In her article, “How Do Democrats Recover From This? Here are five ways in which they could salvage their election chances,” at The Atlantic, Elaine Godfrey shares the thoughts of five Democratic strategists, including:

2. President Biden should enforce strict message discipline—and send the right messengers around the country.

From “The alternative to Supreme Court enlargement is surrender” by E. J. Dionne, Jr. at The Washington Post:

The following article by Ruy Teixeira, author of The Optimistic Leftist and other works of political analysis, is cross-posted from his blog:

At The Liberal Patriot, John Halpin summarizes recent poll data from a 20 country survey and summarizes what it means about a realistic path for a clean energy transition.

“Despite increasingly dire predictions of planetary demise and apocalyptic rhetoric about the climate crisis, citizens across 20 leading democracies overwhelmingly favor carrots over sticks when it comes to addressing global warming.

This finding is based on TLP’s ongoing examination of vital multinational survey data conducted with more than 22,000 respondents globally by YouGov and Global Progress ahead of the G20 summit in Rome and the COP26 climate negotiations in Glasgow.

To start, it’s important to note that most people across the globe are unwilling individually to take on the costs of transitioning to cleaner energy use….
The political implications of these findings are clear.

If societies want to make progress on reducing global temperatures, the only path forward with real consensus support is for governments to take on the primary task of moving to a carbon-free society by making clean energy cheaper and encouraging businesses and individuals to make the transition through subsidies and incentives—not punishments.

Along with the promise of creating more jobs and businesses in the clean energy sector, the political goal of moving to a carbon-free society clearly needs to be pitched using clean energy carrots over carbon tax sticks. It’s difficult to see any other viable political strategy for moving beyond existing ideological divides over climate change.”

Read the whole thing (with groovy charts) at The Liberal Patriot . And subscribe!

The Bulwark’s Tim Miller has the best article title of the last few days, “Joe Manchin Is the Only Thing Standing Between America and Sen. Cletus Von Ivermectin in 2024.” Miller visited some conservative areas of West Virginia in his report and notes “in this political environment the existence of a Democratic Senator in West Virginia is just a notch below loaves and fishes.” Miller adds some salient observations, including,

Manchin does it by going along with the Democrats just enough to get by, while bucking the party loudly enough to keep the Trump voters in his state happy….And that tells you all you need to know about the reason why Manchin signaled on Wednesday that he wouldn’t support the current iteration of the Build Back Better plan, with sources in Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s office telling NBC that the Democrats would shelve it until at least March….Joe Manchin isn’t interested in blowing up his career to pass the Great Society 2.0….The only spending bill Manchin was ever going to support was one that leaders in his party, and left-wing celebrities, hate. Because that’s how he would sell it to the folks at the Groves-Mann Funeral Home.

Miller’s thoughts on how Democrats can achieve optimum results in the midterm elections:

If Democrats want to change the environment, they need to make the case that they are providing policy solutions that voters actually want and then peg the nihilist, insurrectionist Republicans as the ones who are standing in the way.

That would create some leverage they might be able to use. And it would redirect the political pressure away from the one person who is miraculously standing between us and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and towards the politicians that they need to beat in order for Democrats to have majorities in the future.

This realist view of politics might not be as fun as demanding that Joe Biden snap his fingers and eliminate everyone’s student debt and usher in our utopian future. But it’s the only way to change the current high-speed trajectory towards a GOP takeover.

The BBB’s demise should be a wake-up call for Democrats to change what they’re doing. We’ll see if anyone gets the message.

In his Slate article, “It’s Time for Democrats to Buck Up and Give Joe Manchin What He Wants” Jordan Weissman agrees and writes that “Manchin has made it clear all along that he is comfortable allowing these negotiations to fail if the final product isn’t to his liking. He can make that threat credibly, because his entire brand back home in West Virginia depends on his willingness to buck his own party.” As Weissman concludes,

But if you accept Manchin’s demand to keep the bill’s total around $2 trillion—and at this point, Democrats have—then it also makes sense to design the legislation his way, with fewer programs set to last long-term. Caving to Manchin’s demands will require Democrats to sacrifice some worthy parts of their agenda. But it’s time for them to buck up and do it, lest they end up with nothing at all.

