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.