Andrew Prokop mulls over “5 ways the House speaker drama could end: Will the “Never Jordan” bloc cave? Will there be a bipartisan deal? Or … what?” at Vox and writes:

“Republicans’ staring contest of a speaker’s race, then, is continuing, with no resolution in sight. Here’s the GOP’s math problem:

• 217 out of 221 Republicans need to vote for the GOP’s speaker candidate on the House floor to elect him (if all Democrats oppose him).
• Roughly 180 Republicans appear to be team players who will happily back any nominee preferred by most of the conference.
• But there are about 20 holdouts on the right who have embraced hardball tactics to try and force a more right-wing speaker to be elected. Think of them as an “Only Jordan” bloc.
• And now there’s a newly emerged roughly 20-person “Never Jordan” bloc, composed of mostly mainstream or swing-district members who are fighting back against the right-wingers.

So what are the ways this could end?

1) The “Never Jordan” bloc caves: Jordan is currently the GOP’s speaker nominee, and he’s still trying to win over enough support among the 22 Republicans who opposed him on the most recent House floor vote.

Some of these members are powerful Appropriations Committee Republicans who could be given promises over how Jordan will handle spending fights. Others represent swing districts and fear support for an extremist candidate like Jordan could hurt their reelection, but they’ll need support and fundraising from the party establishment to keep their seats. And other holdouts appear to be motivated by personal gripes over how Jordan treated the previous speaker nominee, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) — maybe their feelings could be assuaged?

2) The “Only Jordan” bloc settles for someone else: If Jordan can’t win over enough holdouts and quits the contest as Scalise did, the GOP will go back to the drawing board and try to select another speaker nominee.

The question then will be whether that person can win over the hardcore Jordan supporters on the right. These recalcitrant right-wingers made it difficult for Kevin McCarthy to be elected speaker in the first place in January — but he did eventually win enough of them over. Perhaps another candidate, not yet in the race, could do the same. (Or maybe McCarthy could do it again.)

3) Some Republicans cut a deal with Democrats: If neither bloc of GOP holdouts is in the mood to cave, one other option is to rely on Democrats to get a Republican speaker candidate elected. In theory, such a deal could take place with a small group of Democratic moderates, or through a deal cut with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) that has the Democratic Party’s official approval.

Any such deal would draw fury from conservative media, and GOP leaders have already tried to denounce any idea for a “coalition government.” This is why the recent proposal to empower McHenry via some Democratic votes got dropped like a hot potato. But if the far right truly seems impossible to win over, a bipartisan deal may seem to mainstream Republicans like the only option to keep the government open.

4) McHenry just takes the reins without an official vote: Up to this point, speaker pro tempore McHenry has interpreted his duties as limited to facilitating the election of a new speaker. He has said he doesn’t want to do any more than this, and the belief within the GOP conference was that for him to be able to do more, the House would have to vote to empower him.

Outside experts, though, have argued that such a vote might not be necessary. Brendan Buck, a former aide to speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan, wrote a New York Times op-ed arguing that McHenry “may simply need to act on his own.” That is, he should start calling up resolutions or bills, and if any member of Congress objects, just put it to a vote and see if a majority of the House backs him. “All of this is unstable and unsustainable, but so too is our current course,” Buck wrote.

5) It doesn’t end: Finally, for the sake of completion, one more possibility (albeit right now an extremely remote one) is that the House simply remains speaker-less until 2025. This would mean an unprecedented, devastating 13-month government shutdown with unforeseen consequences — something enough Republicans would likely want to cut short so they won’t be blamed for it. It would also mean an end to legislation for the next year, including perceived “must-pass” measures like aid to Israel. So it seems unlikely things would go this far. But there’s a first time for everything.

None of the scenarios outside of option 3 bode well for the Republic. Meanwhile, Jordan is doing a great job of dividing his party, with plenty of support from eager accomplices.

Can Democrats leverage the “GOP can’t govern” meme next year?  Jordan’s remarkable record of zero legislative accomplishments in his entire career will invite continuing scrutiny, if he gets elected. But it may be a bit stale a year from now. For Democrats, the short term-strategy is to publicize GOP paralysis, keep chipping away at their prospects in swing districts and work on a legislative agenda that can interest political moderates, while holding liberal support steady..

So, “Will Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spoil the election for Biden — or Trump?” That’s the question Nathaniel Rakich addresses at abcnews.com, and writes:

Both sides have valid reasons for concern; there’s some evidence to suggest that Kennedy would take more votes away from the Democratic presidential nominee, and some evidence to suggest that he might take more votes away from the Republican nominee. But at the end of the day, his impact on the presidential race is probably being overstated. Third-party candidates rarely win a significant share of the vote, and the election would have to be extremely close for Kennedy’s presence to change who actually wins.

