…I know it’s not what you might call a universal preoccupation

In a recent Yahoo News/YouGov poll, only 16 percent of respondents said they were following the trial very closely, with an additional 32 percent following it “somewhat” closely. “Those numbers rank as some of the lowest for any recent news event,” wrote Yahoo News’s Andrew Romano. When people were asked how the trial made them feel, the most common response was “bored.” TV ratings tell a similar story. “Network coverage of Donald Trump’s hush money trial has failed to produce blockbuster viewership,” Deadline reported at the end of April. Cable news networks, Deadline said, saw a decline in ratings among those 25 to 54 since the same time last year. At the courthouse last week, I met news junkies who’d lined up at 3 a.m. to get a seat at the trial and maybe score selfies with their favorite MSNBC personalities, but it felt more like wandering into a subcultural fandom than the red-hot center of the zeitgeist. A block or so away, you wouldn’t know anything out of the ordinary was happening.

…but…there’s not keeping up with the thing…& not grasping what the deal is?

In theory, the delays in Trump’s other criminal cases should raise the stakes in the New York trial, since it’s the only chance that he will face justice for his colossal corruption before November. But in reality, his record of impunity has created a kind of fatalism in his opponents, as well as outsize confidence among his supporters. In a recent New York Times/Siena poll, 53 percent of voters in swing states said it was somewhat or very unlikely that Trump would be found guilty. That included 66 percent of Republicans but also 42 percent of Democrats.

These voters may be overstating Trump’s chances of an acquittal; many legal experts think the prosecution has an edge. A hopeful possibility, then, is that a guilty verdict will come as a shock to many Americans who have checked out of the news cycle, perhaps giving them pause about putting a criminal in the White House. I wouldn’t count on it, though. In several polls, small but significant shares of Trump supporters said they wouldn’t vote for him if he was a felon, but if recent history is any guide, a vast majority of his supporters will easily rationalize away a conviction. Trump’s minions are already working hard to discredit the proceedings, with House Speaker Mike Johnson calling the trial “corrupt” and a “sham.” It’s worth remembering that the recent embarrassing uproar in a House Oversight Committee meeting, where the Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene insulted a Democratic colleague’s eyelashes, began with Greene’s insinuations about the daughter of the judge in the New York case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/20/opinion/columnists/trump-trial-apathy.html

…but the prosecution thinks it’s done enough

The Wrath of Merchan and other Trump trial takeaways, as prosecution rests [WaPo]

‘Don’t roll your eyes’ and entourage: Trump trial key takeaways, day 19 [Guardian]

In dinging Cohen for stealing, Trump’s lawyers undercut their own premise [WaPo]

…so his appeal is that much closer to reality…& joe…for reasons I’m sure make sense to someone…took the opportunity in light of ICC charges against bibi to explicitly state that although they wouldn’t offer a replacement term…what’s happening in gaza “isn’t a genocide”

Biden attacks request by ICC prosecutor for Netanyahu arrest warrant [Guardian]

…it just looks like the substance of all the charges that added up to contributing to one seem to be undeniably accurate…it’s important not to get confused

Former President Donald J. Trump posted a video on Monday afternoon that features images of hypothetical newspaper articles celebrating a 2024 victory for him and referring to “the creation of a unified Reich” under the headline “What’s next for America?”

The 30-second video, which Mr. Trump posted on his social media site, Truth Social, features several articles styled like newspapers from the early 1900s — and apparently recycling text from reports on World War I, including references to “German industrial strength” and “peace through strength.” One article in the video asserts that Mr. Trump would deport 15 million migrants in a second term, while text onscreen lists the start and end days of World War I.

…”mr. trump posted” doesn’t actually mean “posted by mr trump”

The Trump campaign said in a statement that the video had been posted by a staff member while Mr. Trump was in his criminal trial in Manhattan. The video was still up on his account late Monday night, and his campaign did not respond to a question about why it had not been taken down.

“This was not a campaign video, it was created by a random account online and reposted by a staffer who clearly did not see the word, while the President was in court,” Karoline Leavitt, a campaign spokeswoman, said in a statement. “The real extremist is Joe Biden.”

…&…maybe it’s a tad extreme to say “that’s not genocide”…but…he’s mostly the opposite of an extremist in that he’s pretty middle of the road…so…you’d think that was a bit of a flail…except…they can hardly be talking about the misdiagnosis of gaza…on account of

Mr. Trump has repeatedly denounced Jews who vote for Democrats, accusing them of hating their religion and Israel. In one video this month, he said that “if Jewish people are going to vote for Joe Biden, they have to have their head examined.”

…but…who cares about the little details

The sentence referring to “the creation of a unified Reich” is used three times in the video. It reads, in full, “German industrial strength significantly increased after 1871, driven by the creation of a unified Reich.” In the beginning of the video, as an announcer asks, “What’s next for America,” the text is partly visible, including the words “the creation of a unified Reich.”

…or…you know

President Biden’s campaign accused Mr. Trump of echoing Nazi Germany by posting the ad, saying in a statement on social media that the video was “foreshadowing a second Trump term.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/20/us/donald-trump-reich-video.html

…foreshadowing, you say?

A Super Pac affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) has revved up its campaign spending, pouring $2m into a New York congressional primary to oppose the progressive incumbent Jamaal Bowman.

Campaign finance disclosures released this weekend showed the Super Pac, called United Democracy Project (UDP), spending about $1m in support of Bowman’s opponent, the moderate Democrat George Latimer and $1m in negative advertisements opposing Bowman. If the group succeeds in defeating Bowman, it will deliver a significant blow to the progressive wing of the House.
[…]
In comparison, progressive groups including Justice Democrats and Working Families Party have spent less than $300,000 in support of Bowman and opposing Latimer. Latimer’s campaign has similarly outpaced Bowman’s in fundraising, with Latimer garnering more than $3.6m and Bowman raising about $2.6m so far.
[…]
Aipac’s forays into campaigns represent a new avenue of political activism for the pro-Israel lobbying group, which until the 2022 election cycle did not spend on campaigns. By forming a Super Pac, which can legally contribute unlimited amounts of money on advertisements and communications in races, Aipac has been able to ramp up its influence.

Aipac planned to spend $100m on campaigns this year and has so far targeted a wide and at times unexpected range of races – with mixed results.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/20/pro-israel-group-new-york-jamaal-bowman

…in a world of political binaries…I have to wonder if people who sneer at “progressives” are familiar with the other side of the coin they’re aligning with by default

to revert to an earlier or less advanced state or form

colllins definition

…unless you want to get technical…& talk about logic, specifically…in which case you get to claim

a supposed explanation, each stage of which requires to be similarly explained, as saying that knowledge requires a justification in terms of propositions themselves known to be true

…is a regression…but…let’s be honest…politics isn’t about logic…& if you don’t want progressive…you do want…it would appear…to revert to a less advanced state…not that we can’t advance to an increasingly fucked state

More than a third of the Amazon rainforest is struggling to recover from drought, according to a new study that warns of a “critical slowing down” of this globally important ecosystem.

The signs of weakening resilience raise concerns that the world’s greatest tropical forest – and biggest terrestrial carbon sink – is degrading towards a point of no return.

It follows four supposedly “one-in-a-century” dry spells in less than 20 years, highlighting how a human-disrupted climate is putting unusually intense strains on trees and other plants, many of which are dying of dehydration.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/20/more-than-third-of-amazon-rainforest-struggling-to-recover-from-drought-study-finds

…don’t ask me…I just work here…& I can not work hard enough to make sense of how in the fuck the dude who booked a parking lot belonging to a landscaping firm for a press conference got to thinking he was in a good place to snipe at others for lacking style

The former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani has complained that an indictment handed down against him in connection with Arizona’s fake electors case was not served “stylishly”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/20/rudy-giuliani-served-indictment

…collude-y rudi, ladies & gents…a man dripping with style…no…wait…that’s…hair laquer…boot polish…that stuff from the fifth element…or what baron harkkonen bathes in…I dunno…whatever

Consider the timeline. On Oct. 7, 2016, the “Access Hollywood” story broke. The Washington Post released the infamous recording in which Trump told Billy Bush, one of the show’s hosts, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” Trump went on, saying he could grab women by the genitals. “You can do anything.”