It would be good for progressive Democrats to realize that the spending cuts and elements of BBB that are being ditched can be restored — when Democrats win a real working majority. Take what Dems can get now, move on and fight for the rest of it when they have the numbers to win.

At The Nation, Contributing Editor Doug Henwood and Lauren Melodia, deputy director of macroeconomic analysis at the Roosevelt Institute, discuss two separate approaches in “What Should the Democrats Do About Rising Inflation? Doug Henwood argues that without raising taxes, many leftist policies will come with risks, while Lauren Melodia writes that the GOP is exaggerating inflation concerns.”

In his contribution, “Raise Taxes, Later,” Henwood writes,

The Democrats’ reaction to this price scare has often been evasive, dismissing it as not real or as unimportant or “transitory.” That’s wrong on both facts and politics. It is real, it’s important for as long as it lasts, and only a soothsayer knows if it’s transient. More recently, they’ve blamed corporate greed, which has been with us forever, and high profits, which have been with us for decades. Many progressive economists argue that inflation is confined to a few product lines: goods (rather than services) and energy, led by gasoline—whose price has more than doubled over the year. A problem with this argument is that price indexes put out by the Federal Reserve Banks of Cleveland and New York that remove extreme price changes to isolate underlying trends are rising as well. The outliers are driving the headlines, but other prices are going up too.

The standard remedy—raising interest rates and provoking a recession—would be disastrous in an economy still recovering from the Covid shock. But we can’t deny that huge deficit spending and an infusion of trillions of dollars conjured out of nothing has something to do with the problem….The stimulus spending is mostly gone; people are running down their bank accounts. That will reduce demand and probably make holdouts more willing to take a job. (Their numbers are greatly exaggerated, but they do exist.) That should ease inflationary pressures. The supply chain will eventually get its act together….But the longer-term ambitions of the early Joe Biden era—really building back better—come with economic risks. The support payments in the Covid relief bills are models for some of the redistributionist social spending that we’d like to see made permanent, but unless the spending is paid for by taxes on people who have money to spare rather than by borrowing, it will have strong inflationary potential. There’s a belief on the left that you can fund a social democratic program just by taxing the rich, but there’s simply not enough money up there to do it.

In “Not Panic,” Melodia argues,

Most of the recent increase in the inflation rate—both in the United States and abroad—is not due to an overheating economy or too much stimulus; it’s the result of supply and demand factors that are linked to the pandemic….Covid-19 has played a role in nearly every dramatic price increase in the past year. I believe that this inflation will subside once people and our public infrastructure have adapted to the changes brought about by the pandemic. We must, of course, keep working toward vaccinating as many people as possible and implementing other public health measures so that people will want to return to services. As of November, consumer spending on services remains well below pre-pandemic levels, while spending on goods is well above them. These dynamics are taking place in an economy whose GDP is still significantly lower than we’d expect without a pandemic. Therefore, as people shift their spending back to more services, spending on goods will decrease and relieve the stress on supply chains, which will stabilize prices. The United States must also be a leader of and a major contributor to the international pandemic response, so that the global economy can operate with less disruption.

….What we are experiencing is the result not of too much overall demand but of supply-side issues coupled with a shift in demand. For example, a semiconductor shortage has led to the production of fewer cars just as more Americans are looking to buy. Raising interest rates would raise the cost of borrowing and discourage investment by automobile manufacturers—investment that is necessary to expand the production of and access to semiconductor chips. Rather than compare the headline inflation rate with the Federal Reserve’s target rate of 2 percent, we need to consider the sector-specific factors. If Democrats do that, they will find that there are many solutions to rising prices….In 2019, Oregon and California were the first states to adopt policies that regulate the amount by which rent can increase each year. More than 180 municipalities already have some form of rent stabilization policy. Democratic officeholders throughout the country could implement similar measures and launch public education campaigns to help their constituents take advantage of them….Energy costs have also been one of the largest contributors to inflation over the past five months….in the short term, Democrats can demand more transparency and oversight. They can also expand the eligibility for and the coverage of programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and invest more in the campaigns that inform the public about these lesser-known programs….Being proactive about addressing the major expenses households face every month, and continuing to address the pandemic that has caused or exacerbated rises in those costs, can be a unifying policy agenda for Democrats—one that uses every level of government to demonstrate that Democrats are committed to improving the quality of life for all.