Only a few polls so far have tested a hypothetical three-way race between Kennedy, Trump and President Biden, but they’ve mostly found the same thing: Kennedy’s presence slightly increases Trump’s margin over Biden. On average, Trump leads Biden by only 0.5 percentage points in national polls when Kennedy isn’t included, but that lead grows to an average of 1.8 points in the three-way matchups.

Granted, one year plus out from Election Day, all such polls can end up meaning nothing. There is also an argument that Democrats may suffer more damage from Cornell West’s candidacy for the presidency. Here’s a basket of recent polls, shared by Rakich:

The following article by Ruy Teixeira, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, politics editor of The Liberal Patriot newsletter and co-author with John B. Judis of the forthcoming book “Where Have All the Democrats Gone?,” is cross-posted from The Liberal Patriot:

Most people have long forgotten—if they ever noticed to begin with—that the Biden administration did, in fact, propose an ambitious immigration reform bill very early in Biden’s tenure. Ambitious, but without the remotest chance of passing. Republicans, to no one’s surprise, did not sign on to a bill that did almost nothing to address their concerns about border security.

At the time, Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar, from TX-28, a heavily Hispanic border district, presciently remarked:

Hey, we don’t want the wall, but when it comes to the other issues, we gotta be careful that we don’t give the impression that we have open borders because otherwise the numbers are going to start going up. And surely enough, we’re starting to see numbers go up.

Also around that time, I wrote:

Democrats moving forward have to accept the reality of American public opinion and politics that border security is a huge issue that cannot be elided in any attempt to reform the immigration system. Indeed, the most popular part of the current immigration bill is the provision most directly related to border security (technologically enhanced port of entry screening) according to Morning Consult. And public opinion polling over the years has consistently shown overwhelming majorities in favor of more spending and emphasis on border security.

This suggests a serious revamp of the Democratic approach to immigration flows and immigration reform. The public has indeed become more sympathetic to immigrants and immigration, partially as a thermostatic reaction to the practices of the Trump administration. But that does not mean that Democrats can simply be the opposite of Trump on this issue. He was closed; we’re open! He was mean; we’re nice! Any moves toward greater leniency at the border and the creation of legalization regimes for undocumented immigrants raises the possibility of knock-on effects and unintended consequences that would be highly unpopular. How do you prevent people from gaming the system? How do you handle the possibility of surges at the border to take advantage of leniency and legalization regimes? Any immigration reform package worth its salt must have serious answers to these questions.

America is a very desirable destination and it is simply a fact that many more people want to come here than can possibly be accommodated. Therefore, choices will have to be made about the numbers to be let in. What is, in fact, a desirable level of legal immigration? If Democrats wish it to be much higher, which is a defensible position, then they must have an answer for who these people should be. How are slots to be allocated—would the country be served well by moving to more a skill-based system or at least a hybrid that leans in that direction? And if the immigration system is to be more generous, how are levels of illegal immigration to be controlled? It will not do to make the immigration system more generous, while doing little to control flows of illegal immigration. Most of all, voters want an immigration system that is both reasonably generous and humane and under control. Democrats ignore the “under control” part at their peril.

I think it’s fair to say that the Biden administration did not heed this counsel and that of others who made similar points. Instead, an initial moratorium on deportations and a multitude of other actions the administration took clearly signaled that there was to be a very different regime at the border than there was under Trump. This regime was touted as being more ‘humanitarian” and “compassionate” but prospective migrants, predictably enough, interpreted it more simply as “easier to get in” if you come. And come they did.

Two straight years of record-breaking illegal immigrant border crossings followed. Some were turned away of course but a large proportion (76 percent) remained in the U.S. Recently, that proportion may be even higher. The situation is exacerbated by the thoroughly broken asylum system. It is being systematically gamed by arriving migrants who are briefed by smugglers and social media on exactly what to say to establish themselves as asylum-seekers.

Read more…

From “CNN Poll: Americans’ views of the Republican Party and its congressional leaders have worsened amid House leadership crisis” by Jennifer Agiesta and Ariel Edwards-Levy:

Among the public generally, impressions of the Republican Party are deeply negative. Nearly three-quarters disapprove of the way the GOP’s leaders in Congress are handling their jobs (74%, up from 67% in January), and 52% have a negative impression of the Republican Party overall (up from 45% in December). Approval for GOP leadership in Congress has dropped sharply among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, from 58% approval in January to 44% now.

