After six months in office, Donald Trump’s public opinion ratings languish at 36 percent in many polls, and no higher than 40 percent in any of the reputable polls.
But in a Gallup poll, we discover that there are three tiers of states–17 states who love Trump and give him a rating of 50 or higher; 16 states where his rating is 40-50 percent; and 17 states where his rating is below 40 percent, and as low as 26 percent.
The 17 states that love Trump are in the South, Great Plains, and Mountain West, states that together have very few electoral votes–with West Virginia the highest support with 60 percent, followed by North Dakota with 59 percent and South Dakota with 57 percent, and then Montana and Wyoming with 56 percent and Alabama with 55 percent. All of the Great Plains states are part of the group, and the poorer Southern states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, besides Alabama, and the Appalachian states of Kentucky and West Virginia, in addition to the four smaller populated Mountain States (Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah), and Alaska. All 17 were Republican states in 2016.
The 16 states that give Trump between 40-50 percent include Maine and New Hampshire in New England; North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Mississippi in the South, with only Mississippi being a very poor state economically; Pennsylvania, and the Midwestern states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Missouri; and Arizona and Nevada in the West.
And then,the 17 states that totally reject Trump include the New England area minus Maine and New Hampshire; the entire Northeast down through Virginia, except Pennsylvania; Illinois and Minnesota in the Midwest; Colorado and New Mexico in the Mountain West; and the Pacific Coast states of California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii. Vermont with 26, Massachusetts with 29, Maryland and California with 30, and New York with 31 give the lowest support to Trump.
So overall, the map of support is similar as it was in the Presidential Election of 2016, and the key area of contention remains the Midwest and Pennsylvania, and Florida, which elected Trump; and they will determine whether the Democratic nominee for President in 2020 can win the White House.
Trump had it about right when he claimed, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.â€
(An actual poll – (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-voters-republicans-overall-actually-dont-care-president-shoots-someone-638462) – asked people, “If Donald Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue, would you approve or disapprove of the job he’s doing as president?†and, amazingly, many more Trump voters said they’d approve.)
Put me in the same group as “many who believe that nothing would induce the Republicans in Congress to defend the Constitution against Trumpâ€.
This nation is in deep trouble, with a percentage of morons that has no limit of stupidity or willingness to back authoritarianism!
The Orange Mussolini wants to ban transgender people in the military.
Just when I thought he couldn’t get any loonier. Trump compared himself to Lincoln.
At the same rally, he says he also wants to be on Mount Rushmore.
I’d be willing to put Trump on Mt. Rushmore so long as I’d also be allowed to push him off.
HAHA, a good one, Rustbelt Democrat! 🙂
Ronald writes, “So overall, the map of support is similar as it was in the Presidential Election of 2016, and the key area of contention remains the Midwest and Pennsylvania, and Florida, which elected Trump; and they will determine whether the Democratic nominee for President in 2020 can win the White House.â€
That is part of it.
With exception of the 1972 re-election of Richard Nixon, typically a re-elected incumbent sees a map in which no more than 10 states switch colors. (Nixon went from 32 states, in 1968, to 49 states, in 1972, because his popular-vote margin increased from +0.70, in 1968, to +23.15, in 1972, which is the only time this dramatic level of re-election support has happened.)
Scenarios are this:
• 2020 Republican hold (re-election for Donald Trump): An increase of about +3.00 in the popular-vote margin (going from –2.09, because in 2016 it was a Democratic hold by +2.09, to a Republican pickup of +0.91). The map would be the same as 2016 but with Republican pickups of New Hampshire, a Democratic margin in 2016 by +0.36, and Maine (statewide), a Democratic margin of +2.96. This would be a gain of +06 electoral votes added to Trump’s initial electoral-vote score of 306.
• 2020 Democratic pickup of the presidency. (It would be the first back-to-back party flips of the presidency since 1976 and 1980.) Take the 2016 map and leave the 2016 Republican pickup of Iowa in the party’s column for an unseated Trump. Do the same with Maine’s 2nd Congressional District. (Trump’s margin in Iowa was +9.41. In Maine #02, it was +10.47.). Flip the five other states which were 2016 Republican pickups—long-established bellwethers Ohio (+8.07) and Florida (+1.19) plus new bellwethers Wisconsin (+0.76), Pennsylvania (+0.72), and Michigan (+0.22)—and, since Trump’s average margin from his pickup states was +3.39, look to additional Democratic pickups from the 2016 Republican holds from Arizona (+3.50), North Carolina (+3.66), and Georgia (+5.09); they were close to where Trump’s electoral support actually resided.
As for particular states influencing the map—whichever winning party—no election in which Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida carried for the same person resulted in that candidate not winning that presidential election. Over the last 100 years, Herbert Hoover (1928), Franklin Roosevelt (1936), Dwight Eisenhower (1952, 1956), Lyndon Johnson (1964), Richard Nixon (1972), Ronald Reagan (1980, 1984), George Bush (1988), Bill Clinton (1996), Barack Obama (2008, 2012), and Donald Trump (2016) carried these states—now worth 83 electoral votes—with winning election/re-election to the presidency of the United States.
This is worth mentioning because these four states rank among Top 10 in population. The Top 10—which are also California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Georgia, and North Carolina—now comprise 256 of the 270 electoral votes required to win election the presidency of the United States. Both of the 2012 re-election of Barack Obama and the 2016 election of Donald Trump saw them carry seven of the Top 10. Those 83 electoral votes won from pickups of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan—added to the 206 electoral votes (from 24 carried states) for 2012’s losing Republican Mitt Romney—were key to electing to the presidency Donald Trump. And I suspect they will agree each other again in 2020.
I suspect this, in part, because from the last [10] presidential elections of 1980–2016, Ohio is the only state which has voted with the winner every time—a score of 100 percent. Florida agreed with Ohio in all but 1992—a score of 90 percent. Pennsylvania and Michigan agreed with each other in all, and they backed eight of the last ten winners, sided with popular-vote winner Al Gore in 2000 (earning half-credit in that election toward assessing their reliability in backing presidential winners)—and their score is at 85 percent. If you grade these four states on a slight curve, Ohio earns a A+; Florida earns a A; Pennsylvania and Michigan earn a B+. These states have better records, over the last four decades than the rest of the populous Top 10: California and Illinois, both with half-credit backing popular-vote winners in each of 2000 and 2016, and which have agreed in all ten cycles, are at 80 percent (earning a B); North Carolina is at 70 percent (earning a C); Texas and Georgia are at 60 percent (earning a D).
Re: The transgender Tweet -Â The Pentagon thought he was announcing a war via Twitter.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/07/26/the-pentagon-thought-trump-was-announcing-a-war-via-twitter/
Yet another example of why Trump is dangerous and needs to be removed from office ASAP.
Thanks, D, great analysis.
One question, what was the score for New York, as you did not mention that?
Thanks!
Ronald writes, “One question, what was the score for New York, as you did not mention that?â€
A mistake on my part.
The state of New York, from 1980–2016, voted the same as California and Illinois with exception of 1988. (Michael Dukakis won a 1988 Democratic pickup of New York one election cycle before California and Illinois, and a host of other notable states, flipped for 1992 Democratic presidential pickup winner Bill Clinton.) New York backed the winner in six elections, gets half-credit for each of the popular-vote winners from 2000 and 2016, and carried at a rate of 70 percent (a letter grade of C).
I posted, just after Election 2016, the historical rankings of all states: https://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=29045 .
New Mexico, which is at No. 1, is the only state which has carried in the 90 percentile range during its existence. Six states have performed in the 80s percentile range: Illinois, Ohio, New York, California, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. Wisconsin, at No. 8, begins those in the 70s percentile range and extends to No. 30 North Carolina.
The historical average is just over 69 percent, which is an average of 34 carried states. In the last ten elections, only Ronald Reagan (44 in 1980; 49 in 1984) and George Bush (40 in 1988) carried a number of states above historical average. Since 1992, Bill Clinton (30 in 1992; 31 in 1996), George W. Bush (30 in 2000; 31 in 2004), Barack Obama (28 in 2008; 26 in 2012), and Donald Trump (30 in 2016) have averaged 29 carried states. So we are in an underwhelming period. Citing Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan as the Top 10 states most influential in today’s Electoral College is recognizing the market-research-like approach—that neither major party is trying to carry 40 states (a reason why to look at the last ten cycles)—to electoral politics and cast the majority as Strong Republican (red) or Strong Democratic (blue), and then categorize a precious few as battlegrounds which are flippable (purple).
To further drive home this point: a winning Republican or winning Democrat will get a good 200 or so of his total electoral-vote score coming from however many Top 10 states he carries. Among those most influential in shaping a winning map are now appearing to be long-established bellwethers Ohio (which voted with the winner in all of the last ten elections; the only state carried in the lifetime of all who were born Nov. 9, 1960 or later); Florida (which voted with the winner in nine of the last ten cycles); and Pennsylvania and Michigan (which carried in eight, plus a half-credit from 2000, in the last ten election cycles). These four states’ combined 83 electoral votes were 25 percent of the 332 elecoral votes for 2012’s re-elected Barack Obama. They represented 27 percent of the initial 306 electoral votes for 2016’s Donald Trump.
That is a lot of electoral power!
Thanks, D, you are the BEST! 🙂
It will be important information to use when we start analyzing 2020, which, hard to believe, is around the corner in many ways!
First Democratic candidate for 2020 presidential election. He doesn’t have any name recognition. Â
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/07/28/the-first-democratic-candidate-has-entered-the-2020-presidential/23054589/
North Korea fired off another missile. Experts are saying this one could hit the east coast of the US. Experts are saying North Korea’s missiles could be nuclear armed as early as next year. Scary!
Princess Leia, John Delaney is not going anywhere.
Regarding North Korea, I thought it was the West Coast, California, that is endangered, as to reach the East Coast is much further away!
They said estimates that the missile is capable of traveling around 10,000 km, or around 6,200 miles. Models created based on the size of the missile and the power of the engine show that it can reach the continental US, probably New York and DC.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/28/16058494/north-korea-missile-test-new-york-washington
Oh wow, Princess Leia, thanks for the article and information!
Mount Rushmore? How about Mount Tweetmore?
Although Trump can ” rush more” incoherent thoughts and ideas than Professor Irwin Corey… 😉
The biggest credit and thanks for our win over the Trump/McConnell effort to take away health care from tens of millions has to go to the millions of people, led by groups like ADAPT and Indivisible Guide, who have marched, attended town hall meetings, called their Congresspeople, and otherwise made their voices heard. It is a hopeful reminder that we, the people, still can save our country and democracy from Trump and his GOP sycophants as long as we continue to stand up and fight for it.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a56699/healthcare-protests-succeed/
🙂
Totally agree, Southern Liberal!
Three elections offer clues to Trump.
http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/344546-juan-williams-three-elections-offer-clues-to-trump
Definitely agree. Worst Democratic idea of the year. I predict it will backfire disastrously.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/47402_Democratic_Party_to_Women-_Your_Rights_Are_Less_Important_Than_Winning_Elections#rss
Obama’s inner circle is urging Deval Patrick to run in 2020.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/01/obamas-inner-circle-is-urging-deval-patrick-to-run-215443
Interesting possibility, Pragmatic Progressive!
Pragmatic Progressive writes, “Obama’s inner circle is urging Deval Patrick to run in 2020.â€
Barack Obama is a big reason why the president of the United States is Donald Trump.
The approximately 1,000 seat losses in state legislatures, the approximately 15 seat losses in the United States Senate, over 60 seat losses in the United States House of Representatives, and over 10 state governorships—over the course of Obama’s presidency—are key to why I should and do not want any further influence on the Democratic Party coming from Barack Obama and/or his inner circle.
Obama’s accomplishments:
http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/
Trump’s only accomplishment:Â Making America an embarrassment by ruining it.
Join your local Indivisible group to help resist Trump’s evil agenda and make America truly great again.  https://www.indivisibleguide.com/
In every election since 2008 Republicans have run on “scary brown people are getting out of hand and it’s up to us Republicans to stop them.” That’s how Trump won in 2016: reaction against BlackLivesMatter, reaction against refugees and migrants. I am all for an “economic message” but I am skeptical that an economic message neutralizes this xenophobic paranoia that seems rampant in a lot of the places where Trump did unexpectedly well. Hopefully Trump’s being a vile, incompetent, and corrupt human being will galvanize the people who don’t always vote in off-year elections into turning out to stick it in his vacuous orange face.
I agree with Princess Leia, D, and while Obama certainly could have done more to help others in the party, I do not think he can be blamed for the losses, all by himself. Obama accomplished a lot, and his wishing to help in the future is a plus. I, however, agree with you, D, that I would not take Deval Patrick very seriously as a candidate, and think he will not run, in any case.
The one thing that might resonate is ‘Trumpcare’. The Dems should relentlessly point out how Dictator Trump and virtually the entire GOP were willing to strip healthcare from millions of Americans to give a tax cut to the rich. ‘Drain the swamp by voting Dem ‘ might be a workable slogan!
Draw out the hatred more clearly. Trump’s scapegoats are Mexicans, Muslims, blacks and gays. Whitewashing these targets as “immigration and terrorism and urban crime and LGBT issues” gives away half the game. Trump wants to hide his failures behind a mask of hatred. Trump divides us. Trump makes us weak. Trump made America less safe. Trump made America more insecure. Trump made America more stressed out. Trump made America less popular in the world. Trump makes bad deals with foreign leaders. Trump makes war more likely. Trump ceded American leadership to China and Russia. Trump lost the 21st century.
Americans must unite if we are to repair the damage done by Trump, to reclaim the mantle of global leadership, to fulfill the promises of prosperity, community, and dignity envisioned by our fore-bearers. A unity message of “We the People” is the correct counter message to Trump’s “divide and conquer” strategy. Culture war versus class war is a false dilemma, one Trump seeks to exploit. Turn the economic message into a message of unity, reclaim populism, turn class war against culture war and both against Trump.
New poll of Trump’s approval numbers, posted on Twitter by Kyle Griffin, producer of MSNBC’s The Last Word.
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/892796797755817984/photo/1
The 2016 election was stolen by Russia.
#TheirSiberianCandidateIsNotMyPresident
Former Republican writes, “The 2016 election was stolen by Russia.â€
No.
It was won, in a Republican pickup, by Donald Trump.
I offered a reasonse here:
https://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=29133
Reason for why Donald Trump did not win over the popular vote was because he did not take Mitt Romney’s 2012 national loss off –3.86 and shift +3.87 to win by at least +0.01.
States in which Donald Trump shifted the minimum +3.87 numbered just 25. By comparison, 2008 Democratic pickup winner Barack Obama hit his needed +7.27 in 43 states. 1992 Democratic pickup winner Bill Clinton, in need of +7.73, reached in 41 states. 1980 Republican pickup winner Ronald Reagan met his necessary +2.07 in 46 states.
I have a map. I don’t know if its image will appear below until I hit “Post It.â€
The states in red are ones in which Donald Trump reached a +3.87 shift. Those states in blue are ones in which Trump failed to shift sufficiently in his direction. (And there were states Hillary Clinton shifted in her direction. In fact, there were ten: Arizona, California, Georgia, Kansas, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.) The ones in red are worth 210 electoral votes. That is 39.03 percent of the 538 electoral votes. Trump had a sufficient margin shift in just 8 of the Top 20 states: New York, Pennsylvania (pickup), Ohio (pickup), Michigan (pickup), Indiana, Tennessee, Missouri, and Wisconsin (pickup). From those Top 20 pickup states, 64 electoral votes flipped from 2012 Democratic to 2016 Republican column. With Trump having carried all 24 states, and 206 electoral votes, won in 2012 by Romney … this is where you have the split outcome. Without having to win over the popular vote, Trump was able to reach the 270.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/nBxYv
http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/nBxYv.png
No such thing as Trump Democrats.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-trump-democrat/2017/08/04/0d5d06bc-7920-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.2a4c21faef5d
A new analysis shows that those Obama voters who switched to the president were largely Republican to start with.
Princess Leia provided the link a “Washington Post” article written by Dana Milbank.
My response to it is that it is not credible to generalize in saying who is actually a Democrat or actually a Republican who was willing to be a crossover voter for 2008 and/or 2012 Barack Obama and 2016 Donald Trump and non-chalantly dismiss such individuals as not worthy of pursuit for their votes.
That is because this has crossover voting has existed for a long time anyway. The exit polls have so much information, in the cross tabs, that they include self-identified Republicans, self-identified Democrats, and self-identified independents.
No Republican or Democrat will get the full 100 percent of votes cast by voters who usually self-identify with that candidate’s political party. So, just looking at the number (like 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 percent) of R-to-D or D-to-R crossovers says plenty.
In 2016, according to national exit poll from http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls , it was 8 percent of crossovers for both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. (Trump won the self-independents by +4 percentage points. Trump held up his party support by +80. Clinton held her party support by +81. Self-identified Democrats were +3 points more than Republican with the size of the national vote. Hillary Clinton won a Democratic hold of the U.S. Popular Vote by +2.09.)
Ronald writes, “The 17 states that love Trump are…’
I wasn’t focusing my earlier response to immediately notice patterns revealed by that Gallup poll.
In 2016, there were 24 states that were 2012-to-2016 Republican holds. Of those particular states, there are [19] of which give Donald Trump better numbers generally for their approval over disapproval as reported by Gallup.
From these 19 states, there are only two—Tennessee and Missouri—which have double-digit electoral votes.
Why is it important to mention this? Looking at where the states rank in population, with California at No. 1, there are 21 states with double-digit electoral votes. California has 55. Minnesota, ranked No. 21, has 10. (Coming soon: Colorado, with 9 electoral votes, will supplant Minnesota.)
These 21 states represent 379 of the total 538 electoral votes. This is about 70 percent of the country residing between these Top 21 states. And only two of them—again, Tennessee and Missouri—give Trump more approval over disapproval.
There is one state Donald Trump did not carry—that would be Hawaii—in which his approval-vs.-disapproval is better than the margin by which his Democratic opponent had carried it. (Hillary Clinton won Hawaii by +32.18. The Hawaii disapproval for Trump is –19.)
The 19 states which give Trump better approval over disapproval are worth 115 electoral votes. (I will present to a link to an electoral map that illustrates this.) But there is one more thing to mention: When looking at the 30 states Trump carried (six of which, plus Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, were 2016 Republican pickups), he is underperforming the approval-vs.-disapproval margins won in all of them. Example: His No. 1 best-performed state, for percentage-points margin, was Wyoming. He carried it by +46.30. That Gallup poll has his Wyoming approval-vs.-disapproval at +20. (I will provide a list below to show my work.)
If we were in 2020 already, I would say that Trump would be getting unseated. But, since the next big election will be the 2018 midterm elections, this means the party which should end up winning with that election cycle is the Democratic Party. (That is, unless Trump gets his numbers up over the next year or so.) It would yield this result because Democratic U.S. president Barack Obama was at a similar approval-vs.-disapproval level timed with the midterm elections of 2010. In that midterm elections year, Republicans won a majority pickup of the U.S. House and majority pickup of governor mansions to go along with state legislatures. Although majority control did not flip, the Republicans won pickups of six Democratic-held U.S. Senate seats (which reduced the Democrats’ 59 to 53).
*****
http://www.gallup.com/poll/214349/trump-averaged-higher-job-approval-states.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication
ELECTION 2016 MARGINS VS. JULY 2017 GALLUP POLL
DONALD TRUMP (* pickup)
01. Wyoming (03): +46.30 | Gallup: +20 | Result: –26 points
02. West Virginia (05; cum. 08): +41.68 | Gallup: +25 | Result: –16
03. Oklahoma (07; cum. 15): +36.39 | Gallup: +15 | Result: –21
04. North Dakota (03; cum. 18): +35.73 | Gallup: +23 | Result: –12
05. Idaho (04; cum. 22): +31.76 | Gallup: +11 | Result: –20
06. Kentucky (08; cum. 30): +29.84 | Gallup: +10 | Result: –19
07. South Dakota (03; cum. 33): +29.79 | Gallup: +14 | Result: –15
08. Alabama (09; cum. 42): +27.73 | Gallup: +16 | Result: –11
09. Arkansas (06; cum. 48): +26.92 | Gallup: +13 | Result: –13
10. Tennessee (11; cum. 59): +26.01 | Gallup: +09 | Result: –17
11. Nebraska (05; cum. 64): +25.05 (statewide) | Gallup: +09 | Result: –16
12. Kansas (06; cum. 70): +20.42 | Gallup: +11 | Result: –09
13. Montana (03; cum. 73): +20.23 | Gallup: +15 | Result: –05
14. Louisiana (08; cum. 81): +19.64 | Gallup: +08 | Result: –11
[15. Indiana (11; cum. 92): +19.01 | Gallup: –01 | Result: –20]
16. Missouri (10; cum. 102): +18.51 | Gallup: +03 | Result: –21
17. Utah (06; cum. 108): +17.89 | Gallup: +05 | Result: –12
18. Mississippi (06; cum. 114): +17.80 | Gallup: +02 | Result: –15
19. Alaska (03; cum. 117): +14.73 | Gallup: +07 | Result: –07
20. South Carolina (09; cum. 126): +14.27 | Gallup: +06 | Result: –08
— * Maine’s 2nd Congressional District (01; cum. 127): +10.28 | Not applicable! —
[21. * Iowa (06; cum. 133): +09.41 | Gallup: –04 | Result: –13]
[22. Texas (38; cum. 171): +09.00 | Gallup: –09 | Result: –18]
[23. * Ohio (18; cum. 189): +08.07 | Gallup: –01 | Result: –09]
[24. Georgia (16; cum. 205): +05.10 | Gallup: –07 | Result: –12]
[25. North Carolina (15; cum. 220): +03.66 | Gallup: –11 | Result: –14]
[26. Arizona (11; cum. 231): +03.50 | Gallup: –09; Result: –12]
[27. * Florida (29; cum. 260): +1.19 | Gallup: –09; Result: –10]
[28. * Wisconsin (10: cum. 270; Tipping Point State): +0.76 | Gallup: –09 | Result: –09]
[29. * Pennsylvania (20; cum. 290): +0.72 | Gallup: –09 | Result: –09]
[30. * Michigan (16; cum. 306): +0.22 | Gallup: –10 | Result: –10]
(HILLARY CLINTON)
[31. (20.) New Hampshire (04): –0.36 | Gallup: –06 | Result: –06]
[32. (19.) Minnesota (10; cum. 14): –1.52 | Gallup: –18 | Result: –19]
[33. (18.) Nevada (06; cum. 20): –2.42 | Gallup: –06 | Result: –08]
[34. (17.) Maine (03; cum. 23): –2.96 (statewide) | Gallup: –14 | Result: –16]
[35. (16.) Colorado (09; cum. 32): –4.91 | Gallup: –19 | Result: –23]
[36. (15.) Virginia (13; cum. 45): –5.32 | Gallup: –17 | Result: –22]
[37. (14.) New Mexico (05; cum. 50): –8.21 | Gallup: –19 | Result: –27]
[38. (13.) Oregon (07; cum. 57): –10.98 | Gallup: –18 | Result: –28]
[39. (12.) Delaware (03; cum. 60): –11.37 | Gallup: –18 | Result: –29]
[40. (11.) Connecticut (07; cum. 67): –13.64 | Gallup: –25 | Result: –38]
[41. (10.) New Jersey (14; cum. 81): –13.98 | Gallup: –22 | Result: –35]
[42. (09.) Rhode Island (04; cum. 85): –15.51 | Gallup: –18 | Result: –33]
[43. (08.) Washington (12; cum. 97): –15.71 | Gallup: –23 | Result: –38]
[44. (07.) Illinois (20; cum. 117): –16.89 | Gallup: –22 | Result: –38]
[45. (06.) New York (29; cum. 146): –22.49 | Gallup: –31 | Result: –53]
[46. (05.) Vermont (03; cum. 149): –26.41 | Gallup: –45 | Result: –71]
[47. (04.) Maryland (10; cum. 159): –26.42 | Gallup: –34 | Result: –60]
[48. (03.) Massachusetts (11; cum. 170): –27.20 | Gallup: –37 | Result: –64]
[49. (02.) California (55; cum. 225): –29.99 | Gallup: –33 | Result: –62]
50. (01.) Hawaii (04; cum. 229): –32.18 | Gallup: –19 | Result +13
— District of Columbia (03; cum. 232): –86.78 | Not applicable! —
*****
ELECTORAL MAP FOR TRUMP APPROVAL:
http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/ljYWJ.png
D – The information in the article comes from data and from and an analysis by AFL-CIO.
Anyone who voted for Trump will bear – for life – his stain and his stench. They either embraced his racism, nativism, and sexism, or at the least were willing to overlook it. Trying to bring these ignoramuses into solid Democratic voters is a total waste of time. We should instead concentrate on those Democrats who don’t turn out or who vote for third party candidates in a misguided quest for purity.
Seconded, Rustbelt. I’m struck by the video of Trump’s recent rally in WV. If that crowd isn’t a cult, I’m not sure what is. Democrats should spend zero time and energy trying to win over those voters. Instead, direct that energy toward Democrats, continually exposing the train wreck of Trump’s “presidency” and his GOP enablers, to turn out the vote. Taking back the House and kicking this orange trash can fire out of the WH is the motivation we need.
Let’s keep in mind Rump’s approval rating is at a pathetic record low 33 percent and plummeting.
Precisely, Pragmatic. As each day goes by and each scandal erupts I think many people are getting buyer’s remorse.
Rustbelt Democrat writes, “We should instead concentrate on those Democrats who don’t turn out or who vote for third party candidates in a misguided quest for purity.â€
There are not enough self-identified Democrats to win. They are not generally a majority of all voters and/or all votes cast. (The same is true with self-identified Republicans.) So, whether you want to dismiss Democratic Party losses as merely people having been on a “quest for purity,†it does not change such results. So, a realistic conclusion is this: For a Democrat to win, that winning Democrat has to earn and receive people’s votes.
One of our neighbors is Republican. He voted for Trump because he was sick of the “Kenyan Muslim.” Try asking him about what Trump has accomplished since becoming president, and you get more “Kenyan Muslim” and several “Crooked Hillary” and “Benghazi” comments.Â
Exactly, Rustbelt! Bigots and sexists like our neighbor are not welcome in our party.
I also second that Southern Liberal. If Democrats start accommodating people who are racist, anti-women, anti-science, anti-facts just to win votes, then Democrats no longer stand for anything.
BPI Campus article says that both the far right and far left have formed circular firing squads.
https://bpicampus.com/2017/08/05/right-vs-mcmasters-left-vs-anyone-not-named-bernie/
As they point out, our party has pushed for raising the minimum wage, making college affordable, expanding voting rights, protecting women’s health choices, expanding Social Security, strengthening the Affordable Care Act, ending discrimination against LGBTs, ending mass incarceration, holding police accountable….
That certainly doesn’t sound like the party is moving to the right.
Agreed, Pragmatic. Those Democratic policies are the total opposite of Republicans. I don’t see how those Democratic policies are considered Republican lite in any way, shape, or form.
Yes. Those Democratic policies are clearly left-wing and I’m proud to support them by voting for Democrats.
Here is Part #01 of a recent interview with Thomas Frank includes discussion of the Democrats’ recently proposed “Better Dealâ€â€¦
http://youtu.be/gqvpePm_yiI
Here is Part #02 of that recent interview with Thomas Frank…
http://youtu.be/rMsk18X76JA
Here is Part #03 of this interview with Thomas Frank…
http://youtu.be/eoaApawF75M
With Democrats proposing to restore anti-trust protections against increasing corporate consolidation, job creation through a major infrastructure investment program, and a crackdown on increasing prescription drug prices, the “Better Deal” is a good start from both a political and policy perspective. Now, we Democrats need to stick with the message and build on it.
https://www.facebook.com/WinningProgressive/posts/1758441974166301
Totally second that Pragmatic.
As a white progressive and lifelong Democrat, I totally agree with Martin Longman of the Washington Monthly concerning the attacks of African American politicians.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/08/03/the-left-should-gaze-at-their-own-navel/
‘The Left’ Should Gaze at Their Own Navel
by Martin Longman
August 3, 2017
I’m pretty scrupulous about avoiding the ongoing fights between the Clinton and Sanders wings of the party, and I’m not going to engage on those terms here. Instead, I’m just going to offer some friendly advice to Ryan Cooper, who was my predecessor as the web editor of the Washington Monthly. He ought to attempt a paradigm shift, at least for long enough to see how it looks.
Cooper is at pains to explain to us why “leftists†are mistrustful of three African-American politicians whose names are mentioned as serious, potentially viable presidential candidates for 2020. The primary motivation for providing us with this explanation is to beat back accusations that they oppose them as possible contenders because of their race.
Freshman Sen. Kamala Harris of California is mistrusted, Ryan says, because she is a prosecutor. As for specifics, she took a campaign contribution from now-Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and failed to bring him up on charges without an adequate explanation. Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is a favorite of Barack Obama, but he works for Bain Capital, the same vulture capitalist organization that Obama tied like a millstone around Mitt Romney’s neck. And Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, like all New Jersey senators since the days of Alexander Hamilton, is too close to Wall Street. He has not yet been forgiven for defending Bain Capital and other vulture capitalists during the 2012 campaign.
In other words, there are real and somewhat obvious reasons for “the left†to see each of these candidates as captured or compromised by some of the nastier elements of the financial sector. Thus, it’s disingenuous and unfair to attack their critics as racists.
A column that said nothing more than this would be needed and helpful, but Cooper goes a little further and offers these candidates some advice:
If they want to win over the left — and Harris, who has expressed at least mild support for tuition-free public college (for families with income less than $140,000), a $15 minimum wage, expanded Social Security, and Medicare for all, would probably be the most credible person to attempt this — they need to first explain their recent history.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, they need to make a symbolic rhetorical break with the despised donor class.
Human beings are very good at pattern-recognition, and the same talent that allows Cooper to see the “donor class†ties of these three prospective presidential candidates allows others to see how race ties them all together as well. If the latter pattern leads to lazy and uncharitable generalizations, perhaps the same is true of the former pattern. Can we agree at least that in both cases there is a problem with how things are perceived?
The paradigm shift I’m advocating here involves setting aside for a moment the discussion of what these three African-American politicians need to do to explain their recent history or make symbolic breaks with their past. Instead, “the left†should consider what they need to do to overcome the perception among many African-Americans that the Sanders wing of the party is somewhere between tone-deaf and hostile.
To be candid, I’m not saying that either exercise is more legitimate than the other. In fact, part of what I’d expect Cooper to learn from this exercise is that there are real limitations to both ways of analyzing the political rifts on the left.
But let’s acknowledge that Harris, Patrick and Booker are immensely talented, accomplished and charismatic leaders, none of whom can be fairly dismissed based on the connections each has to the financial sector. Lumping them together, too, as if defending Bain Capital is the same as working for them, or as if Booker’s record is really similar to Harris’s, just invites others to question your open-mindedness and motives.
As a more practical matter, “the left†should consider that David Axelrod is not wrong in his analysis:
Obama strategist David Axelrod has had several conversations with [Deval] Patrick about running, and eagerly rattles off the early primary map logic: small-town campaign experience from his 2006 gubernatorial run that will jibe perfectly with Iowa, neighbor-state advantage in New Hampshire and the immediate bloc of votes he’d have as an African-American heading into South Carolina.
Add to this that the African-American community will probably put more weight on the fact that the Obamas are endorsing or at least noisily encouraging Patrick to run than on his job at Bain Capital. They’ll hear that Valerie Jarrett says, “President Patrick is what my heart desires,†and it will count for more than what a bunch of Sanders supporters write on Twitter. If Patrick runs, “the left†will need to come up with a substantive and respectful way of opposing him that doesn’t amount to condemning the Obamas by association. This will be harder to do if the perception sets in in the black community that the Sanders left is opposed to every African-American with an actual shot at being president.
In fact, I suspect Cooper’s fear that the Sanders left will be characterized this way even if it isn’t fair is what led him to write this piece in the first place. But if he sees the vulnerability, his main advice is not to his cohorts on how they can and must avoid this fate. His main advice is to the African-American candidates on how they can avoid taking criticism that they have zero prospect of actually avoiding.
“The left†has already built a narrative around each of the candidates and they’re not going to let those narratives go. Cory Booker can disavow political action committee money, but that will never end the criticism of his record as New Jersey mayor and senator. Kamala Harris cannot go back in time and refuse a political donation or prosecute a man she declined to prosecute. Deval Patrick can no more escape his ties to Bain Capital than Mitt Romney could. If “the left†insists on reducing these individuals down to these unflattering characteristics and refuses to see them in full, then they’re going to invite a well-deserved backlash.
The reason I’ve been putting “the left†in quotes throughout this piece is because it’s absurd to suggest that the vocal opponents of Harris, Patrick and Booker have sole ownership of the term. And they must know that they can’t forge a truly left-leaning takeover of the Democratic Party without making deep inroads with people of color. Moreover, David Axelrod is correct that the early primary schedule could favor a talented, charismatic African-American candidate who has the official or unofficial blessing of the Obama team.
So, what Cooper should try focusing on, at least for a while to see how it looks, is how “the left†can avoid marginalization on the basis of perceived racial insensitivity. In my opinion, neither side can avoid their fates here. “The left†will attack these black candidates as a group for their Wall Street connections no matter how many allies advise them that this will be unwise and self-defeating. But, if you’re trying to be constructive, you might consider that the best way to protect “the left†from charges of racism is not to insist that they have a point, even if they do. It might be better to do what is expected by decent people, and that’s to be fair and focus on the strengths of these candidates and the fullness of their records rather than lumping them together and dismissing them as sell-outs.
Pragmatic – I second that about the Better Deal as well.
The base of the Democratic Party is now people of color, Latinos, first and second-generation immigrants, women and LGBTs. Our job is to put more people from those groups into offices around the nation, convince young, white males that our goals help them, and get people to vote!
Exactly right, Southern Liberal!
Rustbelt Democrat’s posted article was in response to the following…
* * * * *
Why leftists don’t trust Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Deval Patrick
By Ryan Cooper (08.03.2017)
http://theweek.com/articles/715955/why-leftists-dont-trust-kamala-harris-cory-booker-deval-patrick
The contest for control of the Democratic Party between left and center is continuing apace. The latest battleground is over a handful of minority Democrats being groomed by the centrist establishment to run for office: Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.
If the center wants to win over a suspicious left, they can start by clearly explaining their policy orientation, particularly in areas where they might have fallen short by the supposed standards of the modern Democratic Party — which all three of the above candidates have done in various ways. If they want to deepen divisions, they can use cynical accusations of bigotry to try to beat back any leftist challenger.
Let’s take each in turn. The former attorney general of California, Harris is mistrusted by the left mostly because of her roots as a prosecutor. The Black Lives Matter movement has put anyone with law enforcement history under close scrutiny, and California’s criminal justice system is notoriously brutal (though it has improved recently). While she is obviously no Jeff Sessions, Harris has sometimes displayed a rather Hillary Clinton-esque tendency to say the right thing but not follow through in a vigorous way. Most notoriously, she refused to prosecute Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s old company OneWest for numerous instances of almost certain illegal foreclosure, against the advice of her own Consumer Law Section, and has so far refused to say why. (She was also the only Senate Democratic candidate to get a donation from Mnuchin himself in 2016.)
Booker is mistrusted because of his ties to Wall Street. Most notoriously, when President Obama attacked Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign for his long career as a bloodsucking financial parasite, buying up companies only to strip their assets and drive them into bankruptcy, Booker defended Bain Capital on Meet the Press. Why? Because New Jersey is just across the river from Manhattan and both parties are drowning in Wall Street cash.
Patrick is least trusted of all because he actually works for Bain Capital as a managing director. If he were to run for president, as Obama’s inner circle is apparently urging him to, President Trump would just have to copy-paste Obama’s 2012 ads.
In other words, there are quite substantive reasons why a leftist might not trust any of those candidates. The probably accurate perception that all three candidates are being groomed by the same big-money donors that clustered around Hillary Clinton will only deepen the divide, because it suggests that — like pro-union rules, or the public option in ObamaCare — any adoption of Sanders-style proposals are mostly bait to be cast aside when it comes time to actually pass something.
If they want to win over the left — and Harris, who has expressed at least mild support for tuition-free public college (for families with income less than $140,000), a $15 minimum wage, expanded Social Security, and Medicare for all, would probably be the most credible person to attempt this — they need to first explain their recent history.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, they need to make a symbolic rhetorical break with the despised donor class. The left generally likes Elizabeth Warren because she ferociously criticizes Wall Street and corporate abuse. Adopting a harsh anti-economic elite line will reassure young Sanders Democrats that anti-establishment policies aren’t just window dressing. Meanwhile, steps like refusing to take PAC money and running mostly on small donors will signal independence from the donor class (and as Sanders discovered, might actually lead to a gusher of campaign cash).
But if they just want to have a retread of the 2015-16 primary, the center could just try to win dirty. The left, they might say (working hand-in-glove with sympathetic columnists), just doesn’t like minority or female candidates because they are racist and sexist.
I would bet quite a lot of money the centrist Democratic establishment will opt for the latter strategy. Indeed, some are already doing so — like Neera Tanden, head of the Center for American Progress, elite Democrats’ in-house think tank.
That would be pretty rich coming from the crowd that shamelessly leveraged Islamophobia to keep Keith Ellison — probably the left’s second-most trusted politician, after Bernie Sanders — out of the chair of the Democratic National Committee.(Update: Neera Tanden contacted us after this story was published and asked that we clarify that she personally defended Keith Ellison from these attacks.) Indeed, in other forums the left is simultaneously being criticized for being too sympathetic to radical Muslim and black activists. On Tuesday the neoconservative Bari Weiss lambasted leftists for, among other things, associating with the Muslim activist Linda Sarsour (for being anti-Zionist) and cast their praise of the exiled black radical Assata Shakur as love of a cop-killer — conveniently neglecting to mention that the reason people support her is their belief that she was framed for the murder.
That extraordinarily cheap attack at least has the actual history of social justice activism straight, in which the left has long been leading the charge and centrists following (often very far) behind.
At any rate, if I had to guess, I’d say we’re in for a rather bitter fight for supremacy over the Democratic Party between big money elites on one side and Sanders Democrats on the other. But for actual individuals like Harris, it’s worth considering the extremely weakened state of the party elite compared to 2013. Clinton’s defeat completely shattered the elite’s reputation for competence, and they will have a much harder time beating back a left-wing challenger in 2020. Even on purely tactical grounds, it probably makes more sense to permanently throw one’s lot in with the left.
D – Most of us here that you are conversing with are women. We are into social activism and this is the thing that some in the current progressive movement are suggesting that concerns us: Must Democrats throw Women, Latinos and African American caucuses under the bus to appease white-male America? Must Democrats deny their LGBT brothers and sisters equality of rights in order to satisfy the Evangelical right? Must Democrats allow immigrant families to be ripped apart to get the white nationalist vote? Must Democrats sacrifice our environment because the regulations are a little inconvenient to business interests? Must Democrats reject science in order to get the vote of the climate denier? For us, the answer is clearly NO.
Speaking of women, Trump is going to have an impact women running for office in the United States.
http://shareblue.com/donald-trump-might-make-women-the-majority-in-congress/
An interesting thing happened this year at Politicon.
http://youtu.be/IBgaZSAEKng
Re: The Bush-Obama voters –
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/08/07/obama-trump-voters-were-bush-obama-voters-first
Dana Milbank added an interesting twist to the discussion about where the Democratic Party needs to go in the future.
The number of Obama-to-Trump voters turns out to be smaller than thought. And those Obama voters who did switch to Trump were largely Republican voters to start with. The aberration wasn’t their votes for Trump but their votes for Obama…
In 2008, a larger-than-usual number of Republican voters went with Obama during an extraordinary time, when the economy was in free fall and an incumbent Republican president was deeply unpopular. ANES polling found that 17 percent of Obama voters in 2008 had been for George W. Bush in 2004, compared with the 13 percent of Trump voters, the same survey found, who supported Obama at least once. These people aren’t Obama-Trump voters as much as they were Bush-Obama voters.
Milbank goes on to provide this data to suggest that the Obama-Trump voters were actually Republicans:
The AFL-CIO’s Podhorzer analyzed raw data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study , out in the spring, and found that Obama-Trump voters voted for Republican congressional candidates by a 31-point margin, Republican Senate candidates by a 15-point margin and Republican gubernatorial candidates by a 27-point margin. Their views on immigration and Obamacare also put them solidly in the GOP camp.
His conclusion is that Democrats should forget about winning over these voters and instead “the party would do better to go after disaffected Democrats who didn’t vote in 2016 or who voted for third parties.â€
While I find his analysis a fascinating addition to the discussion, I don’t necessarily agree with his conclusion. Before we go there, it would be helpful to at least ask ourselves why these Republicans were motivated to support Obama.
In answer to that question, there are a couple of items that were idiosyncratic to the 2008 and 2012 elections. The first is that many of these voters chose Obama because of the abject failure of the prior Republican administration both domestically and globally. Faced with the Great Recession and ongoing wars in the Middle East, an awful lot of people were ready for a change. Then, in 2012, the hedge fund Republican candidate dismissed 47 percent of the population as moochers and defended the idea that corporations are people.
But let’s be honest. For a group of white working class Republicans to vote for Obama, there had to be more to it than that. Our first African American president ran on hope during a time of despair. He ran on unity at a time when our politics were becoming increasingly divided. That message threatened the Republicans so dramatically that they vowed to obstruct him at every turn in order to ensure that the despair deepened and we became even more divided. That is precisely why this message from Rev. William Barber is so important right now.
Don’t you understand how afraid they are of our unity? Think about it:
if they had to engage in voter suppression just to win
if they had to spend pornographic sums of money to divide and conquer us
if they had to go all the way to Russia and get help just to win…
We are not weak. Somebody fears our unity.
Because you don’t cheat somebody that you can win in a fair fight.Â
I came by here to say what your theme says: No more separation. Black and white, Latino let’s come together. No more separation… ‘Voting Rights’ is a union issue. ‘Wages’ is a civil rights issue. We need a steadfast togetherness so that our movement won’t have movement fatigue. We can’t bow down.
Now​​​​, we must be stronger together. Now, we must fight back together. Now, we must save the soul of this nation together. Now, we must fight for justice together. Now, we must fight for love together. Now, we must save our children’s future together …
Contrary to what Milbank and other pundits prescribe, I think it is a mistake for Democrats to target a single group of voters and craft a message that appeals to them. That approach reinforces the divide and ultimately leads to more cynicism. Instead, Democrats should start with the values and ideals on which the Party stands and build a movement of unity around the policies that emanate from them.
While acknowledging the darkness that has overtaken our national politics in the Trump era, it would be a mistake to adopt the anger and despair on which that darkness feeds. Offering an alternative to the Republicans means shinning a light that ignites the possibility of hope and unity going forward. After two (or four) more years of abject failure from Republicans, it is possible that such a message might once again appeal to Bush-Obama voters.
Single Payer and the Challenge of Loss Aversion
Democratic politicians are beginning to embrace the idea of single payer health insurance as polls indicate that the public is increasingly supportive of the idea. Both the Kaiser Family Foundation and Pew Research have recent polling which demonstrates that Americans (especially Democrats) favor the idea.
There are some who are even suggesting that support for single payer should be a litmus test for Democratic candidates. But in an article which goes into more depth on the kinds of questions I suggested recently, Joshua Holland writes that we should consider the issue of “loss aversion†when looking at this kind of polling.
The most important takeaway from recent efforts to reshape our health-care system is that “loss aversion†is probably the central force in health-care politics. That’s the well-established tendency of people to value something they have far more than they might value whatever they might gain if they give it up. This is one big reason that Democrats were shellacked after passing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, and Republicans are now learning the hard way that this fear of loss cuts both ways…
Don’t be lulled into complacency by polls purporting to show that single payer is popular—forcing people to move into a new system is all but guaranteed to result in tons of resistance. And that’s not even considering the inevitable attacks from a conservative message machine that turned a little bit of money for voluntary end-of-life counseling into “death panels.†Public opinion is dubious given that nobody’s talking about the difficulties inherent in making such a transition.
You might remember that going into the negotiations over health care reform in 2009, polling showed that the Democrats had strong public support for their proposals.
The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector…
Across a number of questions, the poll detected substantial support for a greater government role in health care, a position generally identified with the Democratic Party. When asked which party was more likely to improve health care, only 18 percent of respondents said the Republicans, compared with 57 percent who picked the Democrats. Even one of four Republicans said the Democrats would do better.
By the time ACA passed, 59 percent of Americans opposed it. That is what happens when a backlash is unleashed and loss aversion comes into play. As Holland notes, we’re now witnessing the flip side of that as Republicans threaten to repeal Obamacare.
Here is Holland’s conclusion:
The fight for a universal health-care system in the United States is now in its 105th year, and if we don’t admit that financing any kind of universal system is going to be especially difficult given how much we spend, or acknowledge the role that loss aversion plays in the politics of reform, then we’re going to fail again the next time we get a shot at it.
I previously noted that, when it comes to health care reform, Ezra Klein divided Democrats into two groups: incrementalists and transformationalists. He went on to suggest that the former support single payer, but don’t think it is politically possible. I disagreed with that assumption.
While I have typically favored an incrementalist approach, I have to disagree that when it comes to single payer, the main obstacle is whether or not it is politically possible. Most progressive achievements started off as politically impossible, that’s nothing new. The difference between incrementalists and transformationalists is in recognizing the length of the struggle and the importance of articulating the steps it will take to get there.
Perhaps it took a transformationalist like Bernie Sanders to put single payer on the map. But it will be up to the incrementalists to actually make it happen. That’s why my litmus test for any politician running on single payer will be whether or not they have a plan that addresses some of the questions raised by Holland.
Forgot link to article:
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/08/03/single-payer-and-the-challenge-of-loss-aversion
Single Payer and the Challenge of Loss Aversion
Democratic politicians are beginning to embrace the idea of single payer health insurance as polls indicate that the public is increasingly supportive of the idea. Both the Kaiser Family Foundation and Pew Research have recent polling which demonstrates that Americans (especially Democrats) favor the idea.
There are some who are even suggesting that support for single payer should be a litmus test for Democratic candidates. But in an article which goes into more depth on the kinds of questions I suggested recently, Joshua Holland writes that we should consider the issue of “loss aversion†when looking at this kind of polling.
The most important takeaway from recent efforts to reshape our health-care system is that “loss aversion†is probably the central force in health-care politics. That’s the well-established tendency of people to value something they have far more than they might value whatever they might gain if they give it up. This is one big reason that Democrats were shellacked after passing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, and Republicans are now learning the hard way that this fear of loss cuts both ways…
Don’t be lulled into complacency by polls purporting to show that single payer is popular—forcing people to move into a new system is all but guaranteed to result in tons of resistance. And that’s not even considering the inevitable attacks from a conservative message machine that turned a little bit of money for voluntary end-of-life counseling into “death panels.†Public opinion is dubious given that nobody’s talking about the difficulties inherent in making such a transition.
You might remember that going into the negotiations over health care reform in 2009, polling showed that the Democrats had strong public support for their proposals.
The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector…
Across a number of questions, the poll detected substantial support for a greater government role in health care, a position generally identified with the Democratic Party. When asked which party was more likely to improve health care, only 18 percent of respondents said the Republicans, compared with 57 percent who picked the Democrats. Even one of four Republicans said the Democrats would do better.
By the time ACA passed, 59 percent of Americans opposed it. That is what happens when a backlash is unleashed and loss aversion comes into play. As Holland notes, we’re now witnessing the flip side of that as Republicans threaten to repeal Obamacare.
Here is Holland’s conclusion:
The fight for a universal health-care system in the United States is now in its 105th year, and if we don’t admit that financing any kind of universal system is going to be especially difficult given how much we spend, or acknowledge the role that loss aversion plays in the politics of reform, then we’re going to fail again the next time we get a shot at it.
I previously noted that, when it comes to health care reform, Ezra Klein divided Democrats into two groups: incrementalists and transformationalists. He went on to suggest that the former support single payer, but don’t think it is politically possible. I disagreed with that assumption.
While I have typically favored an incrementalist approach, I have to disagree that when it comes to single payer, the main obstacle is whether or not it is politically possible. Most progressive achievements started off as politically impossible, that’s nothing new. The difference between incrementalists and transformationalists is in recognizing the length of the struggle and the importance of articulating the steps it will take to get there.
Perhaps it took a transformationalist like Bernie Sanders to put single payer on the map. But it will be up to the incrementalists to actually make it happen. That’s why my litmus test for any politician running on single payer will be whether or not they have a plan that addresses some of the questions raised by Holland.
From Princess Leia’s posted article: “The difference between incrementalists and transformationalists is in recognizing the length of the struggle and the importance of articulating the steps it will take to get there.â€
Is this is supposed to be a statement of encouragement?
It’s garbage.
It says, “Don’t act in a swift and timely manner. Don’t lead. Do what your donors want and deliver, in any case they may want a transformative policy, in incremental steps. Which means, ‘someday; maybe.’ Go ahead and call it…‘progressive.’’â€
In this video shows the type of leadership offered by one U.S. senator, Democrat Claire McCaskill of Missouri, on improving the Affordable Care Act.
http://youtu.be/BZEqHnWDTbI
I’ve studied enough history to know that the great progressive advances of the past were agonizingly slow in coming, and seriously flawed when they were first passed. When you look at civil rights legislation, you see an over 80 year interval between bills, and even then, the bill that was passed was definitely weak. Environmental legislation started years before the ones with teeth came into being, Social Security in its original form didn’t cover a considerable range of people or have the benefits it does today, and Medicare wasn’t quite what it is today. But the first laws established the principles, then, after surviving their share of court challenges, were built on. So much of the actual history has been one that is not sudden sweeping changes, but incremental change.
I must say that I fully understand what D is saying, but Princess Leia is correct that incremental changes are the story of American history.
There is a need for the infighting to stop, or else the Democrats are doomed for 2018 and 2020, so I suggest less fighting, and more productive work to elect candidates that can carry the progressive message forward.
We might wish to eliminate all bank and corporate involvement, but in the political environment we are now in, that is not realistic, so we should not eliminate those Democrats who are less progressive than others, as a broad based party is essential for survival and success, short run and long run.
So understand, D, I fully get what you are saying, but i do not think that the message of Princess Leia and others should be dismissed.
D, for instance, I feel that Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin, who are moderates, cannot be abandoned. If we lose them, it means the GOP gets those seats, and those states are not going to elect true progressives, sorry to say! That is simple reality!
Exactly right Leia. Progress is slow and, in a democracy, requires compromise.
D – Political parties are bottoms up organizations. If you want progressive candidates, a “more progressive†platform, you need to be organizing and active in your local party. Complaining on blogs isn’t “activism.â€
David Atkins, another writer for the Washington Monthly blog, explains the issue that we have with Sanders supporters – they actively attempt to dismiss social discrimination as less important than class war. Not only are they wrong about that (social justice IS a key component of economic justice), they actively hurt the cause of securing economic justice against the .1% in a party whose base has suffered greatly from that discrimination.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/08/05/bernie-kamala-and-the-lefts-war-of-mutually-assured-destruction/
Re: single payer
Single payer is not the only universal health care system that exists. The ACA is set up to reform easily into a German or Japanese style system.
Agreed, Southern Liberal.
Limiting a woman’s right to choose is both a social and an economic issue. According to the National Campaign on Teen Pregnancy, 34% of teen mothers do not earn a high school diploma. Only 2% go on to earn a college degree. According to the Alliance for Excellent Education, it is estimated that over the course of his or her lifetime, a single high school dropout costs the nation approximately $260,000 in lost earnings, taxes, and productivity.  Even in today’s economy, those with college degrees will generally earn more over their lifetime than those without a degree.
According to the National Institute of Health, people who experience racism have a greater rate of illness than those who do not. Minority groups have higher rates of infant mortality, cancer, and heart disease. The Kaiser Family Foundation states that minorities are more likely to be uninsured than white people. This has a huge economic impact. People without insurance tend to delay care until what started out as a minor issue, turns into a full-blown health crisis. The cost of uninsured ER or clinic visits are transferred to those people who do have health insurance. According to a study done by Johns Hopkins University titled The Business Case for Racial Equality, the income gap due to racism costs the U.S. $1.9 trillion dollars per year. Not only is income equality the moral position to pursue, it’s also the economically advantageous position to pursue.
Our LGBT brothers and sisters suffer a great deal of economic inequality due to homophobia and transphobia. According to various studies done in the U.S., the U.K., and Thailand, 50% to 75% of LBGT kids are bullied at school. They often cut class just to avoid the harassment. This severely impacts their economic future and limits their earning potential as they age. It’s estimated that as many as 40% of homeless youth are LGBT. A U.S. study found that gay and lesbian youth are 4 times more likely to attempt suicide, and transgender youth are 10 times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual youth. The World Bank estimates that discrimination towards the LGBT community can potentially cost a country $32 billion a year in economic output.
It’s clear that there is a very strong argument to be made that all social justice issues are also economic issues. It is both the morally and economically prudent to end discrimination of all types. We cannot and should not try to separate economic justice and social justice. Those on the left must fight forcefully against discrimination and demand economic justice for all Americans. The economic elite likes to divide us up into different categories and try to pit us against each other. We must say enough is enough.
Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department wants to purge voter rolls.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/08/jeff_sessions_doj_just_gave_states_the_green_light_to_purge_voter_rolls.html
That’s one of the examples of why the left shouldn’t be throwing civil rights under the bus.
How the Various Democratic Factions Can Open Up a Dialogue
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/08/09/how-the-various-democratic-factions-can-open-up-a-dialogue/#.WYsmABsBRWU.facebook
Here at Political Animal, we have now published three articles in response to Ryan Cooper’s warning to three potential Democratic candidates: Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Cory Booker and former Governor Deval Patrick. They have included pieces by Martin Longman, David Atkins and myself. Congratulations to Cooper for igniting an impassioned discussion.
To the extent that a theme emerged in all three of our responses, it is that the entire history of these Democratic candidates needs to be taken into account rather than simply focusing on one event/issue, and that—as human beings—they are more than can be captured by identifying their race/gender. In order to come together as a party, the differences must be acknowledged and discussed, as well as the common ground acknowledged.
As a demonstration of how that works, we could apply the same standards to ourselves when it comes to our disagreement with Cooper. For me, this is not the first time I have parted ways with his analysis. As a matter of fact, based on his recent writing, our approach differs quite regularly. But as Martin noted, Cooper once worked for the Washington Monthly, and so we have a wealth of articles he published right here to draw on and take a bigger picture look. I’ll share just two of them to demonstrate.
Back in 2013, Cooper wrote about “Reformish Conservatives†in a way that was prescient in predicting what I just wrote yesterday about the fact that the party of George W. and Jeb Bush is dying.
There is much talk, in the Republican National Committee’s recent “autopsy†report and elsewhere, of the need to change the party’s “messaging,†but little about the need to change the policies behind the messaging…
“There is a cultural gulf,†says John Feehery, a former staffer for Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert, between the reformist writer-intellectuals, with their New York/Washington sensibilities, and Republican officeholders, with their base of voters in Texas, Kansas, and Georgia. The reformists “are speaking the language of policy,†notes Feehery, while the base “is speaking the language of hating Obama.â€
Cooper went on to write once again about the so-called “Reformicons†in the Republican Party and noted that, when outlining their agenda, they presented it as a middle ground between Obama’s liberalism run amok and tea party extremism rather than compare it to Obama’s actual policies.
In an effort to reach moderate Republicans and obtain a Grand Bargain, Obama has reached ever-further right on policy. But since Republican beliefs about the president are based in reactionary, deep-seated cultural anxiety, all he has succeeded in doing is accidentally claiming nearly the entire sane policy spectrum for the Democrats.
I don’t know if Cooper’s suggestion that it was accidental was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but that aligns pretty well with what I have described as Obama’s “conciliatory rhetoric as ruthless strategy†approach to Republican obstructionism.
As a second example of common ground, Cooper was once again very prescient in 2014 when he wrote: “How the West Was Reinvented.†He highlighted the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument designated by President Bill Clinton in 1996 and suggested that it is an example of how the Western United States is being transformed.
Escalante’s boomlet during the shutdown was only the latest episode in a longer tale of the town’s unexpected economic growth due to decisions in far-off Washington, D.C. And its story is itself part of a much larger transformation that has been creeping across the American West for decades, as a new recreation economy centered around tourism edges out an older extractive economy that relied on mining, timber, drilling, and ranching. It’s a shift not just in the type of jobs available, but in the political landscape of the entire region…
Ultimately, it is much easier to picture a western economy centered largely around tourism than around coal, oil, and gas. The Mountain West has a nearly inexhaustible supply of coal, but America’s coal industry is being hammered by cheap natural gas, Environmental Protection Agency rules banning new coal-fired plants, and the prospect of additional EPA rules that will phase out existing plants. The formation of a national-level climate policy may be hard to imagine, but it is certainly not impossible, and every major climate-related disaster increases the likelihood that such a policy will be enacted. Carbon mining of any kind is likely doomed over the long term.
The potential for a recreation-based economy, on the other hand, is as vast as the West itself. Americans have long loved their national parks. But because we aren’t creating many new ones, and we are creating more Americans, the crowds at the most famous parks, like Yellowstone and Grand Canyon, get bigger every year. And as developing countries in Asia and Latin America grow richer, their expanding middle classes will increasingly have the means to satisfy the abiding human desire to travel and see great natural beauty—and nowhere is more beautiful than the American West. In the future, there will be more people eager not only to visit the West for its natural beauty but to live there as well, if the swelling populations of places like Denver, Boise, Albuquerque, and Salt Lake City are any guide.
Personally, I think that one of the most significant items on our list of Obama’s Top 50 Accomplishments is number 25, which I wrote about on several occasions, including its impact on local economies.
By designating new national monuments and other measures, permanently protects over 548 million acres, more than any other president.
I’m sure that I could come up with more examples, but that will have to suffice for now. My point is not to simply single out Ryan Cooper—but to demonstrate that we are all much more complex than our opinions/actions on one topic. Grasping that truth can provide the platform for an open discussion on areas where we agree as well as those where we disagree.
I want to thank everyone for posting articles, and for offering your opinions, which help make “The Progressive Professor†even more interesting than it already is.
The following video I am submitting will be my last post specifically on this thread.
http://youtu.be/7blzrB6XwZE
I want to thank you, D, for reminding us of Howard Dean self destructing in January 2004! LOL It made me laugh, and also, cover my face again, after all these years! HAHA!
I appreciate the fact that you, while disagreeing with many other commentators, and even with me at times, keep your dignity and diplomacy.
The fact that you appreciate this blog is a wonderful testimonial to the fact that you have contributed mightily to this blog, and I am so happy that you consider it interesting, as I work very hard to make it so.
Consider that my writing on this blog just about every day is a major commitment, and so it is good to see that my readers and contributors appreciate my efforts.
Thanks so much, D, again, and continue to contribute your ideas and wisdom!
Based on the efforts of the Resistance so far (as Pragmatic suggested, see www.indivisibleguide.com for details), I’m feeling pretty good about 2018 and 2020.
Dems are in the lead so far for the 2017 election in Virginia. http://bluevirginia.us/2017/08/new-q-poll-virginia-northam-44-gillespie-38-dems-lead-49-38-house-delegates
Just saw D’s comment in reply to mine about Russia. Mueller and Congress are investigating what clearly looks more and more each day like collusion.