President Biden has already taken substantive action, including “the largest-ever release from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve”  and he has taken some effective steps to reduce bottlenecks. Of course, Democrats can — and probably should – leverage components of both approaches noted above and heavily publicize what they are doing at the federal, state and local levels.

The following article by Ruy Teixeira, author of The Optimistic Leftist and other works of political analysis, is cross-posted from his blog:

In my latest for The Liberal Patriot, I consider the Democrats’ ongoing problems with Hispanic voters.

“The Democrats are steadily losing ground with Hispanic voters. The seriousness of this problem tends to be underestimated in Democratic circles for a couple of reasons: (1) they don’t realize how big the shift is; and (2) they don’t realize how thoroughly it undermines the most influential Democratic theory of the case for building their coalition.

On the latter, consider that most Democrats like to believe that, since a relatively conservative white population is in sharp decline while a presumably liberal nonwhite population keeps growing, the course of social and demographic change should deliver an ever-growing Democratic coalition. It is simply a matter of getting this burgeoning nonwhite population to the polls.

But consider further that, as the Census documents, the biggest single driver of the increased nonwhite population is the growth of the Hispanic population. They are by far the largest group within the Census-designated nonwhite population (19 percent vs. 12 percent for blacks). While their representation among voters considerably lags their representation in the overall population, it is fair to say that voting trends among this group will decisively shape voting trends among nonwhites in the future since their share of voters will continue to increase while black voter share is expected to remain roughly constant.

It therefore follows that, if Hispanic voting trends continue to move steadily against the Democrats, the pro-Democratic effect of nonwhite population growth will be blunted, if not cancelled out entirely, and that very influential Democratic theory of the case falls apart. That could—or should—provoke quite a sea change in Democratic thinking.

Turning to the nature and size of recent Hispanic shifts against the Democrats—it’s not as bad as you think, it’s worse. Here are ten points drawn from available data about the views and voting behavior of this population. Read ‘em and weep.

1. In the most recent Wall Street Journal poll, Hispanic voters were split evenly between Democrats and Republicans in the 2022 generic Congressional ballot. And in a 2024 hypothetical rematch between Trump and Biden, these voters favored Biden by only a single point. This is among a voter group that favored Biden over Trump in 2020 by 26 points according to Catalist (two party vote).”

Read all ten at The Liberal Patriot. And subscribe!

Ronald Brownstein mulls over the reasons “Why Democrats Are Losing the Culture Wars” at The Atlantic and provides some insightful observations about the policy and messaging options being discussed by Democratic strategists and analysts, including:

Today’s Democratic conflict is not yet as sustained or as institutionalized as the earlier battles. Although dozens of elected officials joined the DLC, the loudest internal critics of progressivism now are mostly political consultants, election analysts, and writers—a list that includes the data scientist David Shor and a coterie of prominent left-of-center journalists (such as Matthew Yglesias, Ezra Klein, and Jonathan Chait) who have popularized his work; the longtime demographic and election analyst Ruy Teixeira and like-minded writers clustered around the website The Liberal Patriot; and the pollster Stanley B. Greenberg and the political strategist James Carville, two of the key figures in Clinton’s 1992 campaign. Compared with the early ’90s, “the pragmatic wing of the party is more fractured and leaderless,” says Will Marshall, the president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist think tank that was initially founded by the DLC but that has long outlived its parent organization (which closed its doors in 2011).

