Regardless of the fact that RFK Jr.’s positions on a variety of issues – particularly anti-vaccinations, and anti-government along with his pro-Israel positions in regards to the ongoing war in Gaza – are closer to the GOP’s stance, RFK Jr. likely knows that if he secures debate access, attacks on Biden, who is the weaker candidate, will make more of an impact than attacks on Trump, especially in light of Trump’s vice-like grip on the GOP.

Of course, it is also important to note that while our electoral system means it is next to impossible for RFK Jr. to actually win the presidency as a third party candidate, he can surely impact the outcome and, if enough things go right, determine the winner by virtue of simply being in the race. 

Similarly, while the most recent Wall Street Journal swing state poll shows that that three-in-10 supporters of Robert F. Kennedy come from Trump supporters compared to 22% coming from Biden’s, it would be a mistake to overlook one basic fact: While Donald Trump has a stranglehold over his party, Joe Biden is considerably weaker nationally, among Independents, and within his own party, which, per the Journal poll, is turning on the president. 

Indeed, Biden’s dismal approval numbers, both overall (41%) and on the economy (40%), mean that any election which turns into a referendum on Biden’s policies is almost certain to push a not-insignificant bloc of Democrats or Democratic-leaning Independents away from Biden into the arms of RFK Jr. 

To that point, compared to national voters, swing state voters are nearly twice as likely to cite the economy and inflation as the most important issues to their vote, with roughly 35% of swing state voters saying this, compared to 19% in a similar national poll also conducted by the Wall Street Journal.

Not only are these voters more focused on the economy, but they are also highly pessimistic about it. At least 57% of voters in each state say the U.S. economy is “not good” or “poor,” and in Georgia (67%), Michigan (66%), and North Carolina (66%), two-thirds of voters feel this way. 

Across all seven states in the WSJ poll, Biden’s support among Black voters (68%) and Hispanic voters (48%) shows considerable erosion from 2020, when Biden won more than 9-in-10 Black voters (91%) and 63% of Hispanic voters.

Importantly, these findings are not isolated to the Journal poll. New York Times/Siena polling has sounded the alarm over Biden’s declining support among minority voters for months, with the most recent NYT/Siena poll (February) showing just two-thirds (66%) of Black voters and 40% of Hispanic voters backing Biden. 

Younger voters, another key Democratic constituency are also turning on Biden. In the Journal’s national survey and the swing state survey, Biden is winning this group by 10-points (50% to 40%), despite carrying the ‘youth vote’ by 25-points in 2020. 

In that same vein, Tuesday’s Democratic primaries further reinforced Biden’s struggles with these groups, particularly younger progressives who staunchly oppose the president’s stance on the Israel-Hamas war.  In Rhode Island and Connecticut, the “uncommitted” protest vote hit double-digits, finishing in 2nd place, reaching as high as 15% in Rhode Island and 11% in Connecticut. 

In all seven swing states surveyed by the Journal, there were clear signs of disapproval over the approach Biden has had to key issues such as the economy, inflation, and the border, and while Trump’s populist views certainly rile up his base, they may be extreme enough where moderates who do not like either Biden’s open border policies or Trump’s far-right approach decide that RFK Jr. is the least bad of all bad options. 

Further, as Trump and Biden are both well-known – and widely disliked – candidates, enough voters may decide that a “protest” vote for RFK Jr. is the best choice, and if that happens, it will likely impact Biden more than it impacts Trump due to recency bias. 

Put another way, having been out of office for four turbulent years, many voters, when they step into the ballot box will have likely forgotten Trump’s antics and focus on the record high inflation, chaotic foreign policy, porous border, and skyrocketing crime, all of which occurred under Biden, despite there being legitimate questions as to whether or not he is ultimately responsible. 

Compared to national voters, swing state voters are nearly twice as likely to cite the economy and inflation as the most important issues to their vote, with roughly 35% of swing state voters saying this, compared to 19% in a similar national poll also conducted by the Wall Street Journal.

Taken together, these findings, along with Trump’s stranglehold on the GOP suggest that an opportunistic candidate like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will ultimately siphon more Democratic or Democratic leaning votes than Republican likely voters. 

Ultimately, while much can, and will, change between now and November, especially the unresolved questions over RFK Jr.’s ballot and debate access, at this moment, it would appear that despite the conventional wisdom, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. poses a bigger threat to Biden in this race than he does to Trump, and should RFK Jr. succeed on the ballot and debate access, look for Democrats to pile on him mercilessly, given the threat he represents. 

Douglas Schoen is a longtime Democratic political consultant.

Indeed, in spite of a robust job market, inflation that is steadily slowing down, and the U.S. having so far avoided a recession many deemed “inevitable,” Biden’s approval on the economy has been stuck underwater at just 40% per RealClearPolitics polling average.

Worse, by an 11-point margin (42% to 31%), Americans trust Donald Trump – rather than Biden – to handle the economy according to a separate poll by the Financial Times.

However, there are signs that this narrative is beginning to change, as voters’ perceptions of the economy are improving, as is their tendency to give Biden credit for the state of the economy, potentially handing Biden a much-needed polling boost with just seven months until the election. 

To that point, the most recent CNBC All-America Economic Survey underscores just how important a brightening economic outlook is for Biden’s chances in November.

