When I saw the latest presidential poll in the New York Times, it literally ruined my day. The New York Times/Siena poll showed Trump leading Biden by five points nationally. Of course, that set off another round of hand-wringing about Biden’s age.
Happily a friend pointed me to a blogger I had never read: Jay Kuo, who blogs at The Status Kuo.
Today, Jay deconstructed the poll and made my day!
He wrote:
Leave it to the New York Times to stir up Democratic anxiety right before the State of the Union address, with a poll showing Trump beating Biden by five points nationally. A number of my friends sent the poll to me. Some of them are now filled with such gloom and doom that I wanted to lay out my thoughts on it plainly here for a wider audience.
It seems no matter how often I beat the drum about the polls being unreliable, premature and wrong, it doesn’t allay people’s fears enough. Talk of “ditching Biden” then ensues, which of course is not going to happen. We should just stop any discussion of it right now if we know what’s good for us.
So what about this poll? Isn’t the NYT / Siena a reliable indicator? They wouldn’t publish something that is basically false information, right?
Polls aren’t “false.” They report what people actually told the pollsters. But they can be misleading, and they are often faulty. Importantly, we shouldn’t trust any polls to be predictive of the final result when there are still more than 200 days to go till the election and a whole lot of unknowns. But let me focus in particular on this poll and what some experts on polling and methodology are saying about it. I hope you come away with the same conclusion I did: that this is some data, yes, but it’s not very reliable or useful except to make big headlines.
Women voters
One of the things I look for in a polling result is if any of the breakdowns, found in what’s called the “crosstabs,” raise red flags. One jumped out right away for me in this poll, and others saw it, too. As LSU professor and political historian Robert Mann noted,
I do not believe Biden is tied with women nationally 46-46… Biden got 57% of women in 2020. You’re telling me that, post-Dobbs, his support among that demo group will drop to 46? Not credible.
I agree. If you see a poll and half the women are voting for Trump, something went wrong in the polling sample. If women voted like they did in 2020, which we should assume would at least be the case especially since Dobbs, that’s an 11 point difference from this poll. Assuming the poll is half men, half women, that would put the two candidates about even.
Democrats
Here’s a thing I’m sure the Dean Phillips campaign would love to see become reality: The NYT/Siena poll has Phillips at 12 percent support among Democrats.
Really? Because last time I checked, in the actual official contests that have been held, his actual vote haul averages 1.5 percent. As UCLA professor Matt Barreto noted,
There have been 3 DNC sanctioned primaries and Phillips vote:
South Carolina – 1.7%
Nevada – 0.0%
Michigan – 2.7%
So what people are *telling* the NYT/Sienna does not square with how they are VOTING.
It’s fair to ask which Democrats are bothering to respond to and answer these polls to completion. Perhaps it’s those who, on average, tend to be more disgruntled and want to voice their displeasure to a pollster? Are these Democrats also more likely to say they are unhappy with the current president? Just throwing it out there.
Young people
The news in this poll was partway decent for Biden when it came to young voters age 18-29. He leads Trump by 13 points among them, 54 to 41 percent—but that’s still around half the spread that other major polls have on this age group. But when it comes to messaging on the youth vote, the NYT prefers to emphasize the negatives, and its own data seems at odds with itself.
For example, as former pollster and turned sometime polling industry critic Adam Carlson notes, the NYT/Siena poll of swing states conducted back in late October showed Trump actually leading in this age group in AZ and GA, while being tied with Biden in MI. On this contrary, surprising and incorrect result, Nate Cohn of the Times did a whole serious write upabout what it could mean.
But when the new poll shows Biden actually leading nationally within this group by 14 points, Carlson observes, the NYT analysis completely ignored this.
Perhaps that’s because it is hard to square that earlier result of Trump leading with this very different one of Trump trailing without calling one or both into serious question. Such huge swings in such a short amount of time don’t suggest that the electorate is moving quickly so much as that the polling might be way off.
[Please open the link and keep reading the rest of his analysis. It will make you happy.]
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I do not trust the polls, period ! The one thing they hardly ever release is exactly who those questions are worded and what the choices of answers are. Most polls give you several answers to select from and you can’t give a different answer from those choices. And most of those questions and choice of answers are not cut and dry. They can skewer their results to how ever they like.
Most people hang up as soon as they see the area code.
Polls. . . much ado about nothing!
