https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/01/e-j-dionnes-bad-advice-to-democrats.php E.J. DIONNE’S BAD ADVICE TO DEMOCRATS POSTED ON JANUARY 3, 2022 BY PAUL MIRENGOFF E.J. Dionne advises Democrats on how they can avoid a “thumpin'” in this year’s congressional elections. Notice that Dionne isn’t offering a prescription for retaining a majority in the House. He’s merely talking about how not to “get crushed.” Dionne thereby exhibits realism. However, the same cannot be said of his strategy for escaping a shellacking. Dionne says the Democrats’ best hope is to make the 2022 election democracy. This means pounding home what he sees as the implications of the January 6 riot and passing so-called democracy bills. If this is how the Dems intend to save the day or minimize their losses, they have little hope of doing either. It’s unrealistic to expect voters to forgive Democrats for inflation, runaway violent crime, the border crisis, failure to deliver on covid-related promises, and failure to deliver the center-left, unifying presidency Joe Biden promised, just because a few hundred people stormed the Capitol and a much smaller number indulged in violence. Consider this: The man on whose behalf the Capitol was stormed and who still refuses to admit he lost the 2020 election now runs ahead of Biden by three points in national polling. That wouldn’t be the case if voters viewed Trump as a threat to democracy and were swayed by such a perceived threat. Moreover, Trump isn’t on the ballot in 2022. So even voters who consider him a threat aren’t likely to view their GOP congressman or the Republican challenging their Democratic congressman that way in most cases. Trying to persuade them to see Republican candidates in this light is a fool’s errand. What about “democracy bills”? They consist mostly of doing away with safeguards against voting fraud. Most voters don’t view ensuring election integrity to be anti-Democratic. They hold the contrary, and correct, view. That’s what polls show. The Democrats may not be destined for a thumping this year. But if they avoid it, they will do so thanks to events — e.g. a significant reduction in the rate of inflation and a significant receding of the coronavirus — not by portraying Republicans as enemies of democracy.
First, credit to you for finding an actual quote. I will happily stand corrected. Now, all that being said, Manchin requesting here is essentially a poison pill. Due to the arbitrary limits that he and Sinema have set on this bill’s cost and (specifically in her case) the removal of the additional revenue items, forcing these programs to be funded for 10 years would essentially make it impossible to establish any of them at all. He knows this, and contrary to what you claimed, it was not part of his original guidelines that he provided (upon request from Biden) back in July. This is a new barrier he has chosen to establish, and It’s quite clear that his concern is not with the expiration of the benefits but again, with the cost and generally killing the bill altogether. I also want to emphasize that the progressives made a significant number of concessions in the infrastructure bill (all of which came at the expense of the low and middle income constituents) in return for a promise that the infrastructure bill would be used by Biden/Pelosi to get support for the BBB. That promise was broken, and frankly, I wish they had torpedoed the infrastructure bill in order to teach the moderates not to continually **** them over. While I believe that there will be long term benefits to the infrastructure bill, the primary beneficiaries will not be the lower and middle class voters. The BBB however prioritizes these voters and I guarantee it’s passage would strengthen all Democrats’ - moderate and progressive - chances in 2022. As we’ve seen, the infrastructure bill failed to rally Democrat votes and despite what moderates think, it’s not because progressives are bad mouthing it (which they really aren’t when you look at things). but back on topic - I see your defense of Manchin as attributing good faith to him when he’s done nothing but act in bad faith for the entirety of 2021. We’re on the precipice of a world of **** and the GOP takes power in 2022 and 2024, were falling off that cliff.
