At Liberal Patriot Ruy Teixeira warns Democrats that they are repeating the same mistake they made 20 years ago but this time instead making bad assumptions about black, Hispanic, and Asian voters they’re making incorrect assumptions about younger age groups. He starts by questioning just how progressive Generation Z actually is:

Just how progressive are today’s youth (or “youts” as My Cousin Vinny would have it)? It’s fair to say that compared to older generations they generally lean more left on most issues, are more likely to say they’re “liberal” and more likely to support Democrats. But that’s a relative assessment; it doesn’t follow logically that the entire generation is therefore “progressive,” especially as the term has come to be understood by Democrats.

This potential problem has been thrown into relief by recent poll findings that the show the youth vote lagging considerably for Democrats when Biden is matched against Trump in 2024 trial heats. Some polls even show Biden polling behind Trump among voters under 30 (a group dominated by members of Gen Z). But on average Biden is still polling ahead of Trump among these voters—the problem is that the margin in his favor is much less than it was in 2020.

Data from the Split Ticket analytics site, based on an average of December cross-tabular data, show Biden carrying 18-29 year olds by 11 points, a 12-point pro-Trump shift relative to Catalist estimates from 2020. Similarly, pollster John Della Volpe collected a number of mostly December 18-29 year old crosstabs on his site. These crosstabs average out to a 6-point advantage for Biden among voters under 30, a 17 point shift toward Trump relative to 2020.

Looking at polling data he finds that on issue after issue young voters see themselves as moderate to conservative and President Biden as being more progressive than they are: immigration, transgender issues, crime, oil and gas exploration.

Now there are actual several distinct possibilities. The first, as I have been pointing out for 20 years, is that placing yourself correctly on the left-right axis is highly subjective and that many people don’t actually know where their views lie on that axis. The second is that other than ideologues, the views of many people don’t fit neatly into any category. On some issues they’re progressive, on some conservative, on others moderate. A third is that President Biden is doing such a lousy job of communicating that respondents are incorrectly placing him on the political spectrum.

I don’t believe the third. To the contrary I think that the progressive wing of the party has been punching considerably above its weight since President Biden took office and whatever the president believes privately his actions have been more progressive than young voters are comfortable with.

He concludes:

The lesson here: Demographics are not destiny. This cannot be repeated enough. The demographics are destiny thesis seems to attract Democrats like moths to a flame. We saw it in the bowdlerization of (ahem) The Emerging Democratic Majority argument and we’re seeing it today in the enshrinement of generational change as the engine of certain Democratic dominance. Rising pro-Democratic generations = larger share of voters over time = Democratic dominance.

We’ve been here before with the rise of nonwhite voters. Here’s how the argument is being repurposed: if voter groups favorable to the Democrats (racial minorities, now younger generations) are growing while unfavorable groups (whites, now older generations) are declining, that’s good news for the Democrats. This is called a “mix effect”: a change in electoral margins attributable to the changing mix of voters.

and

In short, there’s no free (demographic) lunch. The boring, tedious, difficult task of persuasion is still the key to building electoral majorities. So maybe instead of blowing off these polls that show poor support for Democrats among young voters, they should take them seriously and get to work.

I think his advice is in vain. As Jonathan Swift observed 300 years ago it is useless to attempt to reason anyone out of a thing they were never reasoned into. Position are being drawn from premises and the premises themselves are unprovable.

There is another risk to the hypothesis that demographics is destiny. It is an observed phenomenon that changes in life circumstances have an effect on voting patterns. Once a Democrat, always a Democrat is not nearly as true as it once was.

I’m sure you’ve all heard about Sec. Lloyd Austin’s absence in December and the first part of January. If you haven’t Google it.

For me the mysterious absence and that his deputy was out of the country on vacation at the time and did not cut her vaca short raises an interesting question: do we really need a Secretary of Defense and if so why?

I wish the Supreme Court would come down with a decision on whether what transpired on January 6, 2021 was an insurrection within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and whether the states can bar Donald Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of that Amendment and that they would do so well before Super Tuesday and with a 9-0 or 8-1 verdict. As usual I expect to be disappointed.

I found this presentation at Kite & Key interesting and thought-provoking:

In Papua New Guinea, the national wealth averages out to about $3,500 per person per year. In Australia, it averages out to around $65,000 per person per year.iv Two-and-a-half miles apart … and nearly 20 times wealthier.

How does this kind of thing happen? Actually, we know the answer.

Because it turns out that the secret to how nations get wealthy … isn’t really a secret at all.

