Cagle World

Month after month, poll after poll, a majority of Americans express their dissatisfaction with the Biden administration over virtually every issue of concern – domestic and foreign.

The findings are the equivalent of a campaign strategy memo for Republicans to follow as they seek to win control of Congress and the White House in November.

Inexplicably, the GOP has chosen to ignore what was clear to even the most casual observer of national politics – a vulnerable incumbent president weighed down by questions about his age and mental fitness whose first term record is a rationale for denying him a second.

Instead, Congressional Republicans have embarked on foolish, embarrassing and foredoomed impeachment proceedings. There’s also the headlong rush toward self-destructive proof they are unable to govern by forcing the removal of a House Speaker they elected six months ago after driving his predecessor from office.

The Senate’s rejection of the articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas – without debate – was a foregone conclusion. The protracted and costly process toward impeachment of the president is on the verge of abandonment after House Oversight Committee chair James Comer indicated criminal referrals, rather than an impeachment vote, will be the end result.

His was a tacit admission that a handful of Republicans did not support impeachment and forcing a vote would be a major political blunder.

A cynical translation – the entire exercise was an utter waste of time, energy and millions of dollars to produce an outcome that is essentially meaningless.

Of far greater peril to Congressional Republicans is the attempt by a handful of disgruntled members to remove House Speaker Mike Johnson from the office.

The party embarrassed itself on national television in January 2023 by plowing through 15 ballots before electing Kevin McCarthy to the speaker’s position in a raucous spectacle that raised serious concerns the Republican majority would implode and fail in its responsibility to govern.

The party stands at the edge of repeating the chaos and dysfunction of the McCarthy episode with the filing of a resolution by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to “vacate the chair” – that is, oust Johnson.

She’s received support from only two colleagues, but still has the option of forcing a floor vote on her resolution.

At a moment in history when the Republican Party should take full advantage of the opportunity for electoral success, it has instead drawn excessive media attention toward its own self-serving ineptitude.

Greene, the vocal and outspoken leader of the malcontents, seems oblivious to the pitfalls of her actions and, in fact, demonstrated her disdain with the comment “I don’t care if the Speaker’s office becomes a revolving door.”

She torched the Speaker and the Republicans who supported a $95 billion foreign aid bill providing assistance to
Ukraine and Israel as “traitors” to the country. These are the kind of comments which can’t later be walked back or explained and will stick in the memories of those she vilified.

Whether she follows through on her threat and forces a floor vote on Johnson’s removal remains an open question, but the uncertainty will continue to hang heavy over Congress.

Should the House be paralyzed by a prolonged and bitter quarrel over selecting its leader, Republicans will be blamed. There is, moreover, no guarantee that the cycle won’t be repeated, subjecting the party to further criticism.

While the Mayorkas impeachment and the inquiry into the president’s impeachment were costly exercises in futility, the threat of a dysfunctional Congress is of far greater consequence.

The president’s consistently dismal standing on issues and job performance is the guide toward building on the Republican majority in the House and regaining Senate control.

If it continues to ignore the obvious and remains caught up in internal conflict and pointless political theater, a loss in November is inevitable as is the assignment of blame for it.

Simply because the party has lined up the circular firing squad doesn’t mean the triggers should be pulled.

–

Copyright 2024 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

With President Joe Biden’s approval ratings lodged stubbornly on the minus side – some by as much as 30 percent – his re-election campaign team seems to be teetering in the verge of desperation to strike a message and drive a narrative to halt the slide.

In the Real Clear Politics polling averages, the president remains mired at 40 percent approval, while a stunning 65 percent believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction.

Biden is in the red on his handling of the economy, immigration, foreign policy, inflation, crime and the Israel-Hamas war.

Adding to the bleak outlook is the alarming decline in support from African American and Hispanic voters – two normally reliable constituencies vital to his re-election prospects.

With seven months remaining before election day, a dramatic reversal in public sentiment appears problematic. He has fallen behind his Republican opponent, Donald Trump, by as many as five points – a precarious position for an incumbent president.