I quit watching the evening news. I couldn’t stand the constant harping on Biden’s age while mainstream news failed to mention all the vile and violent comments from DJT. Everyone knows Biden is old and so is Trump, but the news coverage is not fair and balanced.
AGREE, RT.
Polls. Are. Useless. They are unreliable and unscientific due to all kinds of reasons including poor sampling and biased and dishonest responses. How soon we forgot about the 2016 polls showing Hilary miles ahead, like her march to the Oval Office was a foregone conclusion. Until it wasn’t. In their desperate need to be the loudest voice in the election apocalypse, the media will keep at it, pushing all of our emotional hot buttons until we finally crawl, exhausted and spent, to the finish line in November. And then, what on earth are they going to have to talk about?
Yes, polling is not a completely reliable predictor of election results.
But pull back and look at the big picture. Look at all the polls, from all sources. The pattern is clear and disturbing.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/latest-polls/president
We can either assume the polls are wrong (which they are to some extent), or we can believe the polls are disturbing (which they are to some extent).
If we think the polls are disturbing, the question is why do people like the aging, senile Trump and yet they are certain that Biden’s age-related cognitive failures for the last 4 years (as reflected in the terrible job Biden has done since taking office) means it is of vital importance that Biden be prevented from continuing to harm our country with his aging, senile decision-making?
And why are there just as many people who think Biden is TOO old as there are people who “know” Fani Willis is a perjurer whose integrity is compromised and who has been proven to have a very serious conflict of interest? Why do people have more trust in a Federalist Society Republican judge (despite all his unprecedented, biased and inappropriate actions favoring the Republican defense) than they have trust in a Black Democrat prosecutor who had an affair with a co-worker she hired only because other people turned down the job?
Why did 2016 exit polls show that a much higher percentage of voters believed “she who cannot be mentioned” was corrupt than believed that Trump was corrupt? Why, after Trump U, Trump charities, the bankruptcies, the scandals, did 2016 voters by a wide margin believe that the democrat was the corrupt candidate who should not be trusted?
Who do voters trust Trump, despite his age and cognitive problems, more than Biden? More than she who cannot be named?
Hint: it’s not because of something the democrats did. It’s because there isn’t a Democrat who is immune to the power of the right wing media, helped by many of us helping to legitimize the narrative.
BOTH sides talk about Biden’s age and unfitness for office. All the time. BOTH SIDES.
One side talks about Trump’s age and unfitness for office. ONE side.
I have watched many elections now, and the Republicans have never joined in legitimizing any narrative about a Republican, no matter how obviously true it is. Not once.
Democrats frequently join in in legitimizing the Republican narrative about their own candidates. The only years that they didn’t were 1992, 1996, 2008, 2012 and 2020. That’s it. Every other year since 1988 the “cool guy” Democrats and their sycophants in the so-called liberal media amplified the right wing narratives that destroyed perfectly good candidates and then blamed the candidates. I recently watched a short video about the Dukakis tank “fiasco” with Dems rushing to blame some other Dem or Dukakis even 30 years later. I realized that Dukakis didn’t look any different from the soldier sitting next to him. I would not have even thought to laugh at him. There was nothing wrong with that photo shoot. But back then, the popular mean kids made him the object of ridicule, and the rest of us joined in and knew if they said it was bad, it must be bad.
George H.W. Bush won because he wasn’t Dukakis, so the fact he was associated with Iran-Contra and all his actual baggage didn’t matter. If Dukakis had said “a thousand points of light”, the mean girl media would have spent the next month laughing at him for using such a stupid, meaningless word salad of an expression with democrats joining in the “very important” matter of whether Dukakis was an idiot or a fraud, and how can voters trust him.
We let the right wing drive the narrative – we HELP the right wing drive the narrative. Not always – we didn’t in 2020, when the narrative was Biden-Burisma” and “Biden old”.
We have already conceded this election in so many ways. Sure the Supreme Court has a legitimate reason to delay Trump’s trials for another few months so they can do a very careful analysis of the burning and very difficult to decide question of whether the Constitution says that presidents have permanent immunity for their crimes in office. Sure the Republican judge could only decide whether Fani Willis “appeared” to have a conflict of interest if he convened a public hearing so Republican defense attorneys could grill her with innuendo-laced questions that make her “appear” to have a conflict of interest. We concede that Biden is too old. We concede that she who must not be named is corrupt. We did NOT concede that Obama did anything wrong because his minister was radical, or he talked about clinging to guns and religion. We did NOT concede that it was wrong, and those faux scandals lasted a day.
