‘Preachy Women’
Carville is right about Dems
POLITICAL strategist James Carville just issued Democrats an explicit warning the party would be wise to heed — President Biden’s poor polling numbers indicate serious problems with the Democratic Party’s message itself.
Carville remarked in a New York Times interview that Biden’s polling numbers are “like walking in on your grandma naked. You can’t get the image out of your mind.” While I would not have used such florid language, Carville’s point is correct. Not only is Biden’s overall approval rating just shy of 40%, per the RealClearPolitics average; his ratings on nearly every issue vis-àvis Donald Trump are negative.
While most public polls put Biden within striking distance of Trump in the presidential horse race, that’s not the full story. The current president badly trails his predecessor — anywhere from 11 to 25 points — on every defining issue: immigration, crime, the economy and national security, according to a recent Schoen Cooperman Research national poll.
The data also show swing voters and independents, who narrowly broke for Biden in 2020, leaning toward Trump, which is how we can expect these voters to break in November. Elections are typically a referendum on the incumbent president, rather than the challenger, even one as scandalous as Trump.
Ultimately, Democrats have not come to terms with the fact that to win, Biden must do more than run a strictly negative campaign against Trump and rally the party’s base around abortion or vague references to “democracy” and “human rights.”
Relatedly, Carville’s next point, that Democrats are talking only to “preachy females,” has a gem of truth to it as well. While Carville’s characterization of the issue is arguably inappropriate, it is nonetheless the case that Democrats can’t win a presidential election by basing their entire campaign on social issues when the country is pessimistic about the economy and deeply concerned about the southern border.
It’s not clear if Carville was referring to Jill Biden, but it’s certainly possible, given the central role she’s taken in championing her husband’s social agenda. The first lady just kicked off the “Women for BidenHarris” campaign effort this month and delivered a forceful address on LGBTQ+ rights at a Los Angeles campaign dinner on the weekend.
However meritorious Dr. Biden’s remarks were at the LA dinner, it’s hard to see how they helped her husband’s campaign, given the dueling protesters both inside and outside the room — with one side protesting the administration’s alleged support of “genocide” in Gaza and the other condemning its failure to win the release of additional Israeli hostages still held by Hamas. She did raise significant funding for the campaign, which is awash in money — whatever its deficit in the polls — and that may well have been her trip’s central goal.
With respect to the Israel-Hamas conflict, the administration’s position has become rudderless. Vice President Kamala Harris — another individual Carville may well have been referencing — has been seconded to reach out to the party’s left wing and its increasingly prominent wing of pro-Palestinian supporters but again without a broader focus.
And comments on this issue by progressives like “Squad” member Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are arguably working against their own party. AOC has vigorously condemned the administration’s Middle East policy and even went so far as to accuse Israel of “genocide” in a House floor speech last week.
While AOC’s inflammatory rhetoric may be helpful in Michigan, with its large Arab population, it’s not likely to help the president broaden his appeal — when the strategically located Jewish vote is moving away from Biden and the administration needs to convince voters it understands their concerns about key issues the economy and the border.
All three women, whom Carville may have implicitly targeted, might have different perspectives and positions, but none is seeking to broaden the administration’s appeal in the way many observers, including myself, believe is necessary to win the seven key swing states.
Carville does not engage in niceties, to be sure. But his excessive rhetoric makes a compelling point: The Biden campaign lacks focus, direction and efficacy. Unless the campaign is prepared to refocus itself and meaningfully move to the center on key issues — the economy, national security and immigration — Trump’s narrow advantage in polling will likely be realized.
When it comes to the border, Biden should neither hope nor expect to win by solely campaigning on the fact Republicans sabotaged the bipartisan border-security bill in February. To demonstrate his commitment to tightening the border and getting the migrant crisis under control, Biden should use executive action, to the extent he can, to toughen the asylum process and provide physical barriers to entry in the form of a wall and fencing.
On the economy, it’s not enough for Democrats to campaign on positive macroeconomic trends — i.e., low unemployment and reduced inflation — without making a concerted effort to understand and address Americans’ concerns about excessive spending and taxes. Biden must appeal to the many swing-state voters and independents, who are worried tax hikes on the rich are likely to hurt the middle class and concerned about government’s size and scope.
Ultimately, being strict at the border and reasonable about spending and taxation demonstrate a level of fiscal discipline and social concern that has a broader appeal than focusing primarily on social issues.
Yes, abortion remains a potent issue, particularly for female voters, and I’m certainly not suggesting any diminution in Democratic rhetoric and policy here. But Democrats cannot focus all their messaging efforts on social matters when the president is rapidly losing support with groups such as independent, black, Hispanic and Jewish voters.
Again, Carville’s excessive rhetoric would never be my own. But the policy prescriptions he alludes to, which I have expounded on here, are what Biden must adopt to win a second term.