The poll showed Biden virtually tied with Trump (45% to 46%) in a presidential contest, a significant improvement for the president from December’s poll, which showed Trump with a 6-point lead, 48% to 42%. 

As for what is behind Biden’s boost, the CNBC survey showed Biden’s approval on the economy rising from 33% to 37% from December through March, and while that is still dismal, the trend is clearly going in the president’s favor. 

In that same vein, the share of Americans who believe the economy is improving (33%) hit the highest levels of Biden’s entire presidency, per a new Suffolk poll.

To be clear, while the CNBC and Suffolk numbers are not independently impressive, when taken together, they do indicate that there is improving sentiment towards the economy, and most importantly for Biden, that he is finally seeing the benefit of that rising optimism, which he had not until now.

Just three weeks before the CNBC survey was released, an article in the New York Times pointed out that while Americans’ views on the economy were improving, Biden was not seeing a concurrent rise in the polls. 

That now appears to be changing, marking a reversal in what has been, according to the Times article, “A persistent trend that has confounded pollsters and economists” wherein the economy continues demonstrating its resilience but Americans either don’t recognize it or don’t credit the president.

It is worth noting that Jessica Tarlov, writing for Fox News, noted that Biden’s improving situation began with Biden’s State of The Union speech, including pointing out that there have now been “12 national polls since SOTU that have Biden leading Trump and, for the first time in seven months, Biden was up one in the Economist polling average.”

And, while Tarlov largely focuses on the bigger picture, citing Biden’s general increase in energy and public appearances – in comparison to Trump’s time largely spent in courtrooms and Florida – as opposed to the economy specifically, the paramount importance of the economy to voters means Biden would not be seeing this polling bounce without improvement in the economy as well. 

To that end, if these latest polls truly do mark a turning point, the moderation of economic sentiment has potentially critical implications for the 2024 election, given the importance of the economy in voters’ minds, and how much poor economic ratings have hampered Biden’s reelection bid, despite an intensive effort to convince voters of the benefits of ‘Bidenomics.’

Put another way, if these opinions continue moving in Biden’s direction, he should tentatively see a bounce, given the importance of the economy, the role it has played in anti-Biden attacks, and the general tendency of voters to hold the president singularly responsible for the economy, good or bad.

Moreover, with the Federal Reserve expected to cut interest rates this summer amid easing inflation, public perception over Biden’s handling of the economy could begin to improve just as the campaign is heating up. In turn, it is likely his standing in the polls will also improve, painting a rosier picture for Democrats in a tight race to keep the White House.

This is not to say Biden’s path is an easy one – he still faces an uphill battle if he wants to defeat Donald Trump. When compared to Trump on specific economic issues, Biden trails Trump on handling of the stock market (-33%), taxes (-32%), inflation (-27%), and to a smaller extent, the “well-being of the middle class” (-5%), according to the CNBC survey.

Of course, while the economy is always one of the most important issues, it is not the only issue. As bad as Biden’s approval on the economy is, his RCP average approval on immigration (32%), inflation (36%), crime (37%), and foreign policy (37%) are all worse, and there is growing discontent in the left-wing of Biden’s own party over his support for Israel. In an election that figures to be incredibly close, any of those issues issues could be enough to swing the race to Trump.

And while it remains to be seen whether opinions of the economy will continue improving in Biden’s favor, there is a lot of time between now and the election, and right now at least, it appears that with negative views moderating – and Biden being credited – what had been a significant headwind for the president may well turn into a tailwind as we approach November’s general election. 

Douglas Schoen is a longtime Democratic political consultant.

Put another way, Iran sits at the center of two wars involving American allies – Ukraine and Israel – and its alliance with Russia, China, Syria, and North Korea in a new ‘axis of evil’ is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and our allies, but also to global peace and security. 

The budding relationship between these nations, including Iran’s proxy forces was made evident on Thursday, when the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, which have targeted dozens of commercial and military ships and effectively shuttered the Red Sea, announced that Russian and Chinese ships would be spared and can transit freely.

Indeed, Iran has continued selling drones to Russia for use against Ukraine in that war’s third year, and Tehran’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah enabled the October 7th attack and subsequent war, while turning Hezbollah into a terrorist group more heavily armed than dozens of countries. 

Further, in what is an existential threat to many countries in the Middle East, including American allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, IAEA inspectors remain barred from monitoring Iran’s nuclear program, which, according to AP reports, now has enough enriched uranium for at least three nuclear weapons, which, thanks to cooperation with North Korea, Iran may soon have the ability to put onto ballistic missiles aimed at Israel and the U.S. 

Likewise, Iranian commandos remain entrenched in Syria, ferrying Shia fighters from Iraq and Afghanistan to Damascus to prop up dictator Bashar Al-Assad and transport weapons to Hezbollah. Iranian oil also continues flowing to China in a mutually-beneficial economic agreement that provides Beijing with cheap energy and Iran with a way around international sanctions.

Plainly, to meet the threat posed by the Iranian regime, existing sanctions must be tightened, possibly even extended to countries and institutions which do business with Iran such as China and Qatar. 

Above all, the Mullah’s in Tehran should be fully aware that if they continue their malign activities, they are risking a direct clash with the United States, including possible strikes on Iran’s energy or nuclear facilities, or even Iran’s spy ships in the Red Sea, which are suspected of providing the Houthis with intelligence and targeting information.

