President Biden vs. the chaos candidate.

February 27, 2024

On Friday, March 1, about half the federal government will run out of authority to spend money; most of the rest will run out of spending authority on March 8. The House returns from a two-week recess on Wednesday, February 28—two days before the first partial government shutdown. During those two “working” days, the House will spend time in the Oversight Committee taking deposition testimony from Hunter Biden while the Senate prepares for a trial of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. See The Hill, Lawmakers race to avoid looming shutdown as blame game begins.

That is exactly the result that Trump orchestrated by ordering congressional Republicans to flip-flop-flip-flop on immigration reform and funding for Ukraine. Putin opposes funding for Ukraine, which means Trump opposes funding for Ukraine, which means congressional Republicans oppose funding for Ukraine. It’s a straight line from Putin to Mike Johnson, with Trump as the messenger boy.

The surest way to prevent funding for Ukraine—and maximize chaos--is to shut down the entire US government. Mike Johnson appears to be entertaining that option, even though some members of the GOP caucus have lost patience with Mike Johnson’s feckless leadership and are prepared to avoid a shutdown.

Trump is the chaos candidate. He causes chaos and blames others. The national drama and pain inflicted on all Americans distract from his increasing legal jeopardy.

Don’t fall for Trump's chaos-distraction strategy. Congressional Democrats and President Biden have been acting responsibly every step of the way. Indeed, President Biden will meet with congressional leaders on Tuesday, even though House Republicans have played whack-a-mole with funding bills involving immigration reform and funding for Ukraine.

It is possible that Speaker Mike Johnson will fold his cards at the last moment—as he did when two prior funding deadlines approached. But playing “chicken” with a government shutdown is no way to run the world’s largest economy. Americans deserve better from Congress. Let’s hope that Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries can again bring order and common sense to bear in the House.

---

President Biden hints at temporary ceasefire in Gaza

In an extemporaneous comment to reporters in a Manhattan ice cream shop, President Biden responded to a question about when a temporary ceasefire could be expected. He said,

My national security adviser tells me that we’re close. We’re close. We’re not done yet. My hope is by next Monday, we’ll have a ceasefire.

See The Guardian, Joe Biden says Gaza ceasefire could be reached by next Monday | Joe Biden.

Per The Guardian,

US officials hope a multi-week pause in fighting could offer a path to ending the war. But Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has vowed to continue Israel’s bombardment after the pause. 

Given the complexity of ceasefire negotiations, caution is warranted. The important point is that serious discussions regarding a ceasefire are ongoing—with the US acting as a participant in the negotiations.

An indication of the seriousness of the negotiations is the resignations of the Palestinian Authority cabinet members that appear designed to clear the path for a post-conflict government in Gaza and the West Bank. As that possibility comes into sharper focus, the interests of the US and Israel (as expressed by Netanyahu) have begun to diverge sharply. See The Atlantic, Why the U.S. and Saudis Want a Two-State Solution, and Israel Doesn’t.

Per The Atlantic,

This contradiction between U.S. and Israeli policies raises troubling quandaries. The Biden administration appears to be working to confront Israelis with the stark choice they face: security through an agreement with Palestinians and normalization with Saudi Arabia (and other Arab and Muslim countries), or inviting further conflict by clinging to occupied Palestinian lands at a heavy cost of antagonized regional relations and declining American sympathies.

There are no easy solutions here, but President Biden believes that the long-term peace and security of Israelis and Palestinians is best served by a two-state solution that recognizes a Palestinian state. But, before the terrorist attacks on October 7, only 35% of Jewish Israelis supported a two-state solution. See Two-state solution? Israelis have grown more skeptical | Pew Research Center (9/26/23). In the same survey, only 41% of Arab Israelis supported a two-state solution.

The first step is a temporary ceasefire that can create momentum for a permanent ceasefire. Let’s hope President Biden is right in his prediction that a temporary ceasefire will begin next week.

---

Nate Cohn of the NYTimes defends polls that overestimate support for Trump

Nate Cohn (not Nate Silver) of the NYTimes wrote a column defending the consistent bias in polling that overestimates support for Trump. See Nate Cohn, NYTimes, Three Theories for Why Trump’s Primary Results Are Not Matching Expectations. (Accessible to all.)

Nate Cohn begins by telling us that the polls didn’t really miss by much—if you close one eye and squint. Notice the weasel words used in his defense of the polls below (I have bolded his qualifications):

In the scheme of primary polls, these aren’t especially large misses. In fact, they’re more accurate than average.

Got that? First, he dismisses the polls because they are “primary” polls without explaining why polling methodology in primaries would be more likely to produce consistent biases than polling methodology in general elections.

Next, he acknowledges that the polls “missed” but casually dismisses those errors by saying they aren’t “especially large misses.” Hmm . . . try that excuse with your employer next time you fail to come up with an accurate estimate when it is your job to come up with accurate estimates!