The latest Biden campaign strategy to emerge is to deny responsibility and assign blame to others.

The unprecedented influx of immigrants overwhelming the southern border and creating an economic, humanitarian and public safety crisis in large cities, is attributable to former president Trump and a Congress unwilling to act on immigration reform, according to Biden.

The argument reached an absurd level when White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed the storming of a barbed wire fence near El Paso by hundreds of migrants was the fault of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. And, as is her usual reaction, refused to provide any evidence to support her claim and refused to respond to follow up questions.

Driving the high cost of living and the relentless rise in price is corporate greed exacerbated by “shrinkflation,” the nefarious practice of reducing the amount or size of a food commodity while increasing its price, according to Biden

Fault for inflation and a sour economy lies with those wealthy Americans and corporations who refuse to pay their fair share in taxes, according to Biden.

This “not my fault” posture is a natural outgrowth of a strategy to frame the election as a referendum on Trump rather than one on the Biden administration.

The months of consistent polling results and the chronic expressions of disapproval, though, suggest a majority of the American people simply are not buying it. They see what they see, feel what they feel and no amount of persuasion from the administration will convince them to believe otherwise.

There exists a firm belief among Democratic party leaders that the president’s struggles can be resolved by more effective messaging, that a strong, coherent campaign highlighting his legislative achievements will stem the tide.

It welcomes the idea that a referendum on his administration is the prism through which most Americans see him and advantage can be gained through a broadly coordinated effort to focus attention on his first term accomplishments and a vision for a second term.

Criticizing Trump will certainly be a major component of the campaign – and there’s a wealth of material at hand – but providing a reason, a rationale, a justification for a second Biden term is crucial.

A president – any president – is the undisputed leader of the country, the only individual elected to office by all the people and entrusted with keeping the nation safe and prosperous while rising to confront crises and overcome them.

The president receives the credit for successes and the criticisms for less than desirable outcomes.

Attempting to escape blame by pointing fingers at political opponents seldom succeeds over the long haul.

Truman’s “the buck stops here” philosophy of governing was uttered some 75 years ago, and in the minds of the American people it retains a level of relevance and resonance to this day.

Time is running out and spending energy and resources on a questionable strategy of blaming others will not reverse poll numbers or ease national anxieties.

–

Copyright 2024 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

The Biden campaign is floundering – directionless, unable to formulate a coherent second term vision and battered by a series of national polls that place his public standing at historic low levels for an incumbent president seeking re-election.

Bidenomics, the president’s economic policy once heavily touted as the centerpiece of his administration, was a monumental flop and has since been abandoned replaced by a strategy of an all out attack on former President Donald Trump.

Biden’s campaign rally and fundraiser – masquerading as his State of the Union speech – brought greater clarity to his new approach, with repeated references to “my predecessor” as the greatest threat to the Republic since the Civil War.

Granted, Trump has given Biden a treasure trove of wild apocalyptic and often unhinged rhetorical rants to work with, but is it enough?

Biden’s State of the Union address was pitched directly toward relieving the anxiety of his party’s base, a plea to put aside their doubts and misgivings and cease fretting about his physical and mental strengths.

Polling, however, paints a far grimmer portrait – 39 percent overall approval and rankings below 30 percent approval for his handling of immigration and the economy, while nearly 70 percent of Americans believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction.

More telling is the finding that a stunning 80 percent believe he is too old and his cognitive strength too diminished to effectively serve a second term.

He has trailed Trump in matchup polling since last September – albeit often within the margin of error – but his ongoing failure to overtake or surpass the former president is a clear indication of a seriously weakened incumbent.

Biden also faces a restive and alienated progressive wing of his party, angry over his unqualified support for Israel in its war with Hamas and for his administration inching closer to Trump era restrictions on immigration at the southern border.

As opposition to his immigration policy grew in intensity until it became the overriding issue on the public’s mind, the administration was thrown on the defensive and has failed to regain the initiative.

