A new NPR/PBS News Hour / Marist poll shows POTUS Biden’s overall job approval jump up 8 points to 47% following his SOTU address to the American people. Historically, the average bounce after a SOTU is 4%.
His handling of Ukraine is up 18 points to 52% ; his handling of the Corona virus pandemic is now 55%, up 8 points and his economic handling is up 8 points to 47% approval over last month.
Well done, Mr. President. Strength and Honor, sir. Keep fighting for We the People!
Please share widely!
WHIFF! Biden’s First State of the Union Leaves the Mideast Out – The Media Line
I wonder if you read more than the headline of the piece you cite.
From the piece (emphasis mine):
or this:
The Middle East experts in the piece you cite argue that the US has moved on to more immediately relevant political issues.
Sounds to me as though your cite explains the bounce in Joe Biden’s approval rating. Sounds like a solid double or triple, rather than a “whiff”, to me.
I agree wholeheartedly that leaving the Middle East (I was actually looking for some reference to the suffering in Yemen) out of the SOTU was a cynical move done for short term political gain.
Cynical or not, the point is that US voters no longer want America embroiled in the endless no-win quagmire of the Middle East.
Mr. Biden did, in fact, get a significant boost in his national approval rating from the SOTU speech.
That’s good news for anyone who wants to preserve representative democracy in America.
It’s more like the U.S. is ignoring the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. A crisis that we are deeply involved in making worse.
A comment endorsing cynicism gets three uprates, SCORE!
The best thing we can do for Ukrainians, Afghans, and Yemenis alike is to allow every single refugee who wants to come here an opportunity to do so. My old parish in Boston is sponsoring Afghan families, I patronized a great Palestinian restaurant and Yemeni coffee shop when I visited NYC, and I have taught refugees from Bosnia, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Haiti, and I look forward to Ukrainians coming to my classroom. I wish they didn’t have to, but my doors are open and so should Americas.
We have begun the process of ending arms funding to Yemen which started in last years address to Congress when Biden already mentioned it there. It’s slower than it should be and has definitely lost the attention it deserved, but the blame Biden first routine is getting old and lacking in nuance.
Plenty of blame to go around in general, but I don’t know who else besides Biden you can blame for the SOTU.
Many of this think the SOTU was the best we’ve heard in years.
Unless you want to still be listening to the speech four days after it started of course not everything gets mentioned.
I wish you would get that out of your teeth. Pretty sure the Middle East is not top of the foreign policy agenda this week.
The Middle East is overdue for a period of benign neglect from the US. Biden made the courageous decision to end the unpopular war his predecessors dragged on. We have stability in the region, it is not democracy like the neocons and Obama foolishly promised, it is not the peace and freedom the Palestinians deserve, but it is stable and quiet. In those circumstances people can do their jobs, make money, and build the bridges for sustainable peace down the road. Instability and war is at Europes doorstep, it’s a far more pressing priority.
“The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil but by those who watch them without doing anything.” Albert Einstein
(as quoted on this blog one day ago)
Everyone here, and I’m guessing President Biden, agrees with that statement. Israel’s far from perfect, but implying they are evil is a little much. Many actors on the world stage are far worse.
Again, I was thinking more of what is happening in Yemen. The “benign neglect” of selling $650 million’s worth of weapons to a repressive regime so they can starve and bomb the Yemenis seems evil enough to me.
The world is far more likely be destroyed by the consequences of the war currently raging in Ukraine and the surrounding region.
Whatever the US does or not does not do in the Middle East is near the bottom of the list of the concerns of most rational people.
Don’t tell me. Tell Einstein, or, if he’s not available, tell Fred. He posted this yesterday.
Einstein also famously said “Things should be as simple as possible and no more so.”
You do Einstein an injustice by citing him as a rationale attacking Joe Biden’s SOTU address.
Biden did this by making it crystal clear Democrats, other than a few loud outliers, will not defund the police. Full stop. He also laid out a four point unity agenda of easy bipartisan bills to pass. If he can also pass Romney’s family allowance and Rubios student loan reform than you can add more points to the board. KBJ is a fantastic Scotus pick who should draw Republican support and this is the time to drive the wedge between the Reagan wing and the Russian wing of the Republican Party. Ukraine is the perfect issue to do that, as tragic as it is. I think that is why we are seeing independents migrate back to this safe haven. Also when Biden is the face of the party, the party does well. When Congress is the face of the party, Biden and the party does poorly. Lean into this man’s strengths as an experienced foreign policy hand and unifying generational bridge after a four year toxic dumpster fire.
