Friday, October 22, 2021

The Demographics of Tanking: I Won't Say I Told You So...

But I told you so. As Biden's approval rating has tanked it hasn't equally tanked across all demographic groups. One of the sharpest declines has been among Hispanics, an absolutely vital group for the Democrats in 2022 and 2024 and one among whom they already lost considerable ground in 2020.
538 has very strong data on this, aggregated across all available public surveys:
"Garnering support from independents is important because it helps a president achieve overall popularity, but support from the base is vital too — and it’s another spot where Biden is in trouble. While his job approval rating among Democrats remains very high, it has dipped from 90 percent in the early summer to the low 80s now, with signs of deteriorating support among Black and Hispanic Americans, who are more likely to identify as Democratic than white Americans. As the chart below shows, there has been a drop in support for Biden among all three racial and ethnic groups we measured, but the drop among Hispanics — from the high 60s to slightly below 50 percent — marks Biden’s most precipitous decline.
Recent polling suggests that Hispanic approval of Biden’s handling of the pandemic and the economy has fallen sharply. The latest poll from The Economist/YouGov found just 45 percent of Hispanics approved of Biden’s handling of the pandemic, compared with 65 percent in early June. And Politico/Morning Consult’s new survey found Hispanic approval of Biden’s handling of the economy has dropped to 42 percent, compared with 60 percent back in June. Hispanics are also frustrated with how Biden has dealt with immigration — long one of Biden’s weakest issues in the public’s eyes — and although it isn’t the most important issue for Hispanic voters, it is often a highly salient one. Earlier this month, Quinnipiac University found that only 23 percent of Hispanic Americans approved of Biden’s work on immigration, down from 49 percent in late May. Even if that might be on the low end for Biden, the new Politico/Morning Consult survey also found him performing more poorly on the issue among Hispanic voters, as just 40 percent approved, compared with 51 percent in June.
Biden has lost ground among almost every single demographic group over the past few months, but independents and Hispanics stick out as two key groups where Biden’s standing has especially faltered. For Democrats looking ahead to the 2022 midterms, Biden’s overall approval rating is concerning enough, but if Biden is struggling to win independents and Hispanics, that could snuff out any hope Democrats have of holding either chamber of Congress."
For further food for thought about the Hispanic vote and why Democrats seem to be losing altitude among them, you could consult my two pieces on the Hispanic vote that I wrote for The Liberal Patriot. They are perhaps particularly useful for thinking about the Hispanic working class vote and why that drove poor Democratic performance in 2020 and is likely driving the current approval decline.
May be an image of text that says 'Biden has lost the most ground with Hispanics Biden's approval rating by race during the first nine months of his presidency 00% 90 Black 80 70 Hispanic 60 White 50 og 40 30 Trend February 2021 April June Based on all available crosstab data in public polling ihiyEight August October SOURCE: POLLS'

Thursday, October 21, 2021

What Do You Mean "We", White College-Educated Liberals?

In my latest for The Liberal Patriot, I take a look at the ideological divergence in the Democratic coalition between white college graduates and the nonwhite working class. It's pretty big! As white college-educated liberals exert ever more influence on the Democratic party brand, this could produce problems for the Democrats' rather thin margins.
"A recent Gallup release confirmed that Democrats now have about as many liberals in the party as moderates or conservatives. That liberalism has been mostly driven by increasing liberalism among white Democrats which has spiked upward 20 points since the early 2000s. White Democrats are now a solidly liberal constituency. Not so black and Hispanic Democrats who are overwhelmingly moderate or conservative.
The contrast is particularly striking between college graduate whites and working class (noncollege) nonwhites. Gallup data indicate that two-thirds of white college Democrats are liberal while 70 percent of black working class and two-thirds of Hispanic working class Democrats are moderate or conservative.
Given that Democrats are becoming more and more dependent on the white college vote—the key group that delivered their victory in 2020—while actually losing ground among nonwhite working class voters, this ideological mismatch between the two groups of Democrats could assume ever-greater importance in future elections, depending on which group has the upper hand in determining the Democratic party “brand”.
Read the whole thing at The Liberal Patriot....and subscribe!

Wednesday, October 20, 2021

Just Pass the Damn Infrastructure Bill Already!

I am very dubious anything has been gained by dragging out this process whereby the infrastructure bill has been held hostage to the reconciliation bill/framewark/whatever. Progressives were worried that without this leverage the $3.5 trillion proposed package might even be cut in half. And now....well, the package looks like it's gonna about be cut in half. Good thing we want through this endless shambolic process that was inevitably processed by voters in the inattentive middle--which is gazillions of voters--as Democrats just want to spend a bunch of money! Great strategy.
Peter Juul in The Liberal Patriot:
"It’s easy to question the wisdom of the Biden administration’s overall strategy to tie passage of the $1 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to its proposed $3.5 trillion Build Back Better reconciliation package. President Biden fell into this approach at the end of the day despite the obvious warning signs from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) that proposed reconciliation legislation would need to be pared back significantly. The end result has been the political trainwreck that’s unfolded in Washington over the past month and a half as Democrats scramble to keep their unwieldy coalition together long enough to pass both bills by the end of the month.
No matter how the Biden administration and Congressional Democrats arrived at this point, however, it’s now imperative that they get their infrastructure legislation passed as soon as possible. They should take the win and keep negotiating on the reconciliation package with Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) as long as necessary. It makes no sense to hold infrastructure legislation hostage to talks on a still-undefined spending package that will inevitably fail to meet the expectations of many in Congress....
It’s been clear for months now that the ambitious reconciliation package plans formulated by the Biden administration and House Democrats would inevitably be cut back by Manchin and other Democrats in the Senate. There’s no reason to continue holding infrastructure legislation hostage to a reconciliation plan that’s still in flux and subject to ongoing negotiations. Better for the administration to take the win and keep talking on reconciliation than risk both bills – all while undermining America’s negotiating position at Glasgow and threatening to hand political ammunition to Trump-style populists.
Similarly, it’s always been unrealistic to expect Congress to pass legislation on the scale of the New Deal or Great Society given the slim Democratic majority in the House and a fifty-fifty Senate. If not for unexpected run-off wins in both Georgia Senate races, moreover, the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress wouldn’t even be having these discussions to begin with. In the end, the logic to passing infrastructure as soon as possible boils down to this simple calculus."
Matt Yglesias on his substack:
"Now that progressives have gone this far with the linkage stuff, they can’t back down or back out of it.
But I do want to say that I think this whole strategy was misguided. Not only is the BIF a good and important piece of legislation on its own, but its bipartisan nature could and should have been a medium-sized political win.
For starters, it’s inherently good for an incumbent president to have a nice bipartisan, bicameral signing ceremony to invite people to and to put on television. But for Biden especially, it would have been a nice win specifically because he talked so much during the campaign about his desire to “unite the country,” and so many people on the left derided that promise. A BIF passing the house and being signed into law would’ve generated a couple of nice news cycles for Biden about how he’d defied the haters and done the thing people said was impossible. And in my view, a Joe Biden riding a good news cycle would have more leverage vis-a-vis the holdout moderates in Congress than a Biden mired in weird legislative arcana.
After all, the leverage that progressives think they have here is illusory. To the extent that moderates really want the BIF, one of the big things they wanted from it was the good vibes. Being involved in bipartisan bills is a good look for anyone in a difficult race. But progressives have already killed the good vibes via the linkage. So not just Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, but also Jacky Rosen and Maggie Hasan and everyone else who’d like an upbeat news cycle about bipartisan comity have already taken the L. All this is actually doing is making everyone feel more nervous about 2022 and Biden’s increasingly weak political standing.
The right thing to do would have been to pass the BIF quickly, and then work with Manchin and Sinema quietly on crafting a reconciliation package that could be swiftly unveiled and passed. At the end of the day, they are the deciders, and that was always going to be the case.
What’s done is done. But it’s unfortunate that as a consequence of this tactical move, it’s become de rigueur to talk down the bill itself. A lot of folks could really use lead out of their water or access to high-speed internet or a toxic waste clean-up in their communities. And there’s a real chance here to improve some major dysfunctional aspects of American transportation policy. I want to pass the other stuff, too, but this is a good bill."
Bill Scher on the Washington Monthly site:
"Senator Bernie Sanders’s vent[ed] about his obstinate moderate colleagues Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. “It is wrong, it is really not playing fair,” said Sanders, “that one or two people think that they should be able to stop what 48 members of the Democratic Caucus want, what the American people want.”
Sanders’s no-fair cry has [not] worked out...According to Politico’s daily “Playbook” newsletter, Sinema recently told a colleague that “I have already told the White House what I am willing to do and what I’m not willing to do. I’m not mysterious. It’s not that I can’t make up my mind. I communicated it to them in detail. They just don’t like what they’re hearing.” And The New York Times reported that “Manchin . . . has told the White House that he strongly opposes the clean electricity program,” intended to be the centerpiece of the Build Back Better bill’s climate sections, so “White House staffers are now rewriting the legislation without that climate provision.”
Wailing about fairness is emblematic of the impotent strategy progressives have deployed to steamroll Manchin and Sinema. The two moderates are treated as adversaries and singled out for blame and shame. The prized bipartisan infrastructure bill has been taken hostage. Humiliating leaks appear in the press, painting Manchin and Sinema as corporate lackeys. Confrontations in personal spaces have been tacitly or explicitly encouraged. In Sinema’s case, a primary challenge has been threatened.
And yet, Manchin and Sinema don’t budge. The negotiation process remains largely focused on winning their approval by figuring out how much to cut down the overall price tag and determining how many progressive proposals should be dumped or trimmed. The moderates’ leverage remains intact."
So there we are. The negotiating realities have not really changed. But we're months further down the road without anything to show for it other than a thoroughly confused public. Let's hope the latest hints of a negotiation endgame are for real. And just pass the damn infrastructure bill OK?

Tuesday, October 19, 2021

Like a Hanging, This Should Concentrate the Mind

The Democrats are dragging things out. And it's not helping. Thermostatic reaction is setting in. Philip Bump at the Post has the relevant data, along with a lot of very nice charts.
"On Thursday, Gallup released new polling asking an interesting question: Is government doing too much? In 2020, with the pandemic emerging and the Trump administration’s response lacking in many ways, Americans were more likely to say they wanted the government to do more, by a 13-point margin. This year, a majority say the government’s trying to do too much. That position has a nine-point advantage, a flip of 22 points. Among Democrats, the flip was 10 points, and among Republicans, 13.
Among independents, the shift was 37 points.
Even within Biden’s party, polling from CNN indicates that the further-left part of the caucus isn’t overwhelmingly winning the big-picture debate. Democrats and independents who lean to the party broadly support the specific components of the Democratic bill. But asked whether it’s progressives or moderates who are helping the party more, Democrats were about split. Among independents who lean left, the moderates held a double-digit advantage.
None of this means that passing Biden’s full spending bill would hurt the party or that it wouldn’t help. This also does not mean that the party should fret over generic-ballot polling 13 months before the elections; in fact, it shouldn’t. But those advocating for Biden to leverage his mandate to go big on spending need to recognize that the mandate has eroded, and that the large group of independents is skeptical of Biden and the broad strokes of his policy agenda, even if they endorse the specifics."

Monday, October 18, 2021

The Democrats' "Factory Town" Problem

A couple of weeks ago Jonathan Martin wrote a big piece on a forthcoming report by Democratic strategists Richard Martin, Mike Lux and David Wilhelm on where and how much Democrats have lost ground in the Midwest--for their purposes the Great Lakes region plus Missouri and Iowa. No report yet but I thought I'd flag it here since it sounds like it should be very informative.
The focus of the report is the "factory towns"--midsize and small counties in these states--where Democratic losses have been concentrated. Their point:
"The share of the Democratic presidential vote in the Midwest declined most precipitously between 2012 and 2020 in counties that experienced the steepest losses in manufacturing and union jobs and saw declines in health care, according to a new report to be released this month.
The party’s worsening performance in the region’s midsize communities — often overlooked places like Chippewa Falls, Wis., and Bay City, Mich. — poses a dire threat to Democrats, the report warns.
Nationally and in the Midwest, Democratic gains in large metropolitan areas have offset their losses in rural areas. And while the party’s struggles in the industrial Midwest have been well-chronicled, the 82-page report explicitly links Democratic decline in the region that elected Donald J. Trump in 2016 to the sort of deindustrialization that has weakened liberal parties around the world.
“We cannot elect Democrats up and down the ballot, let alone protect our governing majorities, if we don’t address those losses,” wrote Richard J. Martin, an Iowa-based market researcher and Democratic campaign veteran, in the report titled “Factory Towns.”...
“If things continue to get worse for us in small and midsize, working-class counties, we can give up any hope of winning the battleground states of the industrial heartland,” writes Mr. Martin."
This is all quite plausible I think--I have written pieces that have made not dissimilar points. But I am anxious to see the actual report which, reporter Martin informs us, is full of "arresting data, vivid graphs and deepening red maps".
I'll write some more about it whenever it finally shows up.

Saturday, October 16, 2021

Demonizing Moderates Is a Really, Really Bad Idea

One more for the "what country do progressives think they're living in?" file. Anne Kim at the Washington Monthly has the sad tale.
"As one of just seven Democrats from House districts that voted for Donald Trump in 2020, veteran Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin is exactly the sort of candidate Democrats need to keep their majority in next year’s midterms. A former college football star and an avid hunter, Kind is a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, a longtime chair of the moderate New Democrat Coalition, and a vocal champion of the dairy farmers in the sprawling, mostly rural district in western Wisconsin he represents.
But after 13 terms in Congress, Kind has called it quits. “Truth is, I’ve run out of gas,” the 58-year-old said when he announced his retirement earlier this summer. He described himself as someone who “tried to be reasonable, pragmatic, thoughtful” and “worked hard to try to find common ground with my colleagues.”
Kind also called himself a “dying breed in public service,” which could not be more apt.
The moderate Democrat’s likely successor is Trump-endorsed Republican Derrick Van Orden, a former Navy SEAL and café owner who challenged Kind in 2020 and lost by only about 10,000 votes....
Wisconsin’s Third District has grown more conservative. While its voters supported Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama, Trump has not only won it twice but also increased his margin in 2020. As a result, Van Orden will likely join a growing caucus of Trump loyalists in the House that includes Marjorie Taylor Greene (of Jewish space laser fame), Nazi-curious Madison Cawthorn, and gun-toting COVID denier Lauren Boebert. It’s hard to believe that Van Orden could occupy the seat once held by Republican Steve Gunderson, Kind’s predecessor, one of Congress’s first openly gay members, who was known for his bipartisanship.
The departure of a moderate like Kind might be cheered by some progressives. No doubt they’ve been frustrated, often with good cause, by moderates like Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. “Manchema” have not only insisted on slashing President Biden’s proposed $3.5 trillion spending package, they’ve also been coy about their bottom line and demanded deal killers like the Hyde Amendment banning federal funds for abortion (Manchin) and no hikes in corporate income tax rates (Sinema).
Nevertheless, Kind’s retirement should be alarming to all Democrats, especially since he’s not the only swing-district Democrat bolting. In addition to Kind, the moderate Democrats heading for the hills in 2022 so far include Illinois’s Cheri Bustos, Texas’s Filemon Vila, and Arizona’s Ann Kirkpatrick. More are likely to come. Their departures show how miserable life has become for Democratic moderates—not just for the coy sorts like Sinema, but for head-down-sleeves-up sorts like Kind. They’re walking away from tough districts, expensive primaries from fellow Democrats, and a Republican Party that often seems to have purged its sane members. The result, however, is a Democratic majority at risk....
Democrats need to keep in mind that the stakes in 2022 are much bigger than the policy debates now dividing them, and that the preservation of the caucus should be their highest priority. Rather than vilifying the party’s moderates, Democrats should be working to grow their ranks."
This seems stunningly obvious to me. But it does seem to have escaped the notice of many progressives, including politicians who represent +30 Democratic lean districts. Funny thing about that.