Showing posts with label REPUBLICANS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label REPUBLICANS. Show all posts

November 18, 2022

 


Why Did Polls Prepare Us for a Red Wave? Experts Weigh In on the Surprising Midterm Election Results

Two days after the election, the majority in Congress has yet to be determined. If midterm polling had been accurate, Republicans would already be celebrating a dual-chamber sweep

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mehmet Oz holds a rally in the Tunkhanock Triton Hose Co fire station in Tunkhanock, Pa., on Thursday, August 18, 2022.
PHOTO: BILL CLARK/CQ-ROLL CALL, INC VIA GETTY

The "red wave" that pollsters were predicting before the midterms turned out to be more of a red trickle. Expectations that Democrats could lose as many as 35 seats in the House of Representatives have been disproven, and if Republicans do clinch majorities in the House or Senate, it will be by a razor-thin margin.

Democrats did better than history would have predicted — the best a leading party has done in the midterms in 20 years. And that raises questions about political pollsters. Forecasts before Election Day indicated that undecided and independent voters were increasingly upset about inflation and crime — even more so than the state of democracy, voting rights and the decision to end federal protections for abortions — and that they planned to vote against the party currently in power.

Some polls were way off. Michigan's Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer had a very comfortable lead against Republican challenger Tudor Dixon in the polls over the summer and into fall. Then a poll was released on Oct. 31, well into the state's early voting period, finding the race was a virtual tie, and that half of independent voters were supporting Dixon, while less than 30 percent planned to vote for Whitmer. It was conducted by Insider Advantage, a Republican firm that has earned praise in the past for its polling methods and decently high accuracy rating from FiveThirtyEight, a group that aggregates polls.

Dixon's campaign excitedly responded, "Dixon is surging, independents are breaking in her favor, and the momentum is on her side with one week left before Election Day." A composite of polls found that Whitmer had a five-point lead over Dixon then, but the Republican's campaign seemingly had proof to show otherwise.

On Tuesday night, Whitmer won the race by more than 10 percentage points, smashing the accuracy of the poll that hyped her opponent. "There's pretty strong evidence that at least that poll that came in right before the election was an effort to generate a political narrative," says Jonathan Hanson, a lecturer in public policy statistics at the University of Michigan. "I didn't need to wait for the race results to say 'no, I don't think this race is tied,'" he adds.

Other polls were also suspect. "I woke up (Wednesday) feeling like this was unusual. The Democrats probably will lose control of the House and might lose control of the Senate, but it clearly was not the red wave that a lot of people expected," Hanson says.

chuck schumer
Chuck Schumer, leader of the Senate Democratic Caucus. DREW ANGERER/GETTY IMAGES

It made sense to Hanson that the election season began by favoring Republicans, since the Democrats hold control of the White House, the Senate and the House. Historically, the party in power will lose a number of seats during the midterm elections.

But then, at the start of summer, the Supreme Court overturned the longstanding Roe v. Wade ruling, attacking women's reproductive rights. That stirred up anger and fierce motivation, and the Democrats seemed to have a tailwind. By fall, that abortion anger may have quelled, and news media said voters were much more concerned about economic issues, which favored right-leaning candidates. That's what the fall polls predicted.

"I honestly bought it. I was less convinced by the specific polls themselves, but by the general sense that the country's mood had shifted," Hanson says.

But what voters were being fed by pollsters and the news media was skewed. One reason is that Republican-leaning firms that tend to favor their candidates took our temperature more often — and later in — this cycle than did the usual pollsters on which we rely. It skewed polling averages, according to Nate Cohn, The New York Times' chief political analyst.

Another phenomenon in this election was how close some incumbents' elections were. Rep. Lauren Boebert (CO-3) is neck-and-neck with her challenger and the race remains too close to call. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin won reelection by a single percentage point in a race that couldn't be called until Tuesday afternoon. Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock won by less than 1% — so close that the race will go to a December runoff.

"Our country's divided 50/50 — it's not exactly that, but it's pretty close," says John Geer, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University. "That means these elections are nip and tuck," and if you're off by a few points in a poll, it's within the margin of error, he says. In fact, most polls have a margin of error of 4%.

"If you're polling at 50%, you're really likely to be somewhere between 46 and 54%," he says. "Well, that's a big gap in a competitive election."

Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE's free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer.

