According to the Harvard poll cited, young voters' top concern is inflation. I'm not really sure what Biden himself has said on the issue, but his surrogates have mostly claimed it wasn't happening, and then insisted it was no big deal.
Meanwhile, the migrant crisis was also a top issue for young voters despite Harvard's best efforts to obfuscate the issue with a bunch of happy talk questions about how aren't immigrants so nice. Turns out you can think immigration can have positives and also that we can't allow everyone on earth to crash the border, make a bogus asylum claim, and get set loose to be magically undeportable forever, even if they go on immediate crime sprees. Making a complete mockery of our laws and national well-being.
Thank you for writing this. After voting in every election including school board, volunteering for, and donating to Democrats for decades, I'm not voting for Biden (or anyone else for president). I am appalled and heartsick that he has, through infirmity or some misguided desire to connect only with Democratic activists, decided to pursue the social progressivism of the far left. To me, Trump and Biden are both unsuitable for different reasons. I'm a voter in a swing state who will not be voting.
I will simply quote two large chunks from the article as it seems you haven't read it.
"On cultural issues, such as mandating that universities equate gender identity and biological sex, it has consistently placed itself far outside prevailing public sentiments. And even its economic policies have been shaped by the demands of progressive interest groups. The administration has, for example, spent billions of dollars on forgiving student loans—even though its biggest electoral weakness is with working-class voters who did not go to college, and student loans came in dead last when voters under 30 were asked to rank fifteen policy issues in order of importance. (The conflict in the Middle East ranked fourteenth.)
"Perhaps most importantly, Biden never broke with the left in as public a fashion as Starmer. In his best moments, as when he rejected the idea that we should defund the police, Biden disagreed with progressive orthodoxy but never explicitly with progressive politicians. More often, he backed down at the first hint of public pushback. During this year’s State of the Union address, for example, he strayed from prepared remarks, using the term “illegal” in reference to an undocumented migrant who had murdered a young woman; when advocacy groups condemned Biden for the remark, he rushed to MSNBC to apologize for his choice of words..."
I invite you to read the entire article to see more of what was written. Cheers!
I have no idea whether Freddie read the article (though I'd guess the answer is 'yes'), but I suspect that his questions were not inspired so much by what he imagines are the absence of available examples of Biden's government submitting excessively to his party's activist left, but by the absurd claim that Biden has a "desire to connect only with Democratic activists." If this were the case, he would probably not have:
- been the most overtly supportive President of Israel ever, particularly since the October 7 terrorist attacks;
- supported the Ukrainians with billions in arms to defend themselves against Russian invaders;
- proposed the bipartisan border security bill that was more aggressive than one would ever expect a Democrat to push;
- spoken strongly in opposition to calls to 'defund the police';
- approved additional oil drilling in Alaska;
- etc.
It's reasonable to be opposed to some of Biden's apparent concessions to leftist activists (you and I would likely agree about many of these), but to say that he has completely submitted to the far left activists is demonstrably untrue. If it were, he'd be a lot less unpopular with them than he is.
You're promoting an idea that those who think Biden is too far left should not vote for him, and there are leftists promoting the idea that people should not vote for him because he's too far right. The net result of this is will only be a smaller voting pool of non-Trump voters. In other words, effectively, votes for Trump.
The ~250 million American of voting age undoubtedly have 250 million uniquely different ideas of their perfect president's policy aggregation. Refusing to vote unless that perfect option appears on your ballot is no way to steer the country back to sanity.
You, I , and Freddie differ on whether Biden has conceded too much to the far left. I think the latest Title IX rewrite is terrible for women and girls. I think his speech at Moorehouse was divisive and furthers the critical theory that the left promotes. I think his foreign policy has been hard to parse and inconsistent. Etc.
I've enthusiastically supported Democrats in the past, going so far as canvassing door-to-door (Obama), cold calling (Biden 2020), and sending money (many elections). This time, I cannot stomach either presidential candidate. Although I will be voting down ballot for Democrats in my swing state, I truly believe Biden is too old, and the people around him do not reflect my politics. As I said, to me, both Biden and Trump are as dangerous for different reasons.
I differ with your claim that we differ, Adrienne! You and I agree that Biden has conceded too much to the far left. There's risk to Biden's concessions that, knowing Biden's history, are likely more mistakenly strategic than ideological), but I think Biden still believes in democracy and the rule of law; I don't believe that is the case with Trump. I believe that Biden is erring in appealling to some of his party's leftist base than to Democratic, Republican, and independent centrists, which are likely a larger pool of potential votes and more representative of the American mean. But under the circumstances, in defence of democracy I feel a vote for Biden is not only justified, despite my disagreements with some of his positions, but an urgent moral necessity (that the likes of Bernie Sanders and David Frum appear to agree on this reinforce it). It appears that *that* is where we differ.