Finally, he says that the primary polls were “more accurate than average”—which is damning with faint praise. Cohn is essentially admitting that polls aren’t accurate because on average they “miss” more than the last three primary polls that overstated Trump's winning margin by 7 percentage points.

Cohn then offers three theories of why the polls missed. I agree with Cohn that the reason the polls missed is because the pollsters surveyed the wrong people! In Cohn’s words,

Another possibility is that the polls simply got the makeup of the electorate wrong.

In this theory, pollsters did a good job of measuring the people they intended to measure, but they were measuring the wrong electorate.

In particular, they did not include enough of the Democratic-leaning voters who turned out to support Ms. Haley.

So, the pollsters predicted a larger-than-expected win by excluding “Democratic-leaning voters.” Since “Democratic-leaning voters” are part of the voting population, the failure to include them in the polling sample is malpractice—or intentional misfeasance. I believe it is the latter.

Finally, in assessing whether the pollsters missed a “hidden Biden vote,” Nate Cohn delivers this gem:

There’s no reason to expect that voters undecided between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden will break toward Mr. Biden .  .  .

As I have said before, Nate Cohn needs to look up from his spreadsheets before he makes statements like the above. There is plenty of reason for undecided voters to break in favor of President Biden (e.g., Alabama IVF decision, refusing to fund Ukraine, Dobbs, anti-immigrant rhetoric, appeals to white nationalism, racial gerrymandering, denying voters the ability to amend their state constitutions, January 6, “Jews will not replace us,” “Bird-brain” Nikki Haley, Stormy Daniels, civil finding of sexual assault, $350 million civil fraud judgment, stealing defense secrets, etc.).

If Nate Cohn can’t see that those facts might give some “reason” for voters to break in favor of President Biden, he has no business writing for the NYTimes.

Republicans are flooding the zone with low-quality polls that distort the averages to manipulate public perception. And people like Nate Cohn are helping those bad-faith pollsters achieve their goal of deceiving the public by offering rationalizations and excuses to explain away a consistent bias.

---

Opportunities for Reader Engagement.

I received the following note from Michele Hornish from Every State Blue!

I wanted to thank you for your mention of Blue Missouri (which is one of our state projects) in your newsletter. As it happens, we have a member meeting Feb 27, 2024 06:00 PM  Central. I wanted to personally invite your readership to the meeting. You can register here: Blue Missouri Member Meetup

I also received this note from Partners4Democracy, an organization that readers have found helpful in understanding how, when, and where to invest their resources:

Partners4Democracy is hosting the first of three Special Events on “The Target States:  Seven Keys to Victory” beginning Tuesday, February 27 at 7:00 PM (EST).  These live events will explore the issues, politics and strategies expected to drive voter turnout in each of seven target states and how to get involved to ensure Democrats cross the finish line first. 

This first event will focus on the race in Arizona and Nevada, and will feature Norm Ornstein, a noted analyst of politics, elections, and the US Congress for more than four decades; political consultant Rosa Mendoza; and grass roots organizer Melissa Morales.

P4D is a volunteer group which raises money for grass roots groups in target states who work year-round to organize and get out the vote among key constituencies.  It also supports candidates in state and national races who have a credible chance of winning and who need additional financial resources.  P4D identifies volunteer opportunities for its network and holds monthly Special Events on topics of interest in the 2024 election.

Attendance is free – REGISTER HERE - for this unique event.

---

Concluding Thoughts.

I have received a fair amount of email in my inbox from readers who are critical of Joe Biden because of his age or because of his continued support for Israel. In responding to those emails, the question always arises, “So, what are you going to do? Are you saying you will vote for Trump?”

Some readers respond, “I don’t have to say what I will do. Criticizing Biden is the right of every American.”

That response is unassailably true—but fails to acknowledge that we live in a moment of existential threat to democracy. Yes, all Americans always have the right to criticize their president. But all Americans have a moral obligation to help defeat Trump in November. Defeating Trump means electing Joe Biden. Electing Joe Biden means actively working to ensure his election.

A caveat: I acknowledge that working to change President Biden’s policies is different than criticizing Biden in a way that suggests he should not be reelected in 2024.

Devoting your time to explaining your unhappiness with Joe Biden simply gives others permission to vote for Trump. Please don’t do that. Yes, there are reasons to criticize Joe Biden—and I have some of my own that readers rarely mention. But there are many more reasons to promote Joe Biden than not.

We have a choice as to what we say and how we allocate our time between now and November 5. Usually, that choice has political dimensions only. This year, it has moral dimensions. Make the right choice. Help to reelect Joe Biden.

Talk to you tomorrow!

Looking southwest along the Mississippi River from the observation deck at New Madrid, Missouri.