His opponent actually said we should paint our planes with Chinese flags and bomb the Russians. A stable genius indeed…
“Also when Biden is the face of the party, the party does well.” I don’t see the slightest evidence for that statement.
With Biden topping the ticket, the Dem’s lost seats in the House and did much worse than expected in the Senate, not to mention in state elections.
The disappointing results of the House and Senate elections in 2020 had everything to do with the overreach of the progressive wing of the party and was, if anything, rescued by the Joe Biden at the top of the ticket.
If any other 2020 Democratic primary candidate had been at the top of the 2020 ticket, the Democrats would have lost the presidency and done even worse in the House and Senate.
Bernie Sanders, in particular, was and is toxic to mainstream Democrats and independent voters. The “Squad” — with their infamously disastrous “Defund” agenda, have driven away needed voters in droves.
Did we run candidates out of step with voters in any district? I’m the first to say the Squad won’t play everywhere, but at the same time they do play in the districts they actually ran in. I thought the whole point of primaries was to get the best Dem nominated for each seat. Sometimes that will be progressives, and other times centrists. I’m not sure what else we can do about the defund issue. Biden has made it clear he doesn’t support it, and I don’t believe Pelosi or Schumer do either, and they are the ones who can claim to speak for the party as a whole. OTOH Cori Bush has been unapologetic about not backing down on defunding the police. For all I know that is exactly what HER constituents in the St. Louis area want. It’s her job to speak up on behalf of her constituents, but voters need to understand she does not speak for the party. Once again, absent a long-term commitment to civics education I’m at a loss as to how to resolve this conflict. If someone says they are not in favor of defunding the police the voters should believe that person, unless it is contradicted by an actual voting record.
Biden’s overall job approval net gain bounce this week: Marist +11 You Gov +10 Trafalgar +9 Quinnipiac +8
When they’re speaking to their constituents in an event in their district with only local media present, absolutely.
“The Squad” most certainly does NOT have to use their 15 minutes of fame to utter their parochial message on network television across the world. They know their voices are being loudly amplified and they are exploiting that moment of celebrity — and harming the party and the nation as a result.
It’s bad enough that we have such rancor between Republicans and Democrats. It is unconscionable for any high-profile Democrat to so brazenly betray a Democratic president in nationwide media.
I wish they wouldn’t harm the party either, but at the same time I can understand the desire to push one’s agenda when given a national platform. Speaking to local media is preaching to the choir. Constituents elect legislators to bring their concerns to the broader discussion. Other constituencies elect their own legislators to reflect those concerns, then debate ensues. Everyone (especially media) just needs to understand who speaks for “the party” and who doesn’t.
The reality is that the question of who speaks for the party is determined in large part by who is listening. When AOC is heard by tens of millions of Americans, she speaks for the party, whether in an official capacity or not.
This isn’t a media issue, and it is isn’t new. As a historian, can you imagine what LBJ would have done to his time’s version of The Squad?
This problem falls squarely on the extremists who are harming the country and the party.
I’m guessing LBJ would forcefully insist they did not speak for the party, but Biden has also made that as clear as I think he can, at least on defunding the police. Are you suggesting AOC not speak up? She’s heard by tens of millions because there are those around the country who do want to hear her. That still doesn’t make her a party spokesperson.
I think LBJ would have found creative and effective ways to ensure that they avoid trashing his agenda when they spoke to a nationwide audience.
I don’t think the public was any more able to make distinctions about who did and did not speak for the Party during LBJ’s administration than it is today.
I think that if AOC or others are going to “speak up”, they should do so in ways that do not harm the national party or agenda.
Their loud and continuing “defund” canard did and does just the opposite. A significant number of those tens of millions who hear her are independents being driven away from voting for local Democratic officials because of her strident attacks.
Any member of the party who is speaking on national media to tens of millions of people IS a party spokesperson — that is a simple fact of life.
So how do you propose they bring their defund agenda to the national dialogue without harming the party? Local Democrats often do say, as has Biden, that such is not their own agenda. Why does that not make them spokespersons for the party, especially since Biden is, you know, the LEADER of the party? Why do independent voters decide that one side truly represents the party rather than the other when it turns out they have it backwards?
By finding ways to advocate for their agenda that are not harmful to the party.
Instead of “Defund the Police”, the Squad could have loudly promoted:
The Squad chose to run against what they oppose rather than for what they support. The “defund” slogan implies that every local police department is as bad as the worst offenders.
Most voters are appalled by the police brutality that has been so clearly exposed in the past few years. Most voters also believe that their local police are so brutal. The “defund” slogan alienates, rather than invites, those voters.
Independent voters get to decide because they are by far the largest voting group.