It careened from denial, stubborn refusal to describe it as a crisis while insisting against all evidence that “the border is secure.” The administration position became untenable as Democratic mayors in cities like New York, Chicago, Denver and Los Angeles pleaded for federal assistance to offset the enormous drain on their budgets to cope with the influx of tens of thousands of migrants and the economic, social and public safety crises it caused.

Either fearful of offending immigration advocacy groups or simply at a loss for how to deal with it, the administration did nothing and handed Republicans and Trump a potent campaign issue, accusing Biden of disastrously repealing the former president’s policies and opening the door to more than seven million immigrants.

Three years into his first term and facing re-election in a bitterly polarized nation, Biden’s tentative steps toward enhanced border control has infuriated the progressives on the left and further reinforced Democrats reputation as the party of open borders.

The president owns the issue now. By taking three years to acknowledge it and act decisively, rather than blaming others, the president has lost credibility.

While he points to a declining inflation rate, job creation and low unemployment, the president’s efforts to mitigate the economic harm inflicted in the early stages of his administration have been largely unsuccessful.

While cold statistics indicating recovery are noteworthy, the reality of significantly higher prices for everything from cars to supermarket eggs is even colder.

Declining inflation, low unemployment and job creation are small comfort to consumers in the supermarket checkout line hoping the final tally isn’t too far into triple digits.

The blame Trump strategy, along with warnings he’d impose an authoritarian government and deny basic fundamental rights to Americans, may pay off for Biden.

Turning it into a referendum on Trump rather than Biden worked four years ago. It may again.

–

Copyright 2024 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

In nine months, Americans will select a president, choosing between two candidates despite numerous poll findings that a majority of voters prefer neither one.

All suspense has been drained from the traditional primary process as Democrats unite behind President Joe Biden while former president Donald Trump has chased his competition out of the field and all-but locked down the nomination after only two January contests. (Nikki Haley notwithstanding).

Super Tuesday no longer matters and there will be no breathless reporting of the latest delegate count, no gigantic colorful maps of the country towering over television studio news desks while opinions are delivered by pundits with the appropriate solemnity and insightful assurances.

The uncertainty rather involves whether the president is physically and cognitively capable of the demands and pressures of a national campaign or whether Trump will watch election night returns on a television screen in the common room of a Federal prison somewhere in the Midwest.

The contest pits what a majority of Americans believe is a failed presidency whose public approval on crucial issues – the economy, inflation, immigration, foreign policy – remains mired in the 30 percent range against a former president facing four indictments and trials and whose public utterances suggest someone bent on seeking revenge by any means on those he considers wronged him.

The Biden campaign brain trust has embraced a strategy of convincing voters Trump is unfit by demeanor and intellect to serve as president and represents an existential threat to democracy.

Comparisons to fascism and repeated references to MAGA extremists dominate Biden campaign rhetoric along with dark warnings Trump would govern as an authoritarian trampling on the Constitution and destroying individual freedoms.

Trump partisans point to the economic havoc and individual financial hardships created by Biden’s policies, out of control inflation and encouraging illegal immigration at the southern border that has flooded the country with more than seven million migrants and resulted in a humanitarian and fiscal crisis.

And, while Trump’s legal entanglements have provided grist for the Democratic attack mill – particularly his involvement in the Jan. 6, 2001, assault on the U.S. Capitol – the business activities of the president’s son Hunter and allegations by Republicans the president was aware of them is a continuing political headache.

While Trump’s grip on his base remains tight, the Biden campaign has been subjected endlessly to public hand-wringing, recommendations for a strategy and messaging change and –  in some instances – calls for him to abandon his quest and turn to a more youthful candidate with less political baggage.

His approval standings are the most dismal for an incumbent since Jimmy Carter in 1980 and he’s trailed Trump consistently by two points more or less in poll after poll.

His political and policy vulnerability is exacerbated by occasional instances of his infirmity in public settings – forgetting names and events, leaving sentences unsaid and trailing off into near incoherence, occasional bewilderment and a tendency to relate fanciful tales of his past.

