Connect with us

Washington

Analysis | The impossibility of telling Joe Biden he can’t win

Published

on

Analysis | The impossibility of telling Joe Biden he can’t win


President Biden’s approval rating started to tank in the middle of 2021. This timing wasn’t unusual; historically, new presidents have enjoyed a honeymoon period of a few months before the public sours.

Biden’s response to the arrival of polls showing his support slipping, though, was uncommon, at least before 2017. The president’s team insisted that polls were underestimating Biden’s position or that they were outliers. It was the approach embraced by his predecessor, Donald Trump: sifting through polls to find what you’re looking for.

It has since become very clear that the decline in approval was real. It is also clear that Biden’s position in his bid for reelection is shaky. But Biden’s approach to that concern — expressed loudly and vehemently by members of his own party in recent weeks — is to once again dismiss the polls as inaccurate or to cherry-pick the numbers he wants.

Those in the Democratic Party hoping to replace Biden with someone better positioned to win are obstructed, in part, by this obstinance from Biden. But they are obstructed, too, because while Biden’s position is historically weak, polling doesn’t (and perhaps can’t) show someone else doing demonstrably better.

Advertisement

At his news conference on Thursday, Biden repeatedly dismissed questions about dropping out of the race or about his ability to win.

“How accurate does anybody think the polls are these days?” Biden said at one point. He noted that some polls showed him winning, some losing, some tied. (In the past few days, in fact, polls from NPR, PBS NewsHour and Marist University showed Biden with a statistically insignificant lead over Trump; The Washington Post’s poll with ABC News and Ipsos showed him tied.) The polling data, Biden said, was “premature because the campaign really hasn’t even started.”

At another point, he tried to suggest that his position wasn’t as bad as it seems.

“There are at least five presidents running or incumbent presidents,” he said, “who had lower numbers than I have now later in the campaign. So there’s a long way to go in this campaign.”

This is not a good way to illustrate his point. If he’s talking about support in presidential polling, it is true that other incumbent presidents have seen lower support later in the campaign, according to 538’s average of polls. Those presidents were Gerald Ford in 1976 and Jimmy Carter in 1980. They are not role models for electoral success.

Advertisement

Several presidential candidates have seen lower support in mid-July than Biden does now. But most went on to lose. The exceptions were Bill Clinton in 1992 and Donald Trump in 2016, both running against unpopular opponents with strong third-party candidates in the mix. As Biden is now.

If Biden was talking about his approval numbers, here, too, history isn’t kind. The only presidents with lower approval in July of an election year either lost reelection or saw their parties lose the White House in November.

Beyond the specifics, analogies to past contests are fraught. For one thing, there simply haven’t been many presidential elections, especially in an era with modern polling and certainly none like this year’s, pitting a former president against the current one. So we look at the polls.

Near the end of the news conference, Biden was asked whether he would step aside for a candidate better able to win in November.

“No,” he replied, “unless they” — meaning his advisers — “came back and said, there’s no way you can win. Me.” He shifted to a conspiratorial whisper. “No one’s saying that. No poll says that.”

Advertisement

That is true. No poll says he can’t win and no poll says that some other candidate definitely will win. As we noted on Thursday, this is in part because the race will likely come down to a handful of swing states that will be determined by slim margins. And polls aren’t effective at sussing out those sorts of small differences.

The NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll mentioned above included another battery of questions pitting Trump against various Democrats. As has been the case with other similar polls recently (including ours and one from CNN), Biden doesn’t do much differently against Trump than other candidates.

Those included in Marist’s poll were Vice President Harris, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. In each case, the Democrat ran even with or slightly ahead of Trump. Interestingly, in every non-Biden matchup, some of those who said they planned to support Biden in a Biden-Trump matchup defected to Trump when he was running against another Democrat. But some of Trump’s support flipped to the Democrat. The effect, then, was that swapping candidates was a wash.

Where the non-Biden candidates had an edge was among the sizable segment of respondents who viewed both Biden and Trump unfavorably. Asked whom they preferred in a Biden-Trump matchup, those double-haters (as the vernacular has it) preferred Trump by four points. But they preferred Harris by five points and the less well-known Newsom and Whitmer by nine points and 14 points, respectively.

Yet, overall, Newsom and Whitmer still ran about as well against Trump as Biden. Perhaps, as Biden suggested, their position would shift over the course of a campaign as voters learned more about them. Or perhaps it wouldn’t. Maybe they, too, would end up battling for fewer than 100,000 votes in the Upper Midwest the way Hillary Clinton and Biden did.

