July 3: The Democratic Message on Trump’s Megabill Isn’t Reaching the Voters Who Need to Hear It
After months of watching and writing about Trump’s huge budget reconciliation bill, I wrote my final assessment today…but then saw a poll that made me rethink the whole thing, and wrote that up at New York:
When top House Democrat Hakeem Jeffries chose to exploit a loophole in the House rules, which allows party leaders to talk as long as they want, to discuss at record length the baleful effects of Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, it initially looked like a bit of a publicity stunt, albeit it a good one. It delayed for hours a very big moment of Republican self-congratulation over the final passage of this enormous package of legislation. It probably screwed up a lot of congressional flight arrangements to get members home for Independence Day. And it likely put a few kinks into plans for Trump’s own festive July 4 signing ceremony, wherein the president will surely praise himself, thank his vassals, and tell more than a few fibs about what his grim masterpiece will do.
But beyond all that, it’s becoming clear that Democrats need to do a much better job articulating their take on this bill and its profoundly reactionary effects on the social safety net. To those of us whose job it is to listen to arguments over 940-page bills as they chug through Congress for months, it may seem like congressional Democrats have been grinding away at the message that Republicans are cutting Medicaid to give a tax cut to billionaires. Some of them held up signs about Medicaid cuts when Trump delivered his belligerent address to a joint session of Congress four months ago. Yet a startling new poll shows the extent to which that messaging — and for that matter, Republican messages hailing the megabill as a people-pleasing growth engine for the U.S. economy that doesn’t touch Medicaid benefits at all — isn’t really breaking through, as Sam Stein reported:
Meanwhile, the kind of people Democrats need to reach but often don’t aren’t hearing much at all:
“73% of 2024 Trump supporters who didn’t vote in 2020 and 56% of Biden-to-Trump flippers have heard nothing about the bill. These shares are 20 points higher than their Harris supporting counterparts — indicating the urgent opportunity if Democrats break out of our own media silos.”
Part of the problem, to be sure, is that Trump’s megabill is incredibly broad and complicated, and the budget reconciliation process by which it was developed, debated, and enacted is insanely complex and obscure. It’s all about as remote from the civics-book understanding of how laws are made as you can get, and it has been understandably difficult for Democrats to describe it compellingly in a sound bite, a protest sign, a TV ad, or indeed, in Jeffries’s eight-hour speech. It was designed that way, and that’s why half the public isn’t absorbing anything about it, and a lot of others are simply processing it via big, vague party-driven narratives.
The bottom line is that the struggle to define this consequential legislation has just begun. For Democrats, finding ways to convey the horror the megabill inspires in those who have studied it closely, and the concrete damage it will do to actual people, must continue right up until the midterm elections. Yes, Trump and his allies will do many other things that might galvanize voters, from his reckless foreign policies to his cruel mass-deportation initiative to the lawless conduct he exemplifies and encourages among his appointees. But nothing is likely to match the megabill in magnitude or in the malignancy of its authors. If voters march to the polls in 2026 or 2028 with no better than a rough idea of what it means, America will get more of the same.
Kerry should spend no time addressing Ralph Nader. Bush/Cheney should be the sole targets for our nominee.
Nationally, that is the job of Howard Dean, who managed to draw in progressive and liberal minded people to his campaign by reminding them that the Democratic party is the party of economic and social progress.
Locally, that is the job of progressive and liberal minded people who mistakenly backed Nader in 2000 and no understand that their mistake brought an extremist to office whose agenda was counter to every one of their values that they wished to express with their ill-conceived vote. Remind them that Ralph Nader’s candidacy gave us a president who has already rescinded and/or undermined the majority of environmental, consumer, and labor safeguards that make Nader’s committments in those areas pale in comparison. Also, remind them that Nader did not seek a third party like everyone assumed, but rather played electoral politics by focusing on only the nine swing states and that Pat Buchannan to his credit ran a national campaign.
Unrelated to the question is this: If someone is still unwavering in their support for Nader, implore them to responsibly vote by finding someone in a solid red state who wants to vote for Kerry and have that person vote for Nader on the basis that there will be a vote in a swing state cast for Kerry.
