Deeper Dive

A NEW FEATURE OF BORDOLINES! This week: Biden’s “Age Problem” and Self-Validating Polls

Why has Biden Got an “Age Problem” and Trump Doesn’t?

The last few days I’ve been hearing, over and over, the shocking (not) news that a new Wall Street Journal Poll has Biden and Trump “neck and neck.” The metaphor comes from horse-racing and, like many of the media’s go-to’s, it’s lazily plucked from their lexicon of broadcast jargon and does the trick at keeping viewers engaged.

In racing, however, no announcer can change the outcome of a race—what happens will happen no matter how excited the announcer gets, or how hopeful (or not) a ticket-holder is. I know from experience as a child whose father thought “family vacation” meant “race track.” But “neck and neck,” when applied to the progress of a yet-undetermined political race, is a perception-shaper that can have a major effect on the outcome.

In the case of Biden and Trump, the constant repetition of these poll results has almost always been followed by discussions of “what’s wrong” with Biden (“Why can’t he do better than a three-times indicted, twice impeached criminal?”) and a resigned (or celebrated, if you’re a MAGA) acknowledgment of the apparently undying appeal of Trump. That’s the first step in the media’s legitimizing and solidifying an advantage that is largely due, not to anything “wrong” with Biden, but the statistical growth of the Republican Party and their melding into cult-think. Democrats have many minds; Republicans have but one. (My husband thinks that “approval” for “Trump” in these Biden/Trump match-ups is actually just a place-holder for “anyone, so long as they are Republican.”)

Lately, the answers to what’s wrong with Biden largely have to do with him being “too old.” It’s an old GOP talking-point against Biden which has been given fresh life, perversely, by the more obvious problems exhibited by Republican senate leader Mitch McConnell, who has suffered some sort of cognitive or perceptual glitch (I wouldn’t presume to diagnose it, but it sure looked scary) that has had him “freezing” mid-sentence on two recent occasions.

Now, I don’t believe—as the woman in the “Ensure” commercial has been saying (for about 5 years now, during which I suspect she’s actually gotten older)—that “age is just a number.” I’m 76, and I can attest that I can’t bounce out of bed in the morning as I used to, and that people’s names often enter a black hole, sometimes emerging again unexpectedly in the middle of the night. When I think about my upcoming induction, in September, to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, I worry about how steep the steps leading to the stage will be. On the other hand, my intellect is at the top of my game—and blessedly unencumbered by the stubbornness and pretentiousness of my youth. I’m a better writer, a better public speaker, a nicer person.

Aging is real. But its effects vary enormously from culture to culture and from person to person—which doesn’t distinguish it much from any other stages in life. “Young” doesn’t automatically confer physical adroitness and it certainly doesn’t insure superior knowledge. The fact that McConnell and Feinstein may be suffering some serious age-related degeneration doesn’t mean that Joe Biden is. And what’s presented as “evidence” of Biden’s cognitive or physical decline is pretty shallow. Not to mention, discriminatory—not just against older people, but those who are physically challenged or have purely mechanical problems getting words out.

Biden’s stumbling over words, running them together, searching for them? Could be age-related. But in his case, there’s something else to consider. Biden admitted, in a 2016 speech, that “remnants” of his youthful stuttering resurface when he’s tired or trying to get ideas out too fast. And Heather Grossman, director of the American Institute for Stuttering, who has listened to Biden speeches, says a lot of what people interpret as struggling to find words are actually old stuttering habits emerging under the pressure of the moment.

Biden considers that his stuttering was the single most formative aspect of his development. It was traumatizing when teachers and other kids made fun of him. But it also had positive aspects: “It teaches you to be extemporaneous. It teaches you to memorize and anticipate,” he said in the 2016 speech I referred to earlier. “It makes you focus on what the other person is made of, what may be on their mind. It’s an incredible asset in my business.” Anticipating and focusing on listeners makes Biden less quick to answer questions (e.g. in a presser) that may be loaded with mines. A large part of the verbal hesitancy that the GOP is branding as beyond presidential shelf-life is, as I see it, a feature of his thoughtfulness, which has grown as he has matured. (He used to be more of a blurter.) My husband is very like that, too, and it doesn’t stop his students from considering him, at 83, the best teacher they’ve ever had.

As for physical impediments, of course Biden’s gait is stiffer and more careful than when he was younger, but so is my husband’s and so is mine. Both Biden and Edward are also perfectly able to hop on bicycles and once warmed up, immediately appear about 20 years younger. I’d like to see Trump try it!

