Suppose the Democrats win the Presidency and the Senate in 2020 . . .
Given the state of the race, people are starting to ask what this would mean for the future of progressive politics in America.
James Kwak is gloomy:
I think the policy solutions are obvious . . .
The problem, of course, is the politics—not just President Trump and the Republicans, but a Democratic Party controlled by its conservative wing, defined primarily by its insistence on fiscal responsibility, and terrified of doing anything that anyone might call socialist . . .
Julia Azari is more open to the possibility of a new political era:
An important feature of these orders are the social movements that energize the parties in power and help to define the issues. These movements tend to start their work creating a new political order well before the transition to a full reconstructive politics. The conservative movement that defined the Reagan years began to really gain influence during the Nixon years. The abolition movement helped shape the politics of Lincoln’s presidency. FDR was drawing on decades of Progressive movement thinking and action.
Simply put, Biden’s party affiliation allows him to reject the politics of Trump, Reagan and the Republicans in between – but no matter who the Democrats nominated this year, that person was never going to actually be the engine for major political change. Rather, that groundwork has been in progress for many years. If Biden wins in November, he might be in a good position to be a reconstructive leader. He’s an odd candidate for such a position – he seems much less likely than Obama at first glance. The thing is that reconstructive politics is about more than the president.
I see arguments on both sides . . .
Beginning with the case for pessimism. There are several reasons for doubting that a big Democratic win in November will signify the beginning of a long run shift in American politics to the left.
The election will be mostly driven by dislike of Trump, not support for Biden or for a (comparatively) progressive Democratic policy agenda. Trump is beating himself through relentless incompetence and an almost unfathomable unwillingness to reach out beyond his political base. It is true that almost all Republican politicians supported and enabled Trump, but memories are short, and many people who do not like Trump’s racism or his handling of the coronavirus pandemic may be more than willing to vote for a less overtly racist and incompetent Republican for president in four years, or for a Republican Senate in two years, especially if the economy is weak or the Democrats pursue a controversial domestic policy agenda (remember that research suggests that support for Obamacare cost Democrats control of the House in 2010).
A big democratic victory in November could be seen as part of a pattern in which Democrats can gain unified control of government only following a period of blatant Republican misrule. Obama won the popular vote and electoral college by substantial margins in 2008, but he ran against a Republican opponent who was trying to succeed George W. Bush, one of the worst presidents in US history (Iraq War, Katrina, financial crisis). The same will be true for Biden, assuming he wins. This does not suggest that a durable coalition exists that can make the Democrats a majority party or force the Republicans to move towards the center to remain competitive.
Of course, becoming somewhat more optimistic, Democratic control of the presidency and Congress would give Democrats a momentary opportunity to advance some of their key policy objectives. Universal health care, expanded support for child care, and major reform of unemployment insurance (including turning it into much more of an automatic stabilizer) seem likely to gain a significant tailwind from the pandemic. A big infrastructure package also seems quite possible, although whether it will be a major step towards decarbonizing the economy is far from clear (the devil will be in the details). Criminal justice reform also seems likely to make significant progress. Once these reforms are put into place, they will be difficult to undo, even if the Democrats lose control of the Senate in 2022 and the Presidency in 2024.
Finally, there is also a possibility that 2020 will mark the start of a new era of progressive politics.
There is a reasonable chance that the country will become more progressive over time due to generational replacement and ongoing attitude change. When and if this happens, either the Democrats will become a majority party, or the Republicans will moderate and move to the center.
It is possible that Trump’s presidency will move attitudes to the left in a permanent way (rather than just transiently). Trump’s overt racism and videos of police brutality have made the burden of racial inequality real to Americans in a way that words alone could not. If the President is this racist, it is hard to deny that our society has a serious problem. There is a possibility that the emerging narrative about systemic racism could have an impact on American culture that goes beyond police reform. Resistance to social insurance in America is driven in large part by racism, and as white Americans come to see black Americans in a more sympathetic light this barrier to development of the American welfare state could crumble. Furthermore, Trump’s racism and videos of police brutality and oppression make it plain that we do not have a level playing field in this country, and that what people achieve in life is very much a reflection of how social institutions – families, schools, police, the health care system, etc. – help them achieve their potential. The fact that many people are talking about mental health care as an alternative to police intervention for people struggling with mental illness reflects this awareness. In short, The Black Lives Matter movement and the George Floyd protests could make us aware of inequality of opportunity as well as police brutality; it could help to kill the Horatio Alger myth in America. That would be a big step in the right direction.