The point they’re trying to make is that economic freedom makes countries wealthy or, at least, wealthier.

I’m not convinced. For one thing it’s unclear to me why the logic isn’t reversed, i.e. do countries choose more economic freedom as they become wealthier?

Or maybe it’s something entirely different. For example, judging by the maps they show, isn’t having been a British colony, preferably a British colony with a mostly European population, a pretty good explanation?

Here’s another: maybe the explanation is the primacy of the absolute nuclear family. That brings the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Netherlands, and Norway all together under the same umbrella.

There are a number of reasons for my doubts but they can generally be summed up in this question. If economic freedom makes a country wealthy and U. S. economic freedom was greater in 1900 than it is now, why wasn’t the U. S. wealthier in 1900 than it is now?

Tying in with the previous discussion about fairness vs. equality, you might find this piece at Vox.com by Fabiola Cineas on chronic absenteeism by public school students K-12 interesting:

Before the pandemic, during the 2015–16 school year, an estimated 7.3 million students were deemed “chronically absent,” meaning they had missed at least three weeks of school in an academic year. (According to the US Department of Education, there were 50.33 million K-12 students that year.) After the pandemic, the number of absent students has almost doubled.

Chronic absenteeism increased in every state where data was made public, and in Washington, DC, between the last pre-pandemic school year, 2018–19, and the 2021–22 school year, according to data from Future Ed, an education think tank. Locations with the highest increases saw their rates more than double. In California, for example, the pre-pandemic chronic absenteeism rate stood at 12.1 percent in 2018–19 and jumped to 30 percent in the 2021–22 school year. New Mexico experienced one of the largest increases, with the rate jumping from 18 percent before the pandemic to 40 percent after the pandemic.

I believe that should be considered in conjunction with the Department of Education’s findings on chronic absenteeism:

What is the relation between chronic absenteeism and fairness and equality? Unless you believe there is no relationship whatsoever between actions and outcomes there is quite a bit. My own belief is that the difference is mostly social and one of expectations—those of the students, their parents, their teachers, etc.

In Norway the rate of chronic absenteeism is lower than it is here but just about the same as the rate of chronic absenteeism among white Americans.

Consider Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan. He’s not the beneficiary of multi-generational inherited wealth. His family did work in the financial sector since before they emigrated from Greece nearly a century ago. When they came over here they had nothing except ambition and the conviction that working in the financial sector was their goal. Working in the financial sector is a pretty good way to become wealthy if that’s your goal. He attended a top prep school, then a top tier non-Ivy college, then went to work in the financial sector, then got an MBA from Harvard Business while working in the financial sector. Now he’s one of the richest people in the country. Had he and his ancestors skipped school he might be waiting on tables.

First, car sales remain pretty slow:

Find more statistics at Statista
That chart only goes through 2022. Since then small vehicle sales have increased 12%. That’s still below pre-pandemic levels.

My contacts in the auto world aren’t what they used to be but something which I’m sure that auto manufacturers have considered but which may not have been considered by others is that rapid technological change can actually inhibit sales. The “I’ll wait until the new model comes out” mentality sets in. When something costs $1,000 (like smartphones although most people don’t pay that) it’s possible to get the latest model. It’s a lot less possible when an EV costs $30,000. Only the truly rich will get the latest and greatest and some of the truly rich will, like Warren Buffett, stick with their 2014 Cadillac XTSs.

The editors of the Washington Post remark on income inequality in the United States:

Consider the distribution of income across the entire spectrum. This is often measured by the Gini index, which represents how the actual distribution of income deviates from the line of perfect equality, where everybody gets the same. It ranges from zero in a perfectly uniform society to 1 in a society in which all income accrues to the top dog. Mr. Auten and Mr. Splinter estimated that between 1970 and 2019, America’s Gini rose from about 0.42 to 0.54, before taxes and transfers. Including the effect of government redistribution, it rose from 0.35 to 0.42.

This speaks well for American redistribution — pushing back against market forces driving up inequality. But the numbers are also pretty similar to preexisting work. The Luxembourg Income Study, which estimates inequality based on survey data (rather than official government data, as Mr. Auten, Mr. Piketty et al. do), finds that the U.S. Gini index rose from 0.40 to 0.51 before taxes and transfers over this period and from 0.32 to 0.39 after redistribution is added in.

