What I'm Watching Moving Forward, McCarthy's Dilemma, the Demise of AM Radio, CNN, and more notes
My weekly roundup
For the first five months of the year, the main political story was the fight over the debt ceiling and the risk to the economy. With that past us, it’s time to turn to other things. Here’s what I’ll be watching for the rest of the summer and into the fall:
It’s still too early to focus on 2024, and most of what happens this year in the presidential race could easily be meaningless in a year, despite all of the breathless coverage. Yet, there is one thing that bears watching: does the Republican pack — Tim Scott, Nikki Haley, Chris Christie, Mike Pence, Doug Burgum, (yes, the governor of North Dakota has convinced himself that he has a shot of getting elected president), Asa Hutchinson and whoever else runs — focus on attacking Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis?
To attack Trump means the other candidates understand that the only way to beat him in a GOP primary is to take him on frontally and either dent his popularity or convince primary voters that he can’t win a general election and nominating him risks the destruction of everything they value. But while, politically, this is the best way to diminish Trump, and open the door for others, there are reasons to think the pack might play right into his hands, by focusing on attacking DeSantis.
For one, attacking Trump means brutal warfare. He’s going to fire back, and he will fight dirty. Also, really attacking Trump comes with social and political costs in today’s GOP. Do these candidates have the stomach for such ramifications? Second, and maybe more importantly, there is a temptation to think that this is a two horse race between Trump and whoever convinces the voters that he or she is the best alternative to him. Right now, DeSantis is squarely ahead in the race to be the “other” guy. So if a candidate views the race that way, it would make sense to go after DeSantis in an attempt to overtake him.
The risk to that strategy, of course, is that you splinter the anti-Trump vote, and he wins just like he did in 2016.
Can President Biden start to translate effective governance into better poll numbers? Joe Biden’s accomplishments, both partisan and bipartisan, have been significant — especially considering that his party had razor thin control in Congress in the first half of his term, and the second half involves divided government. Yet, either due to messaging failures (the electorate doesn’t know what he’s accomplished), concerns about his age, or crankiness about inflation and cost of living, his approval ratings have remained durably low.
The question is can he start to shift the narrative and move toward a place where he gets reelected? History says yes. But there is some question as to whether his age is a wild card here. Voters just don’t want to elect a president over age 80, no matter how much he accomplishes and how much they agree with him. The answer to this question will determine Biden’s fate in 2024.
The other factor in Biden’s fate will be the state of the economy. It might just be the most important factor to watch. Just on Monday, we get the news of Saudi Arabia cutting oil production (the United States has never had a more worthless “ally”) and a story delving into the risk that the commercial real estate market could pose to the economy.
Can Biden and his team successfully see ahead and prevent any major bumps in the economy between now and the 4th of July next year when attitudes start to harden and Biden’s fate is shaped? Also will they understand the need to make Americans FEEL better about their circumstances? When you watch focus groups with swing voters, it’s clear that even when presented with good economic data, they are skeptical and see signs of economic turmoil in their own lives. A lot of that is leadership and giving people hope. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were masters at this. Can Biden match them?
What does Kevin McCarthy do in the wake of the debt ceiling deal?
One possibility is that the House Speaker moves to shore up his support on the far right after alienating the right fringe of his caucus by getting less than they demanded from the debt ceiling fight.
Eleven (technically 12 because House Majority Leader Steve Scalise flipped his vote to allow for a revote down the line) House Republicans voted against their party on a rule vote on Tuesday — the first time a rule had failed on the House floor since 2002. The failure of the rule scuttled votes on several bills the far right actually supported and left the House paralyzed until at least next week. The maneuver exemplified the fury of this group of far right members, and their willingness and ability to flex their muscle.
Their move frames the quandary facing McCarthy. He can appease them — directing appropriators to mark up bills at far lower levels than the deal he agreed to with President Biden, as well as making other concessions like giving them votes on bills that might make his more moderate members uncomfortable. Yet, if he does so, it will mean not only a government shutdown — and Republicans usually lose the politics of those — but also the possibility of the Massie provision in the debt ceiling deal kicking in, which would essentially reduce government spending across the board if the appropriations process isn’t done by the end of the year.
That course would be politically risky, and likely to anger the most vulnerable members of McCarthy’s caucus. It also risks infuriating national security minded Republican and splitting his party. GOP senators are already fuming about the defense spending level McCarthy agreed to in the debt ceiling deal. If they and their House allies see a three percent increase as insufficient, imagine the howling if there is a real chance of the Massive provision kicking, which would reduce defense spending by one percent. Senate Republicans might then cut a deal with Senate Democrats, and all of a sudden, McCarthy and his caucus would be stuck obstructing a bipartisan bill and getting accused of putting national security at risk.
McCarthy has another option: he can decide that bipartisan accomplishments that demonstrate that House Republicans can actually govern in a responsible way is the best path to maintaining a Republican House after 2024. If so, that might dictate looking for other bills where he can get a majority of his conference on board behind proposals that Senate Democrats and President Biden might be interested in.
Those could range from looking to do something on paid leave to seeing if there is finally ground for a bipartisan deal on immigration (which seems unlikely, given that Republican primary voters won’t countenance any compromise on the issue) or taxes, to thinking creativity about how he can arm his members in Biden-won districts with a list of accomplishments and to show voters in other swing districts, “see, Republican governance isn’t so scary.”
But that strategy has its own twin downsides: first, it risks the obstreperous wing of McCarthy’s caucus trying to depose him. Even if they don’t, it would make it very difficult to do anything on a partisan basis, because they could block rules and prevent votes on anything where McCarthy didn’t have Democratic support.
Based on the way McCarthy has behaved in the past, it seems most likely that he’ll look to appease the far right faction. He understands that revolts from the right undermined his two Republican predecessors, and seems determined not to lose the right wing.
But especially as 2023 progresses, he will face some degree of pressure from his most moderate members to set them up for tough campaigns with a list of accomplishments. While the most moderate factions in the GOP have never mastered the politics of hardball, with a four seat margin, it gives them a little more leverage, especially if they can find allies in the Senate to push for attaching stuff to must pass legislation — the Farm Bill, the appropriations bills, the annual Defense Authorization Act, etc. Additionally, if McCarthy makes real concessions to the far right after their stunt this week, he risks other members of his caucus, including the Biden district Republicans, also threatening rules to get votes on what they want.
The direction McCarthy chooses will shape politics for the rest of the year, and for 2024 as well.
The political elements of the LIV-PGA Tour deal
Rarely do I delve into sports here. You come here for politics and media analysis, so I leave my sports thoughts for Twitter.
But I’m a huge golf fan, and the bombshell Tuesday announcement that the PGA Tour is now in bed with the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund (and indeed that the fund’s governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan will head a new board of an umbrella organization that will oversee golf, as well as joining the PGA Tour’s policy board) has serious political implications.
To keep reading analysis of the PGA Tour-Saudi Arabian PIF deal, as well as insight into the firing of CNN head Chris Licht, and the political impact of the potential demise of AM radio, please consider a paid subscription. It’s only $36 per year, and will help me to produce more content.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to The World According to Brian to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.