Media and the public like polls anyway. They appear "very concrete and give you a sense of precision that's not really true," Geer says. For those seeking a better prediction, Geer suggests a broader approach. "You want to look at a bunch of polls, you don't want to just look at one, and you want to look at the trend in polls. But you also want to look at some underlying fundamentals — what is the state of the economy? Do the candidates have enough money?"

Furthermore, political polls are not gospel. "Elections are about turnout and that's not always who you are talking to in all of the polls," says Amy Dacey, executive director of the Sine Institute of Politics & Policy at American University. "Turnout is what matters. The only real true poll is what happens on Election Day."

November 16, 2022

Republicans Officially Take Back the House After 4 Years with Democratic Majority

In this article:
  • Nancy Pelosi
    Nancy Pelosi
    Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

The Republican Party has secured its first major feat in the 2022 midterm elections, regaining the majority of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, which has been controlled by Democrats for the past four years.

Republicans were long favored to take control of Congress' lower chamber in 2023 as President Joe Biden's wavering popularity hurt Democratic prospects down the ballot.

Though Democrats saw a boost in the polls after Roe v. Wade was overturned that made them more competitive across the board, issues like inflation and crime began controlling the narrative in many key districts as the election neared, restoring Republicans' upper-hand.

Historically, the sitting president's party — in this case, the Democratic Party — suffers greatly during midterms. While Democrats did lose a number of House seats, they exceeded expectations and suffered minimal damage, making it the best a leading party has performed in midterms in 20 years, and the best under a first-term president in 40 years.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and U.S. President Donald Trump attend a legislation signing rally with local farmers on February 19, 2020
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and U.S. President Donald Trump attend a legislation signing rally with local farmers on February 19, 2020

David McNew/Getty Kevin McCarthy and Donald Trump

RELATED: Why Did Polls Prepare Us for a Red Wave? Experts Weigh In on the Surprising Midterm Election Results

Republicans' thin majority in the House will require them to act with a certain level of bipartisanship — and with Democrats maintaining a majority in the Senate, Republicans will have an extra hurdle to jump through if they hope to pass any controversial bills into law.

RELATED: Kevin McCarthy Selected as GOP's House Speaker Candidate, but Faces Hurdles Ahead to Formally Secure Position

When the incoming Congress convenes in January, House representatives will cast their votes for a new speaker to lead the congressional chamber. According to tradition, both major party caucuses meet beforehand to select their respective nominees — often the top-ranking party official at the time — and representatives are generally expected to support the nominee that their party has selected.

Mandatory Credit: Photo by Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/Shutterstock (13074650i) President Joe Biden leaving the White House to go to Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. President Joe Biden Leaving the White House to Rehoboth Beach - 07 Aug 2022
Mandatory Credit: Photo by Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/Shutterstock (13074650i) President Joe Biden leaving the White House to go to Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. President Joe Biden Leaving the White House to Rehoboth Beach - 07 Aug 2022

Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/Shutterstock

On Tuesday, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy was selected as the GOP's pick to replace Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi as House speaker in January. Rep. Steve Scalise was chosen to be the second highest-ranking Republican official, the House majority leader.

McCarthy has already begun preparing for a transition of power in the House, and said his first agenda item will be securing the United States' southern border.

April 24, 2021

The G.O.P. Is Getting Even Worse Trumpians are having a venomous panic attack.




Those of us who had hoped America would calm down when we no longer had Donald Trump spewing poison from the Oval Office have been sadly disabused. There are increasing signs that the Trumpian base is radicalizing. My Republican friends report vicious divisions in their churches and families. Republican politicians who don’t toe the Trump line are speaking of death threats and menacing verbal attacks.

It’s as if the Trump base felt some security when their man was at the top, and that’s now gone. Maybe Trump was the restraining force.

What’s happening can only be called a venomous panic attack. Since the election, large swaths of the Trumpian right have decided America is facing a crisis like never before and they are the small army of warriors fighting with Alamo-level desperation to ensure the survival of the country as they conceive it.

The first important survey data to understand this moment is the one pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson discussed with my colleague Ezra Klein. When asked in late January if politics is more about “enacting good public policy” or “ensuring the survival of the country as we know it,” 51 percent of Trump Republicans said survival; only 19 percent said policy.

The level of Republican pessimism is off the charts. A February Economist-YouGov poll asked Americans which statement is closest to their view: “It’s a big, beautiful world, mostly full of good people, and we must find a way to embrace each other and not allow ourselves to become isolated” or “Our lives are threatened by terrorists, criminals and illegal immigrants, and our priority should be to protect ourselves.”

Over 75 percent of Biden voters chose “a big, beautiful world.” Two-thirds of Trump voters chose “our lives are threatened.”

This level of catastrophism, nearly despair, has fed into an amped-up warrior mentality.

“The decent know that they must become ruthless. They must become the stuff of nightmares,” Jack Kerwick writes in the Trumpian magazine American Greatness. “The good man must spare not a moment to train, in both body and mind, to become the monster that he may need to become in order to slay the monsters that prey upon the vulnerable.”

With this view, the Jan. 6 insurrection was not a shocking descent into lawlessness but practice for the war ahead. A week after the siege, nearly a quarter of Republicans polled said violence can be acceptable to achieve political goals. William Saletan of Slate recently rounded up the evidence showing how many Republican politicians are now cheering the Jan. 6 crowd, voting against resolutions condemning them.

Liberal democracy is based on a level of optimism and a sense of security. It’s based on confidence that most people are seeking the good with different opinions about how to get there; that society is not a zero-sum war, but a conversation and a negotiation.

As Leon Wieseltier writes in the magazine Liberties, James Madison was an optimist and a pessimist at the same time, a realist and an idealist. Philosophic liberals — whether on the right side of the political spectrum or the left — understand people have selfish interests, but believe in democracy and open conversation because they have confidence in the capacities of people to define their own lives, to care for people unlike themselves, to keep society progressing.

With their deep pessimism, the hyperpopulist wing of the G.O.P. seems to be crashing through the floor of philosophic liberalism into an abyss of authoritarian impulsiveness. Many of these folks are no longer even operating in the political realm. The G.O.P. response to the Biden agenda has been anemic because the base doesn’t care about mere legislation, just their own cultural standing.

------------

Republicans and conservatives who believe in the liberal project need to organize and draw a bright line between themselves and the illiberals on their  side. This is no longer just about Trump the man; it’s about how you are going to look at reality — as the muddle it’s always been, or as an apocalyptic hellscape. It’s about how you pursue change — through the conversation and compromise of politics, or through intimidations of macho display.

I can tell a story in which the Trumpians self-marginalize or exhaust themselves. Permanent catastrophism is hard. But apocalyptic pessimism has a tendency to deteriorate into nihilism, and people eventually turn to the strong man to salve the darkness and chaos inside themselves.

January 1, 2021

The end game of the Reagan Revolution,


reaganDecember 30, 2020

And so, we are at the end of a year that has brought a presidential impeachment trial, a deadly pandemic that has killed more than 338,000 of us, a huge social movement for racial justice, a presidential election, and a president who has refused to accept the results of that election and is now trying to split his own political party.

It’s been quite a year.

But I had a chance to talk with history podcaster Bob Crawford of the Avett Brothers yesterday, and he asked a more interesting question. He pointed out that we are now twenty years into this century, and asked what I thought were the key changes of those twenty years. I chewed on this question for awhile and also asked readers what they thought. Pulling everything together, here is where I’ve come out.

In America, the twenty years since 2000 have seen the end game of the Reagan Revolution, begun in 1980.

In that era, political leaders on the right turned against the principles that had guided the country since the 1930s, when Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt guided the nation out of the Great Depression by using the government to stabilize the economy. During the Depression and World War Two, Americans of all parties had come to believe the government had a role to play in regulating the economy, providing a basic social safety net and promoting infrastructure.

Earl Warren


But reactionary businessmen hated regulations and the taxes that leveled the playing field between employers and workers. They called for a return to the pro-business government of the 1920s, but got no traction until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, when the Supreme Court, under the former Republican governor of California, Earl Warren, unanimously declared racial segregation unconstitutional. That decision, and others that promoted civil rights, enabled opponents of the New Deal government to attract supporters by insisting that the country’s postwar government was simply redistributing tax dollars from hardworking white men to people of color.

That argument echoed the political language of the Reconstruction years, when white southerners insisted that federal efforts to enable formerly enslaved men to participate in the economy on terms equal to white men were simply a redistribution of wealth, because the agents and policies required to achieve equality would cost tax dollars and, after the Civil War, most people with property were white. This, they insisted, was “socialism.”

To oppose the socialism they insisted was taking over the East, opponents of black rights looked to the American West. They called themselves Movement Conservatives, and they celebrated the cowboy who, in their inaccurate vision, was a hardworking white man who wanted nothing of the government but to be left alone to work out his own future. In this myth, the cowboys lived in a male-dominated world, where women were either wives and mothers or sexual playthings, and people of color were savage or subordinate.