For now, these dissenters from the party’s progressive consensus are mostly shouting from the bleachers. On virtually every major cultural and economic issue, the Democrats’ baseline position today is well to the left of their consensus in the Clinton years (and the country itself has also moved left on some previously polarizing cultural issues, such as marriage equality). As president, Biden has not embraced all of the vanguard liberal positions that critics such as Shor and Teixeira consider damaging, but neither has he publicly confronted and separated himself from the most leftist elements of his party—the way Clinton most famously did during the 1992 campaign when he accused the hip-hop artist Sister Souljah of promoting “hatred” against white people. Only a handful of elected officials—most prominently, incoming New York City Mayor Eric Adams—seem willing to take a more confrontational approach toward cultural liberals, as analysts such as Teixeira are urging. But if next year’s midterm elections go badly for the party, it’s possible, even likely, that more Democrats will join the push for a more Clintonite approach. And that could restart a whole range of battles over policy and political strategy that seemed to have been long settled.

Brownstein discusses President Clinton’s success in the nineties, and credits Clinton’s “folksy, populist style he had developed while repeatedly winning office in Arkansas, a state dominated by culturally conservative, mostly non-college-educated white Americans” as a reason for his success. “After a quarter century of futility,” Brownstein adds, “Clinton’s reformulation of the traditional Democratic message restored the party’s ability to compete for the White House.” Brownstein notes, further,

David Shor, a young data analyst and pollster who personally identifies as a democratic socialist, has promoted his ideas primarily through interviews with sympathetic journalists (taking criticism along the way for failing to document some of his assertions about polling results). Ruy Teixeira and his allies have advanced similar ideas in greater depth through essays primarily in their Substack project, The Liberal Patriot. Stan Greenberg, the pollster, summarized his approach in an extensive recent polling report on how to improve the party’s performance with working-class voters that he conducted along with firms that specialize in Hispanic (Equis Labs) and Black (HIT Strategies) voters….Shor, Teixeira, and Greenberg all argue that economic assistance alone won’t recapture voters who consider Democrats out of touch with their values on social and cultural issues. (Today’s critics don’t worry as much as the DLC did about the party appearing weak on national security.) “The more working class voters see their values as being at variance with the Democratic party brand,” Teixeira wrote recently in a direct echo of “Evasion,” “the less likely it is that Democrats will see due credit for even their measures that do provide benefits to working class voters.”

….(Shor also believes that Democrats must move to the center on cultural issues but he’s suggested that the answer is less to pick fights within the party than to simply downplay those issues in favor of economics, where the party’s agenda usually has more public support, an approach that has been described as “popularism.” “On the social issues, you want to take the median position,” he told me, “but really the game is that our positions are so unpopular, we have to do everything we can to keep them out of the conversation. Period.”)….“It took me a long time to accept this, because it was very ideologically against what I wanted to be true, but the reality is, the way to win elections is to go against your party and to seem moderate,” Shor said. “I like to tell people that symbolic and ideological moderation are not just helpful but actually are the only things that matter to a big degree.”

However, notes Brownstein, “Democrats today need fewer culturally conservative voters to win power. Roughly since the mid-’90s, white Americans without a college degree—the principal audience for the centrist critics—have fallen from about three-fifths of all voters to about two-fifths (give or take a percentage point or two, depending on the source). Over that same period, voters of color have nearly doubled, to about 30 percent of the total vote, and white voters with a college degree have ticked up to just above that level (again with slight variations depending on the source).”

Brownstein shares a messaging tip from Stanley Greenberg, one of the top experts on political attitudes of the white working-class: “Greenberg says in his recent study that non-college-educated Hispanics and Black Americans, as well as blue-collar white voters, all responded to a tough populist economic message aimed at the rich and big corporations, but only after Democrats explicitly rejected defunding the police. “You just didn’t get there [with those voters] unless you were for funding and respecting, but reforming, the police as part of your message,” Greenberg told me. “The same way that in his era and time … welfare reform unlocked a lot of things for Bill Clinton, it may be that addressing defunding the police unlocks things in a way that is similar.”

