One thing that really annoys me is when partisan male Democrats insist that the media is to blame for boosting Donald Trump and bothsidesing democracy (or whatever) when the reality is that Trump is tied in the polls with Biden because voters indicate that they’ll still vote for him despite the multiple indictments and nominating the justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. Sure, the pollsters might be wrong in the opposite direction as they were in 2020, and maybe the poll sample sizes are skewed towards Republicans, and of course most people aren’t paying attention to politics right now, but even with all that accounted for, it’s not great that Biden and Trump are tied in the polls a year out from the 2024 election!
Relatedly, the more pieces I see about how Biden needs to step aside and allow for a competitive Democratic primary, the more convinced I am that nobody, not the pundits or journalists or even the Biden administration which is reading every single one of these pieces, thinks that Kamala Harris can win a general election, not even against Trump. This is from The Last Politician: Inside Joe Biden's White House and the Struggle for America's Future by Franklin Foer:
I obviously take all “tell all” books with a grain of salt but the fact remains that Kamala Harris is even less popular than the already unpopular Biden, and even if that’s entirely because of racism and misogyny and has nothing to do with her skills (or lack thereof) as a politician, it still impacts her ability to win a national election at the top of the ticket. I genuinely believe that Biden wouldn’t be running in 2024 if Harris was more popular but there’s no way to test that hypothesis so I guess like many others who’d like a younger, non-Harris alternative, I’m all in for Biden 2024.
Every single Democrat who’s dunking on this Politico piece titled “Republicans squeeze Democrats on labor as UAW strike explodes in Michigan” needs to explain to me in 100 words or less why the union rank-and-file in the Midwest swung hard to Trump even while their leaders didn’t (and relatedly, why they went for George Wallace in the 1972 Republican primary). Bonus points if they can explain to me why the AFL-CIO and organized labor lobbied hard against the 2007 immigration bill (which Bernie Sanders also voted against) that ultimately failed.
I absolutely loathe when people sanctimoniously inform me that anybody who disagrees with their priors is a chaos actor (“paid protesters and crisis actors”) and the masses actually agree with them and imply that I’m too stupid to see through their charade when the objective reality is that I’m correct and they’re ill-informed and overconfident in their obtuseness. To be clear, I’m talking about everybody who told me that only stalwart conservatives, such as those on Staten Island oppose the influx of migrants into solidly Democratic cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City that are being bussed in primarily by Greg Abbott but also by Katie Hobbs and Jared Polis, both Democratic governors. If Donald Trump wins in 2024, I’m pointing right at the economy (people don’t like paying more for things than they did in 2019 even if their wages also have gone up) and the rise of undocumented immigrants.
Here’s why the Biden administration’s current immigration platform makes the entire political spectrum mad:
In a way, progressives are right - Biden is keeping some of the Trump administration’s policies and they have reduced the number of asylum seekers who show up at the US-Mexico border because asylum seekers who apply through designated pathways are detained in Mexico until their applications have been approved.
The Biden admin is not touting their policies because bringing attention to it will cause outcry among activist groups and they read David Shor, they all know that raising the salience of immigration always hurts Democrats, even if it’s in the context of Democrats being restrictionist about immigration.
That said, this method has not reduced the number of economic migrants, who don’t qualify for asylum status under international law. Economic migrants from all over the world show up at the southern border and apply as asylum seekers because it’s easier to gain legal admittance to the US as an asylum seeker than it is as an economic migrant. And, while their “asylum” cases are being adjudicated, a process which can take years, migrants end up staying in the US and deporting 20 million people, the number of presumed undocumented immigrants in the United States, is simply unfeasible.
Since economic migrants are taking the spots of asylum seekers, of which there are relatively few, legitimate asylum seekers are blocked from gaining entrance.
The most electorally feasible answer to this issue is that the Biden admin should build more processing centers at the border, streamline applications for asylum, and deport illegitimate claimants before they have the opportunity to settle down. However for reasons that I don’t fully understand, possibly to avoid the media reporting on immigration period, even if it’s to condemn the draconian nature of that policy, the admin hasn’t done that, and that means that there are a lot more economic migrants in the country than border towns can handle, and a lot more economic migrants than blue cities WANT to handle despite claiming sanctuary “in this house no human is illegal” status.
Alternatively, the Biden admin could theoretically give all migrants who show up at the border work visas so they can legally work and build lives in the United States but the reality is that it’ll incur a lot of electoral backlash from 85% of the population and the 15% of the population who wants defacto open borders will ultimately be angry anyways because there will eventually be a cutoff. The American welfare state as it currently is simply can’t fund a global welfare state so we can’t just take in unlimited numbers of migrants even aside from the electoral backlash it’ll incur.
And, all immigration reform that can’t be struck down by the courts has to be done through Congress and Republicans and Democrats are simply incapable of coming to a compromise that will get 60 votes in the Senate.
Anyways, just thought I’d write out this explanation!
What do you make of Vivek Ramaswamy. I find it odd that as an open, out and proud Hindu he's pandering to the Christian right.
So many good points here, and I like your idea about building more processing centers at the border and streamlining applications. But I also wonder if at this stage, in late 2023, Biden has to do something even bolder and with a quicker payoff, given the electoral liabilities that immigration poses for his re-election.
Basically, I'd tell him to sign a bill that appropriates money for border fencing (not a wall), and take credit for it. It'll obviously infuriate Dems, but for the voters who will be decisive in 2024, that's kind of a selling point! Standing up to one's party tends to play well with the independent crowd, right?