Contest: Write a passage for Susan Allen's new book about Ronald Reagan

With his cowboy hat and western ranch, Reagan deliberately tapped into this mythology, as well as the racism and sexism in it, when he promised to slash taxes and regulations to free individuals from a grasping government. He promised that cutting taxes and regulations would expand the economy. As wealthy people—the “supply side” of the economy-- regained control of their capital, they would invest in their businesses and provide more jobs. Everyone would make more money.

From the start, though, his economic system didn’t work. Money moved upward, dramatically, and voters began to think the cutting was going too far. To keep control of the government, Movement Conservatives at the end of the twentieth century ramped up their celebration of the individualist white American man, insisting that America was sliding into socialism even as they cut more and more domestic programs, insisting that the people of color and women who wanted the government to address inequities in the country simply wanted “free stuff.” They courted social conservatives and evangelicals, promising to stop the “secularization” they saw as a partner to communism.

After the end of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, talk radio spread the message that Black and Brown Americans and “feminazis” were trying to usher in socialism. In 1996, that narrative got a television channel that personified the idea of the strong man with subordinate women. The Fox News Channel told a story that reinforced the Movement Conservative narrative daily until it took over the Republican Party entirely.

The idea that people of color and women were trying to undermine society was enough of a rationale to justify keeping them from the vote, especially after Democrats passed the Motor Voter law in 1993, making it easier for poor people to register to vote. In 1997, Florida began the process of purging voter rolls of Black voters.

And so, 2000 came.


In that year, the presidential election came down to the electoral votes in Florida. Democratic candidate Al Gore won the popular vote by more than 540,000 votes over Republican candidate George W. Bush, but Florida would decide the election. During the required recount, Republican political operatives led by Roger Stone descended on the election canvassers in Miami-Dade County to stop the process. It worked, and the Supreme Court upheld the end of the recount. Bush won Florida by 537 votes and, thanks to its electoral votes, became president. Voter suppression was a success, and Republicans would use it, and after 2010, gerrymandering, to keep control of the government even as they lost popular support.

Bush had promised to unite the country, but his installation in the White House gave new power to the ideology of the Movement Conservative leaders of the Reagan Revolution. He inherited a budget surplus from his predecessor Democrat Bill Clinton, but immediately set out to get rid of it by cutting taxes. A balanced budget meant money for regulation and social programs, so it had to go. From his term onward, Republicans would continue to cut taxes even as budgets operated in the red, the debt climbed, and money moved upward.

The themes of Republican dominance and tax cuts were the backdrop of the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. That attack gave the country’s leaders a sense of mission after the end of the Cold War and, after launching a war in Afghanistan to stop al-Qaeda, they set out to export democracy to Iraq. This had been a goal for Republican leaders since the Clinton administration, in the belief that the United States needed to spread capitalism and democracy in its role as a world leader. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq strengthened the president and the federal government, creating the powerful Department of Homeland Security, for example, and leading Bush to assert the power of the presidency to interpret laws through signing statements.

The association of the Republican Party with patriotism enabled Republicans in this era to call for increased spending for the military and continued tax cuts, while attacking Democratic calls for domestic programs as wasteful. Increasingly, Republican media personalities derided those who called for such programs as dangerous, or anti-American.

But while Republicans increasingly looked inward to their party as the only real Americans and asserted power internationally, changes in technology were making the world larger. The Internet put the world at our fingertips and enabled researchers to decode the human genome, revolutionizing medical science. Smartphones both made communication easy. Online gaming created communities and empathy. And as many Americans were increasingly embracing rap music and tattoos and LGBTQ rights, as well as recognizing increasing inequality, books were pointing to the dangers of the power concentrating at the top of societies. In 1997, J.K. Rowling began her exploration of the rise of authoritarianism in her wildly popular Harry Potter books, but her series was only the most famous of a number of books in which young people conquered a dystopia created by adults.

In Bush’s second term, his ideology created a perfect storm. His administration's disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina, which killed more than 1,800 people and caused $125 billion in damage in and around New Orleans in 2005, revealed how badly the new economy had treated Black and Brown people, and how badly the destruction of domestic programs had affected our ability to respond to disasters. Computers permitted the overuse of credit default swaps that precipitated the 2008 crash, which then precipitated the housing crisis, as people who had bet on the individualist American dream lost their homes. Meanwhile, the ongoing wars, plagued with financial and moral scandals, made it clear that the Republicans optimistic vision of spreading democracy through military conflict was unrealistic.

