This is an open thread to talk to me and other subscribers about polls, democracy, the news, or what have you. I’m not getting a lot out of Twitter or other reading today so thought we could all chat for a few hours.
This week will be a big one for the Democrats’ intra-party debate over the filibuster and the magnitude of the threat to majoritarian democracy posed by their opposition. The public seems to want reform, but it doesn’t look like they’ll get it.
I’ve been thinking about that and preparing some work on young voters and attitudes toward authoritarianism, but in the meantime, what’s on your mind?
Full disclosure: I'm not a paying subscriber so I haven't read that link. But I've been decrying the filibuster for what feels like an eternity. Democrats who oppose repeal seem to me to be conflating the cloistered world of the Senate and the journalists who cover it closely with the broader world of 'normie' Americans.
I find it hard to fathom any Republican messaging strategy that would be credible and effective on the American public if the Democrats eliminated the filibuster to, say, pass a standalone $15 minimum wage law. Sure, they could decry "radicalism" and "dictatorship" and whatever else, but they'd have a few problems:
1) This is their one go-to move: call Democrats radical and socialist and dictators. This has diminishing returns, however, especially given how ineffective these tropes have generally been when deployed against Biden.
2) Raising the minimum wage is popular. If the Democrats repealed the filibuster to pass this, I think the arguments on the Dem side would write themselves: Republicans don't want to help American workers, so we made sure our Democratic majority wouldn't be obstructed from doing so.
3) Fundamentally, the filibuster is a procedural matter, and making procedural arguments falls flat 90% of the time. Just ask Republicans who decried Harry Reid nuking the filibuster for appeals court confirmations in 2013. Just ask Democrats who decried Mitch McConnell for doing it for SCOTUS confirmations in 2017.
In fact, ask Democrats how well their messaging worked out on just about every single procedural 'norm' Trump violated during his time in office: firing James Comey, politicizing the DOJ, undermining the State Department, and on and on. It's notable that, in the 2018 midterms, Dems cleaned house precisely by focusing on the most non-procedural issue possible: Republicans are trying to take away your healthcare.
Process is what you argue when you're losing. So Dems should give Republicans something to argue about.
This is a little off-topic, but on the biggest poll numbers today: how much do you make of the CPAC straw poll today? On the one hand, 55% is not a great number for Trump, and 68% is well below his overall number in the GOP. On the other hand, CPAC is obviously a certain slice of the GOP, not really the reddest of the base. Yet you want to say there's something here, that he has lost some of his luster. How to parse this, even if it's just a blip of a data point? It really tees up for all the things that the public does wrongly with polls... yet it may also end up giving us something in hindsight?
I feel like the conversation about trump vs trumpism and the latter part being the part that hovers over our politics going forward fails to acknowledge the broader conversation about base politics and the right wing media apparatus. The last 20 years on the right went from invading Iraq and Afghanistan, to tea party/ ACA repeal, and then to trump. Fox News basically has dictated the GOP agenda/ talking points/ beliefs for years and in my opinion dictates what the base of the party wants (should acknowledge the revolving door of fox news personalities leaving the network for the WH and vice versa). This definitely is helped by the fact that the party as a whole is definitely more monolithic in terms of geography, race, gender, religion, and educational status, so it's probably easier to have 1 media narrative for the base. I think trumpism just morphs into the next phase which hopefully isn't an insurrection-supportive one.
Do you foresee the upcoming VRA debate as having the biggest potential to move Sinema/Manchin on filibuster reform? I'm trying to follow the "watch what they do, not what they say" philosophy when observing them, but some of their recent extra-fierce doubling down (ie. Sinema sending email replies to constituents going through filibuster history and why she wants to restore it for ALL senate activities) has me concerned if Biden could actually get them onboard and what leverage he would have. The writing is on the wall that something needs to change with the filibuster, but I'm trying to imagine scenarios specifically in the next few months with upcoming bills that could get those two to budge.
I agree with you: the public does definitely want reform, but sadly most of the 'mainstream' media isn't really giving full court press to this issue. I hope that it is simply because the relief bills, covid itself, the cabinet appointees and the insurrection aftermath are still 'top of the pops,' and that soon there will be more focus on how even more of a non-democracy America has become. But until things become a non 'both sides' topic in the media, even with wide public support, it seems that politicians aren't really swayed by polls. And the GOP doesn't appear to be swayed at all by polls. At this point, my hope is that Biden himself comes out pretty soon against the filibuster, and leans on Manchin and & Sinema on this. Tosses them some other bone (big $project, not NT) that they can shout about in their states.
I've been thinking about non-intended consequences of voting rules. 1) If Texas continues to grow by adding Democrats, do we reach a point when winner-take-all means that Dems are advantaged by the electoral college in a close election? 2) In 2020, Democratic presidential primary rules for a 15% threshold, conceived to unify the party around an electable candidate, nearly had the opposite effect, as the many electable candidates were dividing 2/3 of the vote, with the foreseeable consequence that the leader in delegates would be the least electable of the top six. 3)if we use diminishing majority requirements for cloture, how do we avoid encouraging sequential filibusters on the same bill, which otherwise gut the requirements?
I agree with Heather Cox Richardson's (historian) "Letters from an American" blog post 2/28. We are being ruled by the minority. GOP lost this election. We represent 41.5 million people than GOP; and, our bills are overwhelmingly supported by the American people across parties. Since the GOP is now the party of "NO" again, it is time that Biden/Schumer clearly state: unless the GOP bargains in good faith, we will end the filibuster. I understand the dangers: 2022 will be here in no time at all. We must keep our seats; and therein lies the problem.
the president put himself personally on the line: if he gets a senate majority, we the people will get the checks. no ifs no ands no buts not maybes. will.
it took a lot of will to get those senators elected and that will was the will of the people and not the entitled white rich. people literally put their lives on the line and got out and stood on line. to vote. it took courage.
and AOC, Sanders, and the whole progressive caucus and their supporters kept the phones ringing and the dollars flowing. where did all that dough come from? during the worst economy during the worst epidemic in a century? sacrifice. real sacrifice. the inside the beltway DC money crowd is not the trough your new senators and members of congress feed from. for fifty years the DNC has abandoned working people for its inside the beltway clique and what do this clique buy us, trent alots and moscow mitch witches. and procedural government to lock out we the people and vote by lobby.
so, when the DNC can't see its own legacy staring us in the face and daring us down there in Florida CPAC after they ransacked Congress and dare to ransack every capitol in the country and already passing voter suppression laws nationwide to guarantee we the people note again ever, where do we go, when the President DNC46 proves its own promise to its rich contuancy, nothing will change when change like never before ever in human history is our only hope ... to survive .. and not more DNC jive ... jazz saxophones and fireside chats with rich rock stars are not the hope we waited for, sacrificed for, some gave our lives for.
1860-1865 400 thousand usa american anti-fa died to save us from race based slavery. 1942-1945 400 thousand usa american anti-fa died to save us from race based slavery. the same slavery that today apple google walmart macdonalds hershey chocolate and every supermarket fish department get their profits from just like the fascists that gave us the electoral college and filibuster and the lobby industry and if #DNC46 can't see where this wind is blowing, #45 is going to look like a White House lawn easter egg hunt
how do we the people survive?
FYI SCOTUS 1819, McCulloch v Maryland " The US is a union of the people, governed by the people, solely for the sake of the people" so it rules that Congress is where the people gather to do the people's business [until bush v gore and citizens united changed that phrase to say rich people only and government by procedural]
Will the actions by the GOP in State legislatures to restrict voting rights be successful -by getting enacted into law, and changing election outcomes- or will there be blow-back?
How big of a political risk is the Biden Admin running by letting in more immigrants from Central America? Allowing in more refugees may be the humanitarian thing to do, but it doesn't often bode well politically for the government that does it. I'm thinking about the reaction to the influx of Syrian refugees into Europe in the middle of the last decade. It gave rise to a lot of far right parties, and some far right governments.
Conventional wisdom seems to say that given midterms dynamics and redistricting, Democrats should expect to lose their House majority in 2022. But with a Democratic administration coming in at such an unusual time (when things are set to improve notably) and about to implement an apparently highly popular fiscal support package, how likely is it that they perform much better than expected?
This weekend, I've been thinking about the minimum wage debate and the Senate Parliamentarian. Manchin and Sinema oppose overruling the Senate Parliamentarian which would still be a major issue even if Manchin and Sinema supported the $15 minimum wage. AOC and the Squad want to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian. If this ends in a stalemate, the bill will at least delayed. Is this the hill Democrats want to die on?
I suspect that, if the votes were really there for the $15 minimum wage, there'd be the votes to end/refine the filibuster. Unhappily, it's the underlying policy that too many Dems are not sold on.
The public seems to want reform..hmm..what kind of reform? Devil's in the details..Republican legislatures want to reform mail in voting by making it go away, disenfranchising those who are low income and can't miss work to go to the polls. Progressives think they want student loan reform, but doesn't that benefit higher income borrowers more? I think what we want is the ability to trust our institutions again. Do you think that's possible?
Full disclosure: I'm not a paying subscriber so I haven't read that link. But I've been decrying the filibuster for what feels like an eternity. Democrats who oppose repeal seem to me to be conflating the cloistered world of the Senate and the journalists who cover it closely with the broader world of 'normie' Americans.
I find it hard to fathom any Republican messaging strategy that would be credible and effective on the American public if the Democrats eliminated the filibuster to, say, pass a standalone $15 minimum wage law. Sure, they could decry "radicalism" and "dictatorship" and whatever else, but they'd have a few problems:
1) This is their one go-to move: call Democrats radical and socialist and dictators. This has diminishing returns, however, especially given how ineffective these tropes have generally been when deployed against Biden.
2) Raising the minimum wage is popular. If the Democrats repealed the filibuster to pass this, I think the arguments on the Dem side would write themselves: Republicans don't want to help American workers, so we made sure our Democratic majority wouldn't be obstructed from doing so.
3) Fundamentally, the filibuster is a procedural matter, and making procedural arguments falls flat 90% of the time. Just ask Republicans who decried Harry Reid nuking the filibuster for appeals court confirmations in 2013. Just ask Democrats who decried Mitch McConnell for doing it for SCOTUS confirmations in 2017.
In fact, ask Democrats how well their messaging worked out on just about every single procedural 'norm' Trump violated during his time in office: firing James Comey, politicizing the DOJ, undermining the State Department, and on and on. It's notable that, in the 2018 midterms, Dems cleaned house precisely by focusing on the most non-procedural issue possible: Republicans are trying to take away your healthcare.
Process is what you argue when you're losing. So Dems should give Republicans something to argue about.
Some of your favorite data journalism outside of election coverage?
This is a little off-topic, but on the biggest poll numbers today: how much do you make of the CPAC straw poll today? On the one hand, 55% is not a great number for Trump, and 68% is well below his overall number in the GOP. On the other hand, CPAC is obviously a certain slice of the GOP, not really the reddest of the base. Yet you want to say there's something here, that he has lost some of his luster. How to parse this, even if it's just a blip of a data point? It really tees up for all the things that the public does wrongly with polls... yet it may also end up giving us something in hindsight?
What changes have you seen pollsters make to their methodology—if any—and what adjustments would you suggest?
I feel like the conversation about trump vs trumpism and the latter part being the part that hovers over our politics going forward fails to acknowledge the broader conversation about base politics and the right wing media apparatus. The last 20 years on the right went from invading Iraq and Afghanistan, to tea party/ ACA repeal, and then to trump. Fox News basically has dictated the GOP agenda/ talking points/ beliefs for years and in my opinion dictates what the base of the party wants (should acknowledge the revolving door of fox news personalities leaving the network for the WH and vice versa). This definitely is helped by the fact that the party as a whole is definitely more monolithic in terms of geography, race, gender, religion, and educational status, so it's probably easier to have 1 media narrative for the base. I think trumpism just morphs into the next phase which hopefully isn't an insurrection-supportive one.
Do you foresee the upcoming VRA debate as having the biggest potential to move Sinema/Manchin on filibuster reform? I'm trying to follow the "watch what they do, not what they say" philosophy when observing them, but some of their recent extra-fierce doubling down (ie. Sinema sending email replies to constituents going through filibuster history and why she wants to restore it for ALL senate activities) has me concerned if Biden could actually get them onboard and what leverage he would have. The writing is on the wall that something needs to change with the filibuster, but I'm trying to imagine scenarios specifically in the next few months with upcoming bills that could get those two to budge.
I agree with you: the public does definitely want reform, but sadly most of the 'mainstream' media isn't really giving full court press to this issue. I hope that it is simply because the relief bills, covid itself, the cabinet appointees and the insurrection aftermath are still 'top of the pops,' and that soon there will be more focus on how even more of a non-democracy America has become. But until things become a non 'both sides' topic in the media, even with wide public support, it seems that politicians aren't really swayed by polls. And the GOP doesn't appear to be swayed at all by polls. At this point, my hope is that Biden himself comes out pretty soon against the filibuster, and leans on Manchin and & Sinema on this. Tosses them some other bone (big $project, not NT) that they can shout about in their states.
I've been thinking about non-intended consequences of voting rules. 1) If Texas continues to grow by adding Democrats, do we reach a point when winner-take-all means that Dems are advantaged by the electoral college in a close election? 2) In 2020, Democratic presidential primary rules for a 15% threshold, conceived to unify the party around an electable candidate, nearly had the opposite effect, as the many electable candidates were dividing 2/3 of the vote, with the foreseeable consequence that the leader in delegates would be the least electable of the top six. 3)if we use diminishing majority requirements for cloture, how do we avoid encouraging sequential filibusters on the same bill, which otherwise gut the requirements?
I want to find a way to get the president to do a weekly Fireside Chat. It is crucial to own the narrative as a Man of the People.
I agree with Heather Cox Richardson's (historian) "Letters from an American" blog post 2/28. We are being ruled by the minority. GOP lost this election. We represent 41.5 million people than GOP; and, our bills are overwhelmingly supported by the American people across parties. Since the GOP is now the party of "NO" again, it is time that Biden/Schumer clearly state: unless the GOP bargains in good faith, we will end the filibuster. I understand the dangers: 2022 will be here in no time at all. We must keep our seats; and therein lies the problem.
the president put himself personally on the line: if he gets a senate majority, we the people will get the checks. no ifs no ands no buts not maybes. will.
it took a lot of will to get those senators elected and that will was the will of the people and not the entitled white rich. people literally put their lives on the line and got out and stood on line. to vote. it took courage.
and AOC, Sanders, and the whole progressive caucus and their supporters kept the phones ringing and the dollars flowing. where did all that dough come from? during the worst economy during the worst epidemic in a century? sacrifice. real sacrifice. the inside the beltway DC money crowd is not the trough your new senators and members of congress feed from. for fifty years the DNC has abandoned working people for its inside the beltway clique and what do this clique buy us, trent alots and moscow mitch witches. and procedural government to lock out we the people and vote by lobby.
so, when the DNC can't see its own legacy staring us in the face and daring us down there in Florida CPAC after they ransacked Congress and dare to ransack every capitol in the country and already passing voter suppression laws nationwide to guarantee we the people note again ever, where do we go, when the President DNC46 proves its own promise to its rich contuancy, nothing will change when change like never before ever in human history is our only hope ... to survive .. and not more DNC jive ... jazz saxophones and fireside chats with rich rock stars are not the hope we waited for, sacrificed for, some gave our lives for.
1860-1865 400 thousand usa american anti-fa died to save us from race based slavery. 1942-1945 400 thousand usa american anti-fa died to save us from race based slavery. the same slavery that today apple google walmart macdonalds hershey chocolate and every supermarket fish department get their profits from just like the fascists that gave us the electoral college and filibuster and the lobby industry and if #DNC46 can't see where this wind is blowing, #45 is going to look like a White House lawn easter egg hunt
how do we the people survive?
FYI SCOTUS 1819, McCulloch v Maryland " The US is a union of the people, governed by the people, solely for the sake of the people" so it rules that Congress is where the people gather to do the people's business [until bush v gore and citizens united changed that phrase to say rich people only and government by procedural]
My enthusiasm for anything being accomplished during this administration has been curbed to say the least.
Will the actions by the GOP in State legislatures to restrict voting rights be successful -by getting enacted into law, and changing election outcomes- or will there be blow-back?
How big of a political risk is the Biden Admin running by letting in more immigrants from Central America? Allowing in more refugees may be the humanitarian thing to do, but it doesn't often bode well politically for the government that does it. I'm thinking about the reaction to the influx of Syrian refugees into Europe in the middle of the last decade. It gave rise to a lot of far right parties, and some far right governments.
Conventional wisdom seems to say that given midterms dynamics and redistricting, Democrats should expect to lose their House majority in 2022. But with a Democratic administration coming in at such an unusual time (when things are set to improve notably) and about to implement an apparently highly popular fiscal support package, how likely is it that they perform much better than expected?
This weekend, I've been thinking about the minimum wage debate and the Senate Parliamentarian. Manchin and Sinema oppose overruling the Senate Parliamentarian which would still be a major issue even if Manchin and Sinema supported the $15 minimum wage. AOC and the Squad want to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian. If this ends in a stalemate, the bill will at least delayed. Is this the hill Democrats want to die on?
https://www.newsweek.com/progressives-may-delay-sending-1400-stimulus-checks-fight-minimum-wage-hike-1572615
I suspect that, if the votes were really there for the $15 minimum wage, there'd be the votes to end/refine the filibuster. Unhappily, it's the underlying policy that too many Dems are not sold on.
The public seems to want reform..hmm..what kind of reform? Devil's in the details..Republican legislatures want to reform mail in voting by making it go away, disenfranchising those who are low income and can't miss work to go to the polls. Progressives think they want student loan reform, but doesn't that benefit higher income borrowers more? I think what we want is the ability to trust our institutions again. Do you think that's possible?