Historically, Iran has sought to test the limits of what the U.S. would allow, and unfortunately, our leaders have generally allowed the Islamic regime to do so. However, history has also made it clear that in the face of an American military response – such as former President Reagan’s decision to destroy a significant number of Iranian naval and energy assets – the regime backs down. 

Confronting Iran with anything less than a credible military threat risks allowing Iran – and its proxies – to soon be protected by a nuclear umbrella, and by that point, it may be too late to roll back Iranian forces. 

As I wrote almost exactly three months ago, immediately after Hamas’ October 7th attack, President Biden’s efforts to deter Iran and their proxies began as admirable. The president ordered an unprecedented large show of force  – the deployment of two aircraft carrier strike groups into the Mediterranean Sea – and explicitly warned Iran and its proxies not to even think about taking advantage of October 7th to widen the war. 

Yet, nearly six months later, Iran’s free hand to cause chaos remains intact. Its Hezbollah allies have continued launching rockets into Northern Israel, American forces in the region have been subjected to hundreds of attacks, and the Houthis recently doubled down on their threat to target any ship in the Red Sea.

It is easy to understand why Iran feels they can sow disorder without any fear of a direct clash with the United States. Biden has repeatedly failed to establish any semblance of deterrence vis-à-vis Iran, including his latest approval of a sanctions waiver granting Tehran access to $10 billion, and according to one former CENTCOM official, the president has consistently denied military leaders’ plans to hit Iran where it would “really inflict pain” and “send a message.”

At this point, it is legitimate to wonder not what Biden’s red line is, that if crossed, would invite an American military response, but if a red line exists at all. 

Importantly, this is not to advocate for preemptive strikes on Iran or the start of another war in the Middle East, however, Biden’s consistent refusal to even threaten military action directly against Iran is a deafeningly loud message to Tehran that they have a free hand to continue sowing chaos. 

That said, it is more likely that Biden will only further retreat from his initial support of Israel and increase his pursuit of diplomacy with the regime in Tehran, following the misguided belief that if he appeases Iran, attacks on commercial shipping will end, American troops will no longer be targeted, and if the war in Gaza does not end, at least it will be contained. 

Ultimately, while diplomacy should always be the first – and second – option before military strikes, unless the administration is clear eyed about Iran’s efforts, and is equally clear that further strikes by Iran or its proxy forces will invite a devastating response from the U.S., Iran will have no reason to cease their targeting of American forces, attacks on Israel and Ukraine, or its support of terrorism around the world. 

Douglas Schoen is a longtime Democratic political consultant.

To be clear, Senator Schumer’s comments represent everything that is wrong with the exercise of American foreign policy, and deserves a stiff rebuke, no matter your position on the war in the Middle East, nor one’s opinions on Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israel’s longest serving Prime Minister. 

Indeed, not only did Schumer effectively call for regime change in a democratic ally, but he did so at the worst possible time. Fighting on the ground in Gaza continues to rage, Israeli troops are still in harms way, and more than one million Gazan civilians are caught in Rafah, used as human shields for an impending Israeli assault on Hamas’ last holdout. 

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, there are delicate negotiations ongoing around the release of the remaining 130 or so hostages, including Americans. In the middle of all of this, for the highest ranking Jewish elected official in American history to meddle in this way is wrongheaded, ill-conceived, harmful to the State of Israel, and contrary to America’s interests.

In that same vein, if Schumer felt the need to engage in regime change in the Middle East, he would do far better addressing the Mullah’s in Tehran, who are almost certainly encouraging – if not outright facilitating – Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the Assad regime in Syria, Russia’s onslaught in Ukraine, and rising tensions in the West Bank. 

Put another way, Senator Schumer has been noticeably silent in talking about the principal architects of instability in the region – Iran – and yet, to speak out about Israel at this time, particularly with the advancement of ceasefire talks, is unfathomable. 

Of course, Senator Schumer is no novice. He understands very well that Benjamin Netanyahu is the duly elected leader of a democratic state. And while Netanyahu’s political career is highly likely to come to an end when Israel does hold new elections, who leads the country is for the Israeli people to decide, not the United States. 

In that context, Schumer’s words are even more abhorrent. Not only did he call for new elections – something Israelis themselves have been doing for nearly a year – but threatened that, if Netanyahu won and remained in power, “the United States will have no choice” but to force Israel to “change the present course.”

Two years ago, almost to the day, President Biden made an off-handed remark that Russian President Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power” following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Biden’s remark, about a brutal dictator who is America’s enemy, caused an uproar and the White House almost immediately made it clear that Biden was not calling for regime change. 

But when Israel, America’s closest ally in the Middle East, is the target of such inflammatory rhetoric, President Biden has been deafeningly, and disgracefully, silent.  

That said, not all officials were. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took the Senate floor after Schumer and said, “It is grotesque and hypocritical for Americans…to call for the removal of a Democratically elected leader of Israel.”

Senator Tom Cotton offered an even clearer rebuke, saying, “Chuck Schumer’s demand for new Israeli elections is inappropriate and offensive…Israel is a close ally and a healthy, vibrant democracy. The last thing Israel needs is the ‘foreign election interference’ that Democrats so often decry here.”