And Americans’ expectations have dimmed that the Republican majority in the House could bring positive changes on the federal budget (43% expected a mostly positive effect in December, 18% now say there has been a positive effect), oversight of the Biden administration (35% expected a positive effect, 23% say there has been one), immigration laws (32% expected a positive effect, 17% say there has been one) or the level of cooperation within the federal government (23% expected a positive effect, 16% say there has been one).

However, the poll also includes some bad news for Democrats:

But the Republican Party’s challenges have not improved the public’s view of Democrats. Just 35% approve of the way Democratic leaders in Congress are handling their jobs, down from 40% in January, and half have an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party (50%), up from 44% in December….most Americans expressing anger at both parties’ handling of the country’s problems – the public continues to prefer the Republican Party’s leadership to that from the White House: 54% say they have more confidence in Republicans in Congress than in President Joe Biden to tackle the major issues facing the country, while 45% have more confidence in Biden’s leadership, unchanged since this summer.

All of the usual caveats apply. It’s just one poll and it’s just a snapshot thirteen months before the 2024 elections. And then there is the question, will discontent with both parties benefit 3rd party candidates?

At The New Republic’s Soapbox, TNR Editor Michael Tomasky interviews Navin Nayak, president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Here’s a cross-post of Tomasky’s introduction, followed by the video of the interview:

It’s one of the most frequent and familiar complaints of rank-and-file liberals: Democratic messaging, especially on the economy, stinks. A new poll from NBC News will surely only add fuel to the fire, as it shows the Republicans with the largest lead on the question of which party can better handle the economy since 1991—at 49 percent to 28 percent. Everybody has ideas and suspicions about why Democrats struggle to break through. Navin Nayak, the president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, has studied the question intensely with his staff. And the situation is … not good.

Nayak has put together a PowerPoint presentation that is a hot commodity in progressive Washington. He’s been showing it to groups of insiders and elected officials, and here, in this edition of Tomaskycast,you’ll get to see some of the slides yourself. Nayak and his team looked at every press release, Facebook post, and tweet put out in 2022 by Democratic candidates for federal office—some 570,000 pieces of communication. And they found that, “to our surprise, only 5 percent mentioned the words ‘economy’ or ‘economics.’” Even including words like “workers,” “wages,” and “jobs” only raised the number to 11 percent. Small wonder the Republicans come out ahead in those polls.

There’s a feast of useful information in this interview for anyone who really wants to understand the details on the hole in which Democrats find themselves. The news isn’t all bad: By 68 percent to 32 percent, people say they do support the core Joe Biden message of investing in the middle class over the Republican message of investing in businesses and letting them spread the bounty. But as Nayak says, among Democrats there is “a real recognition that there isn’t message clarity, and there isn’t a simple thing that Democrats from across the country and from top to bottom repeat.”

The following article by Gannon University History professor Jefff Bloodworth is cross-posted from The Liberal Patriot:

Riffraff. The Masses. Hoi Polloi. Working Class. The Silent Majority. The Great Unwashed.

“The People” have many synonyms. But “Middle American” best describes the demographic upon which every national election swings. Legendary Columbia University sociologist Herbert Gans defines Middle Americans as lower middle and working-class families between the thirty-first and seventy-first income percentiles. They are the working stiffs who are average in jobs, income, and schooling; a high school educated clerk or truck driver, of any race—that’s a Middle American. And Democrats have steadily lost them.

A broader grouping than working class, income alone does not define a Middle American. In his 1989 classic, Middle American Individualism, Gans outlined how income and a “popular individualism” renders them a distinct class. Reared in environments of economic insecurity, Middle Americans prize personal economic security more than anything. Their pursuit of economic autonomy is defined by self-reliance and an individualist ethos. These values and sensibilities are key to understanding Middle America’s political behavior.

Politically, Middle Americans support a version of “moral capitalism.” Moral capitalism is not socialism; Middle Americans think free enterprise and rugged individualism are just fine so long as labor receives a fair share. But any system that shortchanges labor loses legitimacy in Middle America and risks populist uprisings.

Moral capitalism was born on the nineteenth century populist frontier, and it subsequently evolved into the organizing principle that held rural and urban Democrats together. Moral capitalism was the philosophical basis of the Populist movement in the 1890s. Rejecting small government orthodoxy, populists looked to the state to make the urban, industrial economic order into a moral political economy. When markets failed, moral capitalists sought state interventions—but ones that reflected their individualist code. Social Security exemplifies this attitude: funded by dedicated payroll taxes, to Middle Americans the program is an earned benefit and not welfare.

