Friends, if you're like most people who read this blog, you view Joseph R. Biden as something of a walking joke -- a senile has-been who couldn't govern his way out of a wet paper bag. Well, that may be so, but my latest article argues that, if you want Trump to prevail in November, you might want to root for ole Sleepy Joe in the first presidential debate on June 27th. Why on Earth would I do that, you ask? Read on and find out...
Run, Sleepy Joe, Run!
With the first and presumptively most important presidential debate coming up in less than two weeks, many Republicans and conservatives are exultant. Their candidate, Donald Trump, has enjoyed a consistent if small lead in the polls, especially in those that most accurately reflect the true nature of the race – by allowing voters to choose between Trump, Biden, Kennedy, West, and Stein. Trump's advantage hasn't been dented by a wide-ranging campaign of lawfare, up to and including his recent felony convictions in New York City. Many Trumpers expect the first debate to consolidate Trump's dominance – mainly because they take it for granted that Biden's senility will be laid bare. From that point on, they assume, Trump will be on a secure glidepath to a second term.
Much of this logic is sound, but the last part – the idea that a poor debate performance by Biden will cement Trump's status as the frontrunner – is dangerously naive. Trump is currently ahead, and has been ahead more or less since the campaign began, but this advantage, if one digs deeply into polling data, does not necessarily reflect any particular strength on Trump's part. His favorable ratings, and the percentage of Americans who say they will vote for him, are not significantly changed from 2020, when he lost by more than four points. At this same point in the race in 2020, in the RealClearPolitics average of head-to-head polls, Trump was receiving around 42% of the vote. Today, he is receiving roughly 45%. That's a significant difference, but hardly an earth-shattering one. Joe Biden, by contrast, was receiving 50% of the vote in 2020, versus less than 45% now. In a five-way race, Biden currently receives under 40% – an extraordinarily weak performance for a sitting president. The lesson here is that Trump's dominance at this stage of the race is mostly a factor of Biden's unpopularity, and the divided field of candidates, rather than Trump's own appeal.
But why, then, would a flawed debate performance by Joe Biden not serve to improve Trump's prospects of victory still further? That's simple: because Trump's chances of victory rely on the assumption that his main opponent is, and will be, Joe Biden. While it would be difficult, and maybe even excruciating, for Democrats to pull the plug on Biden's reelection bid and choose another candidate, it is far from impossible, especially before the nomination has been officially bestowed on Biden at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August. A different Democratic candidate, needless to say, would upend the presidential race entirely, and this would threaten Trump's primacy by injecting new blood into the contest. No one can say whether the Democrats could find themselves a dream candidate, but at the very least they could find one who wasn't burdened by all of Joe Biden's baggage, and who wasn't obliged to defend the status quo, which so many Americans find repugnant.
If, therefore, Trump's likelihood of winning in 2024 depends on Democrats sticking to their guns and following Joe Biden like lemmings over the abyss, then the best way to ensure that they do so is to hope that Biden puts in a performance in the first debate that will be judged...satisfactory. That debate is, and will be seen as, the greatest and most important test of Biden's political viability before the Democratic National Convention. If he passes it, he will most definitely be the Democrats' nominee. If he trips up modestly, Democrats will probably still be stuck with him. If, however, he crashes and burns, as so many Republicans and conservatives seem to expect he will, and hope he will, then it would be shocking if Democratic Party elders, along with members of the Biden family, did not take Sleepy Joe aside and explain to him that the time to retire gracefully is now. And, in that case, the modest lead that Trump has built – over one of the least popular presidents in modern history – could evaporate overnight.
Elementary political logic dictates that the candidate who is ahead in any race should do everything in his power to ensure that the dynamics that helped to craft his advantage should be left as undisturbed as possible, and he should hope that nothing dramatic or even interesting happens in the course of the campaign to change voters' minds. A mediocre debate performance by both candidates on June 27th, or a debate that surprises and excites no one, would be entirely to Trump's advantage. Thus, while it may appear highly ironic, those Americans who sincerely wish for a second Trump term would be well-advised to hope and pray for a reasonably solid debate performance by none other than Joe Biden. Such a result would keep Biden's struggling campaign on life support – but decidedly alive – and that is exactly where Republicans, conservatives, and Trumpers should want it.
Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480/106.9.