Positively, it was not just Republicans who recognized the danger of Schumer’s comments. The American Jewish Committee, led by former Democratic Congressman Ted Deutch, said, “Israel is a sovereign democracy in the midst of a war of self-defense against a terrorist organization bent on massacring Jews…the Israeli people will decide their own political path.”

To that point, President Biden – who has increasingly criticized Netanyahu on a personal level lately – and Schumer do not realize that their incessant attacks on Netanyahu only strengthen him at home, and are clearly lacking an end game. 

Right now, Israel has a united war cabinet, and while Democrats may dislike Netanyahu personally, they may be shocked to learn that there is almost complete consensus in Israel regarding the war with Hamas, and even if Netanyahu was replaced, his successor would not prosecute the war any differently.

Perhaps most upsetting about Biden and Schumer’s attacks are that these are clearly not their core beliefs.

Instead, these are obvious attempts to pander to the anti-Israel fringe of the Democratic Party, which has grown increasingly vocal in their own attacks over what they consider Biden’s too-supportive attitude towards Jerusalem and are threatening to withhold their votes from Biden in November.

At this point, Senator Schumer – and the Biden administration – would be better served if they spent their energy on producing a pause in the fighting and most of all, the release of the hostages who have now been held in Gaza for more than five months. They should cease any involvement in the domestic politics of Israel at a time like this. 

Anything else is harmful, destructive, and diametrically opposed to American values. 

Douglas Schoen is a longtime Democratic political consultant.

And, while Garvey has virtually no chance of winning in November, his impressive showing leads one to conclude that he could eclipse 40% of the vote, which would not only be a considerable showing for a California Republican, but also a stinging rebuke of Democrat’s leftward shift, even in the bluest of states, especially as Garvey has barely campaigned and is relying on voters rejecting further left Democratic positions and Democratic voters clearly refused to “rally to the left.”

Schiff – hardly a moderate but more moderate than Rep. Katie Porter and especially more so than progressive Rep. Barbara Lee – had a relatively dominant performance against his fellow Democrats on Super Tuesday, having led the pack since the race was announced in early October. By Thursday, with 53% of the vote reported in the open primary, Schiff and Garvey were virtually tied (33%-to-32%), with Democratic Congresswomen Katie Porter (14%) and Barbara Lee (7%) finishing in a distant third and fourth place.

As I predicted in these pages last month, Barbara Lee played spoiler for Porter, in part, as her base siphoned off votes to prevent Porter from overtaking Garvey in second place. Arguably more important, Lee’s candidacy prevented Porter from gaining any real momentum by consolidating California’s more liberal voter blocs.

However, even if Lee was not in the mix and Porter received all of her votes – which may have been unlikely – it still would not have been nearly enough to overtake Garvey in second place, given that Porter and Lee combined for less than one-quarter of the overall vote, which still would have been more than 10-points lower than Garvey.

Schiff’s victory over the other Democrats on the ballot, while expected, was even more impressive in certain key Democratic counties, reinforcing the conclusion that Democrats did not rally to the left. 

In Los Angeles county, Schiff beat Porter by more than a 2:1 margin (37%-to-14%). In Santa Clara, Schiff trounced Porter 40%-to-15%. Moreover, Schiff won among voter blocs that should have been solidly behind Porter. Among liberals, Schiff won by 10-points (45%-to-35%) and among women he won by 13-points (34%-to-21%).

Schiff outspent Porter, his biggest Democratic rival, by more than double ($44.8 million to Porter’s $18.6 million). In the aftermath of Tuesday’s results, Porter has brazenly called Schiff’s victory “rigged by billionaires,” a reckless statement for a Democrat as the party battles the MAGA Republican narrative that Joe Biden did not legitimately win the 2020 election.

Brilliantly, Schiff’s strategists – in an attempt to consolidate the conservative vote around Garvey and push Porter out of second place – launched a $11.2 million ad blitz in the final weeks of the campaign painting Garvey as “too conservative” for California. As a result, Garvey, who raised only a few million dollars, and barely campaigned, was boosted into second place.

Looking toward Schiff’s general election matchup with Garvey, Schiff should focus on key issues that voters expressed concern about in exit polling data. More than a third of voters reported the cost of living (36%) as their greatest concern. Immigration and homelessness were tied for the second spot at 17% each. 

Among conservatives, however, the chief concern was overwhelmingly immigration. Three-fourths (74%) of Garvey’s voters reported immigration as their top concern compared to a combined 17% of voters who voted for either Schiff, Porter, or Lee. If Schiff would like to expand on his lead and eat into Garvey’s support, he must grab the attention of conservatives by supporting expansive immigration reforms to tighten the border and strengthen asylum laws in California.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that Garvey, a novice candidate and a California Republican to boot, has anything remotely resembling an inside track in November’s election. California has not elected a Republican Senator in nearly four decades. Rather, it is to suggest that given the expected high turnout in November, and Democrats’ likely enthusiasm gap with Republicans, Schiff would be wise to move towards the center. 

California had a number of other consequential primary races up and down the ballot on Tuesday, setting the stage for both parties, with their razor thin majorities, to have a chance at retaking Congress in 2024, and the results underscore that if Democrats want any chance of winning in November, they have to move to the middle.

