Biden's in Trouble, Parts II, III, and IV

But the understory is worse for him than the main story

Many readers will have heard about yesterday’s news from the CNN poll, in which Trump has a one point lead on Biden, and Nikki Haley is beating him by figures outside the margin of error. You may also have heard the story about the black, Democratic mayor of New York City complaining in bitter, public terms that Biden’s uncontrolled immigration policies (if they can be called “policies”) are bringing ruin to his city.

Those are plenty of bad news for Biden, but not the worst. The worst is this from the New York Times, which is introduced with the following sentence:

After the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade last year, it looked like the number of abortions would soon plummet across the country.

Actually, it never looked like that, as the NYT full well knew, but the fearmongering was needed to drive Democratic turnout in the off-year elections, so it got underway in full swing. Probably worked, too — Republican House gains were significantly below expectations and historical norms.

But here’s the payoff, tucked in the next sentence:

But new estimates suggest that has not happened. The number of legal abortions has held steady, if not increased, nationwide since 2020….

How is that possible? New data from the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit specializing in reproductive health, implies that more people are traveling across state lines or using telemedicine to get abortions, including through the use of abortion pills.

Of course no one could have guessed that this was going to happen (sarcasm emoji).

If anything, Guttmacher’s data underestimates the number of abortions. It does not count abortions obtained outside the formal health care system, including those done with pills acquired through community support networks or websites based outside the U.S….

Altogether, the data suggests [sic] that there are the same number of abortions, or more, occurring in the U.S. now than there were before the Supreme Court’s ruling last year in the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Translation: Contrary to the anguished cries the Left made sure dominated the news, the actual availability of abortion was essentially unaffected by Dobbs. If you wanted one before you could get one, and if you want one now you can get one. Period.

For abortion rights advocates, this is a mixed outcome. Not everyone can afford to travel across state lines or access telemedicine, so it’s likely that some people who want to get an abortion still cannot do so.

But it’s not so likely that the NYT could actually find a single one — in a country of 331,000,000 — to trot out.

These people really do think you’re stupid.

What do the data say about the impact of the Dobbs decision? Guttmacher and Myers caution that it is too soon to draw definitive conclusions, noting the possibility of future restrictions. But the immediate impact on the overall number of abortions has been smaller than many abortion rights advocates feared. And for anti-abortion groups, the data could be an argument for further limits to access, including a nationwide ban.

When the facts are against you, it’s time to rev up the spin machine, and in that the Times is unfailing. The appearance of the spin machine is often heralded, as it was here, by the phrase, “it is too soon to draw definitive conclusions.” This is the same smokescreen the Times used when Mayor Giuliani brought crime way, way down through more police and more aggressive policing. The Times, unable to deny what the whole city could see and why it had happened — but not liking it one little bit — had to settle for stuff like, “the cause of the decrease in crime is still debated among experts.” (They still use that, by the way. Crime cratered in NYC and elsewhere in the country because we got real and toughened up, but the Left just cannot bring itself to admit it, and so claims it’s all a big mystery).

And then of course, “the possibility of future restrictions” on abortions, including the ultimate bogeyman, “a nationwide ban.”

Well, sure. The “possibility” of future restrictions and a nationwide ban is exactly the same as the “possibility” that I’ll be playing center for the Lakers next year. The Times full well knows there isn’t going to be a nationwide ban, but understands as well as we all do that the continued widespread availability of, and fact of, abortions blunts the main Scare Tool the Democrats have been using. So something has to be done — and the something turns out to be what it so often is with the Left, namely, the House of Horrors fantasy. This fantasy gets thrown in a news report, mind you.

But the Times, for all its effort, can’t hide the main takeaway here: When, after plenty of time, the reality is that Dobbs did not affect the availability of abortion even a whit for any woman who seriously wanted one, the main terror tool the Democrats were going to use next year (and will still try to use by just lying about it) has gone bye-bye.

So what’s left? Bidenomics? Biden’s charm? His quick thinking? His strength and vigor as the leader of the free world? Well………..ummmmmmm………….

Maybe it’s Biden’s strong showing against Trump. Oh, wait, that’s not doing too well either, which brings me to Part III of the bad news, namely, the CNN poll.

The poll shows Biden doing no better than even with any of the serious Republican candidates, and behind Trump, 46% to 47% (which is within the margin of error and thus essentially a tie, as both the NYT and the WSJ have previously reported).

But that, amazingly, that’s the good news for Joe. Here’s the bad news:

Views of Biden’s performance in office and on where the country stands are deeply negative in the new poll. His job approval rating stands at just 39%, and 58% say that his policies have made economic conditions in the US worse, up 8 points since last fall. Seventy percent say things in the country are going badly, a persistent negativity that has held for much of Biden’s time in office….

Perceptions of Biden personally are also broadly negative, with 58% saying they have an unfavorable impression of him. Fewer than half of Americans, 45%, say that Biden cares about people like them, with only 33% describing him as someone they’re proud to have as president. A smaller share of the public than ever now says that Biden inspires confidence (28%, down 7 percentage points from March) or that he has the stamina and sharpness to serve effectively as president (26%, down 6 points from March), with those declines driven largely by Democrats and independents.

Roughly three-quarters of Americans say they’re seriously concerned that Biden’s age might negatively affect his current level of physical and mental competence (73%), and his ability to serve out another full term if reelected (76%), with a smaller 68% majority seriously concerned about his ability to understand the next generation’s concerns (that stands at 72% among those younger than 65, but just 57% of those 65 or older feel the same).

I don’t recall any time in which an incumbent with these numbers got re-elected.

Which brings me to my final segment of this week’s Bad News for Joe edition. Again, it’s from none other than the New York Times, with this story (emphasis added):

In a sharp escalation over the migrant crisis, Mayor Eric Adams claimed in stark terms that New York City was being destroyed by an influx of 110,000 asylum seekers from the southern border and said that he did not see a way to fix the issue.

“Let me tell you something New Yorkers, never in my life have I had a problem that I did not see an ending to — I don’t see an ending to this,” the mayor said on Wednesday night in his opening remarks at a town hall-style gathering in Manhattan. “This issue will destroy New York City.”

Mr. Adams, a Democrat in his second year in office, has clashed with leading members of his party as New York City has struggled to provide housing and services to the migrants. For months, Mr. Adams has criticized President Biden and Gov. Kathy Hochul for failing to help the city handle the asylum seekers and pleaded for additional funding and expedited work permits.

But the mayor’s comments on Wednesday were his most ominous yet. He pointed to new projections that the city’s budget gap could grow to nearly $12 billion — the same amount that city officials estimate that the migrants could cost the city over three years.

When the Mayor of New York City is blasting the President of his own Party in terms this caustic, trouble is brewing.

Which brings me to my final observation, a fact that should be more worrisome to Biden that the substantive news itself. The question lurking just beneath these stories is this: Why are major Democrat-hugging outlets like the NYT and CNN giving stories like this so much play?

My experience tells me there’s only one reason: They’ve decided Biden is going to lose and want to dump him while there’s still time. And if big-time players like the leading media want Biden dumped, there’s a pretty good chance he gets dumped.

Gavin Newsom, check your supply of Brylcreem.