The biggest problem with Sleepy Joe is that he cautious.
If I were him, I would repeal 100% of Fat Donnie™’s executive orders at 1300 on Inauguration Day.
Sleepy Joe has no reason to be cautious. That was Obama’s biggest problem—along with Blue Dog Democrats—during his first two years. After that GOP obstructionism gave him no choice. Obama was always about winning a second term which should not be a consideration for Sleepy Joe. Personally I just hope he lives through the first two years. 70% of the country say we are headed in the wrong direction. If the Dems take the Senate and eliminate the filibuster once and for all they should move legislation that will make FDR’s first 100 days look like FDR was a slacker. I actually think the most important task is to restore the institutions which promote democracy at least at the federal level and that includes prosecuting Trump, Barr and the rest of his criminal enterprise. There may be a backlash in two years but if the Dems can beat the virus and the economy is on the upswing the backlash might not be so much. They certainly do not need to worry about fiscal responsibility if they control everything and a major tax the rich push would keep the deficit at bay as well. Trump’s base will scream bloody murder but it is a distinct minority and I for one am tired of being ruled by a minority of morons.
When you are pessimistic, remember Democrats controlled both houses for only a few months in 2009.
?Why are you spreading false information?
The Dems controlled the House till Nov. 2010. The Dems controlled the Senate till 2014. If you have different info, cite it.I know you are smarter than this.
That should be that they had a veto proof majority in the Senate for only a few months in 2009.
filibuster proof
You only get 1 get out of jail card. Obama was never into fiscal stimulus much and cautious he was not. With him it was about health care reform day 1. I think fiscal stimulus of the transfer side is not a good idea only. It doesn’t promote much prosperity and only consumerism itself. Multipliers do not exist.
Biden basically has 2 campaign goals in the first 2 years: pass a infrastructure bill/tax bill together, smashed together in inner party squabbling. Then replace the 2 older(and unhealthy) supreme court justices.
Progressives are idiots and need to serve the tribe. Much like Trumptards, you guys live your decadent fantasies.
Bert:
No, Obama wanted a larger stimulus package. He was told by the three Repubs who voted for the stimulus package they would not vote for anything larger than $800 billion. It needed 60 votes to pass in the Senate. Three Repubs (Collins, Snowe, Spector) and a half a dozen Dems (Begich, Nelson, Landrieu, etc.) pushed for a smaller stimulus at ~$800 billion. Obama’s school construction was cut (Collins said no). On the Repub side:
And Graham was whining too.
Even before Obama officially took office Repubs agreed to oppose Obama’s initiatives from day 1. The stimulus bill in the House did not have one Repub vote.
Bert, quit making stuff up.
“The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Pub.L. 111–5), nicknamed the Recovery Act, was a stimulus package enacted by the 111th U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in February 2009.”
Obama left the public option out of ACA because of excessive caution. He wanted Republican votes. He was wrong to think that presenting them with a Republican plan would get any of them on board.
Arne:
“Obama left the public option out of ACA because of excessive caution. He wanted Republican votes. He was wrong to think that presenting them with a Republican plan would get any of them on board.”
The Public Option was in the ACA bill. Parts of the bill were passed under Reconciliation. Ted Kennedy died and a Republican replaced him. To pass the ACA, the Dems needed the Senator from Aetna’s (Joe Liberman) vote.
Reid needed 60 votes for Cloture of the bill to avoid a filibuster and with Kennedy gone he only had 59 sure votes as Lieberman was now an independent (getting even with Dems for election reasons). After Cloture was decided the ACA could pass with 51 votes.
Here is Timothy Noah’s article on what happened. “Did Lieberman Just Kill the Public Option?, Don’t bet on Connecticut’s junior senator showing independence from the insurance lobby.”
Perhaps, you know differently? The PO was in the ACA bill.
If a Democratic Senate and House are sworn in Jan 3
there are couple of weeks for impeachment and trial.
The truth is in the pudding. America is not ready to go forward. If we enter a time akin to the Great Depression, they may change their minds, Right now, backward or status quo is their first or second choices.
Ken, I agree with you, but I think we are going to be at a Great Depression point by January 20, 2021. Certainly we will not have made America great again by November 3, 2020
And I agree with you Terry. I’ve just submitted a post speaking to this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/climate/trump-regulations-election.html
July 17, 2020
Democrats Eye Trump’s Game Plan to Reverse Late Rule Changes
By Coral Davenport
WASHINGTON — At the dawn of the Trump era, Republicans in the White House and Congress turned an old law into a potent new weapon. An obscure 1996 statute was harnessed to wipe out 14 Obama-era regulations in 16 weeks, before President Trump set out to enact the most significant deregulatory agenda in the modern presidential era.
In the 21 previous years of its existence, that law, the Congressional Review Act, had been used only once, to undo a Clinton-era rule on workplace ergonomics in 2001.
Now Democrats are eager to show that turnabout is fair play, and are readying their own assault on Trump-era regulations, if they can seize control of the White House and all of Congress in November.
“A lot of people were surprised at how aggressively this tool was used, and how a moribund rule could suddenly be so powerful,” said Susan Dudley, who headed the White House office of regulatory affairs in the George W. Bush administration.
Under the intricate rules of the review act, the Trump administration crossed a critical threshold some time between May and June, and from now until the next presidential inauguration, any regulation reaching completion could be swiftly obliterated by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president….
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/climate/trump-regulations-election.html
Under the intricate rules of the review act, the Trump administration crossed a critical threshold some time between May and June, and from now until the next presidential inauguration, any regulation reaching completion could be swiftly obliterated by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president….
[ Important to understand. ]
run,
“Perhaps, you know differently?” Thanks for correcting the record.
However, your habit of replying directly, which most of us cannot do, is actually rather annoying.
Arne:
Dan and I have been working on allowing greater capability in posting comments. You could always ask directly for help if you need help. I can change any comment to what you meant it to be. Mostly, I can make corrections for posters and have done so in the past. I suggest till we establish a better reply method lead off with the name of who you are addressing.
When I come out here I can see every comment made. I also moderate. You can complain to Dan. I do not believe he will see a problem with how I answer directly or moderate.
run,
Note above when I posted three times in succession you only responded to the one I tried to correct.
run,
I read the comments in order on the page. If you post a response to a message after I have read past it, I may well miss it. On most days I would have missed your 6:25. (Perhaps I need to start using the notify check box).
I guess I could have asked for moderation help after my failure at 3:21.
“I suggest till we establish a better reply method lead off with the name of who you are addressing.” I almost never think that I am going to change a commenter’s mind. I am not really addressing the commenter as much as trying to get out some facts to other readers. If I am responding to something a commenter said, I usually quote the part I am responding to, but I failed in that today as well.
I suspect I am not the only one who misremembered the facts about the public option. Your response should reach not just me, but anyone else who read my erroneous comment.
Arne:
How is this right?
– “Obama left the public option out of ACA because of excessive caution.”
– “That should be that they had a veto proof majority in the Senate for only a few months in 2009.”
– “When you are pessimistic, remember Democrats controlled both houses for only a few months in 2009.”
They are not correct facts whether you made a mistake or not. I wrote and still write on healthcare and the ACA. I have been asked to write on healthcare by other Orgs. I also know how we arrived at what we have today. Repubs may have been the extreme blockers of everything Obama did and which leads up to today; however, the ass who shilled for DeVos, “Lieberman” purposely did everything he could to disrupt healthcare. If Kennedy had not died, we would have also had LTC. Dems should have done more to get to the PO instead of favoring business interests. We would have been looking at Single Payor by now.
Anyone who reads that thread will pick up on the conversation. I put names on it not only to make sure the person knows I am talking to them but also as a salutation. Checking the box would help you I am sure.
Trumps racism???? Against whites??? Trumps a Zionist, at least half Jewish and a more likely 3/4th. Trump, who’s real name is drumpf. He comes from a Ashkenazic tradition, married a Ashkenazi wife, worked with Ashkenazi businessman. Maybe, just maybe, you will educate yourself on the con.
Here is something to think about: Hollywood in its long tradition portrayed the confederate States of America positively and the Union poorly. Oh, why would they do that????? I know why.
“I think that you will all agree that we are living in most interesting times. I never remember myself a time in which our history was so full, in which day by day brought us new objects of interest, and, let me say also, new objects for anxiety.” – British statesman Joseph Chamberlain (8 July 1836 – 2 July 1914)
[…and that went well… or well? No, rather George Orwell.]