Once we concede, we normalize the end results. Once we agree that the far right Supreme Court has every right to hear arguments about whether Trump has full immunity, we legitimize the outcome. The far right knows this. While I don’t expect the Supreme Court to rule for Trump to have immunity, I am positive that if they do decide to rule for Trump, everyone will grumble and accept it. Just like I do expect the Republican judge to remove Fani Willis and I am 100% positive that when he does, everyone will simply accept it as normal. And slowly, we descend to fascism.
If you believe these polls are true, or worrisome, then what is your solution? If it is simply repeat the narrative that Biden is too old because he’s too old, then that isn’t a help. Anyone naive enough to believe there is some candidate immune to being smeared who can beat Trump is living in a dream world. We can only defeat ourselves by legitimizing false narratives instead of crushing them so they have no power.
I guess if every Democrat who says “Biden is too old I want another candidate” promises that they will not join in the Republican smearing of the replacement candidate, then replace Biden. But we all know what will happen. “Bernie’s corrupt institute paid unqualified stepson, Democrat voters concerned Bernie isn’t trustworthy” “Ohio Democrats know Pete Buttigieg at fault after toxic train derailment and his flights in private jets while the country suffers, all Democrats very concerned about Pete’s trustworthiness and truthfulness.” Gavin Newsom will be saddled with EVERY problem in California, from homelessness to being unprepared to handle weather emergencies to “people leaving California in droves because of Newsom and now he wants to do to America what he did to California — Democrats very concerned about how Newsome’s record in
California is turning off so many voters”.
The more time we spent discussing how worrisome it is that so many voters are turned off of Newsome’s record in California, where so many people moved out of the state because it was so bad, the more we legitimize to voters why they should not trust Newsome. “Even the Democrats are talking about how much of a problem Newsome’s candidacy is.”
So if we accept this is a problem, what do we do? Because replacing Biden with someone else who is going to get the same treatment isn’t a solution. The solution is whether Democrats will legitimate the narrative, the way we have with Biden. And Dukakis. And Gore. And Kerry. And she who must not be named.
And if we are willing to refrain from helping push negative (but technically true) narratives about Newsome, why aren’t we willing to do so for Biden?
Why not focus on the MANY good things that prove Biden is doing an excellent job, instead of reinforcing the narrative that he is not, and is untrustworthy and unfit due to his age?
That’s what the Republicans do, and they win. But only when we help them.
It really comes down to this: Republicans want to get into our bedrooms and limit what we say, read, and think. Democrats don’t. That should be the message until November.
Until Republicans themselves are telling folks that they are very concerned because Republican candidates want to get into everyone’s bedroom and limit what we say, read and think, that message is not particularly strong. The Democrats have pushed that message for years. And at same time the Republicans pushed the message that it is the Democrats who want to limit what we say, read and think. The Republicans took over lots of school boards that way. Didn’t help that so many Dems did agree that DEI and “book banning by Dems” had just gone “too far” and infringed on free speech.
That message works in some local elections, but very few, because the Republican candidates simply deny it is true.
A low interest voter knows that there is one “true” thing both sides agree on – that Biden is too old and unfit for office. That’s a “non-partisan” truth. Every other message is just partisan rhetoric that Republicans deny is true.
That happened in 2016 when democrats and Republicans were in agreement that she who shall not be named was corrupt, but ONLY partisan democrats said that Trump is corrupt.
Republicans are way too savvy to legitimize and and amplify Democratic messaging, so it all comes off as just a partisan attack. Trump voters know Trump would make an excellent president, and any attack on Trump’s fitness is simply “partisan”. While Dems like to concede how much validity and truth there is to Republican narratives about Democrats.
Actually, in the south the Democrats have been far too complacent and the Democratic establishment;ishment in the east has not taken the fight to the American Heartland. I have payed significant attention to American politics for 5 decades and Democrats have not challenged right winged politics effectively. The so called third way brought in by Bill Clinton actually modified progressive perspectives while helping to reinforce the economic inequality we are struggling with today. The current Republican Party is thoroughly autocratic and acts to cut the will of the majority. Dobbs has unleashed a potential firestorm to push back against the Christian Nationalist movement that is supported by the malfeasance of particular oligarchs. It has to be clearly stated that this is what they are about. We have been word smithed by Republicans like Frank Luntz with no meaningful response. I personally don’t believe we have fought back hard enough. I disagree. Republicans want to impose on American privacy and autonomy. That can’t be said enough.