Even though the age difference between the two is minimal – Biden was born a year after World War II began and Trump a year after it ended – Biden’s age has been more greatly scrutinized.

Despite the relatively short time left and the logistical nightmare it could entail, it remains a possibility that a health issue could emerge to convince Biden to stand down or that a felony conviction of
Trump would significantly erode his support, particularly among undecided voters.

Biden is gambling that while the public may be discontented with him, they despise and fear Trump. Trump is gambling that anger and resentment toward Biden will overcome misgivings about his impulsive and aggressive payback nature.

It’s America’s choice now.

–

Copyright 2024 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

Following months of wrangling over strategy, direction and messaging, President Biden’s campaign brain trust has seemingly settled on a re-election theme – if former President Trump returns to the White House, American democracy and all the inherent freedoms it guarantees will be destroyed.

The strategy is founded on the dark belief a Trump presidency will result in an autocratic government managed and administered by a band of revenge-driven extremists intent on pursuing perceived enemies and critics.

While there are undoubtedly many in the Biden campaign who believe – in the president’s words – “democracy is in the ballot,” the overriding political decision is calculated to shift the debate dynamic away from the traditional referendum on the incumbent and focus in what it argues is the existential threat to democracy posed by the challenger.

The president’s overall job performance dipped to 39 percent in recent surveys while he remains seriously underwater – as great as two to one – on his handling of virtually every issue of concern to the American people.

He’s fallen behind Trump in several matchup scenarios – albeit within the margin of error – but the mere fact that an incumbent president is in genuine danger of losing re-election to an opponent under four criminal indictments is a deeply concerning indication of his vulnerability.

In normal circumstances, a president’s re-election outlook turns on a four-year record of achievement and accomplishment, a litany of legislative and executive actions to assure the nation’s safety and security, its economic wellbeing, a guarantee of personal protections, and a devoted steward of taxpayers’ dollars.

Biden – much like President Jimmy Carter in 1980 – hasn’t yet shown he can make a compelling case for a second term.

Forty three years ago, when then challenger Ronald Reagan asked “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” it fell with devastating impact on Carter, who was unable to deal with double digit inflation and unemployment.

In the Real Clear Politics polling averages, if the identical question was posed to Biden today, it would be answered in this fashion:

By 67 to 24 percent, Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction while on his Administration’s handling of the economy, immigration, crime and foreign policy, his disapproval ranges from 58 to 67 percent.

The war between Israel and Hamas has exposed deep fractures in his own party, while continuing to pour billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine to continue its bloody two-year stalemate with Russia has encountered opposition.

Inflation has eased somewhat, falling from last year’s high of nine percent to just over three percent, while millions of American families continue to struggle with the high cost of everything from groceries to cars.

While “Bidenomics” has largely been a failure, control of illegal immigration at the southern border has been an unmitigated disaster.

The latter issue has emerged as a major concern while the administration seems disengaged from it, drawing serious criticism from big city mayors forced to allocate millions of local dollars to housing and providing services for the influx of tens of thousands of to the migrants.

The Biden team has been cautious in its campaign approach, maintaining a relatively light schedule, limiting presidential appearances to friendly audiences and keeping media interactions to a bare minimum.

Looming over their efforts, of course, is the unrelenting focus on the president’s age and health and whether he is physically capable of withstanding the rigors and pressures of a national campaign.

Concentrating on preserving democracy and keeping it free from Trump’s clutches will continue to be Biden’s dominant narrative.

To be sure, Trump has played into it with repeated incendiary comments, wild attacks and accusations – mostly unsupported or too bizarre to believe – and cringe worthy suggestions of his actions should he return to power.

Biden’s strategy has been criticized as an exercise in fearmongering and there is a hint of validity in that characterization.

His task is to convince the American people that he stands between the slight hint and perilous reality.

