Showing posts with label Elizabeth Warren. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elizabeth Warren. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 15, 2020

More Good News For Joe Biden

It has been a good week for Joe Biden. Two big Democratic holdouts got on board the Biden campaign and Bernie Sanders planted himself more firmly in the Biden camp.
The big fish was Barack Obama, who endorsed Biden yesterday in an online statement. While Obama’s endorsement will be downplayed by Republicans, it could have a significant impact on swing voters. The former president remains more popular than Donald Trump, having left office with 57 percent approval, a number that Trump has never been able to match.
As we saw in 2016, Obama’s endorsement cannot overcome intense dislike for a candidate, but Joe Biden is not as intensely disliked as Hillary Clinton. Polling data from 2016 shows that Hillary’s favorability rating was at Trumpian levels with an average of 41 percent with a net of -12 points. By comparison, Biden does slightly better than break even with a 45-44 split. If this holds, it could be enough to swing the election against an unpopular incumbent.
The smaller fish that Biden landed was Elizabeth Warren. Just a few hours ago, Warren endorsed Biden in another video, saying, “Empathy matters.” The one-time Democratic co-frontrunner also tweeted a video touting Biden as an effective leader to rebuild the nation.
Finally, Bernie Sanders, once Biden’s strongest opponent, showed that he is firmly backing the former vice president. In an Associated Press interview, Sanders gave his former supporters a choice.
“Do we be as active as we can in electing Joe Biden and doing everything we can to move Joe and his campaign in a more progressive direction?” Sanders asked, “Or do we choose to sit it out and allow the most dangerous president in modern American history to get reelected?”
“I believe that it’s irresponsible for anybody to say, ‘Well, I disagree with Joe Biden — I disagree with Joe Biden! — and therefore I’m not going to be involved,’” Sanders added.
Sanders also distanced himself from Briahna Joy Gray, a former staffer who is pointedly refusing to endorse Biden, saying, “She is my former press secretary — not on the payroll.”
The Democratic Party is rapidly coalescing around Joe Biden, but the unity has more to do with being against Donald Trump than being for Biden. While most Democrats are seeking to avoid the mistakes of 2016 in which they stayed home rather than get out and vote for a lackluster candidate, the Bernie Bros are not necessarily Democrats. Joe Biden will likely pick up more moderate voters than Sanders would have, but he may lose some progressives at the other end of the spectrum.
Although Biden holds a handy lead, no should assume that the polling will be unchanged until November. The 2020 elections have already been the subject of numerous plot twists and there will likely be more.
Originally published on The Resurgent

Monday, November 25, 2019

Black Voters Not Sold On Biden


So far, Joe Biden holds the lead among black Democratic voters, but there are signs that members of the demographic, which makes up a large share of Democratic primary voters, are not thrilled with the candidacy of Barack Obama’s vice president. However, the several minority candidates in the Democratic field have nonetheless failed to catch fire with voters.

In a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, 39 percent of black Democrats favored Biden. Elizabeth Warren, another white candidate, ran a distant second in the poll at 22 percent. The other candidates, including Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg as well as the minority candidates, all polled at less than 10 percent.

Still, there are concerns about Biden, especially regarding his propensity for gaffes. For example, in last week’s debate, Biden claimed, “I come out of the black community in terms of my support” and said that he had the support of “the only black African American woman who had ever been elected to the United States Senate,” referring to Carol Mosely Braun.

That was news to Kamala Harris, who laughed back, “Nope. That's not true. The other one is here.”

Biden quickly corrected himself, saying, “I said the first.”

Another source of uncertainty surrounding Biden is his age. The 76-year-old candidate is viewed as healthy by almost as many voters (74 percent) as the 70-year-old Warren (80 percent) and more than Bernie Sanders (48 percent), age 78 and the victim of a recent heart attack. That doesn’t mean that voters are not concerned, however.

"Well, I was sort of leaning toward Joe Biden," said Elsie Just-Buddy, member of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in downtown Atlanta when asked by ABC News about her candidate preference. When asked about her hesitation, the member of the church once pastored by Martin Luther King, Jr. cited Biden’s age.

ABC reported that, after interviewing dozens of congregants at Ebenezer, black voters trusted and liked Biden due to familiarity with him from his years in the Obama Administration but weren’t very excited about his candidacy. They were open to a more exciting candidate, but, so far, that candidate has not emerged.