As we look toward the general election in November, California has reinforced the blueprint for Democrats that moderate Democrat Tom Suozzi laid down in his special election victory a few weeks ago in New York. The party would be wise to internalize that message, and realize that even in the most liberal of states, there is little appetite for progressive policies, which may actually boost turnout for Republicans. 

Put another way, Democrats should move to the center on issues such as the border and the economy, as those will continue being the top-issues which move the needle for voters, who have made it clear that they prefer middle-of-the-road solutions to extremes on either side.  

Douglas Schoen is a longtime Democratic political consultant.

As of Thursday, President Biden had captured slightly more than 8-in-10 (81%) Michigan Democratic voters. The only issue for the president is that a non-candidate – the ‘uncommitted’ vote came in second, with 13% of the vote, or roughly 100,000 votes.

Put another way, Democratic primary voters in Michigan, a group who is generally deemed older, whiter, more politically-active, and further-left, are not committed to voting for their party’s leader – who also happens to be the sitting president – come November.

To put this in context, in 2012, then-President Barack Obama lost out on 11% of voters who chose ‘uncommitted’ on their ballot. The difference, however, is in the numbers. Where Obama’s ‘uncommitted’ vote totaled just 18,000, Biden’s is almost six times that.

The effort to boost the ‘uncommitted’ vote was driven by the organizing group Listen to Michigan. Backed by the anti-Israel Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib (MI), the group hopes their efforts will deter Biden’s support for Israel in the aftermath of Hamas’ October 7th attack and Israel’s response, which has seen nearly 75% of the Gaza Strip conquered by Israeli forces and, according to Hamas, 30,000 fatalities. 

In preparation for what they knew would be a large protest vote, these groups hedged expectations, reporting their goal as 10,000 ‘uncommitted’ votes to Politico. However, it doesn’t take a genius to know this story would receive far more media attention if they were seen as blowing their own “expectations” out of the water.

But what do Michigan’s results really portend? Nate Cohn’s The Tilt succinctly analyzed the results as a risk the Democrats don’t want to take. The harsh truth is that the Arab American and Muslim vote only represents 3% of Michigan’s electorate. That being the case, there is a substantial amount of voters who don’t fall into that group that also voted ‘uncommitted’. This is where Biden finds himself facing an uphill challenge. 

While turnout in Tuesday’s Democratic primary was low – just 763,000 voters turned out for Democrats compared to 1.1 million voters in the state’s Republican primary – Trump eclipsed Biden’s total by almost 140,000 votes. To put this in context, Biden only beat Trump by 154,188 votes in Michigan in 2020.

To make matters worse for Biden in terms of the general election, Trump is polling very well in virtually every Super Tuesday state. He’s winning states like Vermont where Independents may play a bigger role by almost 30-points, purple states like Massachusetts by 35-points, and deep red Republican strongholds by margins as high as 75-points. 

Further, Biden’s approval rating remains dismally low. Not even 1-in-4 (39%) voters approve of the job he’s doing as president. Moreover, Biden is somehow seen as less favorable than the indicted former president 41% to 44%. This strongly suggests that Biden has a tougher road ahead than Trump to win November’s election.

Regardless of Tuesday’s results, Biden’s bottom line remains the same. He has to walk the tightrope of appeasing ‘uncommitted’ voters while not totally alienating supporters of Israel, which happen to be particularly prevalent in major swing states such as Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona.

On the Republican side, Trump won slightly more than two-thirds (68%) of the vote, his strongest margin to date over Nikki Haley, who squeaked out barely one-quarter (27%) of the vote. While Haley’s survival to this point is impressive, having outlasted former-GOP darlings like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, she has virtually no conventional path to the GOP nomination and high-profile donors like the Koch’s have taken note, recently halting their donations.

Looking ahead, Trump is likely to continue dominating through Super Tuesday, and will almost certainly win the majority – if not all – of those states by double-digits, all but ending the GOP nominating process.

As NBC’s Steve Kornacki described, Haley’s base of support through the first couple of states has been almost entirely powered by Republicans casting their own protest votes against Trump. And while she has proven that Trump’s near-domination of the GOP is not yet fully complete, she has failed to make her own significant mark on the party. 

If one thing is clear for Republicans after Michigan, it is that their primary contest is over. Haley is losing by larger and larger margins, even in states with open primaries where Independents can vote. 

Ultimately, while Haley proved that roughly one-third of the Republican Party wants to move on from Trump, that discovery is hardly the takeaway from Michigan. Instead, it is increasingly clear that Biden faces a not-inconsiderable obstacle within his own party, and will be running against a challenger who has complete domination over the other party. 

Whether Biden can successfully appease his fractured party while also appealing to more moderate Independents remains to be seen, but the one thing that is now evident is that where Biden has an enthusiasm problem among his voters, Trump has an enthusiasm surplus, and with that in mind, it is evident that Donald Trump is the front-runner at this point. And, while Trump’s lead may be narrow, it is also undeniable. 

Douglas Schoen is a longtime Democratic political consultant.

These worries have been exacerbated by the Hur report. Although some critics have said Special Counsel Robert Hur overstepped by commenting on the President’s physicality rather than simply recommending against charges in the classified documents investigation, he underlined a common line of thought among the American public.

While detailing how Biden cooperated with the FBI’s investigation in contrast with Trump’s obstruction of their investigation into his retention of classified documents, Hur called Biden an “elderly man with a poor memory.”