–

Copyright 2024 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

For three years, the Biden administration has engaged in denial, blame shifting and half-truths before conceding the southern border is in crisis.

The change in attitude burst into the open earlier this month, when the president said “significant compromises on the border” would be considered by the White House to stem the unprecedented flood of illegal immigration into the United States.

The president’s remarks changed the dynamics of the debate but infuriated the party’s progressive left wing, who accused the administration of caving in to Republican demands and returning to Trump era restrictive policies – denial of asylum claims, arrests and deportations – the president himself repealed.

The American people would be encouraged if they believed the change represented an epiphany, an awakening in the administration that its refusal to act exacerbated the financial and humanitarian crisis that has befallen communities along the southwestern border and a number of major American cities.

It didn’t.

The administration’s hand was forced by a major dose of power politics, an “I’ll-give-you-what-you-want-if-you-give-me-what-I-want” accommodation usually referred to in more polite terms as bipartisan compromise.

The deal would grant the administration request for $100 billion in aid to Ukraine to continue its war against Russia and to Israel in its war with Hamas in return for significant changes in immigration policy.

Republican demands that border security measures be included in the aid package placed the issue in the hands of a bipartisan group of senators to develop a consensus that could win approval in Congress and the White House.

The administration desperately needs the legislative victory represented by aid for Ukraine and Israel and, while willing to accept more stringent border security measures, has recognized it must shed the perception that it is responsible for an open border and the record influx of migrants into the country.

Mayors of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Washington, San Francisco and Denver have taken their grievances public, demanding millions in federal aid to deal with the rising migrant population.

They face cutting their education and police budgets, for instance, to provide funding for services to migrants. These mayors have come under severe criticism from residents and taxpayers who claim their needs are being ignored in favor of individuals here illegally.

The administration has bungled the issue since the outset. Its insistence that the border was secure was undermined by news accounts and images of border crossings in record numbers and migrants put up in hotels, police stations and airports.

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejadro Mayorkas and White House press secretary Karine Jean Pierre clung stubbornly to an everything is under control narrative. Despite mountains of evidence, Jean Pierre attempted to shift the blame to former president Trump and congressional Republicans. She has consistently been on the defensive, scrambling for explanations and excuses while her credibility crumbled.

Republican demands for including border security measures in the aid package smacks of legislative hostage taking, but also offers the administration a path toward recovering some level of credibility to its avoidable immigration position.

The administration would have been much better off had it recognized and responded to the warning signs at the border, rather than allowing ideological pressures and a desire to draw sharp contrast with Trump to dictate policy. Choosing to allow the issue to fester and produce an election-jeopardizing political headache was a badly misguided and amateurish decision.

As distasteful as it may be to the administration, accepting the recommendations of the bipartisan Congressional committee offers an opportunity to demonstrate they really do understand the severity of the problem.

How far the progressive left is prepared to go to tank the effort remains to be seen. Dealing with them will require direct involvement of the president.

Not only is addressing immigration at risk, but the potential for failing to aid Ukraine and Israel would seriously weaken a politically vulnerable president as he heads into his re-election bid.

The blame, though, lies squarely with the administration. It continued to paint itself into a corner on immigration and, rather than attempt to extricate itself undamaged, chose to send out for more paint.

–

Copyright 2023 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

Following last week’s fourth – and final – 2024 presidential debate sanctioned by the Republican National Committee, increased attention has turned to the continued presence of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and whether it’s time for both to stand aside in the larger interest of solidifying support behind an alternative to former president Donald Trump.

To the dismay and concern of many Republicans, the discussion may be academic, an exercise in what might have been and an examination of how Trump captured the party and created a cult of personality that has remained resolute in the face of criminal indictments and trials.

There is growing resignation the former president’s 30 to 40 point lead un current polls has created an aura of inevitability, that the nomination has been locked down before the first caucuses convene or the first ballots cast.

Time is growing short – the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary are little more than a month away – with Trump holding a commanding lead in both.