The next day, a representative for Daniels told The National Enquirer that Daniels was willing to talk on the record about her encounter with Trump. We now know from Daniels’s sworn testimony that her story was going to essentially affirm the “Access Hollywood” tape. Trump used his star power to draw in Daniels and then exploited her.

At trial, she did not testify to a frivolous or joyful encounter with Trump; she testified to something far more distressing. He invited her to his hotel room, and after she went to the bathroom, she walked out to find Trump on the bed in just his boxers and a T-shirt. She did not claim he forced himself on her, but she said she left “shaking” and testified that she was ashamed.

Her testimony was so lurid and disturbing that the judge admonished the prosecution, but it also helped explain the entire hush-money scheme. Of course Trump wouldn’t want a story in the media days after the “Access Hollywood” tape that would immediately contradict the message that Trump had engaged in mere “locker room talk.” Instead, he was describing how he actually behaved.
[…]
All of this is morally repugnant. And we can now place Daniels’s testimony in the larger context of what we know about Trump. A jury found him legally liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll. Now we’ve heard additional sworn testimony that Trump is not only unfaithful but fundamentally predatory.
[…]
To be clear, an untested legal theory is not the same thing as a weak or specious theory. If Trump is convicted, his conviction could well survive on appeal. The alternative, however, is dreadful. Imagine a scenario in which Trump is convicted at the trial, Biden condemns him as a felon and the Biden campaign runs ads mocking him as a convict. If Biden wins a narrow victory but then an appeals court tosses out the conviction, this case could well undermine faith in our democracy and the rule of law.

I’m not as concerned about the pure partisans. Some Trump opponents may well think that the ends justify the means. To them, the prosecution has value even if it ultimately fails. And the MAGA base won’t believe any guilty verdict is legitimate, even if it’s upheld on appeal.
[…]
There are smart lawyers who disagree with me, who think the prosecution is standing on solid legal ground. I truly hope they’re right. But I’m worried enough to be deeply perturbed. A terrible man is in the cross hairs of American justice, but immorality alone doesn’t make him a criminal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/19/opinion/trump-trial-election-appeal.html

…helpfully, though…he has broken umpteen fucking laws…so I guess I fail to see how suggesting the catch & kill deal in proximity to an election campaign includes considerations that place the campaign front & center & thereby make it an arrangement specifically intended to contribute to the campaign by protecting it from adverse consequences to people getting to know the candidate is somehow a stretch…to go back to that logical regression business…I think you can build out that chain without having to sweat it, myself…but…the world is not an altogether logical place

Trump’s Reported Fund-Raising Tops Biden’s for First Time [NYT]

…even if joe had more in the visible war chest

Trump tops Biden in April fundraising, but Biden keeps cash advantage [WaPo]

…if we’re talking about boding

The Death of Iran’s President Does Not Bode Well

…uh huh

This ‘doomsday’ glacier is more vulnerable than scientists once thought [WaPo]

…uh

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/20/world-is-ill-prepared-for-breakthroughs-in-ai-say-experts

…but that’s newfangled shit…what about…you know…basic shit…well…funny you should mention shit, as it happens

Top scientists urge action against faeces in rivers [BBC]

Investors have withdrawn £85.2bn from 10 water and sewage firms in England and Wales since the industry was privatised more than 30 years ago, analysis by the University of Greenwich suggests.

Companies are under pressure following sewage spills and water leaks, which critics have blamed on under-investment in the country’s infrastructure.

Ofwat, the industry regulator, said it “strongly refuted” the figures.

“While we agree wholeheartedly with demands for companies to change, the facts are there has been huge investment in the sector of over £200bn,” a spokesperson said.