It doesn’t matter whether they are right or wrong — the job of each major party is to ensure that the key messages of that party are correctly conveyed to independents.
The Democratic Party has the ability to choose its candidates, choose its policies, and choose who it supports and opposes.
The Democratic Party does not have the ability to determine which of its members, candidates, leadership, and elected officials independent voters listen to.
It needs to be said that when the official spokespersons of the party repeatedly speak in content-free repetitive Vogon-Speak, independent voters will turn to those who speak more clearly.
If those whom they turn to speak “incorrectly”, then the damage is done.
In my view, it all comes to back to actual leadership at the top of the party — locally and nationally.
I agree with your bullet points both on the merits and the politics. I believe such was recommended to Cori Bush and she point blank said she was sticking with “defund the police”. What does the party do about her? They can’t and shouldn’t tell her to sit down and shut up. Democrats in her district did pick her in a primary challenge against an incumbent. The national party doesn’t get to pick the nominees and when they do try to influence the process people scream bloody murder about inappropriately meddling in the people’s choice. The party can choose convention speakers and SOTU responders, but there’s no opportunity for either before November. Booking the Sunday shows or primetime cable is not centrally controlled either. What more in your view can party leadership do to make sure their voices are louder and more heard than the Squad’s?
Carrots and sticks. Carrots and sticks. Carrots and sticks.
Seasoned legislators know how this works, that’s why the office of “whip” has its name.
I cited LBJ because he was the master of carrots and sticks. Have you read his biographies?
Perhaps the Democrats arrange for Ms. Bush to be offered an embassy posting in some desolate place. Perhaps she finds her office space slashed. Perhaps she finds herself assigned to two completely invisible subcommittees of two minor committees.
Democrats need to get real about this in order to avoid being crushed.
I have at best mixed feelings about some of what you suggest. When the topic is state politics we lament the punishment Representatives take for daring to defy the Speaker.
Tom, you’ve taken what JConway said, which is provably false, and turned it into a statement that cannot be disproved. If the Dems win, it’s because they are moderate; if they lose, it’s because they are not moderate enough. There is no possible set of results that disprove your circular argument.
By every measure, the Dems did much worse than expected in 2020, with Joe Biden at the head of the party, both in the House and the Senate. By every measure, they did better than expected in 2018, with Nancy Pelosi the head of the party.
Yes, I know there are complicating factors. But I’m not the one making a sweeping claim. That was JConway. And his claim doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. There is no evidence that “when Biden is the face of the party, the party does well.”
Did worse (or better) than expected? Expected by whom? Did worse (or better) in comparison to what?
Let me offer less sweeping claims that still amount to the same thing:
Joe Biden absolutely overwhelmed every primary opponent in every primary with a significant number of minority voters.
The more extreme candidates for House and Senate races had their high-water mark in 2018 — the first time any American voters had a chance to react to the 2016 elections results.
Bernie Sanders performed miserably in national primaries in 2020 (as he did in 2016). His much-vaunted “grassroots” campaign organization was badly and deservedly whipped in local elections in Somerville in 2021. That organization ran a brutally incompetent campaign prominently featuring “Defund the Police” on a first round of campaign literature. When it became clear that Somerville voters overwhelmingly rejected that campaign, their candidates waffled about their positions. Somerville is about as progressive as any city or town in Massachusetts — the dismal performance of the extreme progressive movement in Somerville was most certainly not because they were not moderate enough.
Both Fred and James have actually managed actual political campaigns. Whether you like it or not, their commentary reflects an experiential realism that is lacking in anything you’ve offered here.
The overreach of “The Squad” and extreme progressives in the House has very nearly torpedoed the best public policy initiatives seen in generations. The self-destructive foolishness of holding a national agenda hostage to the most rabid members of AOC’s base is embarrassing to watch unfold on the national stage.
Try out the following:
I invite you share a comment that offers half as much political reality and wisdom as this packs into one paragraph (with the single sentence that you so loudly object to elided).
“Did worse (or better) than expected? Expected by whom? Did worse (or better) in comparison to what?”
Here’s what one rather sanguine pundit was predicting as late as the morning after the 2020 election.
“53-47 Dem Senate. Dems gain 10-15 house seats.”
Here’s a different, disappointed pundit just a short time later..
“There was no blue wave — Americans had an opportunity to categorically Donald Trump and Trumpism and walked away from it.”
Like I said before, the lack of self awareness on this blog is breathtaking. An army of straw men can’t hide it.
Some Democratic pundits had unrealistically high expectations and were disappointed.