Thank you for your reply; I appreciate that we can respectfully disagree about such a contentious topic. I truly understand what you are saying. My friends and family agree with you, just as I would have in 2020.
A huge stumbling block for me is that I don't trust the mainstream media to report on Biden's mental acuity truthfully due to partisanship. However, when I listen and watch him, I see a "well-meaning" frail, OLD man being fed lines from young Democratic staffers who are as extreme as the MAGAs. I am not an extremist in any way.
I understand that not voting for Biden means he is -1 in my swing state (though Trump will not get my vote either). Progressives want to take over the party and remake it in their toxic (to me) image. I don't have to help them with that and I won't.
My understanding is that Labour will legislate against hate crime (language) every bit as stupidly as the Scottish national party did. The ‘Labour’ party shows the same disinterest in white working class poverty as all other western governments right now but has not been tested on its core loyalties yet. The Trade unions always act as a steer in this regard and Starmer has no big fans in that section of the party.
Watch out for the voting behavior in the north of England, the ‘Red Wall’. There is huge de-industrial alienation there as well as pockets of strong Muslim voters and political activism. Real tensions bubbling in 2024.
I feel this article gives Starmer too much credit. He has basically done little to position himself apart from refusing to say that a woman is an adult human female. Bad sign!
He will be sorely tested in power, like all the other cowards who deny western heritage.
I loathe the idea of voting for Trump but he and De Santis are the only politicians with balls in this crazy anglophone world.
Politics and policy aside, I was pretty sold on Biden the person during his "would you shut up man?" moments during the 2020 debates. He stood up to the preeminent political bully of our time, and it felt especially good for folks like me on the center-left.
Unfortunately, it appears that when it comes to the far-left staffers, he's met his match. Unbelievable.
I agree with your premise that Biden would do well to move away from the loudest of his party's activists. And you make a good point that he did move away from the center in much of his public actions as President.
But I have to add that if this were a normal election (remember those?), Biden, along with the rest of us, would still be in primary mode, which usually last up until the convention. And given the heat of Biden's activist class at the moment, I can imagine his strategists have made the decision that appeasing some of them right now will lower the temperature when the convention does happen. Now would not be the right time for a Sister Soulja moment for Biden.
That gives him plenty of time after the convention not just to move to the center, but plant his flag there. It's territory Donald Trump seems uninterested in -- though I have seen some signs that his team has actually done some land surveying there.
After the conventions voters are usually more attentive, particularly those to whom the center is home. We'll see how that plays out, but at least for the present, there are sound strategic reasons for Biden to still position himself where he is.
The message that is coming from the Democrats is that we should vote for Biden because of what the other guy may do if elected. This is a message that resonates with informed voters of the center and center left who would tend to vote for Democrats.
Perhaps the reason why Biden has not distanced himself from the left wing of his party is because he does not see that cohort as being out of step with most of the electorate. Seeing as Biden has surrounded himself or is surrounded by people who at least sympathize with the left wing of the Democrats, Biden strategy is understandable but, as history may document, unforgivable.
Just hard for me to fathom the argument that Labor needs to tack to the right to be successful when that's all Labor has done since the turn of the millennium.
At any rate, it seems like success comes more often when tacking to where most of the available voters are at the moment. Parties have to work with the electorates they have, not the electorates they would like.
The more mundane and uglier truth is that Starmer, and his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, are ‘owned’ by Murdoch, advised by Epstein‘s longterm colleague Lord Mandelson and presently in political conversation with The Heritage Foundation; the organisation behind Trump endorsed Project 2025. They are tamed political shills for global neo liberal oligarchs so pose no existential threatening them. Whereas Biden has chosen to try and roll back on the social destruction wreaked by over 40 years of their ‘trickle down’ trickery of personal profiteering, corporate land exploitation and pork barreling of our global Common Wealth.
This was a very thoughtful essay creatively making comparison with the upcoming British elections. Much for Democrats to learn— but will they? Thank you Yascha!
According to the Harvard poll cited, young voters' top concern is inflation. I'm not really sure what Biden himself has said on the issue, but his surrogates have mostly claimed it wasn't happening, and then insisted it was no big deal.
