Having closely watched congressional developments over the last few weeks, I’ve concluded that one much-discussed Democratic tactic for dealing with Trump 2.0 is probably mistaken, as I explained at New York:
No one is going to rank Mike Johnson among the great arm-twisting Speakers of the House, like Henry Clay, Tom Reed, Sam Rayburn, or even Nancy Pelosi. Indeed, he still resembles Winston Churchill’s description of Clement Atlee as “a modest man with much to be modest about.”
But nonetheless, in the space of two weeks, Johnson has managed to get two huge and highly controversial measures through the closely divided House: a budget resolution that sets the stage for enactment of Donald Trump’s entire legislative agenda in one bill, then an appropriations bill keeping the federal government operating until the end of September while preserving the highly contested power of Trump and his agents to cut and spend wherever they like.
Despite all the talk of divisions between the hard-core fiscal extremists of the House Freedom Caucus and swing-district “moderate” Republicans, Johnson lost just one member — the anti-spending fanatic and lone wolf Thomas Massie of Kentucky — from the ranks of House Republicans on both votes. As a result, he needed not even a whiff of compromise with House Democrats (only one of them, the very Trump-friendly Jared Golden of Maine, voted for one of the measures, the appropriations bill).
Now there are a host of factors that made this impressive achievement possible. The budget-resolution vote was, as Johnson kept pointing out to recalcitrant House Republicans, a blueprint for massive domestic-spending cuts, not the cuts themselves. Its language was general and vague enough to give Republicans plausible deniability. And even more deviously, the appropriations measure was made brief and unspecific in order to give Elon Musk and Russ Vought the maximum leeway to whack spending and personnel to levels far below what the bill provided (J.D. Vance told House Republicans right before the vote that the administration reserved the right to ignore the spending the bill mandated entirely, which pleased the government-hating HFC folk immensely). And most important, on both bills Johnson was able to rely on personal lobbying from key members of the administration, most notably the president himself, who had made it clear any congressional Republican who rebelled might soon be looking down the barrel of a Musk-financed MAGA primary opponent. Without question, much of the credit Johnson is due for pulling off these votes should go to his White House boss, whose wish is his command.
But the lesson Democrats should take from these events is that they cannot just lie in the weeds and expect the congressional GOP to self-destruct owing to its many divisions and rivalries. In a controversial New York Times op-ed last month, Democratic strategist James Carville argued Democrats should “play dead” in order to keep a spotlight on Republican responsibility for the chaos in Washington, D.C., which might soon extend to Congress:
“Let the Republicans push for their tax cuts, their Medicaid cuts, their food stamp cuts. Give them all the rope they need. Then let dysfunction paralyze their House caucus and rupture their tiny majority. Let them reveal themselves as incapable of governing and, at the right moment, start making a coordinated, consistent argument about the need to protect Medicare, Medicaid, worker benefits and middle-class pocketbooks. Let the Republicans crumble, let the American people see it, and wait until they need us to offer our support.”
Now to be clear, Congressional GOP dysfunction could yet break out; House and Senate Republicans have struggled constantly to stay on the same page on budget strategy, the depth of domestic-spending cuts, and the extent of tax cuts. But as the two big votes in the House show, their three superpowers are (1) Trump’s death grip on them all, (2) the willingness of Musk and Vought and Trump himself to take the heat for unpopular policies, and (3) a capacity for lying shamelessly about what they are doing and what it will cost. Yes, ultimately, congressional Republicans will face voters in November 2026. But any fear of these elections is mitigated by the realization that thanks to the landscape of midterm races, probably nothing they can do will save control of the House or forfeit control of the Senate. So Republicans have a lot of incentives to follow Trump in a high-speed smash-and-grab operation that devastates the public sector, awards their billionaire friends with tax cuts, and wherever possible salts the earth to make a revival of good government as difficult as possible. Democrats have few ways to stop this nihilistic locomotive. But they may be fooling themselves if they assume it’s going off the rails without their active involvement.
Kerry needs to discuss the Bush administration’s inept response to information that was given to them before 9/11 concerning terrorist activity in the US. People need to understand that “our great protector” and his administration was given information about possible terrorist plots (ie plane hijackings) and they failed to act on the information! How can someone look at Bush in the same positive light knowing that he failed us back in 2001? And then, he was initially against the Homeland Security Department. Security is a BIG concern in this election. I see nothing that indicates to me that Bush has made us more secure. Another thing, most people I know, regardless of political affiliation, are not happy with the way things are going. People are stressed out! Kerry needs to speak to these people. There are a lot of us. Life is difficult anymore and there is no empathy coming from the Whitehouse. Kerry needs to address this.
Joe
Dan,
I think you are correct on the media buying. I have said this before and will repeat – in the final analysis many folks will not be able to pull the B/C lever or whatever method of voting available. I suspect you need to select one or two polls and stick with them while filtering out the others.
Who are the Republican pollsters and who are the Democratic? I subscribe to Rasmussen and also follow Zogby. I was a Zogby junkie in 00. I have regaining confidence.
There is an arrogance about the B/C crowd. Also things are looking mighty grim in Iraq.
Jody
If you look at the states that K-E are not buying media in at this time, they are all competitive Senate races, except Arizona. If Demos want to allow the Senate candidates to establish themselves you cut down on K-E buys in September, pour money into the Senate race and then buy in October when B-C is buying and the K-E ads do not tie the Senate candidate to the national ticket.
Arizona is a special case because any early push there provokes a McCain response. In October that will not be as big a problem as McCain will be busy supporting the Arizona down ticket candidates.
In other words, there is a rationale that shows careful planning and not hysteria. I have been growing in my confidence that K-E do think through what they do.
Yet listening to Juan Williams on NPR this morning you would think the Kerry is ready to concede Missouri. Really, what the heck are we going to do with the mainstream media. What is with NPR?
Well, all I can say is “figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” I have seen the Gallup guy on TV with his so called groups. I saw a biased republican partisan. And the media is just as bad. So why should I believe the polls when I no longer believe the media. It was just tooooooooooo convenient.
From Missouri—-
I am seeing support for K/E in places where you should not expect it, given the demographics.
Missouri is winnable although it will be close. B/C are taking it for granted. It’s critical to get Edwards in key outstate areas to hold down the GOP vote and Kerry is needed in StL and KC, especially in the labor-oriented suburbs.
Please don’t give up on us. Strategic media buys in October can be critical, especially when the Cardinals are in the World Series.
This is the first time that I’ve been to this site, and I find it far better than the others. I did some research os SurveyUSA on their website.
The good news is that they are usually pretty accurate in their pre-election predictions. The bad news is that they usually, but not always, err on the side of the Democrats.
I also find it interesting that Bush went down in Newsweek but up in Time. Zogby stayed the same; Rasmussen is back to 1 point. Do the pollsters really know what they are doing or is it possible that there are more undecided voters than is commonly believed?
I want my W.rong For America! T-shirt and bumperstickers!
Kerry people are you listening??
I agree. Don’t give up on Missouri or other states in middle America. Independents and moderate to conservative Dems are looking for a reason, any reason to vote for Kerry. They don’t like Bush, but they remain undecided after the Repub convention. Maybe put together a commercial showing Kerry skeet shooting and talking about his joy of hunting. Is Carville on top of this? It works!
Reports are that Kerry’s campaign has pulled all advertising from MO. This now seems terminally dumb if this poll is even close to correct. Gore pulled out of Ohio assuming he was way behind when in fact he was closing. How do we keep Kerry’s folks from premature surrender in key battlegrounds like this? T.J.
Ruy, what is your opinion on SUSA’s methodology? They seem to have as good a record as anyone else based on past elections, but the Hotline for one has a real problem with them and won’t include their results (or Rasmussen’s, for that matter) in their polling summaries.