Paul, true conservatives believe in leaving people alone except when they intrude upon public health or safety. These rightwing zealots are not conservatives. They want to force believe to endorse their views. They want to bring the law into your bedroom and regulate your private life. They won’t be happy until they have stamped out dissenting views and the right of people to think fit themselves and to follow the religion of their choice or none at all.
I agree. I began my life in the southern Democratic version of this and now find myself navigating Republicans who have had autocratic designs all along. When Trump won in 2016, I told some friends from the North, “Welcome to Alabama.” Chaos is the point. I know many thoughtful conservatives who were willing to have civil discussion over our differences. The cowards in the Republican Party now simply want it all for themselves.
Have you seen this about trump dementia?
<
div>
<
div style=”display: block;” class=””>
<
div style=”-webkit-user-select: all; -webkit-user-drag: element; display: inline-block;” class=”apple-rich-link” draggable=”true” role=”link” data-url=”https://www.salon.com/2024/03/01/like-someone-pulled-the-metaphorical-plug-dr-john-gartner-on-accelerating-dementia/”><tab
The only thing that would make this race intriguing is if Haley and Cheney joined forces to run as a third party. Otherwise, head-to-head, Biden will kill Trump in November–before the latter even faces his just criminal deserts.
The Times has become treacherous in its duplicitous coverage.
I have another take on polls showing Traitor Trump (in last place in Historical scholars rankings) and President Biden (ranked 14th by those educated historians).
https://scrippsnews.com/stories/here-s-where-scholars-rank-all-46-us-presidents/
That won’t change MAGA thought, who are willingly ignorant and mostly uneducated.
Anyway, I think any media site that ranks left in bias may fear that if Biden’s voters think it’s going to be an easy win will stay home because they’ll think, why vote. So, those sites, because of ale ft leaning bias, out of fear, report Trump is leading or neck in neck with Biden to make sure more voters that well vote for Biden do not stay home.
I also think that extreme right media and voter bias works differently. Their right leaning bias will lean toward making Trump look like a winner all the time because that’s what the traitor wants them to do, even when his poll numbers are underwater. They will cherry pick the numbers that make Trump look good, most of if not all the time.
And remember,bias is not the same as a lie. Also bias is part of being human — everyone is biased. And there are many types of bias.
Confirmation bias has ruled the right since Nixon and/or Reagan.
MAGARINOS are also easily influenced by The Misinformation Effect.
“Confirmation bias, a phrase coined by English psychologist Peter Wason, is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms or strengthens their beliefs or values and is difficult to dislodge once affirmed. It has also been termed myside bias. Congeniality bias has also been used.”
“Keep in Mind
“The cognitive biases above are common, but this is only a sampling of the many biases that can affect your thinking. These biases collectively influence much of our thoughts and ultimately, decision making.
“Many of these biases are inevitable. We simply don’t have the time to evaluate every thought in every decision for the presence of any bias. Understanding these biases is very helpful in learning how they can lead us to poor decisions in life.”
https://www.verywellmind.com/cognitive-biases-distort-thinking-2794763
Objectivity, fairness and impartiality is the other side of the coin.
A Harvard study says, “We show that fact-checking helps self-correct one’s views [viewpoint is a synonym for bias] among young adults. However, this effect is weaker for individuals who perceived the claim negatively at first. Furthermore, borderline messages like “Lack of Evidence” can be perceived as false rather than neutral.”
Still, overcoming our biases with facts and evidence isn’t easy.
“Laboratory studies reveal that, when shown a video of a group of protesters, people see either a peaceful protest or an unruly mob blocking pedestrian access, depending on their sociopolitical beliefs. The world outside the lab shows similar biased perception: For example, 68 percent of Republicans consider the videotaped demonstrations in Portland, Ore., Kenosha, Wisc., and New York City to be riots, versus only 30 percent of Democrats, according to a Fox News poll released in September.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of-fact-checking1/
I’m not trying to troll, but what, exactly, is the difference between Trump and Biden? I find, in what they actually do, that they are very similar.
I’m not trying to troll you, but what, exactly, is the difference between Trump and Putin? I find, in what they actually do, that they are very similar.
