Tuesday Edition: Trump's Not Worried
Plus: Have we overhyped Biden's "manufacturing renaissance?"
Bubba
13 Aug
Forward this newsletter to a friend, or send them to bubba.news.
1. Why Team Trump Isn’t (That) Worried
The momentum in the 2024 race has swung mostly to Kamala Harris’ side, but Donald Trump’s campaign isn’t sweating it. (The Daily)
New York Times reporter Jonathan Swan speaking to “The Daily” podcast:
The basic way that the Trump people see it is that Kamala Harris is simply winning back people that Democrats should have had in the first place.
And it's not like the mood of the country has changed. It is still a country that is still very, very sour about the economy, anxious about high prices, worried about the border and immigration. These are all issues in which Donald Trump holds huge advantages over Kamala Harris and Democrats.
Who Trump is going after: According to Swan, Trump’s team is focused on “target persuadables,” a narrow demographic that constitutes about 11% of the electorate.
These voters “are disproportionately male, under 50, non-white, independent, moderate.”
They don’t closely follow the news, whether on TV, online or in print.
But they are into podcasts, mixed martial arts and streamer-influencers like Adin Ross, who recently interviewed Trump.
What Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio told the Associated Press last week:
It’s a very narrow band of people that we are trying to move. There is a reason why we’re doing podcasts. There is a reason why we’re doing Adin Ross. There is a reason why we are doing all of those things. You know what these people pay attention to? MMA, Adin Ross.
Bubba’s Two Cents
So the Trump campaign’s theory is that while Harris has made it a closer contest, the “fundamentals” haven’t changed and that all the media hype won’t necessarily sway the key voters who will ultimately decide the race. It’s definitely not the craziest thing I’ve ever heard. But under any scenario, whatever mood Trump has been in since the “giddy” RNC is off-putting, or at least opens the door for another look at a Kamala who is getting a warm welcome from the mainstream media.
2. An Update on Biden’s “Manufacturing Renaissance”
Have President Biden’s contributions to domestic manufacturing been overhyped? (Financial Times)
Chart: Financial Times
A new Financial Times analysis: While Biden’s allies have claimed he’s ushered in a “manufacturing renaissance” by way of the Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS, projects tied to his signature infrastructure bills have been plagued by holdups and delays.
40% of U.S. manufacturing investments announced in the first year of President Biden’s industrial and climate policy overhaul have been delayed or paused.
All told, $84 billion worth of projects are delayed for months to years, or paused indefinitely.
Financial Times U.S. energy reporter Amanda Chu:
In the first year of the programme, more than $220bn in cleantech and semiconductor manufacturing investments were announced, with companies relocating projects from other countries to take advantage of the new subsidies.
But a tough macroeconomic backdrop, combined with overproduction in China, slowing demand for electric vehicles and policy uncertainty has chilled further progress.
To be fair: Investment into manufacturing construction has spiked pretty dramatically under Biden.
3. Free Speech on the Brain
Who is the free speech candidate in the 2024 election? Donald Trump? Kamala Harris? Neither? (The Hill)
Harris: In a new essay for The Hill, law professor and pro-Trump legal scholar Jonathan Turley argues free speech would suffer if Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, prevailed in 2024.
Turley referenced the Biden-Harris administration’s controversial and short-lived Disinformation Governance Board, as well as Harris’ comments endorsing regulation of speech on social media platforms.
Harris in 2019: “We will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms, because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy.”
Walz last year: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the First Amendment protects hateful and offensive speech.
Turley:
With the addition of Walz, Democrats now have arguably the most anti-free speech ticket of a major party in more than two centuries. Both candidates are committed to using disinformation, misinformation and malinformation as justifications for speech controls.
Trump: From liberal journalist and Vox senior correspondent Ian Milhiser’s point of view, it’s Harris’ opponent, and his present and future SCOTUS appointments, who pose the real threat to the First Amendment.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito have signaled support for state laws in Texas and Florida that prevent social media companies from moderating content based on "viewpoint."
Thomas and Gorsuch have called for the overturning of New York Times v. Sullivan, a ruling that protects the press from defamation lawsuits by public figures unless they can prove "actual malice."
Trump has himself backed laws that would punish social media companies for perceived bias against conservatives, which Milhiser views as a violation of the companies’ free speech rights.
Milhiser:
Under this emerging Republican vision of the First Amendment, in other words, the government may manipulate the marketplace of ideas whenever it determines that one side’s ideas aren’t receiving a big enough platform.
Related: In response to anti-immigrant riots, the British government has instituted controversial new laws targeting online misinformation and hate speech, resulting in arrests and censorship.
In one instance, a 55-year-old woman was arrested for spreading a rumor in a private WhatsApp group.
Bubba’s Two Cents
In many ways, both sides have decided they no longer have much use for the principles that established a supposedly “neutral” playing field in American discourse. The left justifies their crackdowns on free speech by claiming that conservatives alter the playing field by spreading misinformation. The right wants to regulate social media companies, saying it’s the only way to protect conservatives’ free speech rights.
One question I have, how much of this is really just about gaining a political edge over your opponents?
4. The People Want Change
In a new analysis, political consultant Bruce Mehlman observes that experience in government has actually become a liability for candidates, a sign voters are craving change and rejecting the status quo. (Age of Disruption)
Chart: Mehlman Consulting
The data: 11 out of the last 14 presidential elections were won by the candidate with less Washington experience, reflecting voter distrust in federal government insiders.
10 out of 12 U.S. federal elections this century resulted in a change in the controlling party of the House, Senate, or White House.
75% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, the highest level since the Cold War.
Mehlman:
It’s not unique to the U.S. – voters around the world are dumping incumbent parties in 2024. This fits an electorate where ¾ of voters think we’re on the wrong track and only 22% trust the government to do what is right “just about always” / “most of the time.” … The key question for 2024: Who is the “Change” candidate?
Bubba’s Two Cents
Change, any change, is a particularly powerful message when there’s so much disillusionment with the entire political system. Part of the initial draw of figures like AOC on the left and Trump on the right was they vowed to fight the status quo. In their own ways, both have since cozied up to the establishment.
That’s not really a knock on either politician. It’s an observation of how easy it is to say you’re going to radically change things, but how hard it is to actually do it while governing effectively.
Did you like an item in today’s edition?
Forward it to a friend
Screenshot an item and text it to them
Direct your friend to https://www.bubba.news/