And then there’s the way Biden and Trump “look.” By now, the media mavens really ought to know how “optics” can deceive. Maybe they are afraid of being seen as fat-shaming. But the fact is that Trump only looks younger because he’s chubby (fat plumps out the wrinkles.) He’s certainly not as physically fit as Biden. And if he seems more “vital” or “energetic” that’s mostly because he’s a bully and a loudmouth. He’s powered up most of the time with hatred, ego, and bluster. Biden would never—at any age, push a diplomat out of the way to put himself front and center before the cameras.

Trump is a more formidable physical presence than Biden. But what does the hell does that have to do with the capability of being President?

What is more important than “optics,” one would think, is intelligence that emanates from somewhere other than the lizard brain. Trump abounds in primitive “smarts”; he has an instinct for how to knock an opponent down, how to sell himself, how to trick and evade and lie. But does anyone remember the much-lampooned suggestion that we inject bleach in our lungs in order to cleanse them of COVID? I’m not a fan of “The Young Turks,” but they’ve put together an assemblage of Trump’s stupidest moments (see second video) that ought to be instantly disqualifying. They are more than “gaffes.” They are evidence of a lack of knowledge, of common-sense, of ordinary thought, that borders on the deranged.

More evidence of derangement: Trump imagines himself a genius because he “aced” a test that’s given to diagnose Alzheimer’s. And went on to assert without evidence that former Vice President Joe Biden was suffering significant cognitive decline. “Joe should take that test because something is going on,” he said, continually bragging about his own “amazing” performance numerous times in the months that followed (If you’ve forgotten Sarah Cooper’s hilarious lip-synch, it’s at the end of this clip:)

At the time of Trump’s test, 47 percent of voters (in a Fox poll) said Biden had the “mental soundness to serve effectively as president,” while 43 percent said the same about Trump. More than half of voters, 51 percent, said Trump was not mentally fit to serve as president, but just 39 percent said Biden was mentally unfit.

That’s now changed:

Has Biden—who is, let’s remember, all of three years older than Trump—undergone a steep mental decline in 4 years? More likely, Trump’s talking points, which even his followers once viewed with skepticism, has solidified into the status of common wisdom.

The Polls: A (Possibly) Boring but Important Deconstruction

The Wall Street Journal included in its latest poll—the one that has commentators gasping over “neck and neck”—the question of whether either of the candidates was “too old” to be president. It neglected to specify their respective ages, leaving respondents with whatever preconceptions they had. Clearly, the question was not really about age “as a number” but about age as an impression—an impression that deepened every time a commentator raised the issue about Biden’s age but not Trump’s.

I’ve been interested in the way polls influence people since 2015. It was then that I started clicking on the article links to the actual poll questions during the Hillary/Trump contest and I’ve continued up to the most recent Wall Street Journal Poll. What I discovered shocked me. (If you aren’t interested in the 2016 and 2020 polls, just jump ahead to my discussion of the WSJ poll)

2016: Seems incredible now, but the NBC/Wall Street survey reported that 16% more respondents rated Trump more "honest and straightforward" than Hillary. But there’s something wrong with the question, isn’ there? Any teacher of language or literature will tell you that "honest" and "straightforward" mean very different things:

“Honest=telling the truth, not lying or cheating.”; “Straightforward=easy to understand, not complicated.”

In putting “honest” and “straightforward” together, the NBC/Wall Street survey created a confusing blurring of “simple” declarations (at which Trump excels, particularly if they are the insulting variety, while Hillary is far from a simple-minded thinker) and truthfulness (doesn’t even exist among Trump’s priorities.) Were respondents rating the candidates' bluntness or truthfulness? It's not clear. The question is, simply put, a bad poll question.

In the same NBC/Wall Street survey, a list of "four criticisms that have been made about Hillary Clinton" were presented that respondents were asked to rank as "a serious concern or not.” The first item on the list reads: “She has a record of being dishonest and is not trustworthy." Call me a picky grammarian, but just where can I find this “record of being dishonest”? It’s almost beyond belief that this question was allowed in the polls—but not at all beyond belief that the media, rather than exposing it, simply “reported” the findings. I wonder how many of the 69% who found the trust criticism a “serious concern” were at least a little influenced by being "reminded" of Hillary’s (mythological) "record" of dishonesty?

This kind of stuff was far from anomalous. A Washington Post/ABC News poll results “showed” that 56% of respondents felt the FBI was wrong in not charging Clinton. BUT: Here's how the survey phrased the question:

"As you may have heard, FBI Director James Comey has recommended NOT charging Hillary Clinton with a crime for her use of personal email while secretary of state, saying she did not have any criminal intent. He also said Clinton was“extremely careless” in her handling of classified information in her personal e-mail. Do you approve or disapprove of Comey’s recommendation that Clinton should NOT be charged with a crime?" (Italics mine.)