A new Quinnipiac University poll found that 67% of Americans feel President Biden is too old for another term, including 71% of independents. While the risk of a Donald Trump presidency and his 91 indictments will certainly sway a large portion of that group towards voting for Biden, it is a concern with which the campaign and the Democratic Party has to grapple.

The age factor has raised the importance of the vice-presidential candidate to a higher level than the typical presidential election cycle. Unfortunately for the Biden-Harris campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris has even lower ratings than President Biden. A recent NBC News poll found just 28% of Americans have a positive view of Harris, while 16% are neutral.

Their persistently low numbers have led to months of media speculation about whether the Democratic Party will look to an alternative to take on Donald Trump. Although primary voters so far have stayed loyal to Biden, as evidenced by his 96% performance in South Carolina and 89% showing in Nevada, there is still a lot of time for a change or even a brokered convention. In fact, President Lyndon B. Johnson did not drop out until March 31st of 1968.

California Governor Gavin Newsom routinely denies that he has interest in running for president this time around and vocally supports Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, “The train has left the station…We’re all in. Stop talking. He’s not going anywhere. It’s time for all of us to get on the train and buck up.” Yet, Newsom continues to be in the spotlight and appears to be the person for the job if a last second candidate is needed.

Rumors have been churning since last summer when his political operation attacked former presidential candidate and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis for taking away people’s freedoms. Newsom has since appeared in the spin room at an RNC debate, debated Ron DeSantis on Fox News, and routinely makes the media and talk show rounds. Even this Thursday, Newsom was spotted on Capitol Hill.

Related: Gavin Newsom for president? For what?

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has taken note of Newsom’s rise and the increased attention he has received, “He’s a nice looking guy, he speaks well…I always got along well with him, believe it or not.”

Meanwhile, Newsom has kept his focus on helping the Democratic ticket, including recent visits to early states South Carolina and Nevada. These moves indicate that even if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are the nominees after the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August, Newsom will have a key role as a top surrogate through November.

However, if Biden should decide at the convention or before not to run—whether because of bad poll numbers, the special prosecutors report, or his age—then Newsom is more likely than not to throw his hat in the ring, barring the unlikely entry of former First Lady Michelle Obama. In a scenario where neither Biden nor Obama is the nominee, Newsom’s main rival will be fellow Californian Vice President Kamala Harris, one of the most unpopular vice presidents in history and a likely loser to Donald Trump in November.

While an enticing candidate, Newsom will have to overcome some difficulties, whether this year or in the future. Some have labeled him a California liberal who advocates for out-of-control tax and spend policies. California’s high gas prices, out of control budget deficits, and problems with homelessness will not serve to dispel these attacks. 

Like any politician, Newsom will face his fair share of challenges, but his strong presence and ability to stay on message will serve as a significant advantage when he runs for president, whenever that might be—2028 or as increasingly possible, 2024.

Douglas Schoen is a longtime Democratic political consultant.

Indeed, voters are acutely aware that Harris may well be forced to replace Biden midway through a potential second term. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of swing state voters say the vice-presidential candidate is “more important” in the 2024 election than in previous elections due to both Biden and Trump’s respective ages, per Bloomberg/Morning Consult polling.

Harris likely understands this as well. Almost prophetically, two days before Hur’s report, in which he described Biden as an “elderly man with a poor memory” among other things, was released, Harris told the Wall Street Journal that she is “Ready to serve. There’s no question about that.”

The problem for Democrats is that Americans do in fact have questions about Harris’ ability to lead. Only slightly more than one-fifth (22%) of swing state voters have “a lot” of confidence to assume the responsibilities of the presidency should Biden be unable to do the job, according to the aforementioned Bloomberg/Morning Consult poll.

Further, while a relatively poor 36% of voters have a favorable view of Biden, an even worse 28% of voters have a favorable view of Harris, according to a recent NBC News poll.

With that in mind, Harris still has a key role on the campaign trail for Biden, especially as he may not finish a second term, or, however unlikely, withdraws from the campaign in the wake of intensified scrutiny coming from Hur’s report.

To that end, Democrats would be wise to maximize Harris’ appeal – particularly with young, progressive, Black voters – and as a visible Biden surrogate, leveraging her relationship with popular Democrats such as former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama to bring out voters.

Quite simply, given concerns over Biden’s mental fitness, Harris’ relative youth and energetic personality are a critical counterweight to Biden’s age and his questionable campaign strategy of avoiding interviews and events where the spotlight would be on his declining vigor and mental acuity.

Moreover, as a bridge to those voting blocs which are critical if Biden is to have any shot at winning in 2024, Harris has a vital role to play in rebuilding the support for Biden that has significantly eroded from the left-flank of his own party and other voting blocs Biden needs to win another term. 

Positively for Democrats, Harris is particularly well suited for this role. She is more popular among Black voters than Biden (70% to 63%), and 18-29 year olds (57% to 60%) according to Economist/YouGov polling.

Underscoring the value of Harris as a visible surrogate for Biden, the same poll shows Biden’s support among those two groups is considerably weaker than in 2020. Four years ago, Biden won nearly 9-in-10 (87%) Black voters and 60% of voters under 30 years old. 