Water UK, which represents the industry, said investment in the sector was “double the annual levels seen before privatisation”.

Water and sewage firms want to increase customers’ bills by an average 33% over the next five years to fund improvements in the services for households.
[…]
Taken together, the fall in shareholders’ investment and retained earnings – or profit – and rising dividend payments mean that, according to the University of Greenwich, owners have withdrawn £85.2bn.

Water and sewage firms want to spend around £100bn over the next five years.

They argue that they need more money to improve their infrastructure to help limit leaks.

Water investors have withdrawn billions, says research [BBC]

…I guess I’ll take my “good news” where I can find it?

Trump’s Truth Social media company posts $327m first-quarter loss [Guardian]

…but…like the progressive/regressive thing…if the NYT is correct about who’s losing…apparently they aren’t yet “sick of all the winning”…so…ezra klein is here to tell you what joe needs to do to turn it around?

National polls find Democrats slightly ahead of Republicans for control of Congress. The “Never Biden” vote now looks larger than the “Never Trump” vote. The electorate hasn’t turned on Democrats; a crucial group of voters has turned on Biden.

Last week, the Biden team appeared to shake up the race by challenging Trump to two debates. One will take place early, on June 27. The other will be in September. Biden’s video was full of bluster. “Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020,” he said. “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’ll even do it twice.”

Biden, it seemed, was calling Trump’s bluff. He wanted the fight. But Biden wants fewer debates, not more. On the same day, he pulled out of the three debates scheduled by the Commission on Presidential Debates for September and October. He rebuffed the Trump campaign’s call for four debates. “I’ll even do it twice” is misdirection. He’ll do it only twice.

This is bad precedent and questionable politics. Debates do more to focus and inform the public than anything else during the campaign. Biden is cutting the number of debates by a third, and he’s making it easier for future candidates to abandon debates altogether.

Strategically, it’s easy to see why a candidate in the lead wouldn’t want to blow his margin on a bad debate. That’s why Trump skipped the Republican primary debates. But Biden is behind. He needs opportunities to prove to voters that they are wrong about him. He needs opportunities to persuade them to ditch their nostalgia for Trump. He could have had three chances or four, maybe more. Now he has two, and only one will come after Labor Day, when it matters most.

…&…there’s plenty the man could say or do that would seem “smarter” to me…or just more appealing…& I do believe his stance with respect to israel is hurting him in places he (& kinda we) can ill afford it…but…I have yet to find an analysis of that problem that drills down to states & districts & gets into the impact of disingenuous messaging on the less-informed-than-informative swing-able margin in the places that will statistically turn the whole thing one way or another into a matter of mere thousands of winnable votes…so…this is the sort of thing I wind up reading instead?

The polls are wrong. This appears to be Biden’s view. “The polling data has been wrong all along,” he told CNN this month. Axios reports that polling denial is pervasive in Biden’s campaign.

…eh…flawed…misleading…poorly parsed…GI:GO…there’s a lot of things I’d call them before I settled for just “wrong”…but…I’m not ezra

There are two things to say about this. The first is that it’s false.

…more than a couple by my count…but…who’s counting…aside from all the poll-watchers?

The second is that, to the extent polls have been wrong in recent presidential elections, they’ve been wrong because they’ve been biased toward Democrats. Trump ran stronger in 2016 and 2020 than polls predicted.

…&…apparently…ezra watches different polls than me…’16…I buy that…but…really…ran stronger in ’20 than predicted…despite losing…& my seeming to remember not a few polls that found ways to suggest he was on his way to winning…I guess I must be remembering wrong?

…still…even if only “stylistically”…I gotta wonder about having this

Sure, the polls could be wrong. But that could mean Trump is stronger, not weaker, than he looks.

…immediately followed by this part?

It’s the media’s fault. As a member of the media, I’ve been hearing this one more often. Biden made the case himself at the White House Correspondents Dinner. “I’m sincerely not asking of you to take sides but asking you to rise up to the seriousness of the moment; move past the horse-race numbers and the gotcha moments and the distractions, the sideshows that have come to dominate and sensationalize our politics; and focus on what’s actually at stake,” Biden said.