Obama’s fundamental foundational error was not using his first term as a teaching moment regarding Republican misrule. Like FDR did. He had the opportunity. But you DO need to look backward and forward at the same time and tie it al together. Because there will still be plenty of pain on the road to recovery you need to let everyone know unambiguously who and what is to blame for that pain. Otherwise, the blame will eventually land on you. There is an entire industry dedicated to re-writing history. You have to stay ahead of that while it is still fresh in everyone’s mind.
run,
Anyone reading all the comments in the thread would realize before you posted “How is this right?”, that I did not think any of those three bullets was correct.
You already corrected me (and informed other readers in so doing) on the first.
With the corrections I made (using two more posts, since I cannot delete, edit, or thread) the second and third become “When you are pessimistic, remember Democrats had filibuster-proof control of both houses for only a few months in 2009”, which is a general response to the original post. That IS right, is it not?
The ACA “public option” was not at all ready to enter the market in the timeframe ACA had for the exchanges. Better leaving it out with a story about how hard it was to pass than actually try it in a rush. Very little in either federal or state healthcare programs would have been leveraged for the public option. Thinking provider contracts would come in near Medicare pricing was way off the mark. This functionally would have been a brand new insurer (or more than one) having done no business at all with providers. PO was not even going to get the best commercial deal, let alone any significant price advantage. The you could count on a legion of really expert people dedicated to making sure cost assessments to the PO were correct…. hey, that sideway salt assessment should have been $2.56/bag, not $1.14. And when the IT manager decided to “return” 200 employees and use 23 Indians on visas instead? Sure, that would work. Think about those coops that went under quickly. Sure, not the same and they got hurt by the short-circuiting of the risk corridors. But at the core was their unwillingness to price where the underwriting needed. Their customers demanded pricing that buttressed their views that capitalism Imposed an outrageous cost burden. Well, these coops failed quickly. Was the PO intended to similarly fail, so that Senators and Reps could later say that the government could not possible raise prices by 29%, it would be a breach of faith? Looks like that to me.
Another BS story. You too have no basis for what you are saying. It does not matter whether it was ready or not with the start of the ACA. The thought was to pass it and build on it as a government run public option.
The Coops went under because Fred Upton (MI) with the help of Jack Kingston (CO) and Jefferey Sessions (AL), who wrote the letter to the GAO, sabotaged the Risk Corridor programs which I wrote about also here at AB. The reasoning for the Risk Corridor program was insurance companies could no longer pick and choose who they wanted to insure and neither could they reject a person for pre-exiting conditions. They had to take who ever applied and adjust pricing after the fact in a new year. The Risk corridor program used portions of total profits of insurance companies to fund it and was received a positive CBO rating. The CBO scored it at creating $12 billion annually. Unlike the Part D plan, it was only to last 3-4 years.
By killing the Risk Corridor Program, Coops went bankrupt, insurance companies raised rates, other insurance companies withdrew from the exchanges, and people lost healthcare insurance. To assist insurance companies who had a costly $million(s) patient was the Reissuance Program.
Quit making stuff up.
Bert,
“Here is something to think about: Hollywood in its long tradition portrayed the confederate States of America positively and the Union poorly. Oh, why would they do that????? I know why.”
[Do you really? Racism did have something to do with it, but probably less than you might imagine considering the ethnic composition of the pool of influential producers, directors, and writers in Hollywood. Money had a lot to do with it, but probably not how you think. It had a lot to do with theatrical reasons, primarily a sense of romance surrounding underdogs, lost causes, and exaggerated female figures in hoop skirts set against the opulent background of plantation life in the antebellum South.
In contrast consider the increasingly urban industrial North with smoke stacks and assembly lines and brutal labor practices. People were realistically romantic back when Hollywood was kinder to the South, as oxymorons go anyway. It just seemed cleaner and more wholesome to be brutalized in the open air working in the hot fields instead of a factory or a mine. If one wanted to work outside in the North, then one needed to work building the rail system, but that work was mostly taken by immigrants that spoke no English and would work for even less pay than factory workers. Of course there was farm work in the North too, but done there more by people of European descent. It was hard work. Agricultural work is much easier when someone else is doing it, especially if they are of a different race. Black people worked together in the fields of the Old South singing songs. Oh, the Romance of it all. Did I mention the Hollywood composers?