America’s story might be due for some reinterpretation. Perhaps the very rich do not take quite as large a slice of the pie as many thought. Still, the “new” version of the United States remains a remarkably unequal place, more so than most other industrialized countries. According to data from the Luxembourg study, Norway’s Gini, after adding in taxes and transfers, is 0.28; Canada’s is 0.29, Germany’s is 0.30 and Britain’s is 0.30. Of the 38 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only four are more unequal: Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico and Turkey.

I have a number of thoughts on this. The first and, possibly, the most important is what is fair? Are equal and fair the same thing?

Let’s say there are two workers with the same job titles and responsibilities. The first comes in late, leaves early, and is slapdash in his work. The second comes in early, leaves late, and is unfailingly conscientious. They’re paid the same amount. That is equal. Is it fair?

Second, I was unaware that Norway, Canada, Germany, or Britain shared 2,000 mile land borders countries where the typical household income was a quarter theirs. In fact I believe we are the only country in the world with that distinction. It’s not too much of a leap to suspect that has some impact on incomes at both the low and high ends.

Third, we import very large numbers of very intelligent, highly educated, hardworking people into the United States at wages considerably higher than in their country of origin. That, too, is bound to have some impact on incomes both at the high end and the low end.

All of that said I will admit to being very uncomfortable with the incredibly high incomes being realized by some. When they can be related to supply, demand, and output, that’s completely reasonable. When it can’t it isn’t and that will be the case far too frequently. I have no idea how to remedy that but I’m open to suggestions. Please don’t suggest the tax system. If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the last 40 years it’s that our political leaders are allergic to taking money away from their donors. At least without giving them even more.

I didn’t want to let this interview by Gordon Fairclough of Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant in the Wall Street Journal pass without comment. The entire interview, dwelling mostly on Israel’s plans moving forward, is informative and excellent but I wanted to call attention to this passage:

After calls last week by far-right members of Netanyahu’s coalition for a return of Jewish settlers to Gaza and Israeli occupation of the strip, Gallant’s office outlined a postwar vision of Palestinian self-governance coupled with freedom for the Israeli military to act against security threats.

As Gallant sees it, a multinational task force led by the U.S., with European and Middle Eastern partners, should oversee the “rehabilitation” of Gaza.

The emphasis is mine.

I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or to cry about that. Mr. Gallant is not hesitant to violate the “Pottery Barn rule”, is he? After having reduced Gaza to rubble he wants Israel to dash away as quickly as possible leaving the mess to good old Uncle Sugar to clean up.

A key problem is that the United States is not seen as an impartial third party but as an unconditional supporter of Israel. As I see it there are only two likely reactions to U. S.-led administration of the wreck that remains of Gaza: either we’re being too tough on the Gazans or too lenient with them. Such a task force would be an ongoing source of political unrest domestically and would in all likelihood prompt attacks on the U. S., either in Gaza, elsewhere in the Middle East or even here at home. I don’t believe we have anything whatever to gain from such a role.

Here’s my alternative proposal. A task force with European and Middle Eastern partners, led by Germany, the only major European power that hasn’t tried to colonize the Middle East, should oversee the “rehabilitation” of Gaza. The U. S. should maintain a dignified silence.

On Friday President Biden gave a his first major campaign speech of the 2024 election at Valley Forge (transcript from Associated Press):

In the winter of 1777, it was harsh and cold as the Continental Army marched to Valley Forge. General George Washington knew he faced the most daunting of tasks, to fight and win a war against the most powerful empire in existence in the world at the time. His mission was clear: liberty, not conquest. Freedom. Not domination. National independence. Not individual glory.

America made a vow: Never again would we bow down to a king.

He made it completely clear that he is running against Donald Trump, considering Trump a deadly enemy of democracy.

Contrast President Biden’s speech with this prediction by JPMorgan strategist quoted at Business Insider:

President Joe Biden may not be on November’s ballot papers, says JPMorgan Asset Management strategist Michael Cembalest.

Cembalest predicted Biden would drop out from the race “sometime between Super Tuesday and the November election, citing health reasons.”

Super Tuesday is set for March 5, with 16 states and territories holding their primaries and caucuses on that day.

Biden, Cembalest wrote, would then be replaced by a “candidate named by the Democratic National Committee.”

Assuming he’s right, how you reconcile running to preserve democracy with running a candidate for whom no one voted but was appointed by the DNC is unclear to me.

I agree that Donald Trump should not have been elected president. I do not think he is suited by training, experience, or temperament for the job. I will not vote for him. I think the way to prevent that is at the polls and the way to build the case for the re-election of Joe Biden is by pursuing effective policies and administering them well. It’s a bit late in the day for that so running a completely negative campaign it will be!