FYI, I guess if – to you – there is no difference between low taxes on the rich and progressive taxation, low minimum wage and raising the minimum wage, having a public Medicare system and privatizing both Medicare and Social Security, a woman being able to control her own body (and her own embryos) and right wing Republicans deciding, no difference between high college debt and low-cost or free college, no difference between “Blue Lives Matters” and “Black Lives Matters”, you would say there is no difference.
I’m not trying to troll, but I notice that the people who don’t notice those differences are almost always rabid Trump voters who would would spit with anger and try to overthrow an election if Trump didn’t win — thus demonstrating how very strongly they believe there is a difference.
Now why don’t you tell me how Trump and Putin are different. Prove you aren’t a Trump troll.
Trump and Putinnare different in this regard: Putin is a highly trained and canny KGB agent. He is clever. He is manipulative. He is ruthless.
Trump is a playboy con man with a huge ego and an appetite for gorgeous women. He loves being rich and flamboyant. He is desperate for respect. He is easily fooled by smarter people like Putin and Kim.
Thanks, that’s all very true!
I was thinking that Trump and Putin were alike in their shared depravity, immorality, and self-dealing, and their complete disregard for the law or truth or democracy, and their shared view that anyone who challenges their lies or gets in their way must be silenced.
But your comment made me consider the difference. Putin is so canny and clever that he doesn’t need anyone for his authoritarian rule. He holds the power himself.
Trump would be absolutely nothing if a huge army of very powerful Republicans – including most of the Supreme Court – didn’t have his back. Trump would be a lesser Nixon, under indictment, with some other immoral Republican replacing him. (I leave open the possibility that it’s Putin who has some dirt on the other Republicans empowering the cognitively challenged Trump.)
lol you clearly are trying to troll and nobody with a brain will engage you on the merits.
Biden wants to improve the lives of people who are poor and middle-class. He is the most pro-union president since FDR. He wants to bring manufacturing and high-tech jobs back to the US. He wants every American to have health insurance. He tried to forgive billions of dollars of student debt but was blocked by the Supreme Court. He wants to protect women’s reproductive rights.
Trump is running to stay out of prison. He appointed three judges who promised not to overturn Roe v Wade but broke their promise. If Trump is re-elected, he will appoint equally reactionary justices to replace Alito and Thomas and the Supreme Court will proceed to demolish civil rights, the rights of workers to join unions, the wall of separation between church and state. The SCOTUS will roll back the New Deal. Trump will enact new tax cuts for the 1% and corporations. He will withdraw the US from NATO and other multilateral agreements.
That’s a quick overview.
Have you made no effort to inform yourself?
Thank you Diane. Always thoughtful! Marilyn
Thanks, Marilyn.
I’m not sure where I found this link, perhaps it was here! Worthwhile reading:
*Let’s assume that both Biden’s and Trump’s behavior and personalities continue in the same direction. With that assumption, on their worst day, which of these two men would you rather have as President of the United States?*
*Even if he was demented, I would rather have Biden than Trump as President of the United States. Dementia brings out the worst in people’s character. They become 10 times worse. If Biden really were to mentally decline — and I’m not saying he has or will or is — but he’s basically a benign person with good judgment. Biden cares about his fellow human beings. Biden is patriotic, and he actually believes in defending the Constitution and the United States of America. So even if Biden were to become diminished in his cognitive abilities, he’s still not going to do something evil or crazy. He just might need more help. By comparison, Donald Trump unleashed would be like Satan unbound.*
https://www.salon.com/2024/02/23/dr-john-gartner-on-a-tale-of-two-brains-bidens-brain-is-aging-brain-is-dementing/
FYI, 14th amendment decision from SCOTUS likely coming tomorrow morning at 10 am.
Seems like SCOTUS has immediate concern about timing in order to pull Trump’s chestnuts out of the fire before he can be banned from the ballot. But, at the same time, SCOTUS has calculated how long it can delay rendering a decision on immunity, which will effectively leave Trump untouchable before November.
Yeah, the Supreme Court could not be more clear about how it is willing to act fast when Republicans want them to act fast and delay whenever Republicans want them to delay.
I mean, we are supposed to believe the Court needs a lot of time to figure out if the founders of the Constitution might have given presidents lifetime immunity for the crimes they committed while in office — it may be written in invisible ink and it’s important to check that out — but they will always move swiftly when Republicans ask them to make a quick ruling that will help them.
Thank you, Lloyd.
I appreciate your discussion of biases. One of the great unifying theories about decisions people make and the aftermath was laid out in Leon Festinger’s writing about cognitive dissonance–which has enormous explanatory value regarding the ways people seek information to justify their choices and actions.
