President Joe Biden is struggling in his re-election campaign, with recent polls showing he remains in a close race with former President Donald Trump. Incumbent presidents often have a structural advantage in these types of campaigns, especially when crafting policies that help win over anxious voters in the fall. It's a lever Biden isn't afraid to pull, but the series of moves he's cabled to fend off Republican attacks is poised to do more harm than good.
In a strategy described by Axios, the former president is trying to “outmaneuver Trump” on issues favorable to voters, but the Biden administration would simply maintain many of the tariffs Trump raised on Chinese goods. The government is reportedly prepared to impose the following additional tariffs: About new ones targeting electric cars and solar panels. Biden is also reportedly considering issuing new immigration restrictions at the southern border that would limit the number of people who can apply for asylum after entering the United States.
If this is a post-poll White House issue, as Clinton infamously did, I fear we are reading the wrong analysis.
This sounds like the latest version of triangulation employed by Democrats worried about appearing like Democrats in a close election. Triangulation, using conservative talking points to avoid Republican attacks, is a form of political judo. President Bill Clinton took full advantage of this system in his 1996 re-election campaign, pushing for welfare reform, deficit reduction, and deregulation after Republicans regained the House majority for the first time in 40 years. For this reason, I made a major change in direction. It's less harmful than what Republicans who made the “Contract with America” would do.
“The country likes the general direction of the Republican Party,” Republican media consultant Robert Goodman told The Washington Post in 1995. Image-wise, Mr. Clinton wholeheartedly embraces that direction, but he portrays himself as someone who just wants to make his journey more enjoyable and stop people from getting hurt unnecessarily. ” It worked for him. A country where big government was considered a bad idea was rewarded for his centrism. But in the face of increasing polarization and growing disillusionment with the status quo, things have changed over the past 28 years.
First, if this is a post-poll White House problem, as was the case with the infamous Clinton, I'm concerned that I'm reading the wrong analysis. For example, it's understandable that Biden would want to neutralize immigration as an electoral weapon, given Trump's lead among people who list immigration as their top concern. But my colleague Zeeshan Aleem argues that purported national concerns about immigration are less about genuine top-level concerns about who Biden might win than Republican voters parroting Trump and conservatives. He claimed that it was being driven by the media. And there's still a lot of misinformation about the impact of illegal immigration among voters, who believe that “illegal immigrants” increase crime rates and falsehoods that are sure to push the numbers even higher. be.
Meanwhile, the latest New York Times poll of five battleground states shows warning signs that should raise further concerns for the Biden campaign.
The feeling that Biden will do little to improve the nation's fortunes is a key factor in Biden's standing among young, black, and Hispanic voters, who typically underpin Democrats' paths to the presidency. This is one of the causes of damage. The Times-Siena poll found that three groups want fundamental changes in American society, not just a return to normalcy, and that Biden would make small changes that would be good for the country. Very few people believed that they were deaf.
It's hard to see, then, how the actions Axios highlighted will help voters who want something more than normal. (One has to lament the demise of Biden's innovative “Build Back Better” plan at the hands of Republicans and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-Va.).) Another narrow victory is likely. In the election, it is most important for Mr. Biden to strengthen his support base. The idea of trying to persuade a persuasive electorate is wise, even noble. But the solution to disillusionment may not be to further alienate a core audience whose support has been fractured by issues including the Gaza war.
The choices that are made are not abstract.
Moreover, the choices made are not abstract. The decision Biden is about to make is similar to the “compromise” we saw from the White House on transgender rights last year, when Biden tried to find a compromise between transphobia and simply letting students play sports. It's going to hurt real people. Restricting asylum claims at the border means, at best, turning away people fleeing violence and repression for marginal political gain. Similarly, a shift toward protectionism against Chinese goods would raise prices for U.S. consumers while turning the massive transition that could save civilization from fossil fuels into yet more nationalistic competition. become.
And finally, it's worth noting (once again) that this is being done without any expectation of reciprocity from conservatives, who are trying to court left-wing votes and favor center-left moderates with their policies. I almost never try to sue.
The mathematics of how to put together a winning coalition in a presidential election is somewhere between basic arithmetic and some kind of arcane calculus. There is always a certain amount of give-and-take as campaigns decide which issues to emphasize and the policies that determine whether an incumbent wins or loses a second term. But Biden is falling into the same trap that Democrats seem unable to avoid. In other words, an apologetic shift to the right is seen as necessary to steal votes from the Republican camp, and betrayal of one's own voters is seen as having little effect. In this case, the strategy is more likely to cost Biden votes from Democrats than to win votes for Biden from people who lean toward Trump.
