Almost No Bounce for Biden After Trump Guilty Verdict

According to Nate Cohn of the New York Times Biden received a two-point bounce from Trump's guilty verdict in the Stormy Daniels hush-money trial.

The question is whether two points is significant. A Never Trumper will argue it is. The argument goes something like this: all Biden needs to do is win the swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, while holding the non-swing states that he won in 2020, and he will accrue the necessary Electoral College votes to claim the presidency. Support for this argument is that Biden trails Trump in Michigan, Pennsylania and Wisconsin by one to two points, within the margin of error.

Arguing against this conclusion is something Cohn revealed in the post-verdict survey:

In fact, the voters we spoke to who continue to support Mr. Trump appear to be more enthusiastic than ever. Many of his previously disengaged supporters seemed newly energized by the verdict, with 18 percent of his supporters who previously said they were unlikely to vote now “almost certain” to do so, compared with just 3 percent of Mr. Biden’s supporters who moved into that category.

The verdict, at least at first blush, delivered the obvious -- greater engagement and commitment from disinterested Trump voters, to the tune of a 15-point bounce over Biden voters. This is not something that is going to show up on the topline margin in a poll, but it something that will definitely make a difference on election day.

Also, bad news for Biden is that two points is likely is good as it gets in terms of any advantage from Trump's many legal woes. No other case is going to be decided prior to November.

So, to sum up, Biden is going to lose. The silver bullet has been fired and the werewolf remains upright and moving forward. Trump remains ahead in all six swing states. 

Biden Has Already Lost

There are too many reasons, too many holes in the leaky Biden-Harris campaign vessel, to expect an outcome other than a Trump victory this November. Whether it is persistent inflation, genocide, nuclear brinkmanship, or the loss of popular support with foundational constituencies, the jig is up for the Democrats.

Take any campaign story, like the one written the other day about an event at Girard College in Philadelphia, a rare joint appearance by the president and vice president, and you will usually find plenty of pretty paper-wrapping attempting to obscure bad news for Biden, such as that described below:   

Mr. Biden has plenty of ground to make up with Black Americans. Polls consistently show that his support from Black voters has declined to alarming levels for a Democrat. In a multicandidate race, just 49 percent of Black voters across six of the top battleground states said they would back Mr. Biden, a New York Times/Siena College/Philadelphia Inquirer poll found. Four years ago, nearly nine in 10 Black voters nationwide cast their ballots for Mr. Biden, according to exit polls.

For anyone who follows American party politics, this is all you need to know. Biden bleeding 40 points among Black voters with six months left before election day means he has already lost. There is too much ground to make up, too little time, with no indication that there is much volatility in voter sentiment.

The more interesting question is whether Black and Latino migration out of the Democratic Party will undermine one branch of the American duopoly. After all, the Black voter is the base of the Democratic Party, and the Latino voter was supposed to be the guarantor of future Democratic Party majorities.

We are entering a period of dealignment the likes of which have not been seen since the 1960s/1970s. 

Cognitive Failure

If you read the New York Times you know that the front part of the paper is devoted to international news, and that international news is, primarily, a depiction of the official enemies of the United States, countries such as Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela.

The United States possesses, or did possess, what is known as the "two-war construct," the ability to fight two major wars simultaneously in two different parts of the world. This doctrine was quietly shelved by the Pentagon starting with the Obama administration. Performance in Iraq and Afghanistan chastened planners. 

But large proxy wars first in Syria and then in Ukraine rekindled affection for the two-war concept. As long as there were committed forces willing to fight, the United States would serve as an "arsenal of democracy." 

We are now witnessing the unwinding of this new arsenal of democracy two-war doctrine. First, the U.S. and its European allies have been unable to fulfill the many needs of the Ukrainian military. Whether it's missile defense systems, artillery shells or armored vehicles, the NATO countries cannot keep up with demand. 

Then came Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. The United States has approved over 100 weapons shipments to Israel since October 7, not to mention the construction of a partially functioning floating pier. Yet Israel is no closer to conquering Gaza than it was eight months ago. 

The rebooted two-war construct is failing. And what I would argue is that it is failing at the cognitive level. Two wars strains the ability of a daily newspaper the size and expertise of the New York Times. "The newspaper of record" can barely devote any space to tarring the largest adversary of the United States, China, particularly since the second half of the front page is devoted to the war at home being fought against Donald Trump.

Who is to Blame?

Collapse of the Gulf Stream

The week before last a tree-removal crew arrived across the street and chopped down two large evergreen trees that stood in the backyard of the old apartment building that my studio windows look out upon.

The evergreens were 60-70 feet in height and provided delicious green eye candy as I lay in bed. Crows frequently perched at the tippity top like Christmas tree angels and swayed with the breeze. During my football season TV ultramarathons I would often find myself gazing for long stretches at the waving evergreens next door. It's very soothing.

I can already feel the impact of their absence. The glare is worse, and, if had to guess, I'd say it's at least a couple degrees warmer in my apartment now that they are gone. Thankfully they didn't remove all the evergreens. There's still two left, not quite as big, about 15 yards to the west, also in the backyard of the old apartment building. And, thankfully, they didn't remove the trees prior to the recent heat dome.

I mention this as preface to the study recently published warning that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a system which includes the Gulf Stream, is "approaching . . . a critical threshold beyond which the circulation system could collapse."

