The election might well be slipping away from Joe Biden.

And that’s the view among some who want the president to win a second term.

Biden’s passivity, and his reluctance to communicate, are fueling a narrative that he is a weak leader, and that’s now tied to a larger theme that will be difficult to shake by November.

For years, Biden’s refusal to take dramatic action – unilateral or otherwise – on the record-breaking illegal migration at what has become an open border, has been his greatest liability. It also happens to be Donald Trump’s strongest issue.

BIDEN’S LACK OF RESPONSE TO ANTI-ISRAEL PROTESTS GIVES SENSE AMERICA’S ‘OUT-OF-CONTROL’: HOWARD KURTZ

Then came the violent protests and antisemitic hatred that swept across college campuses like wildfire, and the president stubbornly remained silent for two long weeks. This has been the biggest and most alarming story in America, and Biden felt no need to address it as college buildings were being occupied and police were making mass arrests of pro-Hamas protesters.

The core concern here is that America feels out of control. The outbreak of lawlessness is heightened by a sense that no one is in charge. 

Despite the White House spin, Biden said nothing about the campus protests as a deputy spokesman put out releases under his own name. His two-sentence answer to a shouted question could barely be heard amid the background noise.

A Barack Obama adviser once told the New Yorker, fairly or unfairly, that Obama’s approach to Libya amounted to “leading from behind.” That seems to describe Biden’s approach to the violence and arrests at Columbia, NYU, Yale, Darthouth, USC, UCLA and many other colleges. His words were fine and well-crafted, but it felt like too little too late.

UNIVERSITIES CAVE TO ANTI-ISRAEL AGITATORS TO END OCCUPATIONS, WHILE SOME ALLOW ENCAMPMENTS TO CONTINUE

Now, it would be crazy to make predictions about an election six months away. Trump’s law-and-order stance is marred by his having to sit through the first of four criminal cases, the hush money trial. What’s more, the election will probably be decided by perhaps 50,000 voters in five swing states. 

Andrew Sullivan wants Biden to be re-elected, but doesn’t see it happening:

“Biden had an opportunity to move to the center on illegal immigration – his core vulnerability – and decided to move, with his entire party, to the extreme left,” he wrote on his Substack. Besides, it was too late for Biden to have “serious cred” on the issue.

As for the president’s brief and belated speech on violent campus protests, “it was given only when he had no choice, after Trump goaded him, and it reminded me of his sad attempts to distance himself and his party from the rioting and looting in the hellish summer of 2020. He was reactive, not proactive. His quiet words were overwhelmed with the noise of the streets.”

L – Protester breaks window at Columbia University R – President Biden. (Getty Images)

All this, says Sullivan, “will help Trump get an Electoral College landslide, just as the new left handily elected Nixon in 1968 and 1972…

“Biden is losing this election, deservedly. And if he cannot pull off an almighty pivot – and I suspect at this point, he really can’t – this election really is Trump’s to lose.”

Another Andrew – former prosecutor and National Review writer Andy McCarthy – is opposed to a second Trump term. He thinks the former president should have been impeached and convicted after Jan. 6:

“I don’t want a Trump presidency,” the Fox News contributor said. “It’s a historic, even if inevitable, blown opportunity by Republicans not to have nominated a reliable conservative who might have ushered in eight-to-16 years of restorative administrations. But a second Biden government, which would likely become a Harris government, would be a disaster.”

ABC HOST ISSUES STERN WARNING ABOUT 2024 ELECTION: ‘NO MORE CRYING WOLF’

Okay, he’s torn, but it’s a binary choice. McCarthy is now hedging his bets on his previous prediction that Trump can’t win a general election.

His original reasoning: Trump’s ceiling continues to be around 46 to 47% in major polls. Plus, he’s at minus-10 in favorability ratings. It’s not clear how much Trump’s numbers will dip after a potential felony conviction, but it would be “negligible” if it’s D.A. Alvin Bragg’s “farcical” case, McCarthy said.

“The Dems haven’t yet unleashed the torrents of negative messaging that are coming. That is not going to help him reel in at least some of the close to one-in-five Republicans who are dead set against him — the voters he needs to have any chance of winning… Put it all together and I still think Trump’s a 2024 also-ran.”

I don’t agree – or at least I’d say that Trump is highly competitive despite running against an incumbent, who happens to be 81, and who has a substantial record of legislative accomplishment.

Former President Donald Trump, with attorneys Emil Bove (L) and Todd Blanche (R), attends his trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 3 in New York City. (Curtis Means-Pool/Getty Images)

What’s more, the major issue for voters remains inflation. Unfortunately for Biden, prices are again creeping back up, even though we’re in a record stretch of unemployment below 4%.

There’s one other potential parallel to 1968, beyond the fact that it was exactly 56 years since the first time Columbia protesters seized control of Hamilton Hall.

The Washington Post reports that “pro-Palestinian activists are ramping up plans for a major show of force at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, increasingly worrying Democrats who fear the demonstrations could interfere with or overshadow their efforts to project unity ahead of the November election.”

If “unruly” protests erupt in late August, “especially if they feature inflammatory rhetoric, property damage or police intervention — they could strike at the heart of the Democratic message that President Biden represents competent and stable leadership” while Trump is “an agent of chaos and confusion.”

THE ANTI-TRUMP MOVEMENT’S SECRET ZOOM CALLS GIVE THEIR TARGET AMMO

Uh, remind me again why the Dems are holding the convention in Chicago, with its horrible echoes, when Illinois is a blue state? Wouldn’t Detroit or Philadelphia have made more sense?

The paper quotes William Daley, whose father, the senior Mayor Richard Daley, sent out the cops who wound up busting heads, as minimizing the comparison. That convention took place not long after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., and Bobby Kennedy, and the National Guard was sent in to quell the riots.

“To analogize what’s going on in the country today with 1968 is ridiculous,” Daley said. “Only people who weren’t alive in ’68 have that idiotic perception.”

But even less violent protests could utterly distract from Biden’s renomination, and cement the perception that, as with the porous border and campus demonstrations, the president is failing to keep the country safe.

When Biden ran four years ago, it was based on the notion that a president didn’t have to be in the public’s face all the time, commenting on everything from basketball protests to awards shows.

But, somehow, that gradually evolved into avoiding interviews (except with the likes of Howard Stern), terse answers to shouted questions and remaining silent or taking no action as lawless events swirl around him. Whether his staff is shielding him or not, he operates slowly by digital-age standards, his instincts appearing dulled.

And that often makes the president seem like a bystander to grave events. 

The battle between business and labor is headed for a high-stakes showdown at the California Supreme Court this week over a ballot measure that would tip the balance of power at the state Capitol.

The court on Wednesday will hear oral arguments on the legality of an initiative backed by business interests that strips the state Legislature and the governor of the ability to increase taxes and requires statewide voter approval.

In an effort to quash the measure, Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative Democrats petitioned the Supreme Court last September to intervene. They argued that change revises the California Constitution and, therefore, can only be placed on the ballot if ratified during a Constitutional Convention or by winning a two-thirds vote in the Legislature.

The proposal has alarmed Democrats, unions and their liberal allies. The measure could limit state and local funding, hamstring the ability to generate new money for programs and make it more challenging for the governor and Legislature to offset a budget deficit in an economic crisis without slashing progressive policy priorities.

“They should be afraid because the people of California are fed up,” said Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, a proponent of the measure. “This gives the people of California the right to vote on future taxes, and voters are going to support it if it’s on the ballot.”

If approved by voters, the proposal would mark a historic win for the business community. Lapsley said establishing new checks and balances on taxation is essential to creating jobs and attracting companies to California.

Labor unions representing state workers, teachers, police and firefighters have joined forces with Democrats and dozens of other organizations to ask the high court to strike down the measure. They argue it would impair essential government functions and threaten services that rely on state dollars.

“I want to make it clear that the ‘Taxpayer Deception Act’ lets wealthy corporations, who can afford expensive campaigns, to block taxes on their industry while regular Californians, regular people, shoulder more of the cost of critical services,” said Tia Orr, executive director of Service Employees International Union California, which is leading the charge to defeat the measure on the ballot.

Officially dubbed the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Initiative,” the measure pushed by Lapsley’s group and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. asks voters to require local governments to vote on all fee increases, which can now be approved administratively. The threshold to increase local special taxes would increase from a majority to a two-thirds vote of the people.

Fee increases at the state level, which are often approved by state agencies and boards, would need support from a majority of the state Legislature. The measure would expand the requirements necessary for a statewide tax increase, which currently can be done with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Under the ballot measure, support from a majority of California voters also would be required.

Taxes are often applied to the sale of goods, or income, for example, and pay for a variety of government expenses through the state general fund. A fee is typically collected and spent on a more specific service.

The measure expands the definition of taxes and restricts the potential use of fees to only cover the cost of the service, potentially prohibiting government from redirecting revenue to other purposes to close a budget deficit. The changes would take effect retroactively and reverse many local and state tax and fee increases approved since Jan. 1, 2022.

Carolyn Coleman, chief executive of the League of California Cities, said the new requirements for local ballot measures would effectively erase more than 100 measures that voters already approved with a majority vote. In Walnut Creek, for example, it would rescind a local public safety measure that voters approved with a 65% majority in 2022. The measure funded five new police officers, she said.

Opponents and supporters said that, if approved, the taxpayer ballot measure could rescind the “mansion tax,” also known as Measure ULA that took effect in Los Angeles last year. The measure applies a 4% charge on all property sales above $5 million and a 5.5% charge on sales above $10 million to fund housing and homelessness initiatives.

Lapsley argued that the mansion tax is “singularly the worst economic policy that you can possibly have in freezing the whole commercial, retail and residential real estate market in L.A.”

The luxury real estate market has slowed since the measure was adopted, but the charge has also raised about $215 million in funding in its first year.