The window of opportunity for the anti-Trump forces is closing rapidly, propelled by a fervent, unshakeable base of support that renders a decision by the challengers to remain or abandon their quest of no consequence.

Neither former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley or Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis – both of whom occupy stronger positions than Christie or Ramaswamy – have shown any indication they intend to end their campaigns.

Christie has vowed to remain in the race through the New Hampshire primary, hoping for a respectable third place finish and remaining viable. Ramaswamy intends to stay in the running to joyously wreak havoc, bask in the attention and comfort his ego.

History is instructive here. Christie entered the race in June; Ramaswamy in February. In the latest Real Clear Politics polling average, Ramaswamy is at five percent and Christie at three percent. Trump is at 60 percent. After months of campaigning, both remain statistically tied in single digits and a path to the nomination doesn’t exist.

Haley has risen to a solid second place – albeit some 30 points behind Trump – and tied nationally with DeSantis. She trails DeSantis by three points in Iowa, but leads him by 11 points in New Hampshire and nine points in South Carolina.

Supporters point to her electability in matchup polling, where she outperforms both Trump and DeSantis against President Joe Biden. She also outdistances Trump in appealing to moderate voters.

Christie is an accomplished campaigner, insightful on the issues, devastating in his rhetorical barbs at Trump, and articulate in expressing his vision and philosophy. Unfortunately, his single issue campaign – defeating Trump – has grown stale, appealing to a small slice of the Republican electorate while alienating the majority.

Ramaswamy is an embarrassment, and with each debate has descended ever deeper into irrelevancy. He’s characterized the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol as “an inside job,” suggested that Federal agents were on board the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on 9/11, and claimed the 2020 presidential election was stolen by “Big Tech.”

Christie seemingly had his fill of Ramaswamy at the most recent debate, calling him “the most obnoxious blowhard in America.”

Should Christie depart and endorse Haley, his action would be impactful. While his unceasing assault on Trump has earned him the enmity of the Trump base, support for Haley would demonstrate a higher principle.

Ramaswamy, like all self-centered fools, will continue to play the role of national embarrassment.

In the absence of significant upward movement by Haley or DeSantis, though, Trump will be the bitter but inevitable pill to swallow for the Republican Party.

–

Copyright 2023 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

Stung by a succession of high profile polls showing President Joe Biden trailing former president Donald Trump among crucial swing state voters, the White House and its allies in Congress have scrambled to calm jittery nerves and reassure donors and establishment leaders all is well and under control.

Many aren’t buying it.

There have been demands the campaign change its strategy, direction and messaging. Others have mused aloud what many of their colleagues voiced privately – perhaps it’s time for the president to reconsider his decision to seek a second term.

The official reaction from the campaign team and the White House has produced more skepticism than satisfaction and won’t be heeded, despite repeated warning signs the American people hold the president responsible for the ills afflicting them and seems incapable of overcoming them.

Bluntly put, “Bidenomics” – the president’s blueprint for economic growth – has been a flop, largely because it is a futile attempt to convince the American people to ignore their real life experiences of rising costs of living, punishing interest rates and the general unaffordability of everything from housing to automobiles to groceries.

The president’s overall approval rating is lodged at 40 percent, and an astonishing 70 percent believe the country is moving in the wrong direction.

His disapproval is above 60 percent on inflation, the economy, foreign policy, crime and immigration.

In hypothetical matchups against Trump, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the president trails by between one and four percent. His support among normally reliable voting blocs of young persons and minorities has eroded alarmingly.

Democrats are divided – often bitterly so – over the administration’s posture in the war between Israel and Hamas. Questions and concerns over his age, physical stamina and cognitive skills are stubbornly persistent, and a majority of self-identified Democrats believe he is too old to serve a second term and would prefer another candidate.

In light of what appears to many to be the ingredients for a landslide loss, the “keep calm and carry on” reaction from the White House and campaign team seems jarringly out of touch with the national mood.

The president’s defenders point out the election is a year off – a time span in which the political dynamic can change dramatically – and that polling this far out from actual voting is not indicative of the ultimate result.