In 2008, voters put Black American Barack Obama, a Democrat, into the White House. To Republicans, primed by now to believe that Democrats and Black people were socialists, this was an undermining of the nation itself, and they set out to hamper him. While many Americans saw Obama as the symbol of a new, fairer government with America embracing a multilateral world, reactionaries built a backlash based in racism and sexism. They vocally opposed a federal government they insisted was pushing socialism on hardworking white men, and insisted that America must show its strength by exerting its power unilaterally in the world. Increasingly, the Internet and cell phones enabled people to have their news cater to their worldview, moving Republicans into a world characterized by what a Republican spokesperson would later call "alternative facts."

And so, in 2016, we faced a clash between a relentlessly changing nation and the individualist ideology of the Movement Conservatives who had taken over the Republican Party. By then, that ideology had become openly radical extremism in the hands of Donald Trump, who referred to immigrants as criminals, boasted of sexually assaulting women, and promised to destroy the New Deal government once and for all.

In the 2016 election, the themes of the past 36 years came together. Embracing Movement Conservative individualist ideology taken to an extreme, Trump was eager enough to make sure a Democrat didn't win that, according to American intelligence services, he was willing to accept the help of Russian operatives. They, in turn, influenced the election through the manipulation of new social media, amplified by what had become by then a Republican echo chamber in which Democrats were dangerous socialists and the Democratic candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was a criminal. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision which permitted corporate money to flow into election campaigns, Trump also had the help of a wave of money from big business; financial institutions spent $2 billion to influence the election. He also had the support of evangelicals, who believed he would finally give them the anti-abortion laws they wanted.

Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes but, as George W. Bush before him, won in the Electoral College. Once in office, this president set out to destroy the New Deal state, as Movement Conservatives had called for, returning the country to the control of a small group of elite businessmen who, theoretically, would know how to move the country forward best by leveraging private sector networks and innovation. He also set out to put minorities and women back into subordinate positions, recreating a leadership structure that was almost entirely white and male.

As Trump tried to destroy an activist government once and for all, Americans woke up to how close we have come to turning our democracy over to a small group of oligarchs.

In the past four years, the Women’s March on Washington and the MeToo Movement has enabled women to articulate their demand for equality. The travel ban, child separation policy for Latin American refugees, and Trump’s attacks on Muslims, Latin American immigrants, and Chinese immigrants, has sparked a defense of America’s history of immigration. The Black Lives Matter Movement, begun in July 2013 after George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering teenager Trayvon Martin, has gained power as Black Americans have been murdered at the hands of law enforcement officers and white vigilantes, and as Black Americans have borne witness to those murders with cellphone videos.


The increasing voice of democracy clashed most dramatically with Trump’s ideology in summer 2020 when, with the support of his Attorney General William Barr, Trump used the law enforcement officers of the Executive Branch to attack peaceful protesters in Washington, D.C. and in Portland, Oregon. In June, on the heels of the assault on the protesters at Lafayette Square, military officers from all branches made it clear that they would not support any effort to use them against civilians. They reiterated that they would support the Constitution. The refusal of the military to support a further extension of Trump's power was no small thing.

And now, here we are. Trump lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden by more than 7 million votes and by an Electoral College split of 306 to 232. Although the result was not close, Trump refuses to acknowledge the loss and is doing all he can to hamper Biden’s assumption of office. Many members of the Republican Party are joining him in his attempt to overturn the election, taking the final, logical step of Movement Conservatism: denying the legitimacy of anyone who does not share their ideology. This is unprecedented. It is a profound attack on our democracy. But it will not succeed.

And in this moment, we have, disastrously, discovered the final answer to whether or not it is a good idea to destroy the activist government that has protected us since 1933. In their zeal for reducing government, the Trump team undercut our ability to respond to a pandemic, and tried to deal with the deadly coronavirus through private enterprise or by ignoring it and calling for people to go back to work in service to the economy, willing to accept huge numbers of dead. They have carried individualism to an extreme, insisting that simple public health measures designed to save lives infringe on their liberty.

The result has been what is on track to be the greatest catastrophe in American history, with more than 338,000 of us dead and the disease continuing to spread like wildfire. It is for this that the Trump administration will be remembered, but it is more than that. It is a fitting end to the attempt to destroy our government of the people, by the people, and for the people.