James Carville did not predict a House and Senate blowout during the 2020 campaign. You haven’t cited which “rather sanguine pundit” you quoted.
The sources I rely on are apparently more reliable than yours.
Disagreeing with you is not the same as showing a “lack of self awareness.
So that you don’t skip by this in your relentless search for things to disagree with, I repeat this paragraph and question:
I invite you share a comment that offers half as much political reality and wisdom as this packs into one paragraph (with the single sentence that you so loudly object to elided).
The next time you write another comment repeating your groundless harping on lack of self awareness of this community, I invite you to look in the mirror before posting.
“[T]his is the time to drive the wedge between the Reagan wing and the Russian wing of the Republican Party. Ukraine is the perfect issue to do that, as tragic as it is.”
This is about as foolish, cynical, and pernicious as political ideas get. Stopping this war should be the only thing that counts. Branding people as disloyal, or as traitors because you think the war might make a neat wedge issue is a good way to keep the destruction and the killing going.
The war in Ukraine will have one of three outcomes: 1) a negotiated settlement, 2) a nuclear holocaust, 3) no ending at all, another Afghanistan, as Hillary Clinton is hoping.
It will be tough enough to get to a negotiated settlement without turning support for the killing into some kind of cheap patriotism test. The blowback from that will be attacks on anyone who is not for option 2 or 3. The administration would be tempted to avoid the criticism from hawks and keep the battle going. To the last Ukranian. “No negotiations with Putin. Full Stop.” I could hear that, maybe in next year’s SOTU.
So, in reply to your repeated invitations, Tom, let me summarize. Using the war in Ukraine to impugn anyone’s patriotism is an idea with neither wisdom or realism. It will literally get people killed, maybe everybody killed, and politically, for what it is worth, it will also blow up in our faces.
American political figures who promote Vladimir Putin’s agenda ARE disloyal and treasonous.
There is nothing virtuous or constructive about refusing to name them what they are.
Sooner or later, your option 3 evolves into your option 1. The terms of the negotiation change over time.
Both the US and Russia learned in Afghanistan that the terms they were willing to accept changed over time — changed to work in favor of the parties on the Afghan side of the table.
THAT is how long-term insurgencies triumph over imperialist aggressors so long as your option 2 can be avoided.
A war forces people to choose sides. A person who promotes Vladimir Putin’s agenda is harming every American in addition to every Ukranian and, for that matter, every civilized person.
If you find it unwise or unrealistic to admit that, then your concepts of wisdom and realism are unique to you.
Your last sentence is a non-sequitur that at best assumes the premise you are attempting to support.
What remains of the Reagan wing of the party? The Russian wing seems to be the whole bird. Romney, Cheney….and who else? No one dares to speak out against the Trump base and Trump is Pro-Putin. Heck, Tucker Carlson is not even trying to look anti-Russian.
Heh — you named what’s left of the “Reagan Wing” — Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney.
Some would argue that Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins are trying to get there (although the latter is so fickle that anything she says is unreliable after about 15 minutes).
Yeah, I was going to ask what was left…..but decided that was a loaded question.
Well, that big bounce deflated quickly. Biden job approval fall to lowest point, amid Russia and inflation worry (cnbc.com)
Knock it off with the schadenfreude, will you?!
That says more about the media and its agenda then it does about Mr. Biden.
It’s the same media that was in place when Biden gave the SOTU.
Yes indeed. Also the same media that was in place in 2020, in 2018, and in 2016.
It has always been very much in the media’s interest for America to be split as evenly as possible and as passionately as possible.
The media works very hard to ensure that any deviation towards one party or the other is dampened as quickly as possible, while simultaneously striving to keep passions as high as possible — angry viewers pay more attention than calm viewers.
The point is that when Biden got a bounce from the SOTU, Tom, you credited his squad bashing.
And now, when that bump has proved to be ephemeral, you look for excuses. Are you now willing to admit that there is no real political advantage to be gained by demonizing the progressive wing of the party?
Gains and losses in approval ratings are ephemeral. The gain from the SOTU was ephemeral. The losses that preceded and followed it are ephemeral.
The political blunders of The Squad hurt the president, the party, and the nation. They gained no political advantage from those blunders.
Those blunders made it impossible to pass vital legislation during 2021.
The public and the media are foolish to blame Joe Biden for the Russian invasion of Ukraine and for inflation.
That has nothing to do with the political ineptitude of The Squad.
The public’s ignorance is fueled by the media. The other day, the chyron was “70% of Americans Blame Biden for High Fuel Prices”. No other comment. It would have been just as accurate to say “70% of Americans have little to no understanding of economics and commodities pricing”.