Moreover, they argue, it is Trump himself who voters will find so dangerous and extreme they will turn away from him no matter their misgivings about the president and his record.

The American people may be discontent with Biden, but they live in fear of Trump. Or so goes the theory.

The ex-president’s legal entanglements and the jeopardy posed by guilty verdicts will drag on through the primary election process and could impact voters’ decisions.

Trump’s increasingly strident attacks on his opponents, his incendiary rhetoric, and threats to retaliate against and prosecute his critics if he returns to the presidency have provided ample fodder for the Biden campaign to emphasize the existential peril of placing him and his extreme MAGA band of followers at the head of government.

The strategy is an effort – similar to his victory of 2020 – to turn the election into a referendum on Trump rather than on the Biden record.

Despite the misgivings over gloomy polling data, Biden has given no indication he’s considering a change of heart.

The larger establishment remains supportive. Biden faces no significant primary opposition and will accept his re-nomination at next summer’s convention.

The polling may continue to paint a bleak picture in the coming months, producing more agita for the party establishment.

They’ll just have to get used to it.

–

Copyright 2023 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

Former vice president Mike Pence was the first domino to fall, drawing increased focus and pressure on the remaining single-digit candidates for the Republican presidential nomination to confront the harsh reality that victory will not be theirs.

In the Real Clear Politics polling average, Pence, at 3.4 percent, held fifth place but showed no movement. His campaign finances had tightened and his frustrating lack of progress prompted the difficult decision to abandon his candidacy.

While he did not endorse any of his competitors, his departure from the race shifted the focus to those directly behind in the polling averages – former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 2.3 percent, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott at 1.7 percent and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy at 4.6 percent – none of whom has gained ground and remain well out of the running.

While rumors of a withdrawal have swirled around Scott, Christie appears intent on carrying through to the New Hampshire primary in January, hoping to finish strong in a state where he has gambled a great deal of time and money.

As former president Donald Trump, despite indictments and criminal trials, maintains a stout 30 to 40-point lead, the Republican establishment faces a more intense debate over the options available to it.

For those seeking a Trump alternative, the path forward involves choosing from among at least three options:

• Convince Scott, Christie and Ramaswamy to end their quests and coalesce behind either Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis or former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.
• Hope that Trump will be sucked down by the quicksand of legal issues he faces, including the possibility of guilty verdicts.
• Swallow hard and concede Trump’s nomination is inevitable.

Time, however, is not on their side.

The Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary are little more than two months off. Trump holds a 30-point lead over second place DeSantis in Iowa and a 32-point lead over second place Haley in New Hampshire. Even if those margins shrink in the coming weeks, decisive victories by Trump in those states and the continued inability of his competition to gain ground will seal the deal for him.

Christie, most strident critic of Trump in the field, has been unrelenting in his attacks on the former president’s intellect, honesty and policies, even predicting he’ll occupy a jail cell before the election.

If belligerence translated into support, Christie would be hard on Trump’s heels. It didn’t and he isn’t.

Christie, at 8.5 percent, occupies fourth place in New Hampshire, slightly behind DeSantis but well behind Haley. A failure to crack double digits there, though, will intensify the pressure on Christie to follow Pence’s example.

DeSantis, once welcomed with optimism as a viable alternative to Trump and capable of overtaking him, has been spectacularly unimpressive, losing ground to Haley while continuing to lag far behind the former president.

Haley has acquitted herself well, moving into second or third place behind Trump while drawing increasing interest as the candidate the others in the field could and should unite behind.

She is capable of appealing to suburban women – a crucial voting bloc to whom Trump is unacceptable – while maintaining broad support among moderates and even right of center voters.

Her criticisms of Trump have been more muted than Christie, for instance, and she has threaded the needle to avoid alienating the former president’s dedicated and fervent base.

She has polled well in hypothetical matchups with President Biden – as has Trump and others – but she is free of the immense personal and political baggage weighing on the former president.

