Reagan vs Biden

I recently saw a Facebook post from one of my acquaintances which portrayed a man with a shovel approaching the grave of Ronald Reagan. When asked why he would want to dig up the ex-president, he replied something like, "even dead, he is better than what we have now."

Since my friend is of similar age as myself, I wondered if he remembered that all these statistics about inflation and mortgage interest rates that reveal 40 year highs, reference the early 1980's when, you guessed it, Ronald Reagan was president. In other words, it was during Reagan's two terms, from 1980 to 1988, that these new high numbers are being compared. 

So, assuming that their may be other interesting facts, as opposed to rose colored glasses memories, I thought I would research some economic data, comparing Biden's current term to Reagan's first term and the overall administration from 1981 to 1988. 

Here is what I found.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/inflation-rate-cpi

Since 1960, inflation exceeded 10% only 4 times; 1974, 1979, 1980, 1981 with rates of 11.05%, 11.25%, 13.55%, 10.33% respectively. Nixon was president in 1974 (he resigned in August of that year), Carter in 1979 and 1980, Reagan (elected in Nov 1980) in 1981. The 1970's. as a decade, featured horrendous inflation, averaging 7% per year during that decade. In comparison, from 2010 to 2019, inflation averaged less than 2% (about 1.8%) each year. 

Since 2020, inflation has increased, 1.23% in 2020, 4.7% in 2021, and 8% in 2022. Now, we can debate how much influence Biden's policies had on rising inflation. Certainly, injecting lots of money into the economy to keep average people afloat during the pandemic, and afterwards, was a factor. But, considering that high inflation was not specific to the US these last two years, then clearly outside factors, supply chain disruptions, war in Ukraine, among just two, also led to higher inflation world wide not just here. 

Like Biden, Reagan inherited economic problems from his predecessor, high inflation being one of them. From that high of 13.55% in 1980, inflation under Reagan declined to 10.55% in 1981, 6.13% in 1982, 3.21% in 1983, then, other than 1986 when it was only 1.9%, inflation ran between a low of 3.55% in 1983 to a high of 4.3% in 1984, finishing at 4.08% in 1988. During Reagan's 8 years in office, 1981 to 1988, inflation averaged about 4.6%. A good achievement when compared to the 1970's 7% per year.

We only have 2 years for Biden, 2021 and 2022 which have averaged over 6% each year. If 2023 comes in around 4%, that would equate to about 5.3% for the first 3 years. Comparable to inflation during Reagan's first 3 years which averaged about 6.4% but we must give Reagan a partial pass since he inherited such a high rate from Carter.

Using the same source, macrotrends, GDP growth for 1981 through 1983 (1982 was a negative year) averaged 1.7%. But, beginning in 1984, GDP growth averaged almost about 5.4%. Overall, GDP growth for the 8 terms for Reagan averaged around 3.5%. As comparison, GDP growth for Obama's 8 years averaged under 2% while during Clinton's 8 years GDP increased an average just under 3.9%. 

Since Clinton's GDP growth was better than Reagan's and inflation only increased an average of 2.6% during those 8 years (compared to Reagan's 3.6%) perhaps that cartoon I referenced earlier should have shown the man asking Clinton to come back rather than digging up Reagan...

Again, with only 2 years of GDP growth for Biden, 5.95% and 2.06% which averages to about 4%, that is comparable to Reagan's 8 year average, much better than his first 3 year average but less than those last 5 years.

How about unemployment?

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506

While Reagan inherited high inflation and lowered it during his first term, unemployment, while high at 7.2% in 1980, increased during Reagan's first four years, averaging 8.725%. While it gradually came down during his 2nd term, the lowest rate was 5.3%, and the overall average unemployment during his 8 years was 7.43%.

As comparisons, unemployment averaged around 5% during Clinton's 8 years, about 5.5% during Bush 2's presidency. Even during Obama's 8 years which started with the 2008 economic meltdown, averaged less than Reagan's 2 terms, at just about 7.2%, although the last 3 years averaged only about 5%.