Harry S. Truman’s GI Bill and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Medicare program followed the script Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote with Social Security. “Earned benefits,” recipients served in the military or labored a lifetime to merit eligibility. Not coincidentally, these programs are politically sacrosanct with most Middle Americans.

Oxford University historian Gareth Davies calls this underlying bargain “opportunity liberalism.” The state provides citizens equality of opportunity. Individuals offer grit and labor. And Middle Americans rewarded Democrats with votes.

By founding federal activism and social insurance programs on Middle American individualism, opportunity liberals defeated laissez-faire conservatism and created a liberal political consensus. In the late 1960s and 1970s, however, entitlement liberals gained the political upper hand inside Democratic politics and policy circles. Seeking equality of results, they pushed a guaranteed income and single-payer healthcare as well as an array of unearned benefits. Moral capitalism, however, cuts both ways: Middle Americans revolt against economic systems andpolitical ideologies that ignore the bond between labor and economic security. Middle Americans came to distrust a liberalism that, in their eyes, dispensed unearned benefits. To them, it was not a moral capitalism, and many turned right as result.

Middle American was once rightfully synonymous with working-class whites. In 1975, nearly nine of ten Middle Americans were white, and in 1980 and 1984 Ronald Reagan won an average 61 percent of the white working-class vote. Because Middle America comprised two-thirds of the entire electorate, Reagan won in landslides. Post-1965 immigration, however, has remade American and Middle American demography. In 1980, whites were 80 percent of the overall population; today, that number has fallen to 60 percent. Indeed, almost half of today’s Middle Americans are non-white. These demographic changes have transformed American politics.

Bill Clinton combined a rising non-white population with the educated middle class, women, and enough white Middle Americans to win the presidency twice. He did so by emphasizing work and opportunity. In effect, he pushed opportunity liberalism back to the party’s rhetorical center.

Read more…

The following article,  “The key to messaging is repetition. These are the messages Democrats should repeat relentlessly” by Matthew Smith, is cross-posted from Daily Kos:

Mass-market messaging is all about repetition and consistency—telling the same story over and over till it finally sinks in with a media-deluged public. It’s the principle behind the famous “Rule of 7” in advertising (your audience has to hear your message at least seven times before they’ll consider buying your product). It’s why ads are repeated so often on TV or YouTube that we get sick of seeing them. And, of course, it’s the basis of Goebbels’s Big Lie (If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually believe it).

Conservatives have learned this lesson too well. We all know the Republican Party’s brand, because every Republican, from Congress to city councils, sounds exactly the same: “freedom,” “liberty,” the Constitution, “family values,” blah, blah, till we’re sick of hearing it. When they find a meme that works for them (“woke,” trans hate, Hunter Biden), they seize on it with a groupthink that’s honestly a little creepy. They know that simply by endless repetition they can create their own reality, persuading millions of Americans to believe even stone-cold lies—for example:

• Republicans are the party of freedom, Christian values, and fiscal restraint.
• The Second Amendment is about owning a gun for your own personal use.
• The election was rigged.
• Democrats are radical socialists who hate America.

Clearly, repetition in political messaging is a powerful tool.

Now ask yourself: What messages do Democrats repeat so often you’re sick of hearing them?

If an answer doesn’t immediately spring to mind (and it won’t), that’s an issue. It means, for one thing, that persuadable voters may not have a clear idea of who Democrats are and what we stand for. For another, if we’re not constantly, relentlessly telling Americans who we are, then we allow conservatives to define our party for us. And they are.

Democrats have inspiring, powerful messages to tell, and plenty of time to make our case. But it has to be a coordinated effort at message domination. From now till Election Day, we need to tell those messages so often that voters beg us to stop. They should be short, simple, values-based messages that solidify our party’s brand and define our core beliefs.

What should those messages be? What reality do we want to create? One would hope Democratic leaders are answering those questions now, but if not, here are a few suggestions (If you have other or better ideas, please post them in the comments):

PRIMARY MESSAGES

DEMOCRATS MAKE PEOPLE’S LIVES BETTER.

This strikes me as the party’s most powerful and appealing message. But it can’t just be implied by our policies. It needs to be stated explicitly, and it needs to come from everyone, always.

Talking points:

• By all means tout the many, many accomplishments of President Biden and the Democrats, BUT tie those policies explicitly to our brand: The Democratic Party’s mission is making people’s lives better. It’s what Democrats do and what we stand for.
• We don’t just talk about making people’s lives better—we’ve been doing it for nearly a hundred years. Virtually every major improvement in our country’s quality of life has come from Democrats, including:
  • Social Security and Medicare
  • Affordable health care
  • The very idea of a minimum wage and getting paid for overtime
  • Unemployment insurance
  • Civil rights and workplace rights for women, people of color, and LGBTQ
  • Credit card reforms and consumer protections
  • And so much more
• We’re the party of compassion and caring. Our primary goals are to alleviate hardship and suffering and to improve the basic quality of life for all Americans.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS UNFIT TO GOVERN. VOTE THEM OUT. ALL OF THEM.

Because negative messages work too. President Biden has very effectively made speeches about the conservative threat to democracy. But an occasional speech won’t get the job done. Every Democratic politician needs to repeat the message at every media opportunity, campaign stop, and debate.

Talking points:

• This election is truly a battle for the soul of America. Ultraconservatism and its slavish devotion to Donald Trump has become an actual destructive force in America. It is a toxic ideology that poses a real and immediate danger to American democracy and the principles we have stood for for almost 250 years. Republicans have proven it by:
  • Trying to overturn a free and fair election, fomenting a riot at the Capitol, and preventing the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history
  • Passing laws making it harder to vote
  • Fomenting pointless culture wars that pit Americans against one another
  • Spreading outrageous conspiracy theories
  • Refusing to do anything about gun violence
  • Undermining people’s faith in elections, a free press, science, law enforcement, the rule of law, and government itself
  • Praising the authoritarian regime in Hungary as an example for America and threatening to withdraw support for Ukraine
  • Banning books
  • Threatening financial default and government shutdowns
• Nothing gets better without change. And nothing will change until every last Republican is out of office.
• Conservative policies toward the poor are immoral, cruel, un-American, un-Christian, irreligious, and inhumane.
• Conservatism is a timid ideology based on fear. Republicans are afraid of new ideas and anyone who isn’t just like them. Don’t live in fear, and stop electing politicians who tell you that you should.
• Conservatives have stopped listening to Americans. Polls show strong majorities of Americans agree with Democrats on virtually every important issue.

SECONDARY MESSAGES

OUR POSITION ON [X] IS BASED ON DEEPLY HELD AMERICAN VALUES.

Whenever Democrats do talk about policies, they should always, always relate them to traditional American principles. Don’t just make intellectual arguments; appeal to voters’ emotions—their patriotism and national pride.

Talking points:

• Democrats passionately believe in the values established in America’s founding documents:
  • All of us are created equal.
  • All of us have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  • Liberty includes, as Roosevelt said, the freedom from want and the freedom from fear.
• Explicitly relate every policy to the core values behind it. For example:
  • Gun safety: The unalienable right to life, freedom from fear
  • Civil rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights: Equality, personal liberty, the right to pursue happiness
  • Poverty and income inequality: Equality, fairness, freedom from want, the right to pursue happiness and the American Dream

DEMOCRATS FIGHT FOR THE UNDERDOG.

Talking points:

• We fight for everyone who needs a voice in America—workers and their families, the poor, people of color, LGBTQ people, voters having their rights taken away.
• It’s not about “identity politics” or “class warfare,” it’s about living up to the American ideals of equal opportunity, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

DEMOCRATS BELIEVE IN AMERICA’S FUTURE.

Talking points:

• America is doing well. We are the greatest, richest, most powerful nation on earth, respected and admired around the world. We believe America can do anything we set our minds to. We can create the society we want.

• We are the party of optimism and progress—the only party with a vision for the future and a better way of life for America. Republicans have no vision for the future and nothing to offer but divisive culture wars and a dark, apocalyptic view of our country.

  Reasonable Democrats may have disagreements about the specifics of message content. But Smith is surely right that Democrats can profit from better message discipline, repetition and, especially coordination.

The following article by Ruy Teixeira, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, politics editor of The Liberal Patriot newsletter and co-author with John B. Judis of the forthcoming book “Where Have All the Democrats Gone?,” is cross-posted from The Liberal Patriot:

As the 2024 election approaches, Democrats have a three-point plan for their challenging quest to re-elect Joe Biden, take back the House, and defend their razor-thin Senate majority. The first two points one might characterize as the Democrats’ version of the culture war: (1) relentless attacks on Republicans’ association with abortion restrictionism, usually portrayed as a GOP drive to ban the procedure entirely; and (2) equally relentless attacks on the Republicans as destroyers of democracy, from Trump’s and his supporters’ “election denialism” to “MAGA” movement rhetoric and legislation said to be subverting democracy across the country.