Racial hatred has its own demographics, but racial ambivalence knows no boundaries. You must realize that when things are this screwed up then our contradictions are almost all that we still have that we can call our own. ]
Racial animus exists as a classic love hate relationship on a societal level. The outgroup hates being the outgroup while the ingroup loves the outgroup being the outgroup. Group associations are far more powerful than individual emotions. Group associations are self-reinforcing within the group and mutually reinforcing between opposing groups. It is very difficult to beat par when trapped in the sands of time.
Biden leads by double digits as coronavirus takes a toll on Trump, Post-ABC poll finds
Washington Post via @BostonGlobe – July 19
President Donald Trump faces a significant challenge in his bid to win reelection in November, with former vice president Joe Biden holding a double-digit lead nationally and the president’s approval ratings crumbling amid a spreading coronavirus pandemic and a weakened economy, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The survey portrays an embattled president whose fortunes have declined markedly since the coronavirus arrived in the United States months ago. Trump’s prospects for winning in November appear to depend heavily on his ability to rally an enthusiastic core base of supporters and on convincing a broader swath of a largely skeptical public that he is dealing effectively with the pandemic.
Biden leads Trump 55% to 40% among registered voters. That compares with a 10-point Biden lead in May and a two-point edge in March, at a time when the pandemic was just beginning to spread rapidly in parts of the country. Among those who say they are certain to vote, Biden’s lead stands at 11 points.
Trump maintains an edge in the passion for his candidacy: More than 9 in 10 Trump supporters say they are enthusiastic about voting for him, with nearly 7 in 10 saying they are very enthusiastic. That compares with roughly 8 in 10 Biden supporters who say they are enthusiastic, with just under 4 in 10 saying they are very enthusiastic. The percentage of very enthusiastic Biden voters has risen by 11 points since March.
Despite the president’s attempts to shift the electorate’s focus to his criticisms of Biden, both candidates’ supporters are treating the November election as a referendum on Trump. Among Trump voters, 72% say what is most important is reelecting the president, including 47% who say this is extremely important, while 21% say their motivation is to defeat Biden.
Among Biden voters, the results are roughly the opposite, with 67% saying what is most important is defeating the president, including 48% who say this is extremely important, and 24% saying that electing the former vice president is their main motivation.
National polling results tell only a partial story of the state of the 2020 election. Trump’s hopes for a second term rest on whether he can assemble an electoral college majority in the states, even if he were to lose the popular vote, as he did in 2016. Current polling in battleground states shows a similarly challenging pattern for Trump, however, with the president struggling to replicate the often-narrow victories that led to his election four years ago. Still, the margins in many of those states are closer than the national numbers.
Other polls in recent days have also found Trump trailing by a wide margin nationally, and the president responded Wednesday by shaking up his campaign team, demoting campaign manager Brad Parscale and elevating Bill Stepien to the job of leading the reelection effort. To date, however, the president and his campaign have struggled to settle on a consistent and effective line of attack against Biden.
The poll offers a major reason for that: the pandemic that is weighing heavily on the president. The poll was taken as the number of new cases sets records almost daily and the death toll is rising again. What is not predictable is what the situation will be closer to the election and how any changes might affect judgments of Trump’s handling of the virus and, therefore, his prospects for reelection.
The current standing between the president and his challenger appears closely tied to overall impressions of how Trump is dealing with the country’s major problems. His job approval rating has dropped sharply in the past two months and stands at 39% positive and 57% negative among voting-age adults, with 48% of Americans saying they strongly disapprove of the way he is doing his job. In a late-March poll, when just two points separated Biden and Trump in a head-to-head test, Trump’s approval rating stood at 48% positive and 46% negative.
The drop in Trump’s overall approval is related to a more precipitous decline in how Americans judge his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. On that question, there has been a net drop of 28 points in his approval margin since March as the president has repeatedly contradicted or ignored health experts in his administration and in the states, stoked confusion about the importance of wearing masks and at times appeared indifferent to the crisis even as conditions in many parts of the country were worsening. Currently, 38% approve of Trump’s handling of the pandemic, and 60% disapprove.
The president’s one consistent strength over the past few years has been public perceptions of his handling of the economy, especially before the pandemic forced businesses to close and millions of workers to be laid off, sending the unemployment rate soaring into double digits.