…I mean…seriously? …it might not be a realistic ask on biden’s part but it’s pretty hard to see how this piece is moving past any of that stuff when the suggestion is that if the polls are off it must be in a way that’s worse for the least-worst candidate than the candidate who is manifestly “just the worst”…so why hang a lampshade on it by butting those up against each other that way?

…ezra’s sure he wasn’t talking about him, though…it’s that other media that’s at fault

It’s always the case that the media could be doing a better job. But as an explanation for Biden’s poll numbers, this doesn’t hold up. In April, NBC News released a national poll breaking the race down by where respondents got their news. Biden led by 49 points among voters who relied on newspapers. He led by 20 points among voters relying on national network news. In the slightly archaic-sounding category of “digital websites,” Biden led by 10 points. If the election were limited to voters relying on the kinds of outlets Biden was scolding, he would win in a landslide.

…see…despite bedbug boy & doubt-that & the other professional asshattery…NYT readers allegedly get it…so…they should just keep doing what they’re doing, I guess

But Biden is behind, and here’s why: Among voters who rely on social media, Trump led by four points. Among voters who rely on cable news, Trump led by eight. Voters who get their news from YouTube and Google favor Trump by 16 points. And voters who don’t follow political news at all favor Trump by 26 points.

…you might say…say…that that indicates that support for trump is inversely proportional to the amount of attention someone is paying…ezra doesn’t say that…but…I dunno why, exactly…maybe it was just…inconvenient?

It’s a bad time to be an incumbent. As my colleague Paul Krugman notes, Biden is more popular than the leaders of peer countries like Canada and Britain. This may just be a bad time to be an incumbent.

…&…eh…being more popular than the latest in a line of tory PMs that gets to be the face of 14years of dismal track record when people are feeling the pinch…not exactly a high bar…but…arguably less to do with the simple “be an incumbent” thing than “having form for being fucking shite”…which…on a net basis at least…joe doesn’t particularly…arguably the reverse is closer to being accurate…despite his flaws…high among which is…well…being joe biden, I guess

Polls are not showing an anti-incumbent mood. They’re showing an anti-Biden mood.

…& maybe they are…but…for my sins…I did take a look at the breakdown of the one he seems to be mostly leaning on

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/13/us/elections/times-siena-poll-registered-voter-crosstabs.html

…&…well…aside from the usual methodological gibberish

[…] the initial likely electorate weight was adjusted to incorporate self-reported vote intention. The final probability that a registrant would vote in the 2024 election was four-fifths based on their ex ante modeled turnout score and one-fifth based on their self-reported intention, based on prior Times/Siena polls, including a penalty to account for the tendency of survey respondents to turn out at higher rates than nonrespondents. The final likely electorate weight was equal to the modeled electorate rake weight, multiplied by the final turnout probability and divided by the ex ante modeled turnout probability.

…we all know what that means, right?

…well…maybe not…speaking for myself there were a number of things I didn’t get about the whole set of results…which, though the overall “representative sample” was just north of 4,000 respondents…the bulk of the responses that generate their statistics was drawn from subsets…most often 3,380…which was the number willing to declare themselves for one or other party or claim independent status…well…actually those three options only account for 90% of that 3,380…so…still not clear what the subset actually represents…but…you get the idea…& 77% of them said they voted for one or other of the two main suspects…but if someone is feeling matheletic today…maybe they can do me a solid…of the 3,380…less the ones who said they’d vote for joe…52% said there wasn’t really a chance they’d vote for him…& there’s a line labelled “[PREVIOUSLY] Joe Biden” that gets a 42% figure

…meanwhile the flip-side stats have a mere 46% saying there’s not really any chance they’d vote for felonius bunk…with a [PREVIOUSLY] score of 48%

…anyone want to tell me what those [PREVIOUSLY] numbers break down to? …only, I get the distinct sense that to get to a fraction over 3,380 takes more than one step back from the percentage

