Jonah Goldberg: Trump’s effort to damage Biden could backfire |
Featured Commentary

Jonah Goldberg: Trump’s effort to damage Biden could backfire

Jonah Goldberg
Getty Images

Is President Trump going to get Joe Biden elected?

Opinions vary widely on how to characterize Trump’s now-infamous conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. The president believes it was “perfect” and “beautiful.” In the middle are those who think it was bad and improper or perhaps impeachable but not necessarily worth the bother this close to a national election. And then there are those who believe we know all we need to know to warrant impeachment and removal right now.

But one thing virtually every sentient being agrees on, even if some won’t say so publicly, is that if Biden weren’t running for president — and outpolling Trump in general election matchups — Trump would be a lot less interested in Biden’s alleged misdeeds.

And that raises the amusing possibility that Trump’s effort to damage Biden might, just might, end up being a blessing in disguise for the former vice president.

The Trump impeachment firestorm ignited just as Biden was declining a bit in the polls and Sen. Elizabeth Warren was starting to surge. On Sept. 21, Warren pulled (slightly) in front of Biden for the first time in the Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom poll of Iowa Democrats. A few days later, a Monmouth University poll put Warren two points ahead of Biden in New Hampshire.

Democratic activists were giddy that Biden’s “electability” argument appeared to be imploding.

There was also a lot of glee in Trump World about the Warren surge. The Trumpists are convinced Warren is much more beatable than Biden because she would allow the president to run against socialism, “Pocahontas” and confiscatory taxes.

They might be right. It’s certainly true that Warren galvanizes Republicans — particularly wealthy GOP donors — far more than Biden does. But more beatable than Biden is not synonymous with easily beaten. Warren is a better campaigner than Biden and leads Trump in the Real Clear Politics average of polls by four points.

The Ukraine story is still unfolding, and there’s too much churn and uncertainty to gauge or predict its effects. Moreover, the speculation that Biden simply isn’t up to the challenge the way he once was is hardly baseless. That said, the all-out assault on Biden just might go down in history as one of the great examples of unintended consequences in American politics.

One of the defining dynamics of politics today is negative partisanship. As Emory University’s Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster wrote in 2017, “Negative partisanship explains nearly everything in American politics today.” The idea is simple: Republicans vote less for Republicans than they do against Democrats, and vice versa. Hillary Clinton lost because more people in several key states voted against her than voted against Trump.

The dynamic doesn’t just explain presidential elections. Democrats (and various media personalities) outdo each other trying to goad Trump into attacking them, because they know that being attacked by Trump is a boon for donations, media attention and ratings. Meanwhile, Trump’s base remains loyal in part because he is so good at identifying and attacking enemies.

Of course, things could get to the point where Democrats decide to toss Biden under the train the way they did Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota, but assuming Biden doesn’t crack under the pressure (a real possibility), it’s hard to see how that happens as long as impeachment remains the defining issue of our politics. In 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders caved to the pressures of negative partisanship and refused to make an issue of Hillary Clinton’s “emails.” Warren may well feel similar pressure.

Hence the possibility that an attempt to destroy Biden could one day be remembered as his lifeline.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.