Democrats Blast Corporate Profits as Inflation Surges Politicians are placing more blame on greedy companies as prices stay high. But booming consumer demand is enabling firms to charge more. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/...rats-corporations.html?searchResultPosition=2 excerpt: Inflation remains rapid as the economy enters 2022, and Democrats have begun pointing to a new culprit for the high and lasting price increases: Greedy corporations. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and the White House spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, have been among those pointing to excessive profits in certain industries as one thing jacking up costs for consumers. They don’t blame overall inflation on price-gouging businesses — but the implication is that higher prices are partly the product of corporate opportunism. The explanation for inflation is the latest in a string Democrats have offered since price gains shot up to uncomfortably high levels last year. It is partly grounded in economic reality, partly in political necessity: Rising prices are burdening and unsettling consumers, making them a liability for a party with a tenuous hold on Congressional control headed into 2022 midterm elections. *** Still, as consumers feel the pinch of higher prices for food, gas and household goods, it’s creating a political messaging problem for Democrats. Lawmakers and the White House had initially argued that fast inflation was a sign that airfares and hotel rates were bouncing back and would fade quickly, but supply chain snarls and booming consumer demand for goods kept them elevated throughout 2021. More recently, price pressures have begun to broaden to service categories, like rent, in which increases tend to be long-lasting — and as wages climb swiftly, it raises the possibility that companies will keep lifting prices to cover their costs. As inflation proves stubbornly sticky, administration officials and prominent lawmakers have refined their message to focus more blame on corporations, especially those in concentrated industries with a handful of powerful firms, like meat processing or gas. Many companies — from car dealerships to beauty stores and beef sellers — are raking in bigger profits as they successfully raise their prices or discount less while still managing to sell as much or more. But economists have pointed out that in many cases, blaming big firms for worsening inflation is overly simplistic. Industries have been relatively concentrated for years, but businesses now have the wherewithal to charge more because consumers are spending strongly. That owes partly to government stimulus checks and other benefits that have put more money in shoppers’ pockets. “It’s what you would fully expect when demand goes up,” said Jason Furman, a Harvard economist and a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration. The laws of supply and demand have not stopped many on the political left from calling companies out. *** But several economists said that, for the most part, blaming business profit seeking for today’s price increases does not make sense. Corporate concentration has been high for years, but inflation had been low for decades. Any rational company would want to raise prices without hurting sales: The pandemic, and the government’s response to it, have given today’s firms the ability to do so. “It is the compound effect of the Covid disruptions and the stimulus package at the same time,” said Thomas Philippon, an economist at New York University who studies corporate concentration. “The firms were always greedy.” While concentration may give companies more ability to capitalize on an unusual moment — perhaps they can react faster as consumer expectations shift — the firms charging more are not all big and dominant. America has plenty of car dealerships. The administration’s policies may be part of the reason that companies are newly managing to charge more without losing business, some economists have argued. Households amassed large saving stockpiles during the pandemic, both because people were stuck at home early on and because the government sent out repeated relief and stimulus checks. Many qualified for expanded unemployment benefits or a more generous Child Tax Credit. Those savings have helped consumers to buy more, even as prices have begun rising. And while people are now spending down their cash piles as support programs expire — and sentiment data shows that they are feeling more and more uncomfortable about the economy as prices climb — rising wages could help to keep consumer spending strong. *** It is hard to tell whether companies will continue to win out. Their costs are also increasing quickly. Climbing production expenses may take time to fully show up in corporate earnings, since companies make forward-looking contracts for parts. In addition, fresh labor contracts containing big pay increases are shaping up only now. “I don’t really see any great evidence that businesses are raising prices by any more than you would expect, given the rising cost of inputs and labor,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. “There’s a distinction to be made here between pricing power — passing on a cost increase, and pricing power — widening a margin.” more at the link
Why I Soured on the Democrats COVID school policies set me adrift from my tribe. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ts-botched-public-school-covid-policy/621183/
Eric Adams wasting no time stepping up and speaking out https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday...cratic-party-has-to-be-radically-practical-in Adams says Democratic Party has to be 'radically practical' in midterms BY MYCHAEL SCHNELL - 01/09/22 10:10 AM EST New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) on Sunday said the Democratic Party has to be “radically practical” if it wants to win November’s midterm elections. Asked by co-anchor Jake Tapper on CNN’s “State of the Union” about comments Adams made in June critiquing the party's strategy, the New York City mayor said Democrats should focus on “kitchen table issues” that “everyday” individuals care about in the upcoming midterm races. “I think we can reset the message and we can put the ship on its right course. We have to be radically practical, radically practical. We need to deal with those kitchen table issues that are important to everyday Americans and New Yorkers,” Adams said. “I strongly feel that we can't allow social media to dictate what happens. I say it all the time, it’s people on social security we need to be focusing on and they're focusing on healthcare, educating their grandchildren and children, they’re focused on affordable housing and jobs. These are the issues that we are, we must be looking at and ensuring that we are living in a safe city and a safe country,” he added. Adams made headlines in June for offering commentary on his party as his lead in the mayoral race was growing. The then-Brooklyn borough president told reporters that he was "the face of the new Democratic Party,” adding, “If the Democratic Party fails to recognize what he did here in New York, then they’re going to have a problem in the midterm elections, and they’re going to have a problem in the presidential elections.” He went on to say at the time that the mayoral race results showed that America wanted to have justice, safety and end inequality, before evaluating the type of candidates constituents were looking to support. “We don’t want fancy candidates; that nails are not polished, they have calluses on their hands and they’re blue-collared people that understand a blue-collared country,” Adams said. “That’s what we want.” The newly minted mayor on Sunday said that if his party focuses on kitchen table issues and lets them “cascade throughout this entire country,” Democrats will flock to the polls in November. “And we have that message homed in and let it cascade throughout this entire country, you're going to see those Democrats come to the polls, polling places, because they understand we're dealing with those real issues that impact them,” Adams said. On the campaign train in the Big Apple, Adams portrayed himself as a moderate candidate who would work to tame the city’s increasing violent crime. He did not, however, embrace, calls to “defund the police,” which have been touted by some more liberal members of the party.
Do you believe that clean water, more transit and improved infrastructure to deal with climate change doesn't help lower and middle class Americans? So you would rather not have any of those things just to teach moderates not to continually **** them over?
If sinena and Manchin were the two largest holdovers, I wonder why didn't they railroad the Jr senator's concerns about taxes instead. I guess other Dems silently didn't like the corporate tax hikes or rescinding the Trump cuts. Oh well this inflation mess is becoming more murky among economists on where inflation is heading. Last year's incorrect hand waving invalidates anyone having a solid clue over what is causing it. We all have the power to pour over the data, describe what happens, then pencil in a prediction we had before well after the fact I think we might slump into a slowdown mid year but it could still turn out to be stagflation or a host of other complex consequences that aren't discussed right now.
Americans' shifting political concerns pose a midterms challenge for Democrats https://theweek.com/democrats/10088...cerns-pose-a-midterms-challenge-for-democrats According to a new Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll, Americans' political concerns are shifting ahead of 2022 midterm elections in perhaps quite a challenging way for Democrats. More specifically, the AP-NORC poll found that "management of the pandemic, once an issue that strongly favored [President Biden] and his fellow Democrats, is beginning to recede in the minds of Americans," APwrites. Instead, worries about COVID find themselves overshadowed by economic and inflationary concerns, issues typically associated with Republicans. By the numbers, only 37 percent of Americans ranked COVID as one of their top five administration priorities in 2022, versus 53 percent who labeled it a "leading priority" this time last year. Rather, much like last year, sixty-eight percent of respondents in some way mentioned the economy as a concern for 2022, though mentions of inflation "are much higher now: 14% this year, compared with less than 1% last year," AP writes. The changing sentiment represents a challenge for Dems, who hope to hold on to Congress following what's sure to be a contentious midterms cycle. Voters previously handed Democrats control of the White House and Congress because they trusted them to handle the virus; now, as cases continue to surge and COVID fatigue sets in, can Democrats count on the pandemic alone to deliver them a win? Co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee Adam Green believes success is possible should the party manage to ease COVID fears while simultaneously achieving "tangible policy results," AP writes. "I don't think we're going to win an election for lack of anxiety," Green told AP, "if we've achieved nothing else." The AP-NORC poll surveyed 1,089 adults from Dec. 2-7, 2021. Results have a margin of error of 4.1 percentage points. See more results at The Associated Press.
Again, as I've said before, the torpedoing would have been temporary. But it would have been a strong reminder to Democrats that they can't win at all (election wise or legislation-wise) if progressives don't turn out. Yes these things will help (some enormously), although let's be honest - most of the climate change parts were pulled (once again, against the wishes of the progressives but very much in line with what moderates wanted). But the benefits will be trickle down - it's not going to help lower and middle class Americans pay their bills or find child care for their kids. I wish voters were more forward thinking and that the infrastructure bill were more of a winning issue electorally. But it's not - period. The economic benefits are primarily going to construction and development companies, and by the time the effects trickle down even to their own employees (let alone the general public), 2022 and 2024 will be a distant memory. By then, if things have continued in their current direction, it may all be a moot point, especially if they haven't managed to pass any real voting reform to undo the anti-voting shenanigans being implemented by red states. It also looks like that Manchin is still emphasizing an income limit and work requirements to pass the child credit bill. I can see some logic for the former (although $60K is way too low) but the latter is ridiculous - a disabled parent, stay at home parent or retired grandparent shouldn't be penalized just because they don't have a job. He may have said one time that he wants to fund it for 10 years, but really, he just wants to kill it or make it so unobtainable that it's practically non-existent.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-climate-warriors-in-frozen-foxholes-ferc-energy-prices-elizabeth-warren-ed-markey-11641515672 No Climate Warriors in Frozen Foxholes Forty-one Democrats urge federal regulators to lower heating prices. By The Editorial Board Jan. 9, 2022 5:12 pm ET The climate warriors of the Democratic Party aren’t lacking for chutzpah, give them that. The latest example is a letter from 41 Members of Congress to federal regulators, fretting about “the effect that anticipated increases in heating and energy costs will have on our constituents this winter.” You don’t say? The letter’s signers include Massachusetts Sens. Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the head of the House progressive caucus. This gaggle of greens normally thinks oil is drilled straight from hell, but they’re now asking the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to exercise its “power to influence retail rates for natural gas and electricity.” Naturally, their theory is that higher costs are a result of “market manipulation,” “profiteering,” and “high oil and gas exports.” Maybe they should read—OK, their staffs should read—the underlying document cited by their own letter. “We expect households that use natural gas as their primary space heating fuel,” the Energy Information Administration says, “will spend $746 this winter, 30% more than they spent last winter.” Part of that is a forecast for colder weather, but there’s also basic economics. “The main reason wholesale prices of natural gas, crude oil, and petroleum products have risen,” the EIA says, “is that fuel demand has increased from recent lows faster than production.” The report cites record exports of liquefied natural gas, but selling energy to American allies should be counted as a win, both economically and strategically, since it reduces the leverage of players like Vladimir Putin. The U.S. has enough gas to go around, and abundance is the ultimate fix for high prices. But President Biden, encouraged by the signers of this letter, has made clear that U.S. fossil-fuel production must be phased out. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the PennEast Pipeline were both canceled even after beating opponents at the Supreme Court. Getting gas to Mr. Markey and Ms. Warren’s Massachusetts is so difficult that sometimes it comes into Boston Harbor on a tanker from Russia. And they wonder why heating prices are high. Appeared in the January 10, 2022, print edition.
Given how close both houses of Congress there is very little confidence that if the vote failed in the HOuse that the Infrastructure bill would've passed at all. In fact given that 6 Democrats including the Squad voted against it if it hadn't been for Republicans it would've failed and as of now likely wouldn't have had either that law or the BBB. Again though you're stating yourself that the bill should've been torpedoed for political machinations even though you agree that there are good things in the bill. Don't you think that is the type of cynicism that disgust a lot of people with politics? Are you fine with that because it is Progressives doing it? Also do you think Democrats can win if Moderates don't turn out? In VA it wasn't Progressives that cost McAuliffe. It was moderate swing voters. I guess the framers, drywallers, pipe fitters and welders that I work with in my field don't count as lower or middle class then if you don't think the new infrastructure bill will benefit them. May I ask you what field you work in? As an architect I am very well aware of the economics of construction and yes construction companies will benefit that said the largest expense of construction is labor and much of government funded work is required to be union labor. That is why Labor unions were massively behind this bill because it will overwhelmingly benefit their employees. Further this is another example of the zero sum view of economics espoused by many. Company profits don't mean that the workers don't benefit. Particularly in construction. Agreed but that is a different matter than the infrastructure bill. I have not studied the exact particulars so can't comment about Manchin's specific arguments but given that we do have a labor shortage in many fields right now it does make sense to incentive going back to work. There are programs that address aid to the disabled and obviously the elderly benefit from Medicare. I can't say for sure if Manchin just wants to kill the bill but I fully agree that there should be means testing and I think that is a far more politically tenable position.
As a credible single issue candidate in what appears to be the biggest issue of our time, I think he’d maybe do better than some might assume if Biden decided to pull an LBJ. He’s also now sort of an outsider believe it or not which benefits him. But I don’t think he wants anything to do with running again, and Biden is more popular than you’d think for re-election. Having above a 50% approval at any point in your presidency in this climate is a pretty big tell. If the economy holds, Covid calms down, and the international supply chain catches back up, all signs point to Biden being an obvious pick to run again with strong support. Hence why Republicans are trying their damnest to wreck the economy so voters will blame Biden.
I did not vote for Gore in 2000, but if the choice in 2024 were between Clinton, Biden, Trump, or Gore, I'd vote for Gore for sure. https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillar...m-loss-11641914951?mod=hp_opin_pos_4#cxrecs_s Hillary Clinton’s 2024 Election Comeback Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have become unpopular. It may be time for a change candidate. By Douglas E. Schoen and Andrew Stein Jan. 11, 2022 12:28 pm ET A perfect storm in the Democratic Party is making a once-unfathomable scenario plausible: a political comeback for Hillary Clinton in 2024. Several circumstances—President Biden’s low approval rating, doubts over his capacity to run for re-election at 82, Vice President Kamala Harris’s unpopularity, and the absence of another strong Democrat to lead the ticket in 2024—have created a leadership vacuum in the party, which Mrs. Clinton viably could fill. She is already in an advantageous position to become the 2024 Democratic nominee. She is an experienced national figure who is younger than Mr. Biden and can offer a different approach from the disorganized and unpopular one the party is currently taking. If Democrats lose control of Congress in 2022, Mrs. Clinton can use the party’s loss as a basis to run for president again, enabling her to claim the title of “change candidate.” Based on her latest public statements, it’s clear that Mrs. Clinton not only recognizes her position as a potential front-runner but also is setting up a process to help her decide whether or not to run for president again. She recently warned of the electoral consequences in the 2022 midterms if the Democratic Party continues to align itself with its progressive wing and urged Democrats to reject far-left positions that isolate key segments of the electorate. In a recent MSNBC interview, Mrs. Clinton called on Democrats to engage in “careful thinking about what wins elections, and not just in deep-blue districts where a Democrat and a liberal Democrat, or so-called progressive Democrat, is going to win.” She also noted that party’s House majority “comes from people who win in much more difficult districts.” Mrs. Clinton also took a veiled jab at the Biden administration and congressional Democrats in an effort to create distance: “It means nothing if we don’t have a Congress that will get things done, and we don’t have a White House that we can count on to be sane and sober and stable and productive.” Even Bill Clinton recently set the stage for his wife’s potential 2024 candidacy, referring to her in an interview with People magazine as “the most qualified person to run for office in my lifetime, including me,” adding that not electing her in 2016 was “one of the most profound mistakes we ever made.” We can infer based on these recent remarks that Mrs. Clinton would seize the opportunity to run for president again if an opening presents itself. But what are the odds that an opportunity will arise? The Democrats’ domestic agenda is in disarray given the failure of Mr. Biden’s Build Back Better plan in Congress. Senate Democrats’ latest desperate push to repeal the legislative filibuster to pass their secondary legislative priority, voting-rights reform, will likely weaken their agenda further. Mr. Biden’s overall approval rating is low (40%), as is his rating on issues including the economy and jobs (38%) and taxes and government spending (33%), according to a recent Economist/YouGov poll. Nearly two-thirds of independent voters disapprove of the president. Barring a major course correction, we can anticipate that some Democrats will lose important House and Senate races in 2022—in part for the reasons Mrs. Clinton identified—giving Republicans control of both chambers of Congress. Polls generally show the GOP with a solid lead of at least 2 or 3 points in the 2022 generic congressional vote—a margin that likely would be enough to take back the House, given the narrow Democratic majority and the anticipated outcomes of redistricting in several states that could affect key races. Given the likelihood that Democrats will lose control of Congress in 2022, we can anticipate that Mrs. Clinton will begin shortly after the midterms to position herself as an experienced candidate capable of leading Democrats on a new and more successful path. Mrs. Clinton can spend the time between now and midterms doing what the Clinton administration did after the Democrats’ blowout defeat in the 1994 midterms: crafting a moderate agenda on both domestic and foreign policy. This agenda could show that Mrs. Clinton is the only credible alternative to Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris, and the entire Democratic Party establishment. Hillary Clinton remains ambitious, outspoken and convinced that if not for Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey’s intervention and Russian interference that she would have won the 2016 election—and she may be right. If Democrats want a fighting chance at winning the presidency in 2024, Mrs. Clinton is likely their best option. Mr. Schoen is founder and partner in Schoen Cooperman Research, a polling and consulting firm whose past clients include Bill Clinton and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Mr. Stein is a former New York City Council president, Manhattan borough president and state assemblyman.
Of the four I think most Dems would vote for Gore. Of course Republicans who were around in the Clinton era despise him because they are conditioned from Newt and Bill O demonizing him and Hillary every night for 10 years. But the younger generation has a different experience with Gore due to his climate advocacy. In the 90’s Republicans were told that Gore was extreme because he was billed as a tree hugger who was hyping fear of the environment in order to expand government etc etc. I think he would immediately have that 35% of the electorate flex that muscle memory from the 90’s and despise him (or any non Trumper for that matter) but I think other than that he’d be a formidable candidate. As I said though I don’t think he wants it, and with Biden the reason he’ll be the choice is because Dem voters will want to see the agenda not being derailed. 4 years goes fast and most know it’s takes more time than that to get something done. Im doubtful you are 100% serious here but I do think if there is a case of Biden not wanting or being able to run again, Gore is an out of left field choice that makes more sense than one would think.
again, if it were a choice between those four individuals, I would certainly vote for Gore. His climate extremism no longer bothers me as much as it once did, the world is slowly drifting in that direction and as president he would have little power to speed the pace which to me seems just about right. Of course that's not a positive advocacy for Gore. I would really hope both parties come up with new, younger, and more skilled candidates than they did in 2020.