…&…of the 2,971 who were prepared to give an answer about their main reason to vote for their candidate of choice…only 1% said abortion…while between “a positive view of the candidate’s policies” & “a negative view of opponent’s character/competence” you get to pretty much 50%…maybe stick a pin in that

…back to the 3,380…apparently 48% strongly disapprove of joe’s handling of the job of being president…but 43% have a “very unfavorable” view of his opponent…for which joe scores 45%…& “net” the numbers “favor” shut-up-donnie-you’re-out-of-your-element (53%/45%) over joe (59%/40%) on a favorable/unfavorable basis…so…3% manage to strongly disapprove without having a very unfavorable view of the old guy…which suggests…at least to me…a degree of inconsistency in the responses that just maybe might have something to do with the way the thing was conducted?

…for some reason I don’t get “context” is supplied by way of joe rogan getting a 31%/34% split for the same judgement…but apparently that’s not grounds to toss the whole thing as a bad bet & start again

…anyway…to get back to that stuck pin…or stuck record…when you phrase it as “What one issue is most important in deciding your vote this November?”…that 1% of 2,971 people who said it was their prime reason to vote the way they aimed to…morphs into 11% of 3,380

…now…assuming we can’t have a fraction of a respondent…that’s 30 out of 2,971…& 372 out of 3,380…which is…well, I guess it’s 409 more people…so the other 10% could be only in the bigger group, I suppose…but…that doesn’t strike me as being as likely as the inconsistent responses thing…besides…that roughly 50% of the 3,380 who started out saying their positive/negative view of their guy/his opponent were their main reason for their pick…drops to 10% when asked to answer the latter question…so apparently “single-issue” & “main reason” are not synonymous…none of which ezra or any of his colleagues has (to my knowledge) offered either explanation or analysis of…but someone the other day was keen to highlight the folks who think roe being overturned was on joe…even though that table says that blame is 17% playing 58% who pin it on the former guy…which is a puzzle, I confess…as is this whole bit

Which comes closest to your view about the political and economic system in America, even if none are exactly right?

The system does not need changes: 2%
The system needs minor changes: 27%
The system needs major changes: 55%
The system needs to be torn down entirely: 14%

…which…combined with a 45% assessment that major changes would ensue were orange foolius ushered back into position…was parlayed in the pages of the NYT into a suggestion that mostly people equated that to an improvement…based on…fucking nothing I can see in this breakdown…not even permutations of conflations of things that don’t naturally conflate…like the 13% who apparently think sleepy joe would wake up & tear the whole system down given another shot

…& somehow 43% to 35% those folks think dolt45’s changes would be a good thing versus bad…but…asked the same thing about joe those net numbers are only 24% to 23%…which is less than half of already-not-all-those-polled…if anyone cares…my math makes the 3,380 about 82.5% of the 4,097 “respondents”…so a little up on the proportion of the 3,380 who took a good/bad view of the prospective change wrought by a hypothetical second bite at the 45th cherry

…51% claim they would prefer a candidate “who promises to bring politics in Washington back to normal”…the same proportion that were prepared to swallow that on the whole being a “trained expert” means you probably say stuff in your expert opinion that’s reliable…while fully 36% think if you’re a trained expert generally that makes you too biased to be reliable…& speaking of biases & reliability…that NYT piece from the other day making hay about the 49% who don’t think the much-indicted co-conspirator can get a fair trial on the stormy thing…that’s 49% of 1,667 respondents…or about 40% of the people it implied supplied that answer…or a little over 800 people out of a potential 4,000 & change…which sounds considerably closer to “less than 25%” than “damn near half”

…the 3,380 are about 85% non-union…35% self-described moderates…64% raking in 50K+ a year (25% 2x-4x that & 10% 200K+)…58% some flavor of christian…23% evangelical…46% republican…66% white*…& 71% not “open to commenting on the issues in this survey and be interested in being contacted by a reporter”

[* – that one’s a proportion of the full 4,097]

…so…back to ezra…who’s referring to that mess when he says this

Voters are angry about rising prices and high interest rates. In the Times/Siena poll, 21 percent of voters said the economy would drive their vote, while 7 percent said inflation was their top issue. By contrast, immigration was the top issue for 12 percent of voters, abortion was the top issue for 11 percent, the war between Israelis and Palestinians was the top issue for 2 percent, and crime was the top issue for fewer than 1 percent.