What that collapse would look like no one knows for sure, but it would likely include "increasing storms and lowering temperatures in Europe; and pushing up the sea level in the eastern U.S. It would also further endanger the Amazon rainforest and Antarctic ice sheets."

It seems to me that we are headed for a series of "End Times" level events owing to our rapidly heating climate. Having finished reading Dahr Jamail's The End of Ice, I know that the Artic permafrost is melting faster than scientists anticipated. This pretty much "bakes in"  hotter temperatures in the immediate future. Methane has anywhere from 30- to 90-times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide. 

The Russian tundra is on fire. The forests of Pacific Northwest are too. Catastrophic fires year after year. This is the way it is going to be for the rest of my life.

Biden Less Obama More George W. Bush

Why Trump never pushed harder to deliver an infrastructure bill while he was in office baffled me. The only conclusion I could draw is that he didn't think it was important to his reelection.

I thought it was. Whether it would have a made a difference in the middle of a global pandemic the likes of which haven't been seen since the end of World War One is easy to assert but difficult to prove.

What's apparent is that Biden believes he has to deliver something on infrastructure, even if it is the shrunken bipartisan deal -- widely announced but as of Saturday afternoon the text has yet to be completed. 

The Democratic Party needs some proof of life heading into a midterm election year, particularly now that Delta is on the ascent and evidence is emerging that breakthrough infections are much more common than previously supposed.

The one feather in Biden's cap had been the rollout of vaccines produced by Trump's Operation Warp Speed. If it turns out that these vaccines don't offer a complete solution to the problem -- as I said, it is being acknowledged now that fully vaccinated people can spread the virus and end up in the hospital -- things are going to take a turn for the ugly. As Yves Smith noted last week quoting a story by NPR on the recent COVID-19 surge in the U.S. -- "[Infections] will steadily accelerate through the summer and fall, peaking in mid-October, with daily deaths more than triple what they are now."

It's not a good look for Biden. And, as Smith points out, the pandemic isn't the only bad look for Biden. Every policy area appears to be turning to shit right before our eyes. Whether it's Iran, Afghanistan, Cuba, the lapsing eviction moratorium, the false promises to alleviate student debt, Biden is looking less like the conservative, feckless Obama 3.0 and more like bumbling, incompetent George W. Bush 3.0.

So, yes, absolutely. Some sort of meaningful infrastructure bill must be passed. I'm even willing to accept the bipartisan deal as it is being currently reported if only to get the increased public transit, Amtrak and lead abatement funds into the pipeline, knowing full well that big-ticket $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation will likely never leave the launch pad.

If we use the fate of Biden's original infrastructure proposal as a gauge for budget reconciliation, the Democrats will end up somewhere around $1 trillion; at which point, I imagine, the party will be on the precipice of a free fall.

Future Not Bright for U.S. Hegemony

Last night, a sunny almost-last-day-of-spring evening, I got around to watching NBC's full, pre-summit interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

It's a stunning display not just of Putin's skills as an interlocutor with a hostile questioner but more importantly of the bankruptcy of Western intelligence service talking points as presented by a corporate mainstream media mouthpiece.

NBC's English clown repeatedly interrupted and jabbed his pen at Putin, and Putin kept his cool at all times except for once when the topic of NATO came up:

KEIR SIMMONS: But many of those exercises are a resp— are a response to your actions— Mr. President. Do you worry that your opposition to NATO has actually strengthened it? For six years, NATO has spent more on defense.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Some— some defense. Some defense. During the USSR era, Gorbachev, who is still— thank God, with us— got a promise— a verbal promise— that— there would be no NATO expansion to the east. Where is that—

KEIR SIMMONS: Where is that—

VLADIMIR PUTIN: —promise? Two ways of expansion.

KEIR SIMMONS: Where is that written down? Where is that promise written down?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Right, right, right. Right, right. Well done. Well done. Correct. You’ve got a point. Nyah nyah nyah, got you good. Well, congratulations. Of course, everything should be sealed and written on paper. But what was the point of expanding NATO to the east and bringing this infrastructure to our borders, and all of this before saying that we are the ones who have been acting aggressively?

Why? On what basis? Did Russia after the USSR collapsed present any threat to the U.S. or European countries? We voluntarily withdrew our troops from Eastern Europe. Leaving them just on empty land. Our— people there— military personnel for decades lived there in what was not normal conditions, including their children.

We went to tremendous expenses. And what did we get in response? We got in response infrastructure next to our borders. And now, you are saying that we are threatening to somebody. We're conducting war games on a regular basis, including sometimes surprise military exercises. Why should it worry the NATO partners? I just don't understand that.

KEIR SIMMONS: Will you commit now not to send any further Russian troops into Ukrainian sovereign territory?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Look, we— did we— did we say that we were planning to send our armed formations anywhere? We were conducting war games on— in our territory. How can this not be clear? I'm saying it again because I want your audience to hear it, your— listeners to hear it— both on the screens of their televisions and on the internet.

We conducted military exercises in our territory. Imagine if we sent our troops into direct proximity to your borders. What would have been your response? We didn't do that. We did it in our territory. You conducted war games in Alaska. God bless you.

But you had crossed an ocean, brought thousands of personnel— thousands of units of military equipment close to our borders, and yet you believe that we are acting aggressively and somehow you're not acting aggressively. Just look at that. Pot— pot calling the kettle black.

KEIR SIMMONS: Moving on—

If this is the best that the national security state corporate mainstream media has to offer, and I believe it is, the future is not bright for U.S. hegemony.