As Biden continues to flounder under dismal levels of job performance support, he is increasingly weakened and vulnerable.

Concerns about his physical well-being and cognitive strength have grown steadily, even to the point at which a majority of Democrats feel he should not seek a second term.

A lane to success – the presidency and control of Congress – exists for Republicans, but only a united party will be able to take advantage of it.

Achieving that unity, though, depends on Christie, Scott and Ramaswamy recognizing their hopeless situations and putting aside their egos, aspirations and animosities.

Time, however, is of the essence. The sand is rapidly filling the bottom half of the hourglass.

–

Copyright 2023 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

As the Republican effort to select a Speaker of the House stumbles and staggers ineffectually into its third week, it has deteriorated from drama into farce.

Embarrassing is no longer an adequate descriptive for the events since Oct. 4, when California Congressman Kevin McCarthy was deposed by a small band of ideological misfits, throwing the House into a paralyzing never-never land at a time when the Mideast is in flames and the Federal government is less than a month away from running out of money to function.

Embarrassment has been replaced by disgrace and – if failure to resolve the impasse continues – the Republican House majority will forfeit its right to lead.

Not surprisingly, tempers have frayed, leading to nasty exchanges which further divide the Republican caucus and raise the very real possibility that a new Speaker will be hopelessly hamstrung in efforts to overcome the bitter aftermath and reconcile the warring factions.

Holding the majority in the House – even by the slender four-seat margin currently enjoyed by Republicans – is the ultimate partisan political goal, offering a position of power, a seat at the table and a voice of influence in establishing public policy priorities.

The existing thin margin of error normally would be sufficient incentive to achieve unanimity, to create a camaraderie with an “us versus them” flavor and an acute understanding that internecine warfare will undercut solidarity of purpose and destroy the ability to control and influence outcomes.

By engineering the first in history ouster of a sitting Speaker, the malcontents – led by terminally self-absorbed Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz – tossed all of that aside, setting a dangerous precedent they will repeat if they disagree with a newly installed Speaker.

They seem to embrace chaos, turning a blind eye and closed mind to the destructive impact of their action on government affairs and incalculable damage inflicted on the reputation and image of the Republican Party.

They have displayed a lack of a coherent philosophy of governance, aside from a latent desire to burn it down and replace it with an as yet undefined system.

Gaetz justified the revolt against McCarthy as retribution for the Speaker’s dealing with Democrats and accepting their help in approving a short term spending package to avert a government shutdown. He convinced the handful of his like-minded colleagues that McCarthy had committed an unpardonable sin and deserved removal as his punishment.

Others were less charitable, suggesting Gaetz was more motivated by his desire to exact payback for what he felt was the Speaker’s refusal to intercede on Gaetz’ behalf with a House Ethics Committee investigation of the Florida Congressman.

With no apparent fallback position and the lack of any plan to move forward should the removal of McCarthy succeed, Gaetz set the stage for the moderate, centrist wing of the party to react by rejecting both Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Judiciary Committee chair Jim Jordan of Ohio in their attempts to win the Speaker’s position. Most recently, Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s candidacy collapsed before they could even take a floor vote.

The inevitable result has been an ongoing drama played out in public of a party unable to handle and effectively manage its majority status and, hence, incapable of governing.

It has led as well to quiet conversations concerning a coalition government, an alliance between a majority of Republicans and Democrats in an unprecedented power sharing arrangement, including the selection of a Speaker.

It would constitute a humiliating admission by House Republicans that their party is irreparably broken, but their desire to restore a working, functioning Congress to deal with the nation’s most pressing problems overrides political considerations and reputational damage.

As unlikely as it is, such a power sharing coalition would isolate Gaetz and his cohorts, stripping them of any leverage and consigning them to irrelevancy.

For the Republican Party, though, the damage has been done and the stain indelible. Republicans who once pridefully boasted they were the party of Lincon, Eisenhower and Reagan now worry it’s become the party of Moe, Larry and Curley.

–

Copyright 2023 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.