. Immigration. Gaza. And yet, he’s still standing. And, under a fair reading of the political environment, he is leading in a close race and has momentum on his side.

There is a logical fallacy in picking one story and declaring that it will end Biden’s prospects. Focusing on a single story or development—to the exclusion of the rest of the universe—will lead to pre-determined hypothetical disaster. But that’s not the way politics works.

It is true that there are single-issue voters in America. But they are the rare exception. No one walks around thinking, “I am willing to end 230 years of democracy because Joe Biden is 80 years old,” or “because he can’t lower the price of eggs.” Those are not authentic reasons anyone would vote against Biden and for Trump. They are excuses to conceal the real reason that someone would vote for an aspiring dictator, sexual predator, incorrigible liar, and depraved narcissist.

We should not waste our time trying to change the minds of voters who are providing bad-faith excuses that do not explain their true motivations. Instead, we should focus our efforts on convincing some of the 80 million Americans who did not vote in 2020 that they should vote in 2024.

People do not vote for many reasons. Many are simply overwhelmed by economic and family circumstances that make the attention and effort required to vote—even by mail—a luxury to be enjoyed by other people with more time or resources. Those voters can be motivated to go the polls to protect their economic well-being, health, and safety. While motivating those voters is not easy, it is easier than engaging in a mock debate with Trump loyalists claiming they can’t vote for Joe Biden because gas costs too much.

Here's my point: The next time you experience a moment of existential dread over the latest bad news story, op-ed, or poll, don’t commit the logical fallacy of assuming that development will determine the course of the election. Instead, channel that nervous energy into registering and motivating members of the 2020 “did not vote” cohort to vote in 2024. If you can’t do that yourself, you can support organizations like Field Team 6, whose mission is simple: Register Democrats, save the world. Or support other organizations that register voters and “get out the vote.”

The election will be close. Creating a larger margin of victory for Joe Biden will make it more difficult for MAGA extremists to contest the results. We can do that. We are doing that every day we support grassroots organizations and volunteers who are registering and motivating new voters to vote for Joe Biden. It’s that simple; and that challenging.

Which is why I always say, “We have every reason to be hopeful, but no reason to be complacent.”

Talk to you tomorrow!