…that’s what…3 of 7?

Prices are the most common explanation for Biden’s troubles. But Democrats performed — and polled — well in 2022, when the economy was in far worse shape than it is now. And Biden’s numbers aren’t following the pattern we’ve seen with other recent presidents.

…which is just shitty of joe, frankly…doesn’t he know how awkward that makes reporting on him?

Biden’s recovery is stronger than what either Reagan or Obama saw. In 1984, inflation was higher than it is now, unemployment was higher than it is now, and the interest rate on a 30-year mortgage was above 13 percent — almost double what it is now. In May 2012, unemployment was over 8 percent; it’s 3.9 percent now. Yet Biden is polling worse than Reagan and Obama were at this point in their re-election bids.

…still don’t let the ones who are big mad about him saying stuff like “that doesn’t look like genocide to me” mislead you, though…that’s not the problem…this is the problem

Voters think Biden is too liberal. The Biden administration has worried about shoring up its left flank, particularly since the war in Gaza. But the Times/Siena poll found that while Biden is losing only 2 percent of his “very liberal” voters from 2020 to Trump, he is losing 16 percent of his supporters who described themselves as moderate and conservative.

…needless to say of the 7 he picks the one that most concerns poor ezra is joe’s age

Biden’s age also shows up in the absence of great moments ricocheting across social media. If you compare his interviews and speeches with those of Obama or Bill Clinton before him — or especially with the Biden of the 2012 vice-presidential debate or the 2016 convention — his slippage as a campaigner is clear. Communication skills aren’t everything, but they aren’t nothing, either.

…uhh…old guy looking old compared to younger guys or even himself when he was that much less old than he is these days…is…definitely his fault, I guess…after all…he did it to himself?

Democrats need to redefine Trump. “Biden is not running against God,” as Bernie Sanders put it. “He is running against Donald Trump.” A year ago, Democrats were pretty confident that as the possibility of a Trump presidency came closer, voters would realize what they were risking and come home to Biden. That looks less likely with each passing day.

…just don’t blame ezra & his mates for that shit…or the public…that would be irresponsible or some shit

The mistake Democrats keep making about Trump again and again is to assume that the rest of the country will see Trump as they see Trump. But Trump won in 2016, and he came scarily close in 2020; absent the pandemic, he might well have been re-elected.

…& whose fault is it that people don’t see the man AS HE FUCKING IS FOR FUCK’S ACTUAL SAKE…nothing to do with the likes of the NYT…or the likes the NYT is thirsting for

What Democrats want to do in 2024 is run against the threat Trump poses to American democracy. “Whether democracy is still America’s sacred cause is the most urgent question of our time, and it’s what the 2024 election is all about,” Biden said on Jan. 5, in the speech that kicked off his re-election campaign. But it’s not working. Or at least it’s not working well enough.

…so…what’s it going to take…does he have to go full-make-up joker & literally set fire to DC?

Biden is right about what he said on Jan. 5: Preserving democracy is the most urgent question of our time. But that means doing what’s necessary to beat Trump, even if it’s not what Democrats want to do to beat Trump.

What I fear Biden’s allies will do is deny the polls until Democrats wake up, as they did before, to the shocking news that Trump won. That would be a sin against the cause they claim as sacred. The first step toward winning is changing course when you’re losing.

Seven Theories for Why Biden Is Losing (and What He Should Do About It) [NYT]

…because ezra seems more inclined to circle the press wagons than to change his fucking course when it comes to letting events take theirs?

…&…I’m going to go douse the flames wreathing my head & go attempt to do something constructive with my day…how about you?