While on sabbatical, Charles Blow became a blowhard

A recent poll, notes the Times' Charles Blow, finds that Joe Biden is leading the president by eight percentage points in a hypothetical matchup, 42 percent to 34 percent. Biden has a significant edge over Trump among women (17 points), millennials (22 points) and independents (10 points)."

Good news, right? Well, Blow feels compelled to nullify it by adding that Biden "also has a history of being 'handsy' with women, did not treat Anita Hill terribly well during her testimony at Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearing and led the charge on the disastrous 1994 crime bill." (It appears these ancient histories will still be treated as "news" in early November, 2020.)

Furthermore, Blow argues that "in political circles, Biden’s chief attribute in this election feels like his apparent appeal to … white voters" — "Democrats want to hold constant their support from women and minorities even as they chase the votes of people hostile to the interests of women and minorities." And even though Biden leads Trump substantially among women and minorities?

In the Democratic Party's demographic expansiveness and diversity, Mr. Blow, you will never witness a coalition in complete ideological harmony. Thus if Biden appeals to some working-class whites, where's the harm? And why are some high-profile Democrats (which leaves me out, thus liberating me in my commentaries) forever bashing other Democrats on such antiquated grounds, as Mr. Blow "feels" obligated to do?

Blow also argues: "At some point, the leadership and the front-runner are going to have to explain to women and minorities why their inordinate focus on white, working-class voters is justified, and that explanation will have to extend beyond, 'It’s the only way.'" It's questionable that there is an inordinate focus on white, working class voters, and that "Democrats treat [these] voters as if they are white buffaloes — sacred entities." Blow pointedly offers no proof, only opinion, and that which he "feels."

Blow concludes: "Th[e] explanation [that courting white voters 'is the only way'] no longer has currency." Nor is it an emphasis among most Democrats. "'Anything to defeat Trump' is also not a soothing elixir."

The hell it isn't. I'd court the American penal system's most violent offenders if it were lawful and contributed to Trump's defeat.

Comments

[teabow]

re: I'd court the American penal system's most violent offenders if it were lawful and contributed to Trump's defeat.

exactement!!!

[Max]

Stop with the damn 1994 Crime Bill already. There are plenty of honest reasons to not want Biden. Stay away from the dishonest ones.

The same crime bill when the overall crime rate was twice as high as today. The same crime bill when the murder rate was twice as high as today.

The same crime bill endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus. The same crime bill endorse by the Council of Mayors.

The Crime Bill of 1994 had nothing to do with the increase in incarcerations. That took place on the state level.

It was a different era. We did not know it at the time that the crime rate was cresting, which we only now know in retrospect.

[Peter G]

It is very interesting to watch the punditry both professional, like Blow, and the amateurs who tweet, insist that they cannot support anyone who is unwilling to alienate millions of voters for no particular reason. Blow's argument is wonderfully circular. Biden has to explain to the people who already support him why they should if he dares to consider any other voters of interest to winning. But Biden has already done that.