Groups that have given money directly to Lapsley’s campaign, or funded other political action committees that contribute to the measure, include developers, landlords and real estate managers, among others with an interest in ending the mansion tax.

In addition to weighing whether the state ballot initiative constitutes a revision of the Constitution, the Supreme Court will consider the argument that it affects essential government functions.

Erin Mellon, a spokesperson for Newsom, said that in the event of a financial crisis the measure would require government to wait up to two years for the next ballot to raise taxes, “potentially putting lives and our economy at risk.”

“The governor is not a proponent of tax increases and has fought against propositions seeking to add new taxes, but the recession 15 years ago — and the current budget challenges facing our state — underscore the need for government to use every tool in the toolbox to respond to crises,” Mellon said in a statement. “The California Supreme Court should keep this radical effort led by wealthy business interests off the ballot because it violates the Constitution by attempting to completely restructure our system of government in a way that will prevent government from protecting Californians from future crises.”

The case elevates the ongoing fight between progressive labor unions and the business community from the halls of the state Capitol to California’s highest court.

Companies in California often complain that they can’t get a fair shake in a state Legislature dominated by Democrats and under the powerful political influence of labor unions. Business interests are increasingly turning to the statewide ballot to block and stall progressive laws from taking effect, or to push their own policy agenda directly to voters.

The proposed ballot measure could deal a blow to labor unions and other interest groups, who would find it more challenging and more expensive to convince voters to increase taxes to back their policy agenda than making their case just to legislators. Requiring lawmakers to pass bills to increase every new fee could also become a political challenge.

Lapsley and others said it’s rare for the Supreme Court to take up this type of pre-election challenge to a ballot measure. He said he feels that it’s fair for the court to consider the arguments, but he criticized Democrats for bringing the case.

“The fact that the Legislature and the governor are using taxpayer money to try and deny the voters of California, over 1.43 million who signed our petitions, the opportunity to have their voice heard is a direct violation of everything they talk about in terms of direct democracy,” Lapsley said. “They’re complete hypocrites when it comes to this case.”

Each side has 30 minutes to present an oral argument to the Supreme Court on Wednesday in San Francisco. The court is expected to release a ruling sometime before the June 27 deadline for measures to qualify for the ballot.

• Thousands more signatures than required were submitted in favor of a “top two” primary system in South Dakota.
• Under the proposed system — already implemented in states like California and Washington — candidates from all parties would appear on a single, nonpartisan ballot, and the top two would advance to the general election regardless of affiliation.
• Deanna “De” Knudson, a registered Republican sponsoring the measure, stated her belief that the current nomination system “excludes about half of the voters from the real race, and we just really believe that this is a fairness issue.”

Supporters of a “top two” primary election system in South Dakota that would replace the current partisan process with one open to all voters have submitted thousands more petition signatures than required to bring a vote this fall on their ballot initiative.

On Monday, South Dakota Open Primaries sponsors said they submitted petitions with 47,000 signatures to Secretary of State Monae Johnson’s office. The measure group needs 35,017 valid signatures to make the November ballot. Johnson’s office has until Aug. 13 to validate the measure, a proposed constitutional amendment.

Under South Dakota’s current primary election system, candidates in gubernatorial, congressional, legislative and county races compete in a partisan primary. The measure would allow all candidates to compete against each other in one primary, and the top two vote-getters in each race or for each seat would advance to the general election. A similar measure failed in 2016.

NOEM ADDRESSES FEELING ‘THREATENED’ BY NIKKI HALEY, A CONTROVERSIAL DOG KILLING, TRUMP VP SPECULATION IN BOOK

Other states such as California and Washington have “top two” primary elections similar to the measure proposed in South Dakota.

Measure sponsor Deanna “De” Knudson, a registered Republican, said she doesn’t think the state has a fair system, in that it “excludes about half of the voters from the real race, and we just really believe that this is a fairness issue.”

Republicans control South Dakota’s Legislature and hold all statewide elected offices and congressional seats. Democrats haven’t won a statewide election since 2008, when former U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson and U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin won reelection to their last terms.

South Dakota has nearly 602,000 registered voters, including 304,000 Republicans and 144,000 Democrats, but people registered as “no party affiliation” or “independent” total nearly 150,000 voters, according to online voter registration tracking.

State Republican Party Chairman and state Sen. John Wiik said he vehemently opposes the measure. He said he sees “no good coming out of it for the Republican Party.” The state GOP’s central committee unanimously opposed the measure, he said.

“I want Republicans to be able to choose the Republican candidate, and Democrats to choose the Democrat candidate,” Wiik said. “If you want to be an independent, then you’re independent of the decisions that affect your lives.”

Knudson said the measure would bring a much more competitive process and “will make sure that the winning candidate is the one most South Dakotans agree on.” She questioned the balance of power in the Legislature, where Democrats hold 11 of 105 seats, and whether that is truly reflective of voters’ will.

State Democratic Party Executive Director Dan Ahlers said the party hasn’t taken a stance on the measure. The Democratic Party allows “no party affiliation” and independent voters to vote in its primary, along with registered Democrats.