I just don't think the new Dems want to represent the working-class. I've seen too many comments that bemoan having to care about or "be held hostage to" the less educated, more socially conservative parts of the United States. With the activist class and the shadow players, they come across as being tired of being held back (in their view). I'd like the Enlightenment liberals back. They were my people.
Attempting to paint Trump as an advocate for the rich? Seriously?
In all of US history, there has never been a President, or a Dem Party, more devoted to the well educated and well heeled as Biden, and his current crop of cronies.
DC spent billions, to bail out SV Billionaires, too important to act within FDIC limits, every Iowa farm widow knows.
Joe hands $7500 checks to families earning $225K, or 3 times US median family income, when they buy $80K luxury EVs.
Joe lobbied to forgive the student debt of 26 year old lawyers and doctors, earning $250K together, on their way to middle age incomes, of $500K or more.
Biden has also handed $1 trillion taxpayer dollars, to Dems donors for green schemes, that will do nothing to save the planet. They will help donors pocket millions, before many companies implode, a la Solyndra.
As a result of the above spending, working class Americans are facing gas prices 50% higher, food costs up 37% and electricity up 30%. Biden has literally traded the living standards of the bottom 80% of Americans, to boost those of the top quintile of US earners. Not since the days of the Communist Party, have so many, been economically sacrificed, to help so few.
It's a little late I think for Joe Biden to be concentrating, in shared panic with his handlers, on the disappearing so-called "moderate wing" of the Democratic Party. Plus, he faces the added hurdle of being, to put it mildly, a bit too malleable and uncertain in his fleeting "convictions." (See "ironclad" support for our greatest Mideast ally.)
One thing in defense of Biden is he isn’t getting *nearly* enough credit from voters for his handling of the economy. We have had a quite good (though certainly imperfect) pandemic recovery, and I just read yesterday that even with the pandemic inflation, voters’ wages overall have outpaced that inflation. I understand it would have been ideal for prices to have remained much lower with that wage growth so voters could *really feel* its benefits, but you’re telling me that leads to a double digit advantage for Trump on the economy? Come on…
Yet, I still agree with the main thrust of Ruy’s argument here that he’s long made—the less Biden focuses on the activist wing of his party and centralizes his messaging on working class concerns, the better he will do. Although it seems even if he ran a perfect working class campaign, the inflation from the pandemic has soured enough voters that I think there might be a ceiling for Biden. I also think people perceive him as old and feeble and therefore not in the driver’s seat, even if he messaged better.
Hopefully he can focus in and it will be enough. I’m skeptical of key parts of the Times poll—I highly doubt Biden is down 12 in Nevada, and I highly doubt there is an 8 point swing in Michigan between registered and likely voters. Hoping the debates will help draw a sharper contrast between the two candidates for a lot of working class voters who don’t follow politics much (very frustratingly, I might add).
It’s a sad fact that someone of the likes of Trump is winning right now.
"CBO’s analysis focused on households’ 2019 consumption bundles—that is, baskets of goods and services representing consumption in a typical year before the coronavirus pandemic—to compare households’ purchasing power in 2019 with that in 2023. The agency found that, on average, households’ purchasing power based on those consumption bundles increased over the period but that the effects of inflation varied by income group. Specifically, using two measures of income, CBO found the following:
For households in every quintile (or fifth) of the income distribution, the share of income required to pay for their 2019 consumption bundle decreased, on average, because income grew faster than prices did over that four-year period..."
Getting ready for family wedding, so apologize for asking you to research. What are the dollar amounts of quintiles (ie. top is over $500,000, second is x - $500,000, etc.)? And what percent of the population fits into each one?
I don't know a single person under 26 that thinks they will ever be able to buy a house. Now why would they think that if their purchasing power increased from 4 years ago?
Not trying to evade your question, but I have a grad school presentation to work on at the moment and don't have time to dig into details yet. Will have to revisit when I can, though!