Meanwhile, the migrant crisis was also a top issue for young voters despite Harvard's best efforts to obfuscate the issue with a bunch of happy talk questions about how aren't immigrants so nice. Turns out you can think immigration can have positives and also that we can't allow everyone on earth to crash the border, make a bogus asylum claim, and get set loose to be magically undeportable forever, even if they go on immediate crime sprees. Making a complete mockery of our laws and national well-being.
Thank you for writing this. After voting in every election including school board, volunteering for, and donating to Democrats for decades, I'm not voting for Biden (or anyone else for president). I am appalled and heartsick that he has, through infirmity or some misguided desire to connect only with Democratic activists, decided to pursue the social progressivism of the far left. To me, Trump and Biden are both unsuitable for different reasons. I'm a voter in a swing state who will not be voting.
what actual policies or bills or programs constitute this "social progressivism" you speak of
I will simply quote two large chunks from the article as it seems you haven't read it.
"On cultural issues, such as mandating that universities equate gender identity and biological sex, it has consistently placed itself far outside prevailing public sentiments. And even its economic policies have been shaped by the demands of progressive interest groups. The administration has, for example, spent billions of dollars on forgiving student loans—even though its biggest electoral weakness is with working-class voters who did not go to college, and student loans came in dead last when voters under 30 were asked to rank fifteen policy issues in order of importance. (The conflict in the Middle East ranked fourteenth.)
"Perhaps most importantly, Biden never broke with the left in as public a fashion as Starmer. In his best moments, as when he rejected the idea that we should defund the police, Biden disagreed with progressive orthodoxy but never explicitly with progressive politicians. More often, he backed down at the first hint of public pushback. During this year’s State of the Union address, for example, he strayed from prepared remarks, using the term “illegal” in reference to an undocumented migrant who had murdered a young woman; when advocacy groups condemned Biden for the remark, he rushed to MSNBC to apologize for his choice of words..."
I invite you to read the entire article to see more of what was written. Cheers!
I have no idea whether Freddie read the article (though I'd guess the answer is 'yes'), but I suspect that his questions were not inspired so much by what he imagines are the absence of available examples of Biden's government submitting excessively to his party's activist left, but by the absurd claim that Biden has a "desire to connect only with Democratic activists." If this were the case, he would probably not have:
- been the most overtly supportive President of Israel ever, particularly since the October 7 terrorist attacks;
- supported the Ukrainians with billions in arms to defend themselves against Russian invaders;
- proposed the bipartisan border security bill that was more aggressive than one would ever expect a Democrat to push;
- spoken strongly in opposition to calls to 'defund the police';
- approved additional oil drilling in Alaska;
- etc.
It's reasonable to be opposed to some of Biden's apparent concessions to leftist activists (you and I would likely agree about many of these), but to say that he has completely submitted to the far left activists is demonstrably untrue. If it were, he'd be a lot less unpopular with them than he is.
You're promoting an idea that those who think Biden is too far left should not vote for him, and there are leftists promoting the idea that people should not vote for him because he's too far right. The net result of this is will only be a smaller voting pool of non-Trump voters. In other words, effectively, votes for Trump.
The ~250 million American of voting age undoubtedly have 250 million uniquely different ideas of their perfect president's policy aggregation. Refusing to vote unless that perfect option appears on your ballot is no way to steer the country back to sanity.
You, I , and Freddie differ on whether Biden has conceded too much to the far left. I think the latest Title IX rewrite is terrible for women and girls. I think his speech at Moorehouse was divisive and furthers the critical theory that the left promotes. I think his foreign policy has been hard to parse and inconsistent. Etc.
I've enthusiastically supported Democrats in the past, going so far as canvassing door-to-door (Obama), cold calling (Biden 2020), and sending money (many elections). This time, I cannot stomach either presidential candidate. Although I will be voting down ballot for Democrats in my swing state, I truly believe Biden is too old, and the people around him do not reflect my politics. As I said, to me, both Biden and Trump are as dangerous for different reasons.
I differ with your claim that we differ, Adrienne! You and I agree that Biden has conceded too much to the far left. There's risk to Biden's concessions that, knowing Biden's history, are likely more mistakenly strategic than ideological), but I think Biden still believes in democracy and the rule of law; I don't believe that is the case with Trump. I believe that Biden is erring in appealling to some of his party's leftist base than to Democratic, Republican, and independent centrists, which are likely a larger pool of potential votes and more representative of the American mean. But under the circumstances, in defence of democracy I feel a vote for Biden is not only justified, despite my disagreements with some of his positions, but an urgent moral necessity (that the likes of Bernie Sanders and David Frum appear to agree on this reinforce it). It appears that *that* is where we differ.
