Early Perspectives On 2024
Obviously this is way early to be getting into the presidential race, but the dynamics of the election are in the process of development. With that in mind, I came across several articles that—taken together—provide serious food for thought. I’ll keep this brief, and we’ll start with the article that offers the biggest picture view:
Sunset for Mitch McConnell—and Joe Biden?
Old age is driving a period of generational transformation in American politics.
The article is actually more thoughtful than the subtitle might suggest. What the author is saying is that the older generation of politicians also represent an older political establishment that has lost touch with America. Trump is no spring chicken, but he’s not in the over the hill crowd yet, and the proof of that is that, despite having been hit by the establishment’s best punches, he owns the GOP. The article goes on to make a variety of insightful observations, working from an overview of the first two decades of this new century. He sets forth his theme in this first paragraph, and then expands on it a bit:
Biden and McConnell defined a twilight period in American politics, bridging the fall of neoconservatism and the rise of right-wing populism. Both finally staked their political lives on holding back the future that Trump represents.
Ironically, McConnell owes the zenith of his career to the failure of the only alternative to Trump that the post-Bush epoch has produced. If Barack Obama had succeeded in personifying hope and bringing lasting popular change to a war-weary and economically divided America, Republicans might not have taken back the Senate after 2014. But his failure cleared the way for McConnell to become the chamber’s majority leader in 2015.
Obama was the liberal establishment’s effort to fool most of the people to keep the dead hand of the past on the levers of control. He fooled people only for a time, and Hillary, well, nuff said. Now, Trump has defeated McConnell, who represents the dead hand of the GOP Old Guard:
… the party belongs to Trump. McConnell recognized the same thing. His term in office runs until 2027, but he doesn’t lead the party even while he holds the title of leader. He’s been defeated: not in a Senate race or leadership contest, but in the battle for a future.
My prediction is that McConnell will slide into irrelevance well before his designated sell by date. Anyway, here’s the concluding paragraph:
The only thing the McConnell-led GOP had going for it was its opposition to Obama. And the only raison d’etre Biden has is to stop Trump. These are photographic negatives as leaders. They occupy the space that real leaders occupy, yet their purpose is not to lead but to arrest. In some circumstances, that can be a modestly conservative function, but following the exposure of the present American elite’s comprehensive strategic and moral bankruptcy—amid the Iraq War, the Great Recession, and the cultural revolution that has swept over the nation since then—it’s more obvious than ever that great change is necessary to conservation. That change begins at the top with the removal of leaders like McConnell and Biden.
We move on to Jim Rickards, who presents a comprehensive overview of
”third” party politics in 2024.
Rickards argues that third parties may play a decisive role in 2024, as they have in the past—probably to Trump’s benefit, this time around:
A Trump vs. Biden (if he makes it) replay of the 2020 election could be close and is difficult to predict this far in advance. But we can say that the simple narrative of Trump vs. Biden does not come close to capturing the complexities of what’s ahead.
In the first place, Biden may not even be the Democratic nominee because of his obvious physical and mental disabilities. I’ll save the Biden story for another day. For now, let’s look at the other wild card affecting the 2024 election — the role of third parties.
Rickards presents a history of third party influence in American elections, then moves on to the present. He recognizes that these candidates—RFK, Jill Stein, Cornel West—won’t win and may not even make it onto the ballot in all states. But at the margins—close states—they could exercise an enormous influence on the outcome. I’ll give his conclusion first—YMMV, by the way—then backtrack a bit:
The third parties combined — No Labels, RFK Jr., Libertarian, Cornel West and Jill Stein — could collectively take upwards of 20% of the vote like Perot in 1992. But they will principally take votes from the Democrats, the reverse of what TR did to Taft in 1912.
This would guarantee a landslide victory for Trump like Nixon in 1968.
It’s impossible to predict exactly how events will unfold. But it’s not difficult to see a wild election season with six credible parties fighting state-by-state and confounding the customary polls and pundits.
Prepare for electoral and market volatility ahead.
“Fighting state by state” is the key. Stein and West will take votes directly from the Dem base (the next article gets into the Dem problems with its base). In swing states—WI and MI come to mind immediately in my neck of the woods—that could be very big.
RFK is a different story, in that he’s negotiating to become the Libertarian candidate. He has pluses and minuses. The big minus is his climate craziness. In an election that may turn on the economy, that’s a very big minus. His biggest plus, of course, could be his stand on Covid and the deleterious effects on the country of the Covid Regime. His stand against the Deep State is also a big plus. On the other hand, Trump may eventually have a road to neutralize RFK’s issues. For example, he could endorse Ron Johnson’s efforts on Covid: Sen. Johnson's Senate Panel On The Vaccines Is The Red Pill We've All Been Waiting For. Handled correctly, Trump could sidestep his own role in Covid by embracing a Truth Commission—under whatever name—led by Johnson. Something of the sort. It would depend on whether RFK gets traction with Covid.
No predictions, but I think Rickards is on to something important.
Lastly, the latest polling plays into some of what Rickards is saying about third parties. It highlights disaffection among the Dem base which, while it probably won’t mean a major shift to Trump, could feed into stay at homes or third parties.
The Latest New York Times/Siena Poll Is Devastating for Joe Biden
Mr. Trump is winning 97 percent of those who say they voted for him four years ago, and virtually none of his past supporters said they are casting a ballot for Mr. Biden. In contrast, Mr. Biden is winning only 83 percent of his 2020 voters, with 10 percent saying they now back Mr. Trump. https://nytimes.com/2024/03/02/us/politics/biden-trump-times-siena-poll.html
More from the NYT article:
Only one in four voters think the country is moving in the right direction. More than twice as many voters believe Mr. Biden’s policies have personally hurt them as believe his policies have helped them. A majority of voters think the economy is in poor condition. And the share of voters who strongly disapprove of Mr. Biden’s handling of his job has reached 47 percent, higher than in Times/Siena polls at any point in his presidency.
The poll offers an array of warning signs for the president about weaknesses within the Democratic coalition, including among women, Black and Latino voters. So far, it is Mr. Trump who has better unified his party, even amid an ongoing primary contest.
I read today that Trump leads among Hispanics. And while the NYT harps on the economy, rightly, the border is a related issue that is another hot button for voters, including in the Dem base. The Dem response to all the bad news?
…, the Biden strategy seems to be to tell Americans they just don't get how great things are right now,
Again, lots can change in the next months, although there’s little sign that the change will be for the better. Most likely the change will be desperation moves from the Dems. How Trump will frame his campaign will be the other big factor.
I’m surprised Trump is not giving the state of the union rebuttal.
There is a definite possibility that Ukraine collapses before the US election whether NATO tries to prevent that or not. If that should occur the impact on Biden should be devastating, although the Dems will of course blame the Republicans - as if $60 billion of additional funds could magically make troops and ammunition appear.