The theory is that these attacks will neutralize and then some Republican messages on crime, immigration, race, gender and schools, where Democrats are easily associated with genuinely unpopular positions. The 2022 elections and special elections since are believed to provide a precedent for this approach. But then we have the third prong of the Democratic strategy: a bold attempt to sell Democrats’ stewardship of the economy as “Bidenomics.”

On one level, this can only be described as chutzpah. A massive tranche of poll findings uniformly find the public extremely unhappy with the state of the economy. In a particularly brutal recent poll from Washington Post/ABC News, Biden receives a dreadful 30 percent approval rating on handling the economy. It’s instructive to break this down by working class (noncollege) vs. college educated. Working-class respondents give Biden a 24 percent approval rating on the economy, way below the comparatively respectable 43 percent rating among the more upscale college educated group. Since Bidenomics has been explicity pitched as a way to build working-class enthusiasm for Biden’s candidacy, this signals a rather big problem with the strategy.

Similarly, the Post poll finds a mere 25 percent characterizing the national economy positively (excellent or good), with just half as many (19 percent) feeling that way among the working class as among the college educated (38 percent). And a rock-bottom 14 percent of working-class respondents say their personal financial situation is better now than when Biden took office, compared to 50 percent who say they are actually worse off.

The second wave of The Liberal Patriot/YouGov (TLP/YouGov) 2024 presidential election project was completed in early September, including interviews with more than 3000 registered voters. These new data flesh out how and why Bidenomics has been such a flop with voters. Start with the issue of inflation. As we noted in our post yesterday, voters overwhelmingly feel that inflation is “still a very serious problem that is not improving,” with working-class voters particularly likely (68 percent) to feel that way.

These sentiments baffle Democrats who note that the rate of inflation has actually been falling and that unemployment is super-low. So why aren’t people, particularly workers, happy? It’s very simple as liberal economist James K. Galbraith has noted:

Unlike unemployment, inflation does affect everyone. But what matters to working people is not the monthly or yearly price change taken alone. What matters is the effect on purchasing power and living standards over time. Whether these are rising or falling depends on the relationship of prices to wages. When wage growth exceeds price increases, times are generally good. When it doesn’t, they aren’t.

It is here that Biden has a problem. During his presidency, living standards have not risen. From early 2021 to mid-2023, prices have increased more than wages, implying that real (inflation-adjusted) hourly wages and real weekly earnings have fallen, on average. Not by much, but they have fallen. Worse, the average figure probably masks a larger fall, in real terms, for families that started out below the average. And given how income distributions work, there are always many more families earning less than the average than there are who earn more.

In other words, it is the trajectory of workers’ living standards, not  misinformation or media framing, that explains why they see the economy of the Biden administration in such jaundiced terms. And why they tend to think Trump actually did a better job managing the economy. In the new TLP/YouGov poll, working-class voters prefer Trump’s economic management as president by 20 points (55 percent to 35 percent), again contrasting with the college educated who prefer Biden’s performance by 9 points (51percent to 42 percent).

Given all this, it should not be surprising that the very term the Democrats are seeking to popularize—”Bidenomics”—is not striking a responsive chord. On the contrary, the lack of enthusiasm is deafening. In the TLP/YouGov survey, a mere 28 percent of working-class voters are willing to say they support Bidenomics, just 29 percent think Bidenomics will help their family financially, and scarcely more (32 percent) believe Bidenomics will help the overall economy.

Interestingly, Bidenomics support lags significantly behind support for specific legislative measures passed by the Biden administration, especially the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act. Since these were unaided questions—that is, no descriptions of the bills were given, just the names—voters may partially have been reacting to things they already feel positively about like “inflation reduction,” “bipartisan,” and “infrastructure,” rather than the content of the bills themselves. But that in itself is a clue to what voters are looking for. The term “Bidenomics,” on the other hand, with its absolutely inevitable association with economic conditions voters, especially working-class voters, detest seems perfectly designed to annoy voters, rather than win them over.

A new NBC poll shows Republicans currently favored over Democrats on handling the economy by an astounding 21 points, the largest lead Republicans have had on this measure since 1991. That tells you about how well the Bidenomics messaging campaign is working so far. The Democrats would be wise to try a different approach—one that doesn’t rely on telling voters they should be happy when they are not.