Today, less than two-thirds (64%) of Black voters and barely a majority (54%) of voters under 30 say they would back Biden over former President Donald Trump. If Harris can reassure those voting blocs and convince them to come back into the Democratic fold, Biden’s chances of winning in November would get a not-inconsiderable boost. 

Of course, there is the personal aspect for Harris to consider as well. The campaign trail represents the best opportunity for her to display her leadership and ability to connect with voters, which she has made a noticeable effort to do as the administration’s point person on hot-button issues such as abortion and voting rights. The former has been especially important for Harris, where she has frequently been out front of the president himself, making fiery speeches in defense of a woman’s right to choose.

However, the one place Harris has been, and will likely continue, to play the biggest role in helping Biden’s campaign is her increased role in the administration’s handling of the war in Gaza. 

This issue likely poses the biggest threat to Biden with voters in his own party, and according to reporting in the Wall Street Journal Harris has “Emerged as one of the top policy makers bridging the divide within the Democratic Party between a hard core of Israel supporters and groups that are sharply critical of the administration’s approach.”

Specifically, Harris has been the driving force behind the administration’s shift to a less staunchly pro-Israel position, and progressives have taken note. Waleed Shahid, a progressive Democratic strategist told the Journal that Harris’ efforts are a “trial balloon” for progressives, who have been increasingly vocal in their criticism that the Biden White House has been too supportive of Israel.

Ultimately, while it remains to be seen whether Harris will prove to be a drag or a benefit to Biden’s reelection bid – to say nothing of the fact that it is unknown whether she will ascend to the top of the Democratic ticket should Biden withdraw – and despite the doubts about her personally, she has an unprecedentedly important role to play between now and November.

Harris’ ability to connect with young, progressive, and Black voters cannot be overlooked, nor can her ability to speak to the Democratic base on issues in a way that Biden cannot, which may prove crucial for an administration struggling to fire up the base ahead of what will be an incredibly close election.

Douglas Schoen is a Democratic political consultant;

However, despite this calamitous display of party politics, the government’s work to fix the crisis on our Southern border, as well as help our allies, cannot – and must not – be finished. 

As a matter of policy, the border security bill was a good deal for the country as a whole, Democrats and Republicans alike, California as a border state, as well as Israel and Ukraine, particularly the latter, which is experiencing dire shortages of ammunition due to stalled U.S. aid.

Indeed, the proposed bill addressed crucial national security concerns such as the flooding in of foreign nationals from countries like China and Venezuela, and would have also cracked down on drug trafficking, including the alarming surge of fentanyl related deaths in the United States, one of the biggest consequences of our porous border.

In terms of immigration policy itself, the bill would have put a cap on the number of border crossings per day and installed three ‘automatic triggers’ to shut down the border: If 5,000 migrants were caught within the course of a week, or 8,500 in a single day, as well as giving the President power to close the border if there were an average of 4,000 migrant encounters per day over a seven day period.

The legislation also would have tightened the nation’s asylum system, removing the courts from the migrant appeals process, and putting those decisions in the hands of a more conservative internal review board, a sure-fire win for Republicans. 

Of course, Republicans did not get everything they wanted. The bill took a long time to get to the House, and during that time, the border problem worsened. On top of that, the proposed bill does not automatically shut the border, nor does it go as far as the GOP may like, in terms of restricting immigration, and while they may have a point, politics is the art of the possible, and this bipartisan bill should be promoted for what it does do, not what it does not. 

In that same vein, it would surely be a mistake for Republicans to do what Trump did in 2018, holding out for a “perfect” deal that is effectively unachievable. 

The bill was even endorsed by the acting head of Customs and Border Patrol, as well as the union which represents border agents – hardly a bastion of the political left. And while neither Democrats nor Republicans got everything they wanted, the deal was no less a good one for each party and a step in the right direction – one could even call it a compromise. 

Put another way, not only did the bill include red-meat for Republicans, it would have also addressed one of the greatest weaknesses of the Democratic party and the Biden administration to date – a perception that they are weak on the border. 

To that end, less than one-quarter (22%) of American voters say Biden, rather than former President Trump, is better able to secure the border, while a strong majority (57%) back the former president over the incumbent on this critical issue, per recent NBC News polling.

Far from being an outlier, the aforementioned NBC poll is one of a slew of polls which underscore how big of a vulnerability this is for Biden and Democrats: Across all recent polling, Biden’s approval on the issue of immigration and the border is a dismal 32% according to the RealClearPolitics average.

Perhaps that is why the deal was “dead-on arrival” when it hit the Republican-controlled House floor. The worst kept secret in Washington is that Donald Trump wants the border to be a hammer with which he can slam Biden, and unfortunately – but also unsurprisingly – Republicans are bowing to Trump, which is not only irresponsible, but also bad governance. 

While it is fair for Republicans to ask why it took so long for legislation to reach the House floor, this is no time for political games, especially given the inclusion of GOP priorities in the bill.

For Democrats, it appears that there is finally a realization that the border is a big vulnerability in 2024, which may explain why Senate Democrats agreed to some of the bill’s provisions. And while the House GOP is largely responsible for the bill’s failure, Americans will likely blame Democrats, as they are the party in power, reinforcing Republican messaging that Democrats cannot be trusted to handle the border crisis.