And here it is at Townhall:
https://townhall.com/columnists/nicholaswaddy/2024/06/14/run-sleepy-joe-run-n2640460
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I haven't read your essay yet and I look forward to doing so but I'd like first to comment on this "Bilateral Security Agreement " with Ukraine. Good thing we have an election coming, with at least the technical possibility that US policy on Ukraine could return to sanity in time to head off another Cuban Missile Crisis. Bad thing that we have an election coming up because, yes, 'ol Biden appears to put much electoral stock in showing he's one helluva man he is, a badass hombre for sure. Is it possible he's trying to goad Russia into upping the ante and making him an indispensable crisis or even war leader? And oh yes, he vows that Ukraine's future is with Nato; thataway to show them Russkies what fer Joe. Is it possible he is trying in his bumbling way to establish a justification for invocation of the Nato treaty? You know, "well we have a security pact with Ukraine and Russia is turning up the heat on Ukraine and now, by definition, us. And if we are attacked then Nato is too. Yeah, go ahead Ivan, knock that chip off our shoulder. " By all means Joe, confirm what is to Russian eyes firm intent to present it with an unendurable fait accompli analogous to that which JFK faced in Oct. '62. Yeah, give them promise of a fundamental affront to their national integrity and threat to their national security. Aww, they'll back down . . . won't they. . . ? My guess is Russia will wait until after the election to really get down to cases over this latest move. This confrontation was avoidable but now it is hurtling toward inevitability.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Well taken, well taken! Your argument on the debates makes alot of sense. I also fully agree with you that the novelty and relative freshness of a replacement for Biden (unless it was feckless Kamalafornia)might well generate a groundswell of unalloyed enthusiasm which would be an ominous development for American well being. But Hillary is making a disingenuous feint to the center with her unpopular endorsement of a downstate NY Congressional candidate from a proscribed "class" over an incumbent of an unassailable "class". I forget the office holder's name but he's the piece of work who "accidentally" set off a fire alarm during a significant vote. "See" she says thereby "I'm no far left bigot, no. And I'm still available you know and this time I wouldn't let it be robbed from me; "comeback kid "and all that. And don't worry, my Scotus vassals, oops, nominees ,would be just as principled and moderate as my generosity in this shows me to be". Hillary could tap into a very considerable reserve of anger and resentment over the unjust denial to her of her entitlement in 2016. The fact that a man was granted success in 2020 no doubt exacerbated the the outrage felt by many of her supporters and if she were to supplant him now, their likelihood of voting for the dem ticket might then also be enhanced.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: The "Bumpstock" decision could have a negative effect on DJT's campaign. The decision held that ATF lacked the authority to ban the device.It is a principled decision on a controversial issue; it abjures politics (save of course for the futile bigotry of far left "justices" ) as it should. But DJT's monumental enablement of a law abiding Scotus will earn him no credit in this. The MSM will urge its flock to see him as being all for a device which can turn a semiauto into a full auto and Biden will of course bluster about it. Alack; the antiamerican left gun grabbers who deservedly see in gun owners and their organizations an implacable foe will now be constrained to go the legislative route they so despise for its icky popularity ,in order to work this issue. Since defeat of conservatism, rather than enhancement of public safety, is their motive in their unrelenting attack on the 2nd Amendment, I do not expect them to invest much effort in such a prolonged democratic procedure (all those Neanderthals from flyover country after all), just now. They'll concentrate on calumny at least until the election.
ReplyDeleteHmm. Is Sleepy Joe fomenting war with Russia so that he can strut about like the warlord he is and win the election by acclamation? You may be on to something, in that the Dems, and their allies in NATO and the Western establishment, may use Russophobia to paint their domestic enemies as traitors. That would be their standard operating procedure, to be sure. Actual war with Russia, however, would require an actual willingness to fight, and I don't see much of that in the West, at the highest levels or in public opinion. My guess is that any agreement penned with Ukraine is mere posturing -- designed to cover the weakness and cowardice of the West with the fig leaf of neighborliness. What's more interesting to me is what happens on the battlefield in the next few months. So far nothing much has changed this summer, when some thought the Russians would be on the war path to Kiev by now. We shall see.
ReplyDeleteJack, for reasons I've stated in a separate reply I doubt that Hillary would be Joe's replacement in 2024, but you're right that identity politics would have a big impact on the Dems' thinking if they were suddenly in need of an understudy. It would be hard to deny Kam-Kam, but politically imperative that they sideline her. All in all, it could become a regular circular firing squad over at the DNC!
The bumpstock decision may not be popular, but by unanimously upholding the legality of the abortion drug SCOTUS has dodged the issue that most threatened to bring it unwelcome prominence in the 2024 election. The Dems will continue trashing the credibility of SCOTUS by dribs and drabs, though, setting up a potential Biden Administration rejection of any SCOTUS decision handing the election to Trump. I believe a contested election, in some form, is quite likely, and that would put the Supremes in a very uncomfortable position...
