Biden was supposed to be FDR.
Instead, he's following the playbook of the last half century of politically unsuccessful Democratic presidencies, from LBJ and Clinton to Obama.
The result: only 33% say he's focused on the issues they care about
nytimes.com/2022/01/21/us/…
Instead, he's following the playbook of the last half century of politically unsuccessful Democratic presidencies, from LBJ and Clinton to Obama.
The result: only 33% say he's focused on the issues they care about
nytimes.com/2022/01/21/us/…
I cited this recent CBS/YouGov poll several times, and I think it's worth taking a look at if you missed it.
Public opinion isn't always straightforward, but Biden's situation isn't really all that complicated
cbsnews.com/news/biden-inf…
Public opinion isn't always straightforward, but Biden's situation isn't really all that complicated
cbsnews.com/news/biden-inf…
tbh Biden hasn't had any difficulty passing legislation that's aimed at dealing with immediate challenges / that has a chance to help him politically
https://twitter.com/brettnoble_/status/1484515007111049221?s=20
I'm not surprised by the replies of course, but I'll leave this for you to mull:
The last three Dem presidents came into office, pushed big transformative legislative initiatives, found themselves at 45% approval after a year.
There may be a political problem with this strategy
The last three Dem presidents came into office, pushed big transformative legislative initiatives, found themselves at 45% approval after a year.
There may be a political problem with this strategy
Many critiques of those presidencies were tactical:
With Clinton, the problem was that the bill didn't pass. With Obama, the bill wasn't popular.
With Biden... it's strategic: these initiatives, disconnected from top issues, don't seem to be what the public really wants
With Clinton, the problem was that the bill didn't pass. With Obama, the bill wasn't popular.
With Biden... it's strategic: these initiatives, disconnected from top issues, don't seem to be what the public really wants
Once you reach that conclusion about Biden, I do think you have to ask that question about the rest of them--about nearly every Dem term from FDR's second term to today.
The magic of FDR's first term was that the *circumstances* brought an alignment between the public's demands and liberal hopes for bold initiatives, framed as a necessary response to an immediate crisis. Biden had a chance to capture that, and he's lost the thread
Ask me whether I like cake, I'll say yes--politely (I don't love it tbh)
Bring me a cake if my house is burning, and maybe I won't really approve of your performance
Bring me a cake if my house is burning, and maybe I won't really approve of your performance
https://twitter.com/deliciousmalk/status/1484522086668374025?s=20
And remember, almost by definition, the persuadable voters do not necessarily *love* the Democratic agenda, even if they like it. They would be Democrats if they did.
That's a major reason why big policy ideological initiatives never really seem to help any president
That's a major reason why big policy ideological initiatives never really seem to help any president
Lots of (negative lol) feedback, so it's hard to go through it all. But one recurring question: what's a politically successful president? And who is one?
One basic matter of clarification: I see political and policy success as distinct questions, just as policy and political analysis are different genres.
No one encapsulates that better than LBJ: unmatched accomplishments, yet didn't run for reelection and Dems lose 5 of next 6
No one encapsulates that better than LBJ: unmatched accomplishments, yet didn't run for reelection and Dems lose 5 of next 6
(and I think LBJ's political failure is a great example of how legislative successes, even massive ones like medicare/medicaid, are just no substitute for being able to address immediate challenges that loom first for voters (Vietnam/unrest, etc.)
So what's a politically successful president? I'll admit it's fuzzy. A few heuristics: did your party win a third term; did your agenda inspire backlash; did your opposition need to to shift to return to power; did you redefine the meaning of your party/ideology favorably?
I don't think it's as simple as electoral outcomes. Someone like Bush Jr, for ex, I think is a pretty unmitigated political failure, even though you could say he won reelection and had a good midterm there.
But I am still fundamentally talking about electoral outcomes, public opinion and the national mood, not whether you have a successful legislative agenda, for ex.
All that said, given the fuzziness of the idea I don't really want to defend it too vigorously. If you want to call Clinton a success bc he ended with a high approval rating, I wouldn't tell you that you're stupid/wrong or something. It's pretty debatable in a lot of cases
The key argument in the article, which has definitely been lost in this tangent about who is successful, is not so fuzzy: voters don't think Biden's focused on the issues that matter to them, and it's a big part of his political problem
And that's where the analogy to LBJ lies. Biden's approach just isn't going to address his problems, much like the Great Society wasn't going to make LBJ popular in spite of his challenges
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1484567740035784708?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