Moreover, for Democrats, the failure to pass funding for Ukraine hamstrings Biden’s ability to follow through on his promise since the start of Russia’s invasion, that the United States would not let Ukraine be defeated.

Closer to home, California would have benefitted dramatically from a deal. California is home to 10.4 million immigrants, 23% of the nation’s foreign-born population. And by a margin of more than 2-to-1 (62% to 30%), Californians do not feel the southern border is secure enough to prevent migrants from entering the country illegally, according to a UC Berkeley poll conducted last month.

Ultimately, a deal on the border was a chance to show Americans that President Biden and Congress could govern from the center, and would have given both parties an opportunity to show they can put solutions over partisan politics, if for nothing else than to solve an urgent problem facing the country.  

This failure – especially on a bill both parties recognize is sorely needed and which addressed priorities on both sides of the aisle – has left our elected officials looking incompetent once again, exposed vulnerabilities on both sides, and demands renewed efforts to push this bipartisan legislation over the finish line. 

Douglas Schoen is a Democratic political consultant.

Indeed, there are two compelling questions which will shape the outcome of the race, and ultimately, whether Schiff will cruise to a virtually unchallenged general election, or face a competitive election against a fellow Democrat.

First, will the two Democrats – Reps. Katie Porter and Barbara Lee – split the remaining Democratic vote and allow Republican Steve Garvey to pull off what would be an upset by California political standards, despite having virtually no chance of winning the general?

The second, and perhaps more interesting, question is, will Porter or Lee be able to cement themselves as a firm number two, which would set up a more competitive general election among two Democrats?

Somewhat ironically, Schiff may prefer that Garvey defeats Porter and Lee. Given California’s deep-blue status – it hasn’t elected a Republican senator since Sen. Pete Wilson in 1983 – the 12-term Congressman would have a much easier path to winning should he face Garvey than either of the other two leading Democratic challengers. 

Related: Anyone but Katie Porter for Senate

To that end, Porter and Lee clearly understand that they must find a way to distinguish themselves and overtake Garvey. During the January 22nd debate, both hammered the Republican candidate and former MLB player on a range of issues, from his support for former President Donald Trump, to his seeming inability to give straightforward answers to questions about California’s homelessness epidemic and his stance on abortion.

In this respect, Porter may have had the most memorable line of the night when she criticized Garvey’s avoiding giving an answer about whether he would vote for Trump in 2024, saying, “Once a Dodger, always a dodger,” referring to the 13 years he spent with the franchise, causing the audience to erupt in approval. 

And while the attacks certainly worked to underscore Garvey’s lack of preparation, Garvey may have been his own worst enemy. When asked why he’s running, Garvey said, “I knew I needed to explore California, I needed to talk to the people. Policy for me is a position. I’ve taken strong positions.” Hardly reassuring. 

Christian Grose, a political science professor at USC described Garvey’s night as “lackluster” saying that he “missed a chance to consolidate the Republican voters with a lackluster performance.”

Of note, two weeks ago in these pages, I predicted that a key to this race would be “whether California Republicans coalesce around Garvey” and if the polling data is any indication, the failure of Garvey to solidify his base has left the door open to an 11th hour surge for Porter.

Polls before and after the debate certainly reinforce these conclusions. Prior to the debate, Garvey was solidly in second place with 18% of the vote, holding a 5-point lead over Porter, and a 10-point lead over Lee, according to Emerson.

However, a USC survey, conducted days after the debate showed Garvey and Porter tied at 15% apiece, and most worryingly for Garvey, nearly 4-in-10 (37%) Republican voters are undecided, pointing to Garvey’s failure to consolidate support within his own party. 

Harley Rouda: Character matters. That’s why Katie Porter is unfit for the U.S. Senate

As split as the Democratic vote appears, if Garvey can’t rally GOP support, Porter has a chance to supplant him in second. 

Further, large numbers of Asian (37%) and Hispanic (31%) voters remain undecided per the USC poll, therefore, whichever way they break could play a significant role in determining whether Garvey or Porter advance.

Ultimately, the virtually non-existent path for Garvey to win the general election – should he end up taking the number two spot – makes the ongoing contest between Porter and Lee – who trails Porter by 8-points (15% to 7%) in the aforementioned USC poll – even more important.

There is a very real possibility that Lee, a progressive, ends up playing spoiler, especially if her base holds, as it may siphon just enough votes away from Porter to prevent her from overtaking Garvey. 

For now, it does not appear that Lee has any interest in throwing her support behind Porter in order to guarantee an all-Democrat general election. Lee used the debate to draw stark distinctions between her and the other Democrats on issues such as the war between Israel and Hamas, where she has been strongly in favor of a ceasefire since the war began, and brandishing her progressive credentials overall. 

To be sure, while the debate likely did little to decisively shift the needle for Porter or Lee, it certainly highlighted Garvey’s vulnerabilities, the most important of which is his inability to convince Republicans to coalesce around him. 

With early voting set to begin on February 5th, the race for second place – and thus, whether or not the general election will be remotely competitive – will come down to whether Garvey or Porter can make significant inroads with undecided voters, the ironic twist of fate that Republican voters may determine whether or not two Democrats advance in solid-blue California, and whether or not there is a clear winner in the intraparty battle between Porter and Lee.

Douglas Schoen is a longtime Democratic political consultant.