Thank you for your reply; I appreciate that we can respectfully disagree about such a contentious topic. I truly understand what you are saying. My friends and family agree with you, just as I would have in 2020.
A huge stumbling block for me is that I don't trust the mainstream media to report on Biden's mental acuity truthfully due to partisanship. However, when I listen and watch him, I see a "well-meaning" frail, OLD man being fed lines from young Democratic staffers who are as extreme as the MAGAs. I am not an extremist in any way.
I understand that not voting for Biden means he is -1 in my swing state (though Trump will not get my vote either). Progressives want to take over the party and remake it in their toxic (to me) image. I don't have to help them with that and I won't.
My understanding is that Labour will legislate against hate crime (language) every bit as stupidly as the Scottish national party did. The ‘Labour’ party shows the same disinterest in white working class poverty as all other western governments right now but has not been tested on its core loyalties yet. The Trade unions always act as a steer in this regard and Starmer has no big fans in that section of the party.
Watch out for the voting behavior in the north of England, the ‘Red Wall’. There is huge de-industrial alienation there as well as pockets of strong Muslim voters and political activism. Real tensions bubbling in 2024.
I feel this article gives Starmer too much credit. He has basically done little to position himself apart from refusing to say that a woman is an adult human female. Bad sign!
He will be sorely tested in power, like all the other cowards who deny western heritage.
I loathe the idea of voting for Trump but he and De Santis are the only politicians with balls in this crazy anglophone world.
Politics and policy aside, I was pretty sold on Biden the person during his "would you shut up man?" moments during the 2020 debates. He stood up to the preeminent political bully of our time, and it felt especially good for folks like me on the center-left.
Unfortunately, it appears that when it comes to the far-left staffers, he's met his match. Unbelievable.
I agree with your premise that Biden would do well to move away from the loudest of his party's activists. And you make a good point that he did move away from the center in much of his public actions as President.
But I have to add that if this were a normal election (remember those?), Biden, along with the rest of us, would still be in primary mode, which usually last up until the convention. And given the heat of Biden's activist class at the moment, I can imagine his strategists have made the decision that appeasing some of them right now will lower the temperature when the convention does happen. Now would not be the right time for a Sister Soulja moment for Biden.
That gives him plenty of time after the convention not just to move to the center, but plant his flag there. It's territory Donald Trump seems uninterested in -- though I have seen some signs that his team has actually done some land surveying there.
After the conventions voters are usually more attentive, particularly those to whom the center is home. We'll see how that plays out, but at least for the present, there are sound strategic reasons for Biden to still position himself where he is.
The message that is coming from the Democrats is that we should vote for Biden because of what the other guy may do if elected. This is a message that resonates with informed voters of the center and center left who would tend to vote for Democrats.
Perhaps the reason why Biden has not distanced himself from the left wing of his party is because he does not see that cohort as being out of step with most of the electorate. Seeing as Biden has surrounded himself or is surrounded by people who at least sympathize with the left wing of the Democrats, Biden strategy is understandable but, as history may document, unforgivable.
Just hard for me to fathom the argument that Labor needs to tack to the right to be successful when that's all Labor has done since the turn of the millennium.
Jeremy Corbyn was certainly not to the right of Tony Blair. Neither, for that matter, was self-described socialist Miliband.
Corbyn tacked to the right?
At any rate, it seems like success comes more often when tacking to where most of the available voters are at the moment. Parties have to work with the electorates they have, not the electorates they would like.
The more mundane and uglier truth is that Starmer, and his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, are ‘owned’ by Murdoch, advised by Epstein‘s longterm colleague Lord Mandelson and presently in political conversation with The Heritage Foundation; the organisation behind Trump endorsed Project 2025. They are tamed political shills for global neo liberal oligarchs so pose no existential threatening them. Whereas Biden has chosen to try and roll back on the social destruction wreaked by over 40 years of their ‘trickle down’ trickery of personal profiteering, corporate land exploitation and pork barreling of our global Common Wealth.
This was a very thoughtful essay creatively making comparison with the upcoming British elections. Much for Democrats to learn— but will they? Thank you Yascha!
To ensure that Democrats don’t do stupid what?
Yascha, you disappoint me. Persuasion is supposed to be the grown-up corner of Substack.