Advertisement

That’s why Biden is immobile. He is convinced that he has overcome doubts in the past, particularly in the 2020 Democratic primary. He believes that other incumbents have been in difficult shape before rebounding. He knows that polling continues to give him a shot, however distant. And he is advantaged by the fact that polling can’t replicate all of the effects of a campaign — neither the potential of a surge in popularity for a governor prosecuting an effective case against Trump nor the result of an incumbent taking a tumble at an October campaign rally.



Source link

Washington

Judge tosses Trump Media’s $3.8 billion defamation suit against The Washington Post | CNN Business

Published

on

Judge tosses Trump Media’s .8 billion defamation suit against The Washington Post | CNN Business


Another one of President Donald Trump’s lawsuits against a news organization has fizzled out.

This time, it is a defamation lawsuit that the Trump Media and Technology Group brought against The Washington Post in 2023 over a story titled “Trust linked to porn-friendly bank could gain a stake in Trump’s Truth Social.”

A federal judge in Florida has thrown out the suit, saying that Trump Media “failed to present evidence that would allow a jury to find by clear and convincing evidence” that The Post “published the allegedly defamatory statements with actual malice.”

US District Judge Thomas Barber’s conclusion came during the summary judgment phase of the case, when a judge can evaluate evidence and make a determination before proceeding to trial.

Advertisement

The Post’s lawyers argued that Trump Media could not prove “actual malice,” the high legal standard that public figures must meet to prevail in a defamation case. It means that the defendant either knew a claim was false or displayed “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

The Post’s reporter who wrote the story in question, Drew Harwell, “thoroughly investigated” the subject and “had confidence in the article’s accuracy at the time of publication,” the newspaper’s lawyers wrote.

In a summary docket entry last week, first reported by Reason magazine, Barber sided with the Post. He said he would issue a full opinion later.

The Post itself reported on the legal victory on Tuesday. “We are pleased with the court’s decision and look forward to reviewing its written order upon release,” a spokesperson told CNN.

A spokesperson for Trump Media did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment, but the company told The Post, “We believe a jury should decide whether these falsehoods were actionable and will evaluate whether to appeal last week’s ruling in due course. We will also continue to hold the media accountable.”

Advertisement

Trump Media positions itself as an opponent of, and an alternative to, traditional tech and media companies. It is best known for operating Truth Social, a relatively small social network favored by the president.

The publicly traded company has been losing money for years; it made less than $1 million in revenue in the first quarter of this year, according to public filings.

The company has repeatedly filed lawsuits over news coverage it deemed false. A defamation lawsuit against The Guardian and other defendants was thrown out by a different Florida judge last November. Trump Media initially filed an amended complaint, but then dropped the matter altogether in April.

Trump Media’s suit against the Post accused the newspaper of a “conspiracy” to harm the company and sought $3.8 billion in damages.

The lawsuit lawyers succeeded in narrowing the case considerably and asserted that Truth Media could not satisfy the “heavy burden” of the actual malice standard.

Advertisement

In May, while awaiting the judge’s ruling, The Post published a correction to the 2023 story stating that “discovery in the ongoing litigation has established” that two assertions in the story were incorrect. But the correction emphasized that the assertions were “based on The Post’s reporting at the time of publication.”

Trump and his businesses have a long history of getting publicity from lawsuits, only to see judges later throw them out.

In April, a federal judge dismissed Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on a lewd birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein bearing his name. Trump refiled that suit in May. He also has pending litigation against the BBC, The New York Times and the Des Moines Register.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Washington

Washington records world’s worst air quality for a city after 850,000 Fourth of July fireworks

Published

on

Washington records world’s worst air quality for a city after 850,000 Fourth of July fireworks


Washington DC residents breathed in “unhealthy” air for hours after a 40-minute Independence Day fireworks show over the National Mall on Saturday night, with the country’s capital briefly recording the worst air quality of any major city in the world.

The highly emitting display, which the president called “spectacular”, came as the Trump administration rolls back an unprecedented number of pollution controls.

Hourly concentrations of particulate matter rose to 6.7 times their pre-fireworks levels, according to a Tuesday analysis from the company Clarity Movement based on its network of 26 air quality sensors throughout the city in partnership with the local department of energy and environment. Every one of those sensors reached air quality levels which the Environmental Protection Agency deems “unhealthy for sensitive groups” during the event, the researchers found, with some recording even worse levels of emissions.

Levels of particulate matter peaked at 4am on Sunday, approximately five hours after the display concluded, according to the new analysis. It remained elevated for approximately five hours after reaching its peak, the authors found, with city officials issuing a Code Red alert.

Advertisement
Smoke hangs in the air as the Independence Day fireworks launch over Washington. Photograph: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images

“Outdoor air quality is unhealthy for seniors, kids, people with medical conditions,” the alert said. “General public may experience health issues. Limit time outside.”

The south-west region of DC experienced the highest pollution levels, the report’s authors found, probably because of its proximity to one of the fireworks launch sites in West Potomac park, as well as overnight meteorological conditions that trapped smoke over the area.

That highly polluted air probably drifted into Arlington, Virginia, said David Lu, CEO and co-founder of Clarity Movement.

“Unfortunately, we don’t have sensors there to confirm it,” he said. “That’s exactly why expanding real-time air quality monitoring matters. Without comprehensive coverage, communities can be exposed to significant pollution events that go undetected.”

The air quality across the city could have been even worse in the aftermath of the display if it were not for thunderstorms that struck the city on Sunday evening.

Advertisement
Smoke hangs in the air as the Independence Day fireworks launch over Washington. Photograph: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images

“Despite the scale of the fireworks display, the city’s air quality avoided a worst-case scenario thanks to favorable weather conditions and the timing of the event,” said Lu.

The Fourth of July fireworks show, organized by the Trump-backed non-profit Freedom 250, began at 11pm on Saturday evening. It involved more than 850,000 fireworks launched from 10 sites across the capital, the organizers said. (A typical Independence Day show in DC involves just 17,000 shells.)

Trump on social media called the show “the Most Spectacular Fireworks Show I have ever seen, and I’ve seen them all”.

The fanfare came as the region was baking under an extreme heatwave, which brought triple-digit temperatures to the city hours earlier. For a time after the fireworks show, the city recorded the worst air quality of any major city in the world, according to AirNow, the Environmental Protection Agency website that reports air quality measurements from its monitoring stations.

Asked to comment, a White House spokesperson, Taylor Rogers, said: “It was the largest and greatest firework display in the history of our country to properly celebrate America’s 250th birthday! Every year, fireworks on the Fourth of July cause short-term spikes in air quality across the United States, including Washington, DC. This was not unique to the 250th fireworks celebrations in our nation’s capital.”

Advertisement

The Guardian has contacted Freedom 250 for comment.

Americans shoot nearly 300m lb of fireworks into the atmosphere every year, according to the American Lung Association, letting off lung-harming gases such as sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

The Trump administration has, since re-entering office, engaged in a wide-ranging assault on pollution controls, exempting polluting facilities from emissions regulations, boosting coal power, and halting the consideration of the value of lives saved when restricting fine particulate matter and ozone. On 4 July, the president also pardoned nine individuals convicted of violations related to the Clean Air Act, including people found to have tampered with emissions control equipment in cars or selling parts to bypass air pollution standards.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Washington

Question of the week: What does Santana Moss think of Washington’s WR depth?

Published

on

Question of the week: What does Santana Moss think of Washington’s WR depth?


The Washington Commanders are looking for a bounce back performance from their offense, and they’ll need their wide receivers to take a step up to do so.

Terry McLaurin is the clear No. 1 option at the position, but after him, there are several questions about how the rest of the room will shake out. The No. 2 spot is wide open, and there are several players who could fit the role and others in David Blough’s new scheme. Analysts Santana Moss, Logan Paulsen and Fred Smoot broke down the position on one of the most recent “Command Center” podcast episodes, and as one of the franchise’s all-time best receivers, Moss had a few thoughts on the group. Here’s his assessment on three wideouts and how they could fit into the offense.

“Knowing that he can play both outside and inside, I would think with some of the guys and their size and their experience, I would mainly probably see Antonio attack that middle. I think his route running ability is already to the level of some of these guys who have already played at this level. And just showing me that you don’t look like that this is new to you … He ain’t scared to go out and compete against these guys. To me — and we don’t know anything; we’re just sitting here speculating and assuming — I’d say he’s a slot guy out the gate.”

“I think if I had to just say if I look at that paper, and I asked any coach in this building by name how they think this guy played…if you tell me that Burks played well this offseason, he would be my No. 2 out the gate. He would be my No. 2 wide receiver because one: he brings size, he brings speed, he brings a gear at that size that a lot of people ain’t comfortable checking … You got a guy with size, leaping ability, the catch radius and can run.”

Advertisement

“They talk about how he was one of those guys from Day 1 that could play every position, and that’s stemming from him being a quarterback. Quarterbacks learn the game a little different from just a regular skill position guy. Luke came in here, and he knew X, he knew Z, he knew Gator. When you have those intangibles and you have that kind of mindset when it comes to playing that position, they can use him where they want to use him. That’s why I said he’s a great committee guy. He’s a guy that I know I’m gonna have on special teams as a returner, and guess what? If he’s not the starter, I’m okay with that because I know I’m going to ask more of him if somebody needs to take a breather.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending