The Democrats have learned that in America, if you don’t brag incessantly about how great you are, you might as well be invisible. So they are bragging. Bigly.
I think they might be better off buying billboards in Atlanta and Detroit and keeping them up for the next year and a half. But this is one way to get some national airplay.
The numbers crunchers at the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage have cleared up the massive misapprehension in its own paper and throughout the mainstream media about the so-called “surge” at the border. We can only hope that the employees of the Washington Post, the NY Times and all the networks read the column. They have been abominable on this story so far:
We looked at data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection to see whether there’s a “crisis” — or even a “surge,” as many news outlets have characterized it. We analyzed monthly CBP data from 2012 to now and found no crisis or surge that can be attributed to Biden administration policies. Rather, the current increase in apprehensions fits a predictable pattern of seasonal changes in undocumented immigration combined with a backlog of demand because of 2020’s coronavirus border closure.
It’s not a surge. It’s the usual seasonal increase.
The CBP reports monthly data on how many migrants its agents apprehend at the southern border, including unaccompanied minors. The figure below shows the most recent data the CBP has made publicly available.
As the blue line shows, the CBP has recorded a 28 percent increase in migrants apprehended from January to February 2021, from 78,442 to 100,441. News outlets, pundits and politicians have been calling this a “surge” and a “crisis.”AD
But as you can see, the CBP’s numbers reveal that undocumented immigration is seasonal, shifting upward this time of year. During fiscal year 2019, under the Trump administration, total apprehensions increased 31 percent during the same period, a bigger jump than we’re seeing now. We’re comparing fiscal year 2021 to 2019 because the pandemic changed the pattern in 2020. In 2018, the increase is about 25 percent from February to March — somewhat smaller but still pronounced.
But was 2019 an aberration? In the figure below, we combine data from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2020 to show the cumulative total number of apprehensions for each month over these eight years. As you can see, migrants start coming when winter ends and the weather gets a bit warmer. We see a regular increase not just from January to February, but from February to March, March to April, and April to May — and then a sharp drop-off, as migrants stop coming in the hotter summer months when the desert is deadly. That means we should expect decreases from May to June and June to July.
What we’re seeing, in other words, isn’t a surge or crisis, but a predictable seasonal shift. When the numbers drop again in June and July, policymakers may be tempted to claim that their deterrence policies succeeded. But that will just be the usual seasonal drop.
So why are we seeing more migrants so far in 2021
The CBP has indeed reported apprehending more migrants in February 2021 than in the same month in previous years. But that too doesn’t mean it’s a surge or a crisis. In the first figure, above, the blue trend line for fiscal year 2021 is above the orange trend line for fiscal year 2019. But 2020 was the pandemic, when movement dropped dramatically. Countries around the world closed their borders. Here in the United States, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, a provision from the 1944 Public Health Act, to summarily expel migrants attempting to enter the United States without proper documentation.
In other words, in fiscal year 2021, it appears that migrants are continuing to enter the United States in the same numbers as in fiscal year 2019 — plus the pent-up demand from people who would have come in fiscal year 2020, but for the pandemic. That’s visible in the first figure, earlier, in which the blue trend line for the five months of data available for fiscal year 2021 (October, November, December, January and February) neatly reflects the trend line for fiscal year 2019 — plus the difference between fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2019.
This suggests that Title 42 expulsions delayed prospective migrants rather than deterred them — and they’re arriving now.
That would be consistent with nearly three decades of research in political science. Much of this research has been done since President Bill Clinton’s administration ran Operation Gatekeeper, which tried to keep out migrants by increasing funding and staff for border enforcement. Scholars consistently find that border security policies do not necessarily deter migration; rather, they delay migrants’ decisions to travel, and change the routes they take.
Reassessing our understanding of undocumented immigration
So have Biden administration policies caused a crisis at the southern border? Evidence suggests not. The Trump administration oversaw a record in apprehensions in fiscal year 2019, before the pandemic shut the border. This year looks like the usual seasonal increase plus migrants who would have come last year, but could not.
Focusing on month-to-month differences in apprehensions is misleading; given seasonal patterns, each month should be considered in relation to the same month in previous years. Knowing those patterns, policymakers may be better able to plan, prepare and to manage the border.
I shouldn’t be shocked that the media has mishandled this story so badly. It is exactly how I would have expected them to deal with it in the past. I guess I just thought it was possible that they would have more discretion after what we just went through the past five years but I was wrong. The Republicans fed them this storyline and they ate it up, apparently having learned absolutely nothing.
For more on how the media screwed the pooch, this piece by Matthew Gertz at Media Matters is excellent. Here’s just one excerpt:
The “crisis” frame plays into a narrative that right-wing organizations and politicians, former Trump administration aides, the former president himself, and the propagandists at Fox have all hammered on since Biden’s inauguration in hopes of garnering political benefit and defending Trump’s immigration policies.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an anti-immigrant policy organization, warned in a January 21 press release that Biden was “inducing an immigration and border crisis” through a series of policy changes and proposals announced by his administration. FAIR, which is classified as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, further stated that Biden’s actions would “certainly spark a new border crisis.”
The Heritage Foundation has likewise sent dozens of tweets arguing that there is a border “crisis,” dating back to February 4. The right-wing think tank often cites Fox appearances by Trump administration veterans Chad Wolf, Mark Morgan, and Ken Cuccinelli, who joined Heritage as fellows in January.
Numerous Republican senators and representatives have talked about a border “crisis,” including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). “The call to repeat the ‘border crisis’ language also appeared in a memo from the House Republican Study Committee that urged party members to use the term and blame it on President Biden,” as my former colleague Oliver Willis noted at The American Independent.
And of course, Fox, which has a long and lurid record of anti-immigrant bigotry and currently identifies as the “opposition” to Biden, has featured a constant and increasing drumbeat of such rhetoric beginning right as he took office. A search of the Nexis database of Fox transcripts for “crisis” within five words of “border” returns 49 results over the last week, 148 results since Inauguration Day — and none in the month before that, even though border apprehensions had been rising for the last months of Trump’s tenure.
Laura Ingraham, the Fox prime-time host whose rhetoric about immigrants “invading” and “replacing” Americans often echoes white supremacists, led the way. “Our next guest says President Biden has not just incited the next border crisis but opened the door to violence,” she said on January 21 while introducing Morgan and Stephen Miller, a former Trump White House adviser with ties to white nationalists. Ingraham or her guests also referenced an incipient or active crisis on the border on February 8, February 10, February 24, March 1, March 3, March 4, March 5, March 8, March 9, March 10, March 16, March 17, March 18, and March 19.
Ingraham’s colleagues have warned that Biden is deliberately ignoring the “border crisis” as a way to “punish” or “replace the disobedient” populace; deceptively scapegoated migrants for future COVID-19 outbreaks; and baselessly warned that they are agents of drug cartels.
None of these people are acting out of deep concern for the safety and well-being of migrant children. They are simply creating an incentive structure to drive those children back into even worse conditions over the border. Journalists should be wary of helping them by adopting their “crisis” frame.
Come on. They know better.
It’s hard to imagine how he can. Our politics are polarized, the country is a mess and the challenge is immense. But according to Perry Bacon at 538, if he doesn’t congressional action it’s very likely that will shortly come to a screeching halt:
A majority of Americans, about 55 percent, approve of President Biden’s job performance so far, whereas about 39 percent disapprove. Those are pretty good numbers for a president in this polarized era. And for Democrats to keep control of the U.S. House and Senate next November, Biden will probably need to keep his approval ratings in this vicinity. That’s unlikely, but possible, because of some broader shifts happening in American politics.
Second and more importantly, presidential approval ratings in recent years have been a decent indicator of what will happen in the midterms. In the last four (2006, 2010, 2014, 2018), the incumbent president’s disapproval rating was higher than his approval, and in all four cases, the president’s party lost a sizable bloc of House seats. (The Senate results aren’t quite as tied to presidential approval.) The last time the president’s party gained House seats in a midterm election was in 2002, when George W. Bush had sky-high ratings in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. So, when we talk about the pattern that the president’s party nearly always loses congressional seats in the midterms, part of what seems to be happening is that the American electorate becomes somewhat disillusioned with a president after electing or reelecting him (or wants to check his power) and then backs the opposite party’s congressional candidates.
Presidential approval and disapproval ratings come from FiveThirtyEight’s approval ratings tracker for the day before the midterm election for each year cited.
And presidential approval ratings are becoming even more predictive as American politics are increasingly partisan and president-centered. The Obama and Trump presidencies suggest that the overwhelming majority of voters lean toward either the Democrats or the Republicans and approve of presidents from their own party and disapprove of presidents from the opposite party.
And those mostly partisan approval numbers translate to mostly partisan voting: More and more, voters cast ballots for candidates from the same party in both presidential and congressional elections. So, in November 2018, then-President Trump had a 42 percent approval rating, compared with a 53 percent disapproval rating. Democrats won about 53 percent of the national U.S. House vote, overwhelmingly from people who disapproved of Trump. Republicans slightly outpaced Trump’s approval and won 45 percent of the House vote, mostly from people who approved of the president.
On Election Day in 2020, 45 percent of Americans approved of Trump, compared with 53 percent who disapproved. Biden won about 51 percent of the popular vote, as did House Democrats (so just slightly below Trump’s disapproval). Trump won nearly 47 percent, similar to House Republicans (48 percent) and again just slightly above his approval rating. So, in both 2018 and 2020, presidential approval/disapproval tracked closely with the House popular vote. And because congressional and presidential voting are now both so tied to partisanship, we have a record-low number of House districts — 16 — where the member isn’t from the same party that the district backed for president.
Of course, there’s no guarantee that the close link between presidential approval ratings and House results will continue. Perhaps Trump made American politics particularly centered around him, so some voters in next year’s elections will approve of Biden’s job performance but still back GOP congressional candidates. One big danger for Democrats in the 2022 midterms is the potential of differential turnout — Republicans voting at higher levels than Democrats, with conservative voters more motivated to vote against congressional Democrats aligned with Biden than liberals are to essentially maintain the status quo. This happened in 2018, when people who had voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 voted at slightly higher rates than those who had backed Trump in 2016. So it’s possible that Biden’s approval rating is 55 percent among American adults on election day 2022 but is several percentage points lower among people who actually vote.
And even if presidential approval ratings remain closely linked to the overall House vote and Biden maintains a rating in the mid-50s, that doesn’t guarantee Democrats will win the House. We’ve had a few elections in a row now where polls, on balance, slightly overstated support for Democratic candidates and politicians and understated support for GOP ones. That doesn’t mean the same thing will happen again in the midterms, but it’s easy to imagine the eventual electorate in 2022 will be a little more Republican-leaning than Biden’s approval rating suggests. And Democrats have very little margin for error. Republicans have a built-in head start in House races right now — not only because of GOP gerrymandering but because Democratic-leaning voters disproportionately live in urban areas while Republicans are more spread out into exurban, suburban and rural districts. So a 50-50 popular vote margin would almost certainly give the GOP control of the House.
And then there’s this:
Moreover, Republicans have much more control over the redistricting process than Democrats, so they could draw lines even more favorable to them before next year’s elections. Republicans in many states are also trying to limit the ability of liberal-leaning Americans to vote or have their votes counted. So it’s possible that even, say, a 52 percent to 47 percent Democratic advantage in the aggregate popular vote in House races would translate to a Republican-controlled House.
Put simply: If Biden could maintain an approval rating in the mid-50s, it would be a huge help to Democrats — in particular, House candidates in swing districts and Democratic Senate candidates in competitive states such as Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And if Biden could push his approval rating into the high 50s, it’s hard to imagine Democrats losing the House or the Senate.
What are the odds of all these pieces coming together to keep the majority? Oy…
History would suggest that Biden is likely to be less popular in November 2022 than he is today, but we’re not sure how much of that history applies.
The pre-Trump pattern in presidential approval had typically been that a new president entered office with relatively high ratings (at or above 55 percent) and then those numbers gradually declined during his first two years. But that pattern may be over. Trump never had much of a honeymoon: He began at around 46 percent approval, and his ratings remained fairly stable throughout his presidency. Biden started off at around 53 percent — higher than his immediate predecessor but not as high as other recent presidents. (Another interesting point: Biden’s approval rating is nearly the inverse of his predecessor’s: Trump’s approval was mostly in the low 40s, and his disapproval was mostly in the mid-50s; Biden’s approval is in the mid-50s, and his disapproval in the high 30s.)
It’s plausible that no matter what Biden does, his approval ratings will dip in the run-up to the midterms, as pre-Trump presidents’ did, because voters tend to sour some on the incumbent. Alternatively, it’s plausible that we are in a new normal of American politics, with a large GOP bloc, a slightly larger Democratic bloc that includes the majority of Americans and voters who are really locked into their party, so nothing really shifts those fundamental dynamics. That would explain why Biden’s approval rating is basically the same as Trump’s disapproval rating was, and why Biden’s disapproval is so close to Trump’s approval.
And there is the reality of Biden’s actual performance in office and the enactment of a popular agenda:
The president and his team are trying to implement a strategy that they think will keep his popularity up: improve the economy and deal with COVID-19 effectively, sell those successes to American voters and tone down the partisan divide in Washington. Republicans have a strategy too: keep up partisan tensions in Washington; attack Biden on policy matters like immigration, where he is unlikely to have clear successes; and highlight issues that are likely to divide voters based on competing racial and cultural attitudes, such as the controversy over the discontinuation of some Dr. Seuss books because of racist imagery.
On the other hand:
“Of course real-life events will affect Biden’s approval ratings,” you might say. Sure, but that’s been true only marginally of late. Economic conditions are less correlated to presidential approval than in the past. And, as I noted earlier, none of the incredible things that happened in Trump’s presidency (the Mueller report, Trump’s 2019 impeachment, the COVID-19 outbreak) shifted his approval ratings much until the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, which did cause a notable dip.
So watch Biden’s approval rating closely. It’s likely to be an indication of how well Democrats will do in next year’s elections. But it’s also likely to be an indication of how American politics today work more broadly. Is America locked in an intractable partisan uncivil war, where Team Blue represents a slight but clear majority and every election is super-close? Or maybe neither Team Blue nor Team Red has a majority and instead both are at about 45 percent, with a fairly large and meaningful bloc of people who either swing between the parties (often against the president’s party) or don’t vote at all during midterm elections (mostly from the president’s party)?
Or can the president and his actions meaningfully shift the political dynamics and create a 55-45 or 57-43 electorate if he is viewed as effective, or alternatively, a 43-57 electorate if he is viewed as particularly ineffective? We shall see over the next 19-plus months.
I’m trying not to be pessimistic. So much depends on the media and I’m not feeling very optimistic on that front. Perhaps the best hope is that Trump re-emerges and reminds everyone of constantly of how horrible he was.
Mitch McConnell continues to have temper tantrums over the filibuster. I’m not sure it’s working for him.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) appears to have inadvertently boosted Rep. John Yarmuth’s (D-KY) argument to reform or eliminate the filibuster in an op-ed the senator published in the the Courier Journal on Monday.
McConnell took aim at Yarmuth’s own op-ed published last week, which decried the Senate minority leader’s floor speech last week “frenetically predicting legislative Armageddon” in the chamber if Democrats were to go nuclear on the filibuster.
McConnell defended the filibuster by arguing that the procedure exists to “block bad ideas from becoming law and to encourage bipartisan solutions” — a point that Democratic senators like Yarmuth share, but with the concern that President Biden’s legislative agenda will hit more roadblocks if the reform or elimination of the filibuster doesn’t occur.
McConnell hit back at Yarmuth calling the filibuster a “minority veto” and defended the legislative roadblock as “Kentucky’s veto,” insinuating that senators from more populous states such as California or New York would have more weight in putting a stop to Republicans’ legislative priorities.
“As the only congressional leader not from New York or California, I put Kentucky’s priorities front and center,” McConnell wrote. “If Yarmuth had his way, Speaker Pelosi would have a free pass to leave Middle America out in the cold.”
But McConnell’s argument essentially proves Yarmuth’s point. As Vox pointed out in November, with Democrats securing both Senate seats in Georgia, the 50 Democratic senators represent 41.5 million more Americans than the 50 Republicans in the chamber. Kentucky’s population is about 4.5 million people, compared to about 39.5 million in California and 19.5 million in New York, respectively.
He went on the floor yesterday and fulminated over the issue for quite a while. He seems very upset.
But if he wants to start talking about how the filibuster is unfair to the minority, let’s discuss it. The Senate is an undemocratic institution that favors a minority of Americans which that minority uses to oppress racial minorities. I don’t think many people know how all that works. Let’s talk about it.
“He just came in and started shooting” without saying a word, they said. Adding that the gunman “let off a couple of shots, then was silent, and then he let off a couple more. He wasn’t spraying.” — from Slate’s account of Monday’s Boulder, Colo. mass shooting at a grocery store
Mass shootings are now so frequent that I missed several entirely. CNN defines a mass shooting as four or more casualties (dead or wounded) excluding the shooter(s). By its count, seven have occurred in the last seven days.
Eight people, including six Asian women, were killed when a White gunman stormed three spas, police said.Stockton, California, March 17: Five people who were preparing a vigil in Stockton, in California’s Central Valley, were shot in a drive-by shooting, the San Joaquin Sheriff’s Department said. None had life-threatening injuries.
Five people who were preparing a vigil in Stockton, in California’s Central Valley, were shot in a drive-by shooting, the San Joaquin Sheriff’s Department said. None had life-threatening injuries.
Four victims were taken to the hospital after a shooting in the city east of Portland, police said in an initial report.
Five people were shot after a disturbance inside a club, according to police. One was in critical condition after being shot in the neck, the rest were in stable condition, according to CNN affiliate KPRC.
Eight people were shot by an unknown assailant, one of whom died, according to police.
One person was killed and another five were injured during a shooting at an illegal party, CNN affiliate KYW reported. “There were at least 150 people in there that fled and believed they had to flee for their lives,” Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said.
Ten people, including a Boulder police officer, were killed in a shooting at the King Soopers supermarket, according to police.
CNN reports that the U.S. still does not have a central database for tracking firearms incidents and mass shootings. (Thanks, NRA.) Thus, “It’s unclear how this number of mass shootings compares to an average week in the US.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates nearly 40,000 Americans died in firearms incidents in 2019.
But since about 550,000 Americans died of COVID-19 since 2020, the NRA says neener-neener.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress “To establish Post Offices and post Roads.” Benjamin Franklin was famously the first Postmaster General appointed by the Continental Congress. Louis DeJoy is the 75th. He seems determined to be the last head of what is now the U.S. Postal Service, an independent agency.
DeJoy’s ten-year plan for USPS is expected to be “the largest rollback of consumer mail services in a generation.” The Washington Post reports (emphasis mine):
DeJoy is expected to emphasize the need for austerity to ensure more consistent delivery and rein in billions of dollars in financial losses, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations. The agency is weighed down by $188.4 billion in liabilities, and DeJoy told a House panel last month that he expects the USPS to lose $160 billion over the next 10 years.
The Post has more about DeJoy’s plans, about how the agency’s service has suffered under his tenure, about how President Biden cannot fire him directly but can appoint new board members who might, etc. Readers already know how badly delivery of ballots and other mail has suffered since DeJoy took charge.
But more infuriating is the creeping capitalism behind making the USPS an independent agency expected to operate on a break-even basis to provide a public service spelled out in Article 1.
“Did you know we don’t use your tax dollars for our operations?” reads their Postal Facts page. Imagine the U.S. Mint (Clause 5) or the federal courts (Clause 9) or the U.S. Navy (Clause 13) boasting about that. Imagine them being expected to run like businesses and taken to task over their “billions of dollars in financial losses,” as though the power of Congress “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” was for some other purpose.
But under creeping capitalism, that is how DeJoy and many of us are conditioned to think. Neoliberalism is far too aseptic a term.
It remains infuriating how the press defaults to characterizing relief checks intended to rescue people as stimulus checks for rescuing the economy. Nowhere in the 628 pages of the ‘‘American Rescue Plan Act of 2021” does “stimulus” appear. Nor in the ‘‘Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act’’ or the ‘‘CARES Act’’ passed in March 2020.
On Dec. 16, Democratic New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez posted a Twitter poll asking followers whether the $600 in the second COVID check was enough. Newsweek recast the question as her asking “whether they considered a $600 stimulus check to be enough.” It’s reflexive.
The checks are now “stimmies” because subconsiously people consider the economy more important than the humans it is supposed to serve. Even to humans who spill their sweat and blood in its service. Which term you default to signals which you value more.
That ought to give us pause.
Bars were closed and imports were shut down because of Trump’s trade war. But sales were up.
The monthly consumer spending data from the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis makes a little clearer how exactly this came about. Restaurant and bar closures did bring alcoholic beverage sales down in the spring, but in summer a new normal was established in which a partial recovery of beverage sales at bars and restaurants (helped in part by states changing liquor laws to allow them to sell drinks to go) combined with sustained higher retail sales to drive overall sales higher — although the lack of holiday parties and resurgence of the pandemic did tamp things down a bit again in December…
[O]verall U.S. sales were up 4.1% at Brown-Forman for the four quarters ending this Jan. 31, despite its divestment last summer of several lower-end whiskey brands. For the U.S. liquor industry as a whole, supplier revenues were up 7.7% in 2020, according to the Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S., the biggest percentage increase in 18 years and the biggest dollar increase on record. The pandemic apparently drove a lot of people to drink the hard stuff.
There was also a shift in which kinds of drinks were selling. Liquor sales rose faster than those of beer and wine, while within the spirits category tequila and brandy saw bigger gains than whiskey and vodka. The volume of cordials (liqueurs, amari and such) actually went down as bars bought fewer to mix into cocktails, although revenue still went up as retail customers opted for higher-end products than bars tend to do. The fastest-growing category of all was pre-mixed cocktails. At Brown-Forman, U.S. sales of Jack Daniel’s Country Cocktails (Black Jack Cola, Lynchburg Lemonade, Downhome Punch, etc.) more than doubled over the past year.
I know I’ve been dipping into the hard stuff a lot more this last year. What else could we do? It was a nightmare.
Rachel Bitecover has a very interesting poll and analysis of our current state. It’s not reassuring. She starts off with an in-depth historical look back at how we got to this hyper-polarized place.
And then we come to today:
It seems important to restate, in the starkest terms possible, that America is coming out of an election cycle in which its sitting president, ultimately supported by a broad number of his partisan peers in the congress and in the senate, came dangerously close to executing an illegal coup. Trump’s coup was attempted along multiple pathways- none of which were vigorously denounced and disavowed by his own partisans. Its an extraordinary sentence to write, let alone to consider in its full context- had Trump and the Republican Party’s efforts in the House succeeded, American democracy as it had existed for her 234 years would have ended. Yet, it is the party that attempted this coup who feels the election was illegitimate and who are aggressively rolling back access to the ballot box.
Despite this, the rest of the nation seems incapable of truly coming to terms with the severity of these events and realities, which are of course embedded in the likewise extraordinary context of a badly mishandled global pandemic that has now killed half a million Americans. The pandemic set in during the fourth year of a presidency that saw regular violations of norms, ethics, and even laws on what seemed to be a daily basis. Yet, despite this, then-President Trump’s near universal support among Republicans held perfectly firm, never sagging below the 90% favorability mark aside from a brief dip after Jan. 6th that now seems to have reset. The rest of the country waited in vain for a “Nixon Moment” that never came, even after the president inspired (at the least) an armed insurrection on Article II in an effort to avoid having Joe Biden’s election certified.
Lost in the national narrative is this basic fact- such events should not, could not happen in a healthy, functional democracy. In a healthy democracy, approval of a leader is contingent on performance, at least to an extent. The inelasticity of Trump’s approval data can only be produced when the democratic accountability function of a democracy has failed, especially given the objective extremity of Trump’s conduct in office. That so many objectively corrupt and/or incompetent events occurred between 2015 and 2020 and culminated in the way they did (a coup attempt) with virtually no affect on Republican voter assessments, American democracy is facing a five alarm fire.
With the collapse of old power paradigms challenging democratic stability here, and abroad, and with foreign adversaries and domestic entities seeking to manipulate western freedoms to compound these tensions, now more than ever Americans concerned with preserving democracy and maintaining the “American Experiment” must stand vanguard against the forces of authoritarianism and corruption which seek to undermine our democracy.
If those who seek to undermine democracy can be identified, we must be unafraid to name them. We cannot let the need to be “non-partisan” allow us to slip into the abyss. Freedom-loving Americans of every stripe must lock arms and prepare to work diligently to preserve our democracy.
This survey, generously paid for my donations large and small, is an effort to assist in that effort.
Summary of Survey Results:
This survey of Georgia voters exploring the topic of “democratic crisis” and tolerance for radical views finds that 84% of Georgia voters say American democracy is either “struggling” or “fragile.” However, even after the January 6th Capitol riot, efforts by Donald Trump & the GOP to disrupt the transfer of power, and other erosions of democratic norms during the Trump Era, it is Republicans (58%) who are significantly more likely to report that American democracy is “fragile” rather than Democrats (37%) and Independents (45%).
This disproportionate view of a “fragile” American democracy among Republicans may be contributing to radicalism within the Republican Party. The survey also reveals a concerning disconnect in the ability of Republicans to recognize specific erosions of democratic stability experienced in the U.S.
Indeed, responses to specific survey questions meant to measure attitudes toward democratic stability reveal significant evidence that vast majorities of Republicans disproportionately hold views that undermine democratic stability. Ironically, this suggests Republicans’ views about democratic “fragility” may be contributing to a party-wide tolerance for anti-democratic actions.
Despite recounts, audits, and court challenges verifying the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the 2020 election nationwide and in Georgia, just 53% of Georgians “agree” that Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 presidential election. This low percent is driven by massive party divides. While 92% of Democrats and 61% of Independents agree that Biden won legitimately, just 12% of Republicans agree.
Similarly, just 51% of Georgia voters agree that the event at the Capitol on January 6th was “an armed insurrection.” Although 81% of Democrats and 59% of Independents agree, just 19% of Republicans see the Capitol riot in this lens.
When prompted with a follow-up question asking if knowing that Vice President Mike Pence was targeted by some rioters for assassination made it more likely to view the riots as an “armed insurrection” 40% of all respondents report it does. However, the party divide ensures with 61% of Democrats, 43% of Independents, and 19% of Republicans indicating it makes them “more likely” to view it as an “armed insurrection.”
Voters were asked whether they supported the removal of Georgia congresswomen Marjorie Taylor Greene’s committee assignments due to her views on conspiracy theories such as Q’Anon. 46% supported the move compared to 34% who opposed it. 76% of Democrats and 51% of Independents supported the move compared to just 15% of Georgia Republicans.
A strong majority of Georgia Republicans, 61%, opposed Greene’s removal indicating significant tolerance of extremist views within the Republican Party’s voter coalition in Georgia. Like other questions about less well-known political figures, 21% of respondents deferred answering the question.
Georgians were asked whether they supported the use of metal detectors at the entrances of the House and Senate floors to enforce the firearms bans for those areas since January 6th- an issue that has become a flashpoint for some Republican lawmakers. 65% of Georgia voters support the use of the metal detectors including 43% of Republicans. 87% of Democrats and 71% of Independents support this policy.
Given the proliferation of laws meant to restrict “ease of access” to voting in states controlled by Republicans across the country and specifically in Georgia in the wake of the 2020 cycle and Trump’s “Big Lie,” the survey explores Georgians’ receptivity to the manipulation of voting access to improve the electoral conditions for one’s own party.
Overall, just 10% of Georgians are willing to explicitly agree with a statement asking if they support “limiting access to voting for some people if it helps the party you support win more elections.”
72% of respondents indicate they oppose such efforts with 71% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans opposed (as compared to 84% of Independents). Robust lack of support for limiting access to voting to benefit one’s party in principle by Republican identifier contrasted to the specific efforts to limit access to voting being considered by Republican legislatures is an interesting finding that encourages additional research. As with other controversial questions, nearly 20% of respondents deferred answering this question, with little variation by party.
The data also reveal significant education polarization regarding tolerance for democratic norms and the ability to recognize democratic “erosion,” with sharp divides in “democratic tolerance” between college educated (or greater) voters and those with only high school educations. Exposure to post-high school education correlates with increasing support for democratic norms and higher likelihood of recognizing recent democratic erosions.
Anyone who thinks he isn’t seething with vengeance hasn’t been paying attention to this guy over the past 40 years. He may be tired and maybe he will just pass away in his sleep, but it’s almost impossible for me to believe that he’s not dedicating the rest of his years to paying back the people he believes betrayed him, whether he runs for president or not:
Former President Trump said in a new interview that Republicans need “stronger” and “better” leadership than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
“I think we need better leadership than Mitch McConnell and stronger leadership,” Trump said while appearing on “The Truth with Lisa Boothe” with iHeart Radio and Gingrich 360.
“I mean, he can’t rein in his own people. We have the Mitt Romneys of the world and you know, the Ben Sasses of the world. These are not good for the Republican Party,” the former president added, referring to Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.).
McConnell, who aligned with Trump while he was in the Oval Office, appeared to break with the former president after the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol breach. McConnell said in February that Trump was “practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.” The senator also left open the possibility that Trump, who was impeached over his role but acquitted in a Senate trial, could face civil or criminal charges.
Trump fired back in a statement calling McConnell a “a dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack.”
However, the minority leader later said he would “absolutely” back Trump if he ran for presidency again in 2024.
Trump also said on the podcast that he doesn’t want to talk to McConnell.
“Look, he’s hanging by a thread right now with respect to the filibuster. And if they get the filibuster, he’s hanging on [Sen.] Joe Manchin [D-W.Va.], who always goes with the Democrats,” Trump said.He also said that Republicans could “not show up” in order to prevent any vote on the parliamentary procedure.
“If the Republicans don’t show up, in other words, there’s no vote, as I understand, in a 50/50 Senate, as I understand it the vice-presidential vote doesn’t count in that case. So they can’t get that through.”
Senators are required to attend sessions in the Senate unless they are excused. If a quorum, or minimum amount of senators needed, is not reached then the Senate may direct the Sergeant at Arms to ask or compel absent senators to attend a session according to Senate rules.
And, poor Mike Pence. He licked Trump’s boots so fervently that he wore a hole in the expensive Italian shoe leather. And this is what he got for it:
Former President Donald Trump didn’t include his former vice president in his list of “very good” Republican leaders and potential 2024 presidential candidates during a new interview with conservative commentator Lisa Boothe.
Instead, Trump named Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem.
“Ron DeSantis is doing a really good job in Florida,” he said. “I think Josh Hawley has shown some real courage in going after big tech … Somebody that’s been really terrific is Ted Cruz.”
He added, “Rand Paul has been great … Sarah Huckabee is going to do great in Arkansas. I think that Kristi Noem has done a terrific job … The Republican Party is stacked.”
Trump said he’ll make his decision on whether or not to run for reelection “later.”
Pence is reportedly considering a 2024 presidential bid if Trump decides not to run. Following the election, Trump accused Pence of lacking the “courage” to illegally overturn the presidential election results, inciting pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol building on Jan. 6 to call for Pence’s hanging.
During the interview, Trump also repeated his false claims that Pence could have rejected certain states’ Electoral College votes during the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress.
“It’s too bad Mike Pence didn’t go back, because you would have had a much different result had Mike Pence gone — he could have said, ‘I’m sorry, but this was not approved by the state legislature, and according to the Constitution, it had to be,'” Trump said.
If anyone thinks he doesn’t want revenge against “Sleepy Joe” as well, think again.
Update —
And look who’s sucking up by going after Trump’s enemies:
A prominent conservative group is buttressing Donald Trump’s quest to exact revenge on his GOP critics, targeting two Republicans who backed the former president’s impeachment.
The anti-tax Club for Growth is endorsing Max Miller, a former Trump White House aide running to unseat Ohio Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, who was one of 10 House Republicans to vote for Trump’s impeachment. The conservative organization is also this week dispatching an official to Wyoming to meet with prospective challengers to GOP Rep. Liz Cheney, another impeachment backer.
And we can’t wait. I guess we’re aiming for 600,000 deaths so we can say that in the beginning of the 21st century we really couldn’t do any better than they did in the beginning of the 19th century.
Even as the pace of vaccinations accelerates in the U.S., Covid-19 cases are increasing in 21 states and highly infectious variants are spreading as governors relax restrictions on businesses like restaurants, bars and gyms.
Public health officials warn that while roughly 2.5 million people nationwide are receiving shots every day, infection levels have plateaued this month and some states have failed to reduce the number of daily cases.
The 7-day moving average of new infections plateaued at 54,666 as of Friday after declining for weeks, according to a CNBC analysis of data from Johns Hopkins University.
More than 541,000 people in the U.S. have died of the disease.
White House Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci warned during a briefing on Friday that the country should not declare victory until the level of infection is “much, much lower.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky has also urged states not to reopen too quickly and undermine progress the country is making against the pandemic.
“The concern is that throughout the country, there are a number of state, city, regions that are pulling back on some of the mitigation methods that we’ve been talking about: the withdrawal of mask mandates, the pulling back to essentially non-public health measures being implemented,” Fauci said at the briefing.
“So it is unfortunate but not surprising to me that you are seeing increases in number of cases per day in areas — cities, states, or regions — even though vaccines are being distributed at a pretty good clip of 2 to 3 million per day,” Fauci added. “That could be overcome if certain areas pull back prematurely on the mitigation and public health measures that we all talk about.”
Infections are rising in the following states: Alabama; Connecticut; Hawaii; Idaho; Illinois; Maine; Maryland; Massachusetts; Michigan; Minnesota; Missouri; Montana; New Hampshire; New Jersey; New York; North Dakota; Pennsylvania; Rhode Island; Virginia; Washington; and West Virginia.
The highly contagious variant first identified in the U.K. likely accounts for up to 30% of Covid infections in the U.S. Health officials say the variant could become dominant by the end of this month or in early April.
The variant is seen as the cause of Europe’s third coronavirus wave. Several countries including France and Italy have imposed new lockdown measures to mitigate virus spread as cases surge.