President Biden’s participation in a UAW picket line stands in stark relief to Trump’s shameful record of opposing worker rights at nearly every opportunity. The Communication Workers of America share the particulars in “Trump’s AntiWorker Record,” cross-posted here:

“At every turn Donald Trump and his appointees have made increasing the power of corporations over working people their top priority. The list of the damage done to working people by the Trump Administration is long, and growing every day. Here are a few examples.

Trump has encouraged freeloaders, made it more difficult to enforce collective bargaining agreements, silenced workers and restricted the freedom to join unions:

• Trump has packed the courts with anti-labor judges who have made the entire public sector “right to work for less” in an attempt to financially weaken unions by increasing the number of freeloaders.¹
• Trump has stacked the National Labor Relations Board with anti-union appointees who side with employers in contract disputes and support companies who delay and stall union elections, misclassify workers to take away their freedom to join a union, and silence workers.²
• Trump has made it easier for employers to fire or penalize workers who speak up for better pay and working conditions or exercise the right to strike.³
• Trump promised to veto the PRO Act and the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, historic legislation that will reverse decades of legislation meant to crush private sector unions and shift power away from CEOs to workers.⁴

Trump has restricted overtime pay, opposed wage increases, and gutted health and safety protections:

• Trump changed the rules about who qualifies for overtime pay, making more than 8 million workers ineligible and costing them over $1 billion per year in lost wages.⁵
• Trump has reduced the number of OSHA inspectors so that there are now fewer than at any time in history, and weakened penalties for companies that fail to report violations.⁶
• Trump threatened to veto legislation that would raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour.⁷
• Trump’s Secretary of Labor, Eugene Scalia, is an anti-worker, union-busting corporate lawyer who aggressively defended Cablevision’s decision to fire 22 workers when they tried to win a contract with CWA.⁸

Trump has helped insurers reduce coverage and made it easier for pharmaceutical companies to inflate drug prices:

• Trump supports an ongoing lawsuit that would eliminate protections that ensure that health insurers can’t discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.⁹
• Trump threatened to veto legislation to reduce prescription drug costs, even though last year the prices of over 3,000 drugs increased by an average of 10.5%.¹⁰
• Trump’s made protecting the profits of pharmaceutical companies a priority in NAFTA renegotiations.¹¹
• Trump’s proposed FY2021 budget would cut funding for Medicare.¹²

Trump has encouraged outsourcing and offshoring:

• Instead of supporting CWA’s bipartisan legislation to help save call center jobs, Trump pushed for a corporate tax cut bill that gives companies a 50% tax break on their foreign profits – making it financially rewarding for them to move our jobs overseas.¹³
• On two separate occasions, a group of Senators wrote Trump asking him to issue an executive order preventing federal contracts from going to companies that send call center jobs overseas, and CWA President Chris Shelton even asked him to do so during an in person during a meeting in the Oval Office. He never responded.¹⁴
• Trump has broken his campaign promise to take on companies that move good jobs overseas—instead, he’s given over $115 billion in federal contracts to companies that are offshoring jobs.¹⁵

Trump failed to prepare the nation for the COVID-19 pandemic, opposes hazard pay for essential workers, and has given employers a free pass to lower safety standards:

• Trump has failed to secure enough Personal Protective Equipment for essential workers during the COVID-19 crisis and has weakened protections for workers who are concerned about working in unsafe environments.¹⁶
• Trump refused to use the Defense Production Act to get our IUE-CWA manufacturing members back to work producing ventilators or PPE and instead used it to force meatpacking plants to open despite thousands of workers getting infected on the job in unsafe working conditions.¹⁷
• Trump promised to veto the Heroes Act, which would give essential workers premium “hazard” pay and expand paid leave and unemployment insurance for those impacted by the Coronavirus.¹⁸
• Trump has opposed providing aid to help state and local governments continue providing services and keep workers on payroll—he suggested instead that it might make sense to allow states to declare bankruptcy.¹⁹
• Trump’s OSHA has lowered standards meant to protect workers from getting sick at work and given employers a free pass if they fail to follow even those minimal requirements.²⁰

Notes

1. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
2. https://www.epi.org/blog/by-overturning-specialty-healthcare-the-nlrb-has-made-it-harder-for-workers-to-organize, https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/12/13/progressives-blast-new-nlrb-union-elections-rule-betrays-workers-it-meant-protect, https://www.nelp.org/news-releases/joint-employer-rule-trump-nlrb-sides-corporations, https://www.epi.org/publication/unprecedented-the-trump-nlrbs-attack-on-workers-rights
3. https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4582cc8e3e, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/companies-get-ok-to-ban-work-email-for-use-in-union-organizing
4. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/SAP_HR-2474.pdf
5. https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2019-06-12%20Trump%20Administration%20Overtime%20Rule%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
6. https://www.nelp.org/news-releases/workplace-fatalities-rising-trump-osha-enforcement-declines, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/29/18197346/trump-labor-electronic-injury-reporting-rule
7. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/SAP_HR-582.pdf
8. https://cwa-union.org/news/cwa-members-are-ready-fight-for-workers-rights-against-new-trump-labor-secretary-scalia
9. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/06/trump-supreme-court-obamacare-240366
10. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/SAP_HR-3.pdf, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drug-prices-in-2019-are-surging-with-hikes-at-5-times-inflation
11. https://www.citizen.org/article/fact-sheet-big-pharma-rigged-the-revised-nafta-to-keep-drug-prices-high
12. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/us/politics/medicare-trump.html
13. https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/396288-the-gop-tax-bill-rewards-offshoring-heres-what-we-can-do
14. https://cwa-union.org/news/releases/senate-democrats-letter-trump-action-against-call-center-offshoring, https://thinkprogress.org/democrats-call-on-trump-to-address-offshoring-jobs-16599e1e81b6
15. http://goodjobsnation.org/trumps-state-of-the-union-185000-jobs-lost
16. https://www.vox.com/2020/4/4/21208122/ppe-distribution-trump-administration-states, https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Guidance%20Before%20Reopening%204-29-2020%20-%20FINAL%20cardin.pdf, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/14/cdc-guidance-reopening-coronavirus-259565
17. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v74w7m/general-electric-workers-ask-trump-to-force-their-company-to-make-ventilators, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/28/trump-meat-plants-dpa
18. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SAP_H.R.-6800.pdf
19. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-mcconnell-gop-states-declare-bankruptcy-coronavirus-aid-2020-4
20. https://www.rollcall.com/2020/05/21/afl-cio-labor-department-spar-over-workplace-safety-amid-covid-19“

 

From “Biden campaign is ramping up its strategy to win over Latino voters” by Allie Raffa at msnbcnews.com:

President Biden’s re-election campaign is ramping up its strategy this week to try to win over Latino voters, with plans to use Wednesday’s Republican primary debate in California as a backdrop for new efforts to gain support from a critical constituency, according to two senior campaign officials.

The campaign’s broader strategy includes tailored ads for Latino voters in battleground states using narrators with accents from their countries or regions of origin; messaging on television and digital platforms that are popular with Latinos; and standing up an early effort to counter misinformation aimed at Latino voters, which Democratic officials believe eroded some support for Biden among Latinos in 2020.

Raffa notes, further,

“The campaign’s new playbook comes as polling shows that enthusiasm among Latino voters is lagging. A new NBC News pollreleased this week found 51% of Latinos have a high interest in the election, compared with 73% of white voters. Overall, Latinos currently have a lower interest in the 2024 election than at this same point in past election cycles….One event, they said, will specifically focus on Latino men, whose support for Biden trails that of Latina women. A poll released Monday by Univision, a co-sponsor of the GOP debate, found that Biden leads Trump among Latino men 54% to 38%, while among Latina women his lead is much wider — 61% to 25%.”

….Biden has struggled to get his economic message to resonate with the majority of Americans, including Latinos, according to the new NBC News poll, which also showed Biden ahead of Trump among Latino voters by 51% to 39%….In the Univision poll, inflation and cost of living ranks first among the concerns of registered Latino voters. And they don’t see either party as having a clear plan to deal with those issues, 27% believing Biden does, and 22% believing Republicans do, according to the poll.

Raffa adds, “Shoring up Latino support, and voter turnout, could make the difference for Biden in key states in what’s expected to be a tight race, particularly if it’s a rematch between Biden and Republican front-runner, former President Donald Trump. While Biden overwhelmingly won among Latino voters in 2020, that year Trump gained more of their support than in the 2016 election.”

In addition, “Latinos were flooded with misinformation during the 2020 and 2022 elections. Some of the most powerful GOP campaign ads in those election cycles featured clips of Democratic candidates talking about progressive policies to try to link Democratic candidates to socialism and encourage Latinos who fled socialism in their home countries to vote Republican.”

Also, “Misinformation is still a massive problem that Republicans will continue to weaponize,” said Cardona. “Democrats have gotten much better at tracking the problem and responding in a timely manner, something we did not do enough of in 2020.”