Today, despite the country’s economic problems, he is still narrowly in positive territory, with 50% of Americans approving of his handling of the economy and 47% disapproving. In late March, he enjoyed a far-more positive rating, with 57% approving and 38% disapproving.
Yet the survey results indicate that voter perceptions of Trump’s handling of the pandemic outweigh perceptions of his handling of the economy in the choice for president.
Among voters who approve of how he has handled the coronavirus, 93% support Trump over Biden. But of the far larger group who disapprove of Trump’s handing of the pandemic, an almost equal portion, 89%, supports Biden over Trump.
Trump’s level of support among those who approve of his handling of the economy is lower, with 80% favoring him over Biden. And Trump also trails Biden by more than 2 to 1 among those adults who say they approve of Trump’s handling of the economy but disapprove of the way he has dealt with the coronavirus.
All told, Biden bests Trump on six of seven attributes and on three of four issues measured in the poll.
Biden is seen as having the better personality and temperament to serve as president by 26 points among adults overall. He is seen as likely to do more to unite the country by 24 points, of better understanding “problems of people like you” by 17 points, as more honest and trustworthy by 14 points, as better representing “your own personal values” by 12 points and as having a better idea of what America should stand for by 10 points. Trump and Biden are even at 45% on the question of who is seen as the stronger leader.
Trump’s weakness on the issue of uniting the country shows up in two other questions. In the new poll, 61% say the president has done more to divide the country than unite it, and 76% say that when Trump talks about people with whom he disagrees, he crosses the line in terms of what’s acceptable, with 21% saying he stays within acceptable bounds. Views of Biden are flipped, with 63% saying he stays within acceptable bounds and 26% saying he crosses the line.
On issues, Biden has a 20-point advantage on who is more trusted to deal with the coronavirus outbreak, a 25-point advantage on race relations and a nine-point advantage on crime and safety.
The second two items are notable because the president and his campaign have embraced a law-and-order message, airing television ads that include clips of urban violence and that portray the former vice president as a captive of left-wing radicals bent on tearing down the country. At a time of heightened racial consciousness, Trump has repeatedly used racist appeals to win support.
Trump’s best issue remains the economy, where 47% say they trust him more and 45% say they trust Biden more. That represents a drop for Trump from March, when he had an eight-point advantage on economic trust.
Today, 75% of adults and 86% of registered voters say they are certain to vote in November, the latter figure higher among registered voters than at this point in any of the past three elections. The percentage of adults who back the president and say they are certain to vote stands at 81%, similar to the 78% noted in May.
Among adults supporting Biden, 77% say they are certain to vote, up from 67% in May. There has been a bigger jump – from 51% to 75% – of Biden supporters under age 40 who say they are certain to vote.
Biden’s advantage in the head-to-head matchup against Trump shrinks when only those who say they are certain to vote are analyzed and also when only those who say they voted in 2016 are considered. Among 2016 voters who say they are certain to turn out this year, Biden’s lead shrinks to seven points (53% to 46%).
The Post-ABC poll finds Trump’s recent decline in support is concentrated in states that have averaged at least 30 daily coronavirus cases per 100,000 residents over the past week, a group that includes Florida, Texas, Arizona and Georgia. Trump led by double digits among voters in these states in May, but the latest survey shows Biden with a slight advantage.
When compared with his performance in 2016, the president has lost ground among several key groups of supporters.
The most significant could be Americans over age 65, a group Trump won by seven points, according to network exit polls, but among whom he now narrowly trails Biden, 51% to 46%. That, however, is better than the 10-point deficit among seniors in a Post-ABC poll conducted in May.
He also has lost ground among white women. In 2016, he won white women by nine points and today is at risk of losing the group, with 46% to Biden’s 50%.
Biden holds a lead of 28 points among registered voters under age 40 – larger than the 16-point margin by which Hillary Clinton won that group in 2016. But these younger Biden supporters are much less enthusiastic about Biden. Sixty-seven percent of adults under age 40 who support Biden say they are enthusiastic about him, with 17% “very” enthusiastic. Among Biden backers over age 65, 91% say they are enthusiastic in their support and 61% say they are very enthusiastic.
Overall, Biden leads among all female voters by 60% to 35% and also among all men by a statistically insignificant 49% to 45%. Continuing a pattern, white voters split sharply along educational lines, with voters holding four-year college degrees clearly favoring Biden and those without degrees backing Trump, by similar margins.