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I think that, at heart, Biden is a milquetoast with little comprehension of the grim resolve of the evil the antiamerican left uses to bring America to heel. He somewhat comically plays an hombre now at their "bidding". He has learned nothing of them since protoAquarius '65; he still thinks them a bunch of exuberant idealists with the best of intentions. The precipitate true badass takeover of the New Left was beyond his limited ken. They see him as their once proven means of unseating DJT and, though now proven their doddering and unstable toady, still the best they have for now. Final repulse of Nemesis DJT is ALL just now, NO MATTER WHAT THE MEANS! They are probably bent on brazening it out with him until after the election and after that , putting him out to pasture as soon as is practicable. They may be constrained to go to Plan B or C . . . should he fluff prematurely or should an election of DJT be vulnerable to a quasi legal coup (or even one of main force(?) Acceptance of a DJT restoration is to them the very definition of anathema and as you have very plausibly maintained , raises the appalling but yet real possibility of unprecedented violation of democracy in this "election".
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: A dangerous parallel I see between this Ukraine mess and the Cuban Missile Crisis is that one side is convinced that the other side can be threatened and will not respond decisively. Khruschev had wrongly sized Kennedy up as a weakling and rather than run the risk of overthrow (and perhaps worse) at the hands of his hardliners over Berlin, chose what he thought the lesser hazard. In doing so he gave the U.S. an absolutely intolerable challenge and affront. We may well be repeating his mistake by continuing to vex Russia with the credible possibility of Nato incorporating Ukraine (the "Borderland"), a nation with unique historical and geographic ties to Russia. Nato's astonishing post 1991 march through Russia's Eastern European barrier against invasion may well have led us to a reckless conclusion that Russia can be toyed with. If so, we have backed an exceedingly rugged, proven brutal and terribly powerful nation into a corner, recklessly and unnecessarily. Nato is strong enough without Ukraine. Ukraine's tragic proximity and undeniable vitality to Russia is hard and unchangeable fact. Russia may be close to its breaking point over this. . Apparently our present administration sees domestic political advantage , as did Khrushchev in '62, in playing this potentially catastrophic game . The late Dr. Stephen Cohen of Princeton and NYU, a distinguished Russia historian, drew the same analogy to the Cuban Missile Crisis when the idea of Ukraine in Nato surfaced. His opinion is not conclusive but it is very creditable. We cannot but be much closer to its realization now. I lived through Oct. '62 and believe me, prior to it, the thought that we would presently actually go nuclear nose to nose with Russia seemed as unlikely as today's hazard may look.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Your concern about how the battle may go for Ukraine in the near future is well taken. But I'm going to go as far as to suggest that should Russia be defeated by Ukraine in this present campaign it would nevertheless not give up its firm resolve that Ukrainian membership in Nato will NEVER be tolerated in any form.In '62 I suppose we could have temporized (and the eventual "quarantine "could be viewed that way) but we were ready, determined and within one day of invading Cuba, which many in the administration thought would probably mean nuclear war in some manifestation (who knows? At sea? In Europe?A general onslaught? With some restraint. . . ?) with Russia. Russia might well think itself constrained to a similar resolution to risk all should Ukraine be counterintuitively welcomed into Nato. They may be warning us yet again to "step off!" with the visit of Russian warships to Cuba. In this day and age that could even amount to the overt return of Russian nuclear warheads to within 90 miles of the US. Missiles are standard ship armament now and no doubt some are nuclear armed.
ReplyDeleteIts common knowledge that a mother bear will reflexively defend her interests (usually her cubs) at any risk and to goad her into believing it necessary is rank folly. Its not for nuthin' that the bear is an often used metaphor for Mother Russia. We must be absolutely clear headed about this, having mistakenly gotten ourselves into this ever increasingly dangerous confrontation. Our national life may thereby be recklessly hazarded.
Jack, it remains to be seen whether a second term for Trump is a "red line" for lefties that they simply won't cross, no matter what they have to sacrifice to avoid it, or whether it's just a bitter pill that they may be forced to swallow (temporarily). I certainly don't know which it is, but we'll know in a few short months...
ReplyDeleteIt's a fair question whether Russia is approaching a "breaking point", and, if so, what a "break" would involve, from their perspective. Would they vent their rage solely on Ukraine, which they easily could, or would they risk engaging, directly or indirectly, with the West? I would love to know what contingency plans they've developed...
One of the things that made the Cuban Missile Crisis so dangerous was the fact that we didn't understand how nuclear-ready the Russians were in Cuba. Their missiles were operational, I believe, and their subs were nuclear-armed, and they had tactical nukes ready to use against an invasion force. Had we known all that, we might have been less tempted to invade Cuba, of course, or impose a "quarantine". Misunderstandings in the Ukraine theater could, similarly, increase the peril for all sides.
But one thing I'm sure of: Russia will not "lose" in Ukraine, which is good, because if they were on the cusp of losing the world would be in very great danger indeed!
ReplyDelete