I doubt housing was included in that report. It should be noted that rising housing costs aren't Biden's fault, though. ;-). It does include "owner's equivalent rent" and rent prices, which is notable. You'll have to get back to me about those specifics if you discover them before I do.
The state polls are key. National polls skew with hugely majorities for Trump in red states and Biden in blue states. Numbers get run up in NY, CA, FL, TX, etc. Much focus on working class and ethnic voters. How about suburban and exurban women?
As a suburban mom, I can tell you what we are most worried about, and it's not abortion. It's our kids, as always. Are the schools ideological or not? Do we need to worry about safety in school? Will our kids come home with a social contagion that upends our family and if so, will the state try to get involved? Will there be good colleges to send the kids to? Can we afford private school if we choose to go that way? What do our neighborhoods look like? Are we comfortable with the kids playing outside? Can we keep our way of life? The kids. That's all suburban moms think about. (Not all, but 95%)
I looked over each line in the poll results. If you'll notice, there's a weird even split between abortion all the time, abortion up to a time, and abortion only in certain cases. All of those added together show a large support for abortion, which is 100% true. I support abortion myself, with cut off dates before the fetus can feel pain. Most of us do. In the same poll, though, you'll notice that it doesn't change the vote support for the candidates. The reason for this is because it is an important issue, but it's not the top issue. And, for women who already have kids, those kids will always come first.
I think that's plausible for suburban women *with* kids. I am curious to see what the numbers will be for suburbanites in general, as well as suburban women with and without kids.
For most voters, even voters who are pro-choice, the economy and immigration will be their first concerns. But this will likely be a close election, close elections are won at the margins, and there are a lot of factors at play (how many voters will not vote for either candidate? What will turnout be (higher benefits Trump, lower Biden)? In October, after 5 months of campaigning, whose vulnerabilities will be exposed the most?). Lot of uncertainty going forward.
You're not considering RJK Jr. impact. Despite all the Democrats pushing "democracy" and filing lawsuits to keep him off the ballot, he will be a factor.
I definitely consider him. He will be a big factor.
And I understand the hypocrisy there of wanting to keep him off the ballot. It's a good example of the thorny question of whether the ends justify the means.
Abortion is 100% a State issue. Assuming , after Dobbs, a national abortion law, pro or con, is even constitutionally possible, it would take 60 Senate votes to pass one. That is a practical impossibility.
Brandy is exactly right. Im prochoice. In a world without inflation, great schools, affordable college, and no crime, maybe I vote abortion , in State elections. Considering the current mess, only intergenerational wealthy liberal, urban woman, and 26 year olds who have yet to figure out the ladder has been pulled up, are likely to be so naive.
Especially when women, that concerned with the issue, can just live in a Blue State , that allows access to 40 weeks, and never give the topic another thought.
I think that kind of thinking is where most voters will be. But like I responded to Brandy, in a close election where the margins matter, I am interested to see who swings which way based on what key issue(s).
I take your point about the constitutionality of federal action on abortion, but the only thing standing in the way is the filibuster, which will inevitably go in the near future, most likely by the Democrats. I think it would be wise to reform it first rather than do away with it, but it won't be the worst thing in the world. To prevent wild swings in legislation with the shifts in power, I think it has the potential to force legislators to compromise--functionally what the filibuster is supposed to do, but doesn't.
Thus, Dems will likely do a way with the filibuster once they have enough votes, pass a Roe standard or something close to it, and dare Republicans to walk it back. I think they will, but I think we will end up with a deal being made--either pro-choice in all of America with a federal 15-week ban, or repealing the law and kicking the issue back to the states so certain ones can ban it--right where we are now. Since most abortion take place in the first trimester, I think the latter is more likely.
Even killing the filibuster, does not solve the entire problem. Some Blue States have 40 week access, some have only 16 or 24 week access. Neither is likely to want to assume, the access of the other.
Moreover, some Blue states allow 11 year olds to have abortion with no consent or notification. Some Blue States, require notification, until age 15. Neither is likely to want to change.
These working class numbers are a wake up call, but in the blue wall states that matter (Michigan, Penn, Wisconsin), Biden is either close or winning. But he *has* to hold those three.
Marcia--um, Biden won Nebraska-02 in 2020, so why do you believe he can't win it four years later? He's obviously not going to win all of Nebraska's electoral votes, but winning the 02 District single electoral vote might well put him over the top in the Electoral College!
Well, I'm from Nebraska (Pender), and stay in close touch with what's going on there politically... And Biden's win wasn't an anomaly--Obama won it in 2008, as well, and Don Bacon barely survived Tony Vargas' challenge in 2022... and if Biden were "going to hide in the basement again," why did he challenge Trump to two debates yesterday? That's not exactly "hiding in the basement," is it?
If that comment makes it seem like it, I’m not. I fully understand most voters won’t vote just on that issue. Admittedly I made that comment based on podcasts (reputable) I’ve listened to, but some of that WSJ poll above backs it up—abortion is a top issue for some voters in the swing states.
I’m pro-life (but accept the necessity of political compromise on the issue). It’s just an empirical observation I’m making.
None other than Joe Manchin, Bob Casey, and maybe Jon Tester on the Senate side. Maybe governor Josh Shapiro. If nothing else, I think their approach to governing lends to future compromises.
Manchin isn't in play but the Democrat running (Glenn Eliott) "...set forth his view that women have the right to make their own healthcare decisions when it comes to abortions."
TESTER STATEMENT ON SUPREME COURT OPINION OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE
U.S. Senator Jon Tester released the following statement after the Supreme Court announced its decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health:
“For nearly 50 years, women have been able to make their own healthcare decisions without interference from the government. The Supreme Court’s ruling now means women and doctors will be put in jail when exercising this long-held right in states across the country. No judge or politician should be telling women how to live their lives or undermining their fundamental right to privacy.”
Tester is a strong supporter of Women’s Health Protection Act, which would guarantee the right to privacy for women making personal healthcare decisions.
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) released the following statement on the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
“Today’s decision upends almost a half century of legal precedent and rips away a constitutional right that generations of women have known their entire lives. This dangerous ruling won’t end abortions in this country, but it will put women’s lives at risk. And make no mistake—this is not the end goal, it’s just the beginning. Republicans in Congress want to pass federal legislation to completely ban abortion. Our daughters and granddaughters should not grow up with fewer rights than their mothers.”
Sure, lots will happen between now and then, that's a given, but to reiterate the bet, it's very simple: if Biden wins NE-02 (again!), I win the bet and you buy lunch; if Trump wins NE-02, you win the bet and I buy lunch! But you decide in advance where we go (now would be a good time), I'm good wherever.
But what does the Hunt, Cavanaugh, Blood exercise have to do with Biden? I can understand why state senators might be somewhat affected, but I don't see why Biden would--please explain!
Two other things: how do you see independent Dan Osborn's race against Republican incumbent Deb Fischer?
I just don't think the new Dems want to represent the working-class. I've seen too many comments that bemoan having to care about or "be held hostage to" the less educated, more socially conservative parts of the United States. With the activist class and the shadow players, they come across as being tired of being held back (in their view). I'd like the Enlightenment liberals back. They were my people.
Attempting to paint Trump as an advocate for the rich? Seriously?
In all of US history, there has never been a President, or a Dem Party, more devoted to the well educated and well heeled as Biden, and his current crop of cronies.
DC spent billions, to bail out SV Billionaires, too important to act within FDIC limits, every Iowa farm widow knows.
Joe hands $7500 checks to families earning $225K, or 3 times US median family income, when they buy $80K luxury EVs.
Joe lobbied to forgive the student debt of 26 year old lawyers and doctors, earning $250K together, on their way to middle age incomes, of $500K or more.
Biden has also handed $1 trillion taxpayer dollars, to Dems donors for green schemes, that will do nothing to save the planet. They will help donors pocket millions, before many companies implode, a la Solyndra.
As a result of the above spending, working class Americans are facing gas prices 50% higher, food costs up 37% and electricity up 30%. Biden has literally traded the living standards of the bottom 80% of Americans, to boost those of the top quintile of US earners. Not since the days of the Communist Party, have so many, been economically sacrificed, to help so few.
It's a little late I think for Joe Biden to be concentrating, in shared panic with his handlers, on the disappearing so-called "moderate wing" of the Democratic Party. Plus, he faces the added hurdle of being, to put it mildly, a bit too malleable and uncertain in his fleeting "convictions." (See "ironclad" support for our greatest Mideast ally.)
I agree. In his effort to be too placating to the Left, it makes his statements of conviction look weak.
This is very true.
One thing in defense of Biden is he isn’t getting *nearly* enough credit from voters for his handling of the economy. We have had a quite good (though certainly imperfect) pandemic recovery, and I just read yesterday that even with the pandemic inflation, voters’ wages overall have outpaced that inflation. I understand it would have been ideal for prices to have remained much lower with that wage growth so voters could *really feel* its benefits, but you’re telling me that leads to a double digit advantage for Trump on the economy? Come on…
Yet, I still agree with the main thrust of Ruy’s argument here that he’s long made—the less Biden focuses on the activist wing of his party and centralizes his messaging on working class concerns, the better he will do. Although it seems even if he ran a perfect working class campaign, the inflation from the pandemic has soured enough voters that I think there might be a ceiling for Biden. I also think people perceive him as old and feeble and therefore not in the driver’s seat, even if he messaged better.
Hopefully he can focus in and it will be enough. I’m skeptical of key parts of the Times poll—I highly doubt Biden is down 12 in Nevada, and I highly doubt there is an 8 point swing in Michigan between registered and likely voters. Hoping the debates will help draw a sharper contrast between the two candidates for a lot of working class voters who don’t follow politics much (very frustratingly, I might add).
It’s a sad fact that someone of the likes of Trump is winning right now.
" I just read yesterday that even with the pandemic inflation, voters’ wages overall have outpaced that inflation..." Really? Source?
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60166
"CBO’s analysis focused on households’ 2019 consumption bundles—that is, baskets of goods and services representing consumption in a typical year before the coronavirus pandemic—to compare households’ purchasing power in 2019 with that in 2023. The agency found that, on average, households’ purchasing power based on those consumption bundles increased over the period but that the effects of inflation varied by income group. Specifically, using two measures of income, CBO found the following:
For households in every quintile (or fifth) of the income distribution, the share of income required to pay for their 2019 consumption bundle decreased, on average, because income grew faster than prices did over that four-year period..."
Getting ready for family wedding, so apologize for asking you to research. What are the dollar amounts of quintiles (ie. top is over $500,000, second is x - $500,000, etc.)? And what percent of the population fits into each one?
I don't know a single person under 26 that thinks they will ever be able to buy a house. Now why would they think that if their purchasing power increased from 4 years ago?
Not trying to evade your question, but I have a grad school presentation to work on at the moment and don't have time to dig into details yet. Will have to revisit when I can, though!
I doubt housing was included in that report. It should be noted that rising housing costs aren't Biden's fault, though. ;-). It does include "owner's equivalent rent" and rent prices, which is notable. You'll have to get back to me about those specifics if you discover them before I do.
life!
Tell me about it!
The state polls are key. National polls skew with hugely majorities for Trump in red states and Biden in blue states. Numbers get run up in NY, CA, FL, TX, etc. Much focus on working class and ethnic voters. How about suburban and exurban women?
As a suburban mom, I can tell you what we are most worried about, and it's not abortion. It's our kids, as always. Are the schools ideological or not? Do we need to worry about safety in school? Will our kids come home with a social contagion that upends our family and if so, will the state try to get involved? Will there be good colleges to send the kids to? Can we afford private school if we choose to go that way? What do our neighborhoods look like? Are we comfortable with the kids playing outside? Can we keep our way of life? The kids. That's all suburban moms think about. (Not all, but 95%)
Yes, all important factors for determining a suburban moms voting decision. And not all suburban moms oppose the Supreme Court decision.
Naturally, and I believe you.
What do you make of this? https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/abortion-poll-trump-swing-state-voters-2024-election-3e12f57c#:~:text=A%20recent%20Wall%20Street%20Journal,motivating%20issue%20for%20the%20group.?st=t525nlhap4ts32q
I looked over each line in the poll results. If you'll notice, there's a weird even split between abortion all the time, abortion up to a time, and abortion only in certain cases. All of those added together show a large support for abortion, which is 100% true. I support abortion myself, with cut off dates before the fetus can feel pain. Most of us do. In the same poll, though, you'll notice that it doesn't change the vote support for the candidates. The reason for this is because it is an important issue, but it's not the top issue. And, for women who already have kids, those kids will always come first.
I think that's plausible for suburban women *with* kids. I am curious to see what the numbers will be for suburbanites in general, as well as suburban women with and without kids.
For most voters, even voters who are pro-choice, the economy and immigration will be their first concerns. But this will likely be a close election, close elections are won at the margins, and there are a lot of factors at play (how many voters will not vote for either candidate? What will turnout be (higher benefits Trump, lower Biden)? In October, after 5 months of campaigning, whose vulnerabilities will be exposed the most?). Lot of uncertainty going forward.
You're not considering RJK Jr. impact. Despite all the Democrats pushing "democracy" and filing lawsuits to keep him off the ballot, he will be a factor.
I definitely consider him. He will be a big factor.
And I understand the hypocrisy there of wanting to keep him off the ballot. It's a good example of the thorny question of whether the ends justify the means.
Abortion is 100% a State issue. Assuming , after Dobbs, a national abortion law, pro or con, is even constitutionally possible, it would take 60 Senate votes to pass one. That is a practical impossibility.
Brandy is exactly right. Im prochoice. In a world without inflation, great schools, affordable college, and no crime, maybe I vote abortion , in State elections. Considering the current mess, only intergenerational wealthy liberal, urban woman, and 26 year olds who have yet to figure out the ladder has been pulled up, are likely to be so naive.
Especially when women, that concerned with the issue, can just live in a Blue State , that allows access to 40 weeks, and never give the topic another thought.
I think that kind of thinking is where most voters will be. But like I responded to Brandy, in a close election where the margins matter, I am interested to see who swings which way based on what key issue(s).
I take your point about the constitutionality of federal action on abortion, but the only thing standing in the way is the filibuster, which will inevitably go in the near future, most likely by the Democrats. I think it would be wise to reform it first rather than do away with it, but it won't be the worst thing in the world. To prevent wild swings in legislation with the shifts in power, I think it has the potential to force legislators to compromise--functionally what the filibuster is supposed to do, but doesn't.
Thus, Dems will likely do a way with the filibuster once they have enough votes, pass a Roe standard or something close to it, and dare Republicans to walk it back. I think they will, but I think we will end up with a deal being made--either pro-choice in all of America with a federal 15-week ban, or repealing the law and kicking the issue back to the states so certain ones can ban it--right where we are now. Since most abortion take place in the first trimester, I think the latter is more likely.
Even killing the filibuster, does not solve the entire problem. Some Blue States have 40 week access, some have only 16 or 24 week access. Neither is likely to want to assume, the access of the other.
Moreover, some Blue states allow 11 year olds to have abortion with no consent or notification. Some Blue States, require notification, until age 15. Neither is likely to want to change.
It's going to be a messy, thorny issue for sure. And it should be decided by legislators for the people to hold them accountable.
These working class numbers are a wake up call, but in the blue wall states that matter (Michigan, Penn, Wisconsin), Biden is either close or winning. But he *has* to hold those three.
AND win Nebraska-02, also, or Trump will win the Contingent Election decision, and then we'll be screwed...
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/danger-in-plain-sight-the-risk-of-triggering-a-contingent-election-in-2024
Biden is not going to win Nebraska 0-2. The Democrat party is toothless, they can't even put forward viable state-wide candidates.
Marcia--um, Biden won Nebraska-02 in 2020, so why do you believe he can't win it four years later? He's obviously not going to win all of Nebraska's electoral votes, but winning the 02 District single electoral vote might well put him over the top in the Electoral College!
I live here and Biden's win in 2020 was an anomaly. All indications are that he's going to hide in the basement again -- he's a terrible candidate.
Well, I'm from Nebraska (Pender), and stay in close touch with what's going on there politically... And Biden's win wasn't an anomaly--Obama won it in 2008, as well, and Don Bacon barely survived Tony Vargas' challenge in 2022... and if Biden were "going to hide in the basement again," why did he challenge Trump to two debates yesterday? That's not exactly "hiding in the basement," is it?
😟
Biden will win the suburbs no doubt because of the abortion issue.
You really are putting all your eggs in the abortion basket. It's a little off-putting to us "normies,:
If that comment makes it seem like it, I’m not. I fully understand most voters won’t vote just on that issue. Admittedly I made that comment based on podcasts (reputable) I’ve listened to, but some of that WSJ poll above backs it up—abortion is a top issue for some voters in the swing states.
I’m pro-life (but accept the necessity of political compromise on the issue). It’s just an empirical observation I’m making.
Which swing states list abortion as the #1 issue? It takes two to compromise -- name me one Democrat who is willing to compromise on this issue.
https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/abortion-poll-trump-swing-state-voters-2024-election-3e12f57c
None other than Joe Manchin, Bob Casey, and maybe Jon Tester on the Senate side. Maybe governor Josh Shapiro. If nothing else, I think their approach to governing lends to future compromises.
Manchin isn't in play but the Democrat running (Glenn Eliott) "...set forth his view that women have the right to make their own healthcare decisions when it comes to abortions."
TESTER STATEMENT ON SUPREME COURT OPINION OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE
U.S. Senator Jon Tester released the following statement after the Supreme Court announced its decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health:
“For nearly 50 years, women have been able to make their own healthcare decisions without interference from the government. The Supreme Court’s ruling now means women and doctors will be put in jail when exercising this long-held right in states across the country. No judge or politician should be telling women how to live their lives or undermining their fundamental right to privacy.”
Tester is a strong supporter of Women’s Health Protection Act, which would guarantee the right to privacy for women making personal healthcare decisions.
Casey Statement on Supreme Court Overturning Roe
PUBLISHED: JUNE 24, 2022
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) released the following statement on the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
“Today’s decision upends almost a half century of legal precedent and rips away a constitutional right that generations of women have known their entire lives. This dangerous ruling won’t end abortions in this country, but it will put women’s lives at risk. And make no mistake—this is not the end goal, it’s just the beginning. Republicans in Congress want to pass federal legislation to completely ban abortion. Our daughters and granddaughters should not grow up with fewer rights than their mothers.”
Okay, you're on, Marcia!
Sure, lots will happen between now and then, that's a given, but to reiterate the bet, it's very simple: if Biden wins NE-02 (again!), I win the bet and you buy lunch; if Trump wins NE-02, you win the bet and I buy lunch! But you decide in advance where we go (now would be a good time), I'm good wherever.
But what does the Hunt, Cavanaugh, Blood exercise have to do with Biden? I can understand why state senators might be somewhat affected, but I don't see why Biden would--please explain!
Two other things: how do you see independent Dan Osborn's race against Republican incumbent Deb Fischer?
And, my contact info is: Dreysamuelson3@gmail.com
605-906-2023
Which is a more direct way to communicate rather than this website.