About 2 in 3 voters in urban areas back Biden, while not-quite 6 in 10 of those in rural areas back the president. In suburban areas, considered the key battleground this fall, a bare majority currently back Biden.
The coronavirus pandemic has spurred demands for voting options in November, but the poll finds that most Americans say they prefer to vote in person rather than by mail, by 59% to 38%.
Trump has repeatedly attacked voting by mail as subject to fraud, and the new survey shows that slightly more Americans say they think mail-in voting is vulnerable to significant levels of fraud, with 49% agreeing with that statement compared with 43% who say there are adequate protections to prevent significant fraud.
But those percentages are driven by Trump’s own party, with 73% of Republicans saying mail-in voting is subject to significant levels of fraud and 66% of Democrats saying there are adequate levels of protection against such problems. The two sides also are divided over how they prefer to vote. A bare majority (51%) of Democrats say they prefer to vote by mail this fall, but 54% of independents and 79% of Republicans say they prefer to vote in person.
The Post-ABC poll was conducted July 12-15 among a random national sample of 1,006 adults, with 75% of interviews conducted by cellphone and the remaining 25% by landline. The margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points; the error margin is four percentage points for the sample of 845 registered voters. Among the 342 Trump supporters, the error margin is six percentage points, and among the 449 Biden supporters, it is five percentage points.
‘Racial animus exists as a classic love hate relationship on a societal level.’
Indeed. But look how far we have come.
Presenting: Cro-Magnon v. Neanderthal in the Battle of Extinction
Pop Sci – Dec 31, 2018
Back in pre-historic times, say, 130,000-30,000 years ago, Europe was dominated not by quaint cafes and dainty bakeries, but by a group of not-quite humans called Neanderthals. In the form of a common insult, their legacy lives on today, and perhaps more accurately than we think: new research suggests that the Neanderthal’s extinction was not due to climate change (as was previously argued) but rather to their inability to beat the competition, which came in the form of Cro-Magnon—the first anatomically modern human population. …
Stupidity runs rampant throughout the US. It is 2020, and most of the posters in here are absolutely clueless about what happend in Obama’s first two years.
Why? Because they ignore facts they do not like.
First and foremost, anyone who thinks Lieberman was a Democrat in 2009 should never speak about politics. they just show their ignorance.
“Gov. Sarah Palin, like John McCain, is a reformer who has taken on the special interests and reached across party lines. She is a leader we can count on to help John shake up Washington.
That’s why the McCain-Palin ticket is the real ticket for change this year.
The Washington bureaucrats and power brokers can’t build a pen strong enough to hold these two mavericks.
And together, you can count on John McCain and Sarah Palin to fight for America and to fight for you! And that’s what our country needs most right now. ”
Joe Lieberman
2008 Republcan Convention
There was never a single day where Dems have a veto proof majority.
The ARRA size and shape was dictated byt the 3 Rep Senators that voted to end debate. The ACA was a compromise that was dictated by Lieberman. A couple of blue dogs could be coerced and paid off to vote to end debate on the ACA. But not Lieberman. He was in total control of the public option that had passed the House.
Imbeciles should have know this before Obama even took office. It was as plain as day.
So do us a favor. Go play a video game and leave the adults to discuss politics.
EM:
I really love explaining Lieberman and cloture, the Dems soft involvement in the passage of the ACA, Risk Corridor, etc. over and over again. I needed the brush-up on the information to remain sharp on the facts. The ACA was to have a state or federal; funded public option in it as well as a LTC plan.
Interesting in that not one single comment on this thread contains any mention of Biden’s campaign platform.
You would think that someone would talk about a $2 Trillion Climate plan?
No, let’s talk about how Rep obstruction hobbled Obama and then blame it on Obama.
Assholes.
“(remember that research suggests that support for Obamacare cost Democrats control of the House in 2010).”
Yeah, I can see those polls being answered right now. “We can’t allow a black man to run this country, but I can’t say that so I will complain about his healthcare policy since I am not a racist.”
That’s why the House was lost. Racists like the Tea Party turning out, while lefteirthanthous not turning out because the ACA was did not have a public option. (see Naked Capitalism).
Run,
I am constantly amazed at the inability of people to count to 60. In this case they did so by adding a number that clearly did not belong.
My other question is why do they do this?