My friend is unwavering in his support for Nader and he and I have since made a deal. I will cast my vote in Idaho for Nader, whie he will cast his vote in Ohio for Kerry.
Events are out of our hands.
A missed warning and a terror bombing stateside, a serious stock market tumble, another round of massive layoffs, Iraq in flames — any of those things could get rid of Bush. Not much else.
I don’t think there’s much Kerry can do either way. His job right now is not to sell a new program. Just don’t fuck up too bad and be there when the dust settles.
If events don’t cause a Bush implosion, he will be re-elected. I think it’s that simple.
You all seem much more optimistic than me. I am very concerned that they are so close in the polls. What more could Bush do to lose public support? Given his wars, his attacks on the constitution and the nevironment, his appointments of radical judges, his cover-ups of 911 toxic contamination and intelligence failures…and Kerry is only 5 points ahead? Plus I am afraid that the more people learn about Kerry, the less they like him, so I fail to see how he will gain in the polls. I’m sorry to be negative, but I really want to win in November and I am trying to be a realist. I really hope Kerry will pick Edwards as a VP, because I think Edwards can provide the inspiring, exciting, and positive energy that this campaign desperately needs. I think he coulde get us a few points in every state, because he has a very diverse appeal. I hope our Democratic leaders are thinking about this, because there is just so much at stake!
Kerry doesn’t need to be tough on Bush. Kerry needs to show he’ll be tougher on terrorism than Bush.
Because of his record, Bush is in self-destruct mode. Remember it’s about competence.
Or, stated another way, it’s about incompetence, stupid – Bush’s stupid incompetence.
Kerry only needs to show he won’t be distracted by his own ideology.
Kerry should be defining himself right now. Tough on Bush, sure – but only to keep Bush on the defensive (where the Bush guys seem to flounder).
Kerry first needs to define himself, then when normal people start paying attention get tougher on Bush. Make calls for Bush to investigate the failures of his administration and accuse him of stonewalling when he does nothing.
I think Kerry needs to be tougher on Bush, too, and I think increased toucghness will help pull people away from Nader. If the Nader people see and hear Kerry saying the things about Bush which need to be said, they will be more enthusiastic about voting for him. I am disappointed right now in Kerry’s ads. The ones I’ve seen are too wishywashy and in the stye of Dukakis and Mondale. he needs to be slapping that 500 billion dollar deficet up against everybody’s eyeballs.
While polls are interesting to look at from time to time, maybe there is something else to talk about for the next five or so months until polls actually start to mean something. And let’s not forgot, a national poll means little, especially in a close race. As we all know, Gore won nationally last time and it didn’t mean anything.
I am still puzzled by the size of the Nader support. If it is centered in California, Mass., Vt. and other safe Blue states, it might not make a difference. But if Nader is picking up support again in Fla. or Ohio, Kerry, and America, will have a big problem on Nov.2.
I think its time that Kerry not only gets tough on Bush, he should also start peeling the bark off of Nader. This is no longer funny.
Not only does it show that Bush’s drop is not just a temporary dip, but it shows that the first $15-20 million that Bush spent on ads in all those swing states has amounted to something around nil.
Let’s hope that the rest of Bush’s ads over the course of the next eight months are just as effective.
reignman, are Hispanics *that* loath to vote for Kerry?
How awful for Democrats. I guess that gay-bashing and abortion-bashing keeps Hispanics with the GOP.
The problem for Kerry is that any comment he makes will be distorted by the media. So even if he makes a fantastic foreign policy or national security speech, the media will say that he was wearing mismatched socks, or that his suit is tailored.
The media doesn’t want Bush to lose. And unless that changes, he won’t lose.
One other thing:
in the 1980 election, 40% of those who voted for Reagan didn’t believe in the things he was saying, they just wanted Carter out of office.
another example: I was watching MSNBC, and they were talking about Bush’s declining popularity w/ hispanics, so the narrator of the piece surmised: who else are they going to vote for?
obviously, Kerry has to say was he is FOR as opposed to what he is AGAINST, or he will suffer from Perot syndrome.
yep.
This must be Bush’s lowest approval rating in a Zogby poll sunce taking office..