Under Trump, unemployment continued to drop, averaging only about 4.5% for his 4 years, even including the pandemic year of 2020. But again, with only 2 years data, unemployment under Biden has averaged below 4% which far outpaces Reagan's first 3 years (about 9% average). In fact, there has not been a presidential term with a higher unemployment rate that Reagan's 8 years average since the Great Depression years ending in 1941.

I wonder if that guy with the shovel would still want Reagan considering that data set?

In 1980, having voted in my 2nd presidential election, I was not a home owner, not all that focused on economic issues. Hey, I was an irresponsible young man. But by 1989, I was married and looking for our first house. The only thing we qualified for, mortgage wise, was a variable rate negative amortization deal. In other words, the interest rate was to change yearly, and, even if it didn't go up or down, our payment was less than the actual interest which was accruing which meant our debt was increasing every month. As it turned out, the 11% interest rate gradually lessened, and we were able to begin increasing equity in the home within 2.5 years as opposed to the original 5 year estimate. 

I don't need stats to know it was tough going then, and while home interest rates are over 7% now, after being under 3% for quite a while, they are not 11% as they were in the 1980's. 

I have a theory that in 20 or 30 years, the Biden presidency may be compared to Reagan's. Both were considered too old when in office, both inherited a mess from the previous president, both came across as the steady, grandfatherly type, a form of stability needed in a time of turmoil. 

Whether Biden's economic numbers fare well should we end up with 8 years to compare, is unknown, but I imagine that in terms of inflation and unemployment, I would favor Biden having the advantage. Should the economy break out after inflation gets back under 3%, he may end with a clean sweep in the three areas I have detailed. 

And then, who knows, perhaps a cartoon of a man with a shovel approaching Biden's grave will be circulating on the internet in 20 or 30 years with the caption, even a dead Biden is better than the current resident in the White House. Let's hope that the source of that cartoon has actual numbers to justify the sentiment.

   

 

What We Seem Willing to Give Up

First, a quick update concerning my last post, A Plan and a Plot. I received an encrypted message from the Genius whom I named in that post, in which two other topics were brought to my attention which I failed to mention.

The initial issue concerns book banning. Using the vaguely defined, and purposefully unspecific term "woke", the GOP is justifying the censorship of thought by associating the treatment of all American citizens equally, with big government and establishment thinking. In their narrative, parents should have the right to ban books from their local schools and communities just because they don't want their children to read that particular book. It doesn't seem to matter if other parents prefer there be choice in the matter (freedom), or, in some cases, if the offended adults even have children attending the school district, their "parental rights" allow them to choose for everyone, even those parents who are OK with a particular book. What is clear is that what the majority thinks isn't the point, just that when a vocal, or even one might say, tyrannical minority, protests, all must follow their preferences. 

The idea of telling their children they must not access a particular book, or even informing the school's librarian that they prefer their children not be exposed to a book (or idea, which is really the point), doesn't seem to occur to them. Just, I don't like it, therefore no one should. Arrogance in its highest form.  And, of course, since there are many politicians who, lacking the ability to make strong leadership decisions, prefer to pander to the most vocal and visual, these "righteous" parents are successful in controlling the content that ALL children can access. After all, what do school librarians know about literature, and books, and what children like to read?

But again, President Joe smiles, knowing that the growing majority of voters, those aged 30 to 50, who will be determining future elections, do not want one or two parents deciding what all children should read. 

The other topic is guns and the 2nd Amendment. The NRA and GOP have successfully sold the idea that the 2nd Amendment is the only right that should never have restrictions. That possessing as many guns with as much firepower as you want, is a protected "God-given" right, (I don't recall Jesus packing a weapon during any of his sermons, but hey, perhaps he carried a big stick and we just were never told), and so any law that requires a background check to make sure the applicant doesn't have a history of violence, mental instability, etc, or requires a gun to be registered, or even places limits on guns which are only used to kill people, is somehow anti-American, or against the founders intent.

A friend of mine, who is a grammar geek, recently posted her review of using apostrophes, commas, etc. Well, perhaps her lesson should be mandatory for all citizens in respect to interpreting the 2nd Amendment, which says

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Perhaps I am missing something, but the comma after the word Militia, and described by the phrase "being necessary...", is the reference noun for the phrase that finishes the statement, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". It is the Militia that should be well armed, perhaps a national guard unit, or the actual US military which acts on behalf of the citizenry. Remember, those words were written when America was a fledgling country, trying to divorce itself from England, one of the most powerful nations on earth at the time. Everyone, or almost everyone, possessed a gun to hunt, or for personal protection, both in the colonies and in Europe. England did not care about personal muskets being owned by farmers, but they did care about organized community militias with semi-trained soldiers and stores of munitions. It was that scenario they wished to control, and it was that right that the founders were addressing, which is why they specifically referred to Militia, and not citizen, or the individual.

So again, in face of the fact that death by gun violence is the number one killer of children, not disease or accidents, President Joe smiles when he hears GOP candidates rally around the flag in one voice against gun (I call it violence) control, because he knows, again, that the upcoming majority of voters, many of whom either personally experienced active shooter drills while in elementary school (yes, those same places where a book and its idea should be banned because it might make a child uncomfortable), or certainly know their children have, consider gun control measures a good thing, a logical thing, and not another example of government overreach. 

OK, so to today's post.

A few weeks ago, my wife and I went to a Reading Phillies minor league baseball game. Very pleasant, a nice evening, reasonable prices, free parking, fireworks afterwards, and even a 4-3 victory. During the game, we couldn't help overhearing part of a conversation between the two women sitting behind us. They were most likely of our generation, 50+, but still working so probably not over 65. 

The conversation which struck us revealed that one of the women was not close to one or some of her children. She literally remarked that she didn't communicate with them very often, and was not only resigned to the fact that they were estranged, even seemed proud in that she was OK that if they didn't want to share their lives anymore, she was too old to care, or let that bother her anymore.

Now, I don't know the source of their problem. I do know that there have been many stories in the media about boomers who either do not, or rarely talk to their children. Certainly, our toxic politics is one reason, along with religion and economics, and I am sure that arguments about lifestyle, marriage choice, work life, how to raise the grand kids, etc, are also reasons for disagreement.

But for Nora and I, never seeing our kids, or not seeing (or communicating for years) seems unfathomable. No child (and certainly no parent) is perfect, everyone makes mistakes and poor choices, but to accept that those differences mean losing touch with your children is not only a shame, but indicative of how our society is crumbling. They say all great civilizations fall from within. I imagine that this must be a symptom of such a fall.

I hope those reading this do not share this unfortunate circumstance, but if you do, I strongly recommend that, parent or child, you reach out to your family member, and do everything you can to find common ground, agree to disagree, forgive or apologize. I can't imagine a worse fate than to wake up one day an orphan or having lost a child, knowing you were not only not there for them at the end, but weren't there for them during life.

On a lesser, yet almost as important, related note, there is an article in the September National Geographic about the disappearing bald cypress trees and the swamps in which they live. The truly alarming part of the story is the knowledge that bald cypress trees can live for 2,000 years and more, yet are being slowly wiped out from their native habitat by rising seas and other effects of climate change. In other words, another example of man's destruction of the natural world. 

But, it is even more than that. Because these trees tend to reside in swamps, it is a purposeful eradication. In our arrogance of what we believe to be important and valuable, swampland is down at the bottom of the list, forever considered worthless. Now, of course, we are beginning to realize the importance of these trees and this ecosystem, but it probably won't matter, as the decisions we have been making for the last hundred years may be too ingrained to reverse. 

As the coastal storms become more intense, the rising seas more invasive, the lack of natural barriers more obvious, eliminating the millions of hectares of swamp land for more housing developments and huge agricultural farms, may be one of those under the radar decisions that we regret the most.

Like accepting an estranged relationship with our children with a shrug and an oh well, we communally continue to hide our eyes from the destruction of our environment, as if there is a backup plan.

Perhaps that is the true definition of a declining society, when we casually allow our relationships with our children to disintegrate while continuing our policies of environmental degradation so as to destroy the world in which our grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to live.

A Plan and a Plot

First, I have seen a resurgence of interest from Singapore in the last 2 weeks. At this point, and including the bursts which have occurred in the past six months, I have received more hits from Singapore, twice as many in fact, than from the United State. I would be curious to know why, and encourage someone from that country to post a comment indicating the reason behind the attention.

Per the Oxford Dictionary, plan is defined as a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something, whereas plot is defined as a plan made in secret by a group of people to do something illegal or harmful.

In essence then, a plot is a plan with an insidious goal, at least as defined by someone looking from the outside.

The purpose of this post is to reveal both the plan and the plot which has been carried out by the democratic party in the recent past. In other words, I have decided it is time for a democrat to fess up and reveal the elaborate conspiracy that has been in motion for quite a while.

The conspiracy I am about to disclose is far reaching, and while I am privy to many of its details, no one knows them all, save, perhaps, the architect. Even then, he has been so clever, so careful, so intuitive in how various aspects of The Plan should unfold, that it is certainly possible that even he does not know all the specifics. As is always true of a successful and hard to unravel plot, it is best that no one know all the details. Best that the network of those involved contains the full strategy yet with no one individual knowing the exact litany of who did what and when.

The threads of this intrigue stretch much further back than you might imagine.  One might even say that the earliest inklings of how the future could be made to unfold, lie in the early days of the Obama presidency, although in reality, much of the foundation was laid by the victims themselves beginning over a half century ago.

Most of us did not enjoy history when we were in school. It was often presented in a dry fashion with too much emphasis on facts and dates but not enough on the lessons that could be gained from understanding how big events changed the course of society and culture. 

For instance, for the first few decades after WW2, the average  American citizen expressed full faith in the United States government.  And why not? We had defeated the Axis powers, saved Europe, and had re-established the clear line of who was good and who was evil, specifically democracy good, communism and socialism bad. Freedom had won the day, and the United States of America, its government and its people, were the main reason why.

But as the children of this "greatest generation" began to look about, they saw racial inequalities at home, and an unjustified war abroad. The boomers, as we were labelled, wanted to double down on the ideals of our American experiment, which meant that all citizens should gain the benefits of opportunity and freedom, not just those born white and male.  

Freedom marches by minority leaders looking for equal rights in reality, not just in words, protests against the Vietnam War, women burning bras to symbolize their upset at their second class treatment, all filled the airwaves and newspapers in the 60's and 70's. 

But the baby boomers, like all young groups, did not vote in blocks large enough to counter the propaganda which was controlled by the generation who, while winning the war against the Nazis, did not believe in the kind of equality that their children clamored for. And so, as long as they called the shots, politically and in the media, the protesters were portrayed as an anti-american element. Calling them hippies, communists, radicals, etc, the establishment of the country, represented most vocally by the GOP and various religiously affiliated organizations, portrayed these ungrateful citizens as disillusioned, at best, traitors, at worst, and the average american agreed.

Proof? 

From 1953 to 1993, the Republican candidate was in the White House for seven of the ten presidential terms, 28 of 40 years. And many of the contests were not even close. Eisenhower won the popular votes for his two elections by 10.5% and 15.4% respectively with well over 400 electoral college votes to boot. While Nixon's 1968 victory was close (Humphrey was within .7%, less than 1 million votes of Nixon), almost 10 million votes were cast for George Wallace (not generally known as a liberal). With Wallace out of the  presidential race in 1972, ( he was shot while campaigning in May of 1972) Nixon won the popular vote by a whopping 23.2%, almost 18 million votes.  

Reagan won the popular votes for his two elections by 8.6% and 18.2%, gaining an unimaginable 489 electoral votes in 1980 and 525 (out of 538) in 1984. While not as big of a landslide, even the first Bush won by 7.7% and garnered over 400 electoral votes.

Of the three democrats who won the White House, only Johnson's 1964 victory was republican-esque although there are some who will argue that his Vietnam War policies and the trauma of watching Kennedy die in our streets, may have played a much bigger part in his victory.  Kennedy's win over Nixon, was by less than 150,000 votes out of 68 million cast, and Carter's win over Bush, while closer in terms of the popular vote (2%, 1.65 million votes), the electoral count was 297 to 240, basically a 2 state margin.

Which brings us to 1992. The democratic party has lost 3 straight presidential elections, by an average electoral count of 480-58 and by an aggregate popular vote margin of 32 million votes. 

So, I repeat, a majority of Americans identified as conservative during this time.

Some might say that this marks the birth of the conspiracy I am revealing. I have no absolute proof of this, as I lean towards the theory that the Dems just got lucky with Clinton in 1992 for a number of reasons, but most certainly because Ross Perot ran for president in both 1992 and 1996 as a third party candidate who leaned right. While Perot did not win any electoral votes, Clinton's margin of victory, in 1992 was 5.8 million votes while Perot received over 19.7 million votes. Without Perot, perhaps the GOP would have extended their streak and Bush 1 would not have been a one term president.

Not withstanding Perot, Bush didn't help his cause after his read-my- lips, no-new-taxes-pledge, whereupon taxes were raised in his first year, and that America had just been led for twelve straight years by a republican president, and one might say that Clinton and his party were in the right place at the right time. 

Again, was Perot's entrance in the race the first act of this conspiracy? I do know that he ran on an anti-establishment platform, and as I have asserted in the above paragraphs, it was the GOP which represented the establishment at the time. That being said, the 1992 election marked the beginning, not only of the democratic party turning their seven losses out of ten into five victories in the next eight presidential contests, but also the start of a major reversal in how the american electorate votes, for not only did they win the White House those five times, they won the popular vote seven times out of eight as Bush 2 lost to Al Gore by about 500,000 votes and Trump lost to Hillary Clinton by about 2.9 million votes. 

What can explain such a turnaround in popular votes cast for the two major parties, from a 32 million vote advantage from 1980 to 1988 to a 34.5 million disadvantage from 1992 to 2020 with over 24 million of that disadvantage occurring since 2000?

I have a theory about how being the "establishment party" is generally good for a party, the example of Perot's popularity not withstanding. When the boomers were protesting but not voting, the GOP represented the establishment (as defined by big business and monied interests), and won those elections from 1980 to 1988. As the boomers began to vote, they leaned left, but only as long as their portfolios and possessions stayed average to middling. So, no surprise, Clinton wins twice because he is an outsider, but also because he leans towards business and the monied interests just enough. He is no Bush 1 or Dole, but he is certainly no Mondale of Dukakis. The perfect candidate for a generation that aspires to future wealth and material gain but likes a guy who plays the saxophone on late night talk shows.

And remember, the federal budget was actually balanced for a year or two and there was no overseas wars to speak of. Clinton and his advisers were able to read the tea leaves of what would turn the baby boomers and generation X voters, who now represented a much bigger voting percentage than the outgoing generation, towards a new definition of the government establishment. 

Whereas the older version, the one created and desired by the greatest generation wanted stability as reflected by the oft rose colored belief that the late 40's and 50's were the "good old days", this new version recognized women and minorities as real people, while still holding fast to the idea that law breakers needed to be punished. I often say that Clinton was the best republican president of my life, as reflected in his free trade agreements, crackdown on "crime" which was code for inner city folks (usually black and brown) who used drugs and ruined schools and neighborhoods, and revisions of laws such as Glass Steagall. 

Unfortunately, Al Gore was no Bill Clinton. Now gaining wealth, the boomers look to a candidate that doesn't want them to take responsibility for their selfish actions. Climate change, petro wealth, growing income inequality, no thanks. Give me the candidate who reflects the establishment, the Bush name, but who did drugs in college and drinks beer. Bush barely wins the 2000 election, in part thanks for the Florida Supreme Court, and widens his victory over Kerry in 2004, with help from the 9/11 terror attack because nothing says establishment like big military excursions into poorly armed third world countries.

In other words, the boomers voted like their parents. The Plan took a hit, although, again, the days of huge GOP presidential victories were in the rear view mirror.  The dynamics of the changing composition of the american electorate was still a fact. 

And so, this retro pattern was short-lived.  The economic meltdown of 2008 was linked to those old establishment policies that the boomers had protested when they were young. Income inequality, along with multiple, wasteful overseas wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not too mention a real hit to the boomers 401K balances, tipped the balance even further towards the Dems. 

And then along comes Barrack Obama. Young, intelligent, articulate, an outsider in terms of Washington politics, and Black. Clinton without the sexual intrigue. In 2008 and 2012, boomers remember their roots, while the idealism of Generation X and the Milennials, give Obama overwhelming victories. 

It is my basic tenet that the voters of America seek alignment with the establishment. The key is understanding how establishment is defined. As I stated earlier, the greatest generation's definition was different than the boomers and early Generation X voters. Similarly, establishment today as defined by the later Generation X and Millenial voters differs as well. 

This is the key to the Plan which the democratic party has adhered to, while the GOP still clings to the old definition which was so successful in the 40 years prior to 1992. 

Unfortunately, it was this very plan that resulted in the 2016 loss for the dems and for Hillary Clinton. Her nomination still reflected social change (the first woman president!) but failed to take into consideration that a swath of voters, mostly older, would never vote for a women, but instead would identify with Trump's virtually complete rejection of anything establishment, including establishment as identified by social and cultural change. Trump told his followers that returning to the mores of the 50's would return America to the time when the country itself represented goodness and greatness and that it was the new message of the dems, the message that reflected the attitudes of the voting blocks just beginning to flex its muscles that was ruining America and that we needed to take our country back from.

Trump trumped the Plan. But, there was an unknown segment of The Plan that even Trump could not foresee. And this is where The Plot begins to emerge.

Most people recollect Joe Biden as the VP who generated as much news by his gaffs as his policies. He was the old time politician who had peaked, and was now riding the coat tails of the new force in DC, Obama. But what most people do not realize is that much of that persona was planned. Biden acted the side kick, precisely so that some measure of attention could be diverted from Obama as he learned the ropes of governing. A planned distraction, so to speak. And, as it turned out in 2020, just in case...

If the DNC and democratic voter wanted Hillary as their next president, Biden was on board. But as the 2020 election neared, it became clear that The Plan was not enough to continue the dems recent presidential victories. Biden, ever the underestimated politician, continued to solidify his relationships in Congress, while working with democratic strategists to better understand how to counter Trump's inroads with the electorate, inroads that eventually resulted in his presidential election victory.

Biden knew that an anti-establishment platform was only successful in the short term, and was difficult to maintain because eventually, voters, want more than just being told what is wrong. Biden knew that Trump did not have any real moral or political guideposts. His main strategy was to break down all norms, attack all institutions, and convince enough people that only he could fix our shared troubles. A great strategy when things are going well, but when a true challenge appears, one which requires leadership, strong decision making, and an ability to explain what is being done, Biden knew Trump could not succeed. 

And so when the pandemic began in the spring of 2020, Biden knew Trump would fail to address the situation because he would find himself stuck between his medical experts who prescribed social distancing and temporary closures of business, and his own narcissist belief that money and business are more important than people. Trump knew that people would die if nothing was done to prevent the spread of the virus, but also knew that the economy would suffer, as would his chances of reelection. 

And Biden knew Trump would do anything to not lose, even if it meant repeating conspiracy theories about treatment and cures for Covid. Trump went all in with his anti-establishment message, but in this case, that meant attacking vaccines and established medical science, and then, rather than creating a national response, he abdicated his responsibility to the states then attacked those whose policies he didn't like, even when the mortality rates of those states flattened out sooner, while the rates of the states led by those governors who ignored the science surpassed those of the East Coast states where the virus first wreaked havoc.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Biden realized that most Americans, while maintaining a reasonable distrust of the pharmaceutical industry, did not believe that the Covid vaccine was dangerous, did not believe that their DNA was being altered by the vaccine, did not believe that there was a tracking device now floating in their bodies from the immunizations. 

In the meantime, gun violence continued to kill Americans at an alarming rate, gun violence now being the biggest killer of children in our country, but Biden knew that those same old fashioned values that said guns are more important than lives, that Trump continued to repeat, did not reflect the values of the new generations of voters, later Generation X, Millenials, and Generation Y voters. Add to that the resurgence of anti-abortion laws, again backed by Trump via his Supreme Court nominations, and the onslaught of attacks on mail and machine voting, and Biden and the democrats had created the perfect triad of issues.

At this point, the GOP in general, and Trump specifically represent the anti-establishment party but the establishment values they rail against are the ability to vote by mail, to vote early, to vote more efficiently by machine, reproductive freedom for women, and attempts to reduce access to weapons whose only use is to kill people. 

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Donald Trump boasted of the huge crowds at his rallies while Biden stayed in his basement. If you recall, there was not much push back from Biden concerning his reluctance to expose fellow democrats to the virus, the obvious reason being that if people leaning Democrat were hospitalized or died before the election, that would reduce his chances of winning. But more than that, Biden knew Trump didn't care if people got Covid at his rallies and died, only that he could brag about the thousands of people who attended.

And when Trump blasted mail in voting, claimed it was rife with fraud, Biden just smiled and encouraged the electorate to vote in whatever way was best for them, because he knew that the more people who voted, the better for him since history had already turned to where all but one of the previous six presidential elections had resulted in a democratic popular vote victory.

And when Trump promised the evangelical community that he would create a conservative majority on the Supreme Court (and make abortion illegal), Biden just smiled and said that reproductive freedom for women was a cherished right that he would not support removing because Biden knew that women now make up more than 50% of the voters in our country.

By now, you may have realized that Joseph R. Biden Jr, is the architect of The Plot.  That now only was he not "hiding" in the basement during the summer of 2020, he was meeting with various members of Congress, governors, pundits, newspaper moguls, and influencers, both democratic and republican. 

He spoke to them about the ultimate values of America, respect for differing political opinions, the importance of a peaceful transition of power, the changing demographics of the American electorate, and the inevitable result of any presidential election if one party told our country that limiting voting participation, enacting policies that put more guns on our streets, attacking our nation's capital and then calling for the pardons of those who beat up police and ransacked the halls of Congress, restricting women's rights to make decisions about their own bodies and allowing Russia to invade another country was patriotic or moral or the future of America.

Some people he was able to convince with just his words. Some, especially those on the other side of the aisle, he had to promise that they would retain their personal power as Governor or Party leader, as long as they allowed contested voting results to remain in Biden's column. Some he had to simply pay off, as we all know that there are far too many public servants that answer to money above all us. 

Too old? Hardly. Joe Biden is a genius who bided his time as VP for eight years, allowed Hillary her chance in the Big Seat, then took over the mechanics of the democratic party to not only save America from an individual who would rather destroy american democracy than admit he lost an election, but also fed into the media frenzy surrounding Covid, mail-in voting, abortion rights, gun control, with very specific stories and talking points to create an environment that the GOP and Donald Trump would misread into thinking that the American public wants abortion restrictions, automatic weapons for everyone, stricter voting laws, an emboldened Russia and pardons for terrorists who attack the seat of our law making body.

When in reality, most Americans are against those ideas, have rejected them in the last 3 elections, in 2018 when the GOP lost the House, in 2020 when the GOP lost the Senate and White House and in 2022 when the red wave was a trickle.

And, if everything stays the way it is, with Trump leading the GOP primary field by 35 or 40 points depending on the poll, and having now been indicted four times on just a bit under 100 counts, Biden continues to work under the radar, prodding the right people and pulling the right levers all to convince Trump and the GOP that the American people are willing to elect a four times accused felon. As if the voters of America want a guy running the country from federal prison. 

But, if for some reason the electorate makes the wrong choice, The Plot will engage the next phase, whatever genius Joe has created, and Biden will serve another 4 years.