Of course the risk is that overstating a centrist message will discourage turnout among Black, Hispanic and young voters. Brownstein notes alternative strategies, including:

“Rather than chasing the working-class white voters attracted to Trump’s messages by shifting right on crime and immigration, groups focused on mobilizing the growing number of nonwhite voters, such as Way to Win, argue that Democrats should respond with what they call the “class-race narrative.” That approach directly accuses Republicans of using racial division to distract from policies that benefit the rich, a message these groups say can both motivate nonwhite intermittent voters and convince some blue-collar white voters.”….Meanwhile, organizations such as Way to Win are arguing that Democrats should worry less about recapturing voters drawn to Trump than mobilizing the estimated 91 million individuals who turned out to vote for the party in at least one of the 2016, 2018, and 2020 elections.”

The question remains: What is the best policy and messaging mix that can help Democrats win a modestly larger share of white working-class voters, while not discouraging turnout by other core constituencies? The answer holds the key to building a stable, working majority.

The following Greenberg Research article, based on a battleground web poll by Democracy Corps, focus groups with Hispanic voters by EquisLabs and qualitative research with Black voters by HIT Strategies, is cross-posted from Democracy Corps:

• Key one — recognizing that the overwhelming majority of our diverse base is the hardworking working class. They are citizens who have never completed a four-year college degree. Fully 70 percent of Blacks in HIT Strategy’s battleground survey are working class, 75 percent in EquisLab’s surveys with Hispanics in Florida, Texas, Arizona and other battleground states. The AAPI voters are predominantly college grads in Orange County, but 67 percent of millennials and GenZ voters lack a four-year degree, as do 69 percent of unmarried women, and 57 percent of white unmarried women across the 2022 battleground. We need to wear their working class shoes.

• Key two is recognizing that all our base of Black, Hispanics, and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are feeling less hopeful about the country’s direction and giving Democrats a weaker generic congressional vote than expected because of uncertainty on COVID, the economy, and whether Biden in the end will make life better for them… And that may be decided this week.

• Key three is recognizing our base is pretty clear-eyed and united about Build Back priorities: labor protections that promote a $15 wage and watch out for workers rights in the workplace; expanding Medicare or maintaining insurance subsidies that lower insurance premiums for the first time; the child tax credit; and infrastructure jobs. They want material help but also to strengthen workers and weaken big corporations who should pay their fair share of taxes.

•Key four is recognizing that campaigns to win these voters back must focus on a base that is consumed with material gains and class position, a base that prioritizes improving economic conditions of their communities within the context of racial disparity. AAPI voters put initiatives on racial equities at the bottom of their list, as do Hispanics in Democracy Corps’ research. Racial justice is an important priority for Blacks in HIT’s battleground research, but it is part of a top set of priorities that include greater labor protection, reduced health costs, infrastructure jobs, managing COVID, and the CTC.

• Key five is realizing that Democrats need to be showing, they care more about people like you and are are “better for Hispanics.” Democrats need to talk about each Hispanic community, its immigrant and class history that bring them to America to fulfill the American dream. Delivery on immigration in the Congress shows Democrats don’t take them for granted, are indeed better for Hispanics and helps them with pro-immigration voters. Democrats need to deliver in areas of Democratic strength: COVID, health care, immigration, and “caring for people like you.” And hit the Republicans who govern only for the biggest corporations.

• Key six is recognizing that AAPI voters are pretty alienated, believe country on wrong track, and Democrats are underperforming. They resent other groups getting more attention, yet very aligned with Democrats on corporations paying higher tax and respond strongly to message, “need government that works for us.”

•Key seven is recognizing that both our diverse base and persuadable working class voters have very similar priorities for government and they too, resent hardworking people no longer calling the shots in society and government. Our base and working class targets both want government to offer more protections and higher pay for low-wage workers, and maintain the child tax credit, reduced health insurance premiums and prescription drug costs and better Medicare, and big corporations paying much more in taxes.

• Key eight is recognizing this is an opportunity for Dems to pass legislation that lifts all working class boats but to advance messaging that describes how the new laws specifically addresses the needs of Black, Hispanic and Latino, AAPI and white working voters. It shows Democrats care about them, allays fear that some groups benefiting more than others and improves perception that “neither” party is delivering for them.

•Key nine is recognizing that crime is a major issue in every community and addressing it is a precondition for Democrats regaining support. Crime was among the very top concerns with AAPI and Black voters, where it ranks higher than police abuse. Trump’s message on respecting police still gets a strong hearing in all these communities. However, Democracy Corps research showed how much Democrats gained their biggest margin in an experiment where voters heard, “we must be for funding, not defunding the police” and “respect officers.” The Democrats are also unequivocal that abusive officers will be held accountable.

•Key ten is recognizing that persons with a disability are heavily represented in the white working class and rural areas, as is evident in every focus group we conducted. They respond with great enthusiasm to the current agenda and become more Democratic. Can they become base voters?

• Key eleven is recognizing that making the new expanded, monthly child tax credit a centerpiece of the Democratic agenda reveals new things about the the white working class. First, it is very popular, but also shows that white working class voters under 50 years of age may be culturally different than their parents and therefore more accessible to Democrats.

• Key twelve is recognizing the working class is really independent contractors, small business owners, and those who work in small businesses. Democrats need to have programs to help them, as well as be seen to battle for small businesses.

• Key thirteen. All of this research points to a common message frame where Democrats are on your side while Republicans fight for the rich corporations.

The following article by Ruy Teixeira, author of The Optimistic Leftist and other works of political analysis, is cross-posted from his blog:

My latest at The Liberal Patriot!

“It’s not exactly a secret the Republicans are running hard against the Democrats on sociocultural issues like crime, immigration, ideology in the schools and cancel culture. Their strategy is to combine attacks on these perceived vulnerabilities with an indictment of Democrats’ failure to return normalcy to the economy and thoroughly contain the pandemic. The goal is to paint a picture of the Democrats as an incompetent party distracted by secondary issues out of step with normal voters.

The Democrats’ standard response to Republican sociocultural attacks is to insist that the problem areas identified by the GOP aren’t really problems. They are fake issues cynically pumped up by right wing media to scare voters who would otherwise be responding favorably to the Democrats’ superior performance and policy ideas. The apotheosis of this was Terry McAuliffe’s robotic pronouncement of voter concern about schools in the Virginia gubernatorial contest as responding to “racist dog whistles”.

This seems unlikely to work….

Unmuddling the Democratic story starts with defusing the culture war issues that give so much credence to the Republican claim that Democrats are out of touch with the concerns of ordinary voters and prevent Democrats themselves from focusing attention where it is most needed. This may strike many Democrats as terribly unfair; why should Democrats try to do this when GOP attacks are so cynically motivated and so many in their own ranks are guilty of holding truly reactionary and extreme cultural views?

This may not be “fair” in some sense. But it is necessary because it is Republicans who benefit from the endless battle over these issues, not Democrats. Democrats are not on strong ground when they have to defend views that appear wobbly on rising violent crime, surging immigration at the border and non-meritocratic, race-essentialist approaches to education. They would be on much stronger ground if they became identified with an inclusive nationalism that emphasizes what Americans have in common and their right not just to economic prosperity but to public safety, secure borders and a world-class but non-ideological education for their children.

Republicans would continue their attacks of course but they would land with less force, allowing—and perhaps forcing—Democrats to sharpen their focus on voters’ primary concerns like the economy. That is probably the very last thing Republicans would want Democrats to do—and therefore the very thing that Democrats should be doing.”

Read the whole thing at The Liberal Patriot. And subscribe–it’s free!

Congressional redistricting is still underway in many states, so speculation about which Democratic House seats are in danger and which GOP House seats are vulnerable has to be pretty sketchy. Sabato’s Crystal Ball is on the case as it develops. Here’s their latest chart with poll and analysis-driven estimates for the House of Reps seats in the 25 states that have finished redistricting:

Crystal Ball sees 5 toss-up House races in half of the states with 11 months to go until the midterm elections. Four of the five toss-ups are currently held by Democrats, with one planned district, CO-8. Note that House districts for megastates CA, FL  GA, MI, NY and PA are not yet charted.