A recent blurb from Raw Story said that Trump had declared he would withhold federal funds from any school system that required vaccinations. In Tennessee, the governor has set up a study group to decide whether it would be a good idea to do without federal funds.
Why is this not the national debate? Do Polls mean nothing because news is nothingness?
I do not want reporting about the odds. I want to see and read reporting about the stakes. The NYT and it coterie of courtier press does the American people and its democratic project a grave disservice for clicks.
Christine, so right about coverage of the polls, the horse race. Instead of coverage that one man, Biden, is experienced and thoughtful and the other is a vengeful know-nothing.
NYC: I was incensed about the SCOTUS decision to take up the case, at first. As was the lawyer/presenter in this link. But on deeper analysis he came up with some good points, imo:
I’ve been sliding in and out of TBS (Trump Burnout Syndrome), lately. So when I saw this headline about the recent poll; I had my quiet “f*@k you” moment and moved on.
Kind of tongue and cheek…but serious enough. It’s really too much. Every hour, day, week, month. So much coverage of this one disgusting human being. The media creates headlines that will draw interest/clicks. Trump’s brand is the gift that keeps on giving…and taking.
Enough is enough. There’s no question about who I’m voting for. And I know that Comer and Jordan are grown up locker room blowhard bullies. I’m not going to be convincing anyone otherwise, if they’re wearing a red MAGA hat and trying to spear me with an American flag.
That said; I do still keep my hat in the ring and this was a welcome essay. Thanks, Diane. I had a similar feeling of relief after watching this take on the SCOTUS decision to take on Trump’s immunity claim. The guy’s good and I’m hoping he’s right, concerning the timeline. Worry about Cannon setting up an August blockade date, though…
Gitapik,
I fully agree with you! I get sick of seeing stories about the Orange One. One reason I celebrated his loss in 2020 was the belief and hope that I would never have to see him, hear him, or read about him.
Vain hope. He is everywhere, sounding like the vengeful charlatan he is, leading a cult.
We had a brief period of relative peace, with chants of “rigged election” in the background. But once Trump saw that he might well be going to go to prison, and then announced his campaign; it was off to the races again.
We’re of a generation that can remember a time when there was no 24/7 news cycle. Seems pretty clear that disinformation and unsubstantiated innuendo have become a critical part of the process. Can’t help but think that, even if Trump loses, a new boogie-man or woman will take the center stage.
Trump is the first person in history to run for president so he can pardon himself and stay out of jail.
I hope he is right.
Me, too.
Wrangling over how to frame the “question presented” might partly explain the delay in granting cert.
Was hoping you’d weigh in. I had the same thought.
I think the concept of creating a bulletproof precedent for future generations is an important one. I’m not completely cynical of SCOTUS and, so, am hoping that this is actually part of their thought process.
Not happy about 4/22, though. Doesn’t make logical sense to me, considering what’s at stake. But what do I, a mere mortal, know?
SCOTUS moves quickly when it wants to. Moved quickly to decide Colorado case. Hard to understand why they need 7 weeks before hearing immunity issue.
Agreed. I wonder if that was part of a compromise among the justices.
flerp!,
So you believe none of the lower court decisions framed the “question presented” the right way? And now it’s up to the Supreme Court to rectify it by indicating to the public that it’s an open question that no one will know for sure until the Supreme Court has time to discuss how best to frame the question presented?
I can’t believe we saw the reversal of Roe v. Wade with justices hearkening back to old english law and other random stuff to justify doing what they have always wanted to do (but 3 of them perjuring themselves), and people still aren’t cynical. But then I readily admit I am cynical. I am far more cynical of the Supreme Court and other Republican “independent” prosecutors and judges than cynical of Democrats and progressives from Biden to she who must not be named, to AOC and Bernie.
But anyway, I already know “it” can definitely happen here. Folks won’t be cynical until after it happens, or maybe not even then.
The idea that total presidential immunity is now “debatable” boggles my mind, but I realize many people think it’s normal and look for nonsensical reasons to rationalize the Supreme Court’s most norm-defying actions.
gitapik,
There already was a bulletproof precedent — the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is making a new precedent — that nothing in the Constitution is bulletproof at all unless the right wing Supreme Court decides it is.
NYC: I was incensed about the SCOTUS decision to take up the case, at first. As was the lawyer/presenter in this link. But on deeper analysis he came up with some good points, imo: