There’s not much polling news this week, but here are two things I’m thinking about:
The big thing you need to know is that the Biden White House is using public opinion to try to convince Republicans in Congress to pass its infrastructure bill, which probably won’t work. This is still the “right” strategy if you’re a fan of majoritarian democracy. My average of polls shows that around 64% of people support Biden’s infrastructure bill, which should be more than enough to translate into a legislative majority, but might not.
Other polls suggest that opposition to the covid-19 vaccine among the 20% or so of adults who say they won’t get the shot runs deep. It is caused both by broader skepticism of institutions and a underestimation of the severity of the virus.
Identifying where the public stands on infrastructure spending, and why many people are opposed to vaccination, can help the government tailor its policy response.
The Biden White House will likely not get any Republican votes for an infrastructure bill. The major problem is Joe Manchin and his views on the filibuster and bipartisanship, so I'm not sure it will ultimately depend on how well the bill polls. Manchin apparently would rather have gridlock over effective government that happens to be partisan. It has been basically impossible to have effective government that is bipartisan over the last 12 years.
For the good of the country, I wish Trump got vaccinated publicly. It might have reduced skepticism of vaccines.
Eliot: One interesting thing about Manchin is that if you runs regression predicting support for infrastructure spending by Trump vote, he probably “should” vote no based on the conservatism of his constituents — but there are a ton of Republicans from more moderate states that should vote yes!
I think you can make a case that it’s his duty to other Democrats to vote to the bill, but what does that mean for delegate representation in the Senate? Only a question — I think you know what side I take.
One problem with the way the Senate works with a plurality electoral system is that it gives the marginal majority senator an enormous amount of power over legislation. Regardless of your politics, what we’re seeing with Manchin seems like a pretty severe imbalance for a chamber of 100 supposedly individual actors.
If he were another man, he would use his singular power for the good of the nation. If he were a more insightful man, with a firmer grasp of history, he would not hesitate to see his path forward. As he is what he is, we must find ways to shift him. Rather like shifting the Titanic from the bottom. If it were my mandate to move him, I would take a psychic walk in his being, find his best points, appeal to the better angels of his nature. . . he is one conflicted senator, and time is not on his side.
I read today that Nancy Pelosi is supporting dividing the infrastructure bill into two bills. I think it would be a good thing for the country to have a truly bipartisan bill of this importance pass. On vaccines, a great incentive for anti-vaxxers and general idiots would be to ban them from accessing ANY healthcare without proof of vaccine or antibodies. Insurance companies spend millions of dollars lobbying to find ways to deny claims, a great way to save money, no shot, no coverage. Problem solved.
Hi Elliott,
The Biden White House will likely not get any Republican votes for an infrastructure bill. The major problem is Joe Manchin and his views on the filibuster and bipartisanship, so I'm not sure it will ultimately depend on how well the bill polls. Manchin apparently would rather have gridlock over effective government that happens to be partisan. It has been basically impossible to have effective government that is bipartisan over the last 12 years.
For the good of the country, I wish Trump got vaccinated publicly. It might have reduced skepticism of vaccines.
-Elliot
Eliot: One interesting thing about Manchin is that if you runs regression predicting support for infrastructure spending by Trump vote, he probably “should” vote no based on the conservatism of his constituents — but there are a ton of Republicans from more moderate states that should vote yes!
And so "should" needs to be re-evaluated.
I think you can make a case that it’s his duty to other Democrats to vote to the bill, but what does that mean for delegate representation in the Senate? Only a question — I think you know what side I take.
Yeah. I think Joe Manchin is one of those men who sees that he has had power thrust upon him, but has no clue what to do with it.
One problem with the way the Senate works with a plurality electoral system is that it gives the marginal majority senator an enormous amount of power over legislation. Regardless of your politics, what we’re seeing with Manchin seems like a pretty severe imbalance for a chamber of 100 supposedly individual actors.
If he were another man, he would use his singular power for the good of the nation. If he were a more insightful man, with a firmer grasp of history, he would not hesitate to see his path forward. As he is what he is, we must find ways to shift him. Rather like shifting the Titanic from the bottom. If it were my mandate to move him, I would take a psychic walk in his being, find his best points, appeal to the better angels of his nature. . . he is one conflicted senator, and time is not on his side.
I read today that Nancy Pelosi is supporting dividing the infrastructure bill into two bills. I think it would be a good thing for the country to have a truly bipartisan bill of this importance pass. On vaccines, a great incentive for anti-vaxxers and general idiots would be to ban them from accessing ANY healthcare without proof of vaccine or antibodies. Insurance companies spend millions of dollars lobbying to find ways to deny claims, a great way to save money, no shot, no coverage. Problem solved.