To see what's suspect about this question, just mentally insert a "but" at the start of the second sentence. It's implied, isn't it? And along with that invisible but implied "but" is a hidden argument: He recommended no charges even though she was extremely careless.

2020: When the “red tsunami” the polls predicted didn’t occur, commentators speculated endlessly about how the polls could have “gotten the 2022 election so wrong.” But if you look at the questions asked (in highly respected Times/Sienna poll) you’ll find some possible answers. Here’s a screenshot from a tweet of mine:

If commentators had stopped accusing GOP polls of bias and looked deeper into their own favored polls, they would have found an answer as to why reproductive rights (so surprisingly!) wound up mattering so much to voters, although not predicted in their polls.

Let’s note first of all that choosing ONE “problem” (out of about 25 listed) forces people to prioritize one issue from many that may be EQUALLY important and in fact, are intertwined rather than separate. Lack of access to abortion is an “economic problem” for the families who can’t afford another child, right?

Not according to this poll. “The economy” is specified as including “jobs” and the “stock market” and that’s it. But why is “the economy”—but none of the others—given specificity at all? And why “the stock market”—rather than, say, “health care”? Access to health care surely affects most people’s economic lives as much, if not more, than the stock market. Moreoever, specifying the "stock market" within "economy" is arguably biased toward the priorities of wealthy responders.

Note also that “the economy” and “abortion” are listed as though they are parallel types of items. They’re not. Listing them as such is what philosophers call a “category mistake.” “The Economy” is an umbrella term which can be interpreted to include virtually any aspect of life that has economic consequences. “Abortion” is one aspect of reproductive rights (alongside contraception access and pregnancy care) and abstracting it in this way encourages people to think of it (unlike the all-embracing “economy’s”) as a “single issue” problem. This construct is biased toward choice of "the economy" as "most important,” even among respondents who care very much about reproductive freedom.

No wonder pundits were shocked to discover the huge role abortion access played in the 2020 election.

2023: There are quite a few questions that I would argue have no place in the Wall Street Journal Poll and whose inclusion raises suspicions about the biases of the poll-makers. (my comments are in italics)

1. Do you favor or oppose Congress impeaching Joe Biden?

What? What’s this doing here? As far as I know, any proposal to impeach Biden has only been informally voiced. There’s nothing up for debate or vote. If the poll is going to include political chatter, why not also ask “If Donald Trump is convicted of any of the crimes for which he has been indicted, do you favor or oppose him running for President?” But there’s no question anything like that, although it’s surely more important to our Democracy than Marjorie Taylor Green’s threats.

2. Which of the following best describes how aware you are about corruption allegations against Hunter Biden and how closely are you following the stories?

Hunter Biden? Why not also any of Trump’s colleagues against whom allegations (and in many cases, indictments) have been made? Why is Hunter Biden the only other person named in the poll except for Trump and Joe Biden?

3. Do the allegations against Hunter Biden make you more or less likely to vote for Joe Biden, or have no impact on whether or not you would vote for Joe Biden?

More Hunter Biden. As far as I know, he and his father are two separate people. But you wouldn’t know it from GOP talking points. Recall when Trump dragged Bill’s accusers to the final debate with Hillary, as though any crimes Bill may (or may not have) have committed were shared by familial association with Hillary.

4. Which comes closest to your view of Joe Biden and the allegations against Hunter Biden? Do you think Joe Biden…? (Choices: Has done something illegal; Has NOT down something illegal, but has done something improper; Has NOT done anything illegal or improper; Unsure/Need More information; Refused; Not aware of allegations.)

Still more Hunter Biden. The allegations against Hunter, remarkably, occupy as many questions as Trump’s indictments!

These poll questions are (“quite honestly,” as the media mavens like to pepper their points with) Republican talking-points transformed by the alchemy of the authority of “the polls” into crucial concerns for voters. And what do you know? It turns out that the survey was conducted by Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, who not only works for a super PAC supporting Trump’s candidacy but was the chief pollster on Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. And there’s more: Since the start of 2023, Trump’s super PAC, Make America Great Again Inc., has paid Fabrizio’s company more than $567,000, according to FEC filings.

So perhaps these aren’t just “neutral” questions. And perhaps the mainstream media should stop reporting the results as though they are. They aren’t just “reports” of what people think. They are covert instructions in how to think: in what’s important, of concern, of relevance. (Source: The Roger Ailes playbook. Say the words often enough and whether or not they are true, they will embed themselves in people’s brains as firmly as established fact.)

Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden. Age Problem. Age Problem.

Neck and Neck. Neck and Neck. Neck and Neck. It will come to pass if we let it.