Another member of Ebenezer, Ernest Fry, said, “I think that he’d be a good candidate as well as the rest of them. But, you know, I don’t think anyone got it locked unless you got a good program for the people.”

Nevertheless, Elizabeth Warren, once renowned for her plans and currently smarting from a health plan so unrealistic that it was even mocked by Democrats, fares much worse than Biden. The very white woman from Massachusetts pleaded her case to minority voters in the Atlanta debate, saying, “As a white woman, I will never fully understand the discrimination, pain, and harm that black Americans have experienced just because of the color of their skin. When I am president of the United States, the lessons of black history will not be lost.”

Black Democratic candidates Corey Booker and Kamala Harris were critical of the fact that white Democrats top the polls. Both glossed over their own dearth of support from black voters when they made their complaints, however.  

Booker warned that black voters are “p-ss-d off because the only time our issues seem to be really paid attention to by politicians is when people are looking for their vote. And they're worried because, in the Democratic Party, we don't want to see people miss this opportunity and lose because we are nominating someone that … isn't trusted, doesn't have authentic connection.”

In a speech to the NAACP in Detroit last May, Harris complained that the notion of electability to Midwest voters led to prejudice against minority candidates, saying, “Too often, the definition of the Midwest leaves people out.” However, during Harris’ brief flirtation with frontrunner status, it was white voters and not blacks who rallied behind her.

Black support for Biden also comes as a surprise to many on the right who predicted that the Democratic Party would rally behind an intersectional candidate rather than another old white man. The fact that the top two choices of black voters are a white man and a white woman, even though there are prominent black candidates in the running, has exploded stereotypes on both sides.

For all the uneasiness and lack of excitement surrounding his campaign, Steady Joe Biden remains the candidate to beat. While others, including Kamala Harris, have flashed in the pan and quickly burned out, Biden’s position atop the polls with the support of a quarter to a third of Democratic voters has been very consistent since he entered the race.

Elizabeth Warren, who is currently plummeting in the polls, is the only other candidate with any significant support in the black community, and other potential frontrunners such as Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg have shown almost no minority appeal. Due to the lack of exciting alternatives, it seems almost certain that, barring a major gaffe or health problem, Joe Biden will emerge as the Democratic candidate at the end of the day. If so, he will have black voters to thank.
Originally published on The Resurgent

Tuesday, November 5, 2019

Swing State Polls Look Bad For Donald Trump



A new round of head-to-head polling from the swing states came in yesterday and the results are somewhat encouraging for Republicans. While Donald Trump trails the leading Democrats in national polling, many of the swing state races are too close to call.

Due to the large number of candidates and states to examine, for clarity, I will present each state separately and give Trump’s net poll rating with each candidate based on the Real Clear Politics average. A negative rating means that Trump is behind and a positive rating means that he is ahead. For reference, I’m also including the latest state-level Trump approval numbers from Morning Consult, which were taken as the Ukraine whistleblower scandal was breaking in late September.
National
Trump vs. Biden               -10
Trump vs. Warren            -7.3
Trump vs. Sanders           -7.9
Trump vs. Buttigieg         -4.5
Trump vs. Harris               -5.3
Trump approval                -13

Arizona
Trump vs. Biden               -1.7
Trump vs. Warren            0.7
Trump vs. Sanders           5.3

Florida
Trump vs. Biden               -2.0       
Trump vs. Warren            0.3
Trump vs. Sanders           1.0
Trump approval                -2

Iowa
Trump vs. Biden               1.5
Trump vs. Warren            4.5
Trump vs. Sanders           1.0
Trump vs. Buttigieg         4.0
Trump approval                -14

Michigan
Trump vs. Biden               -7.7
Trump vs. Warren            -3.0
Trump vs. Sanders           -7.3
Trump approval                -10

North Carolina
Trump vs. Biden               -5.4
Trump vs. Warren            0.2
Trump vs. Sanders           -2.4       
Trump approval                -3          

Ohio (no recent polling)
Trump vs. Biden               -7.0
Trump vs. Warren            -1.5
Trump vs. Sanders           -5.0
Trump approval                -5

Pennsylvania
Trump vs. Biden               -7.3       
Trump vs. Warren            1.7
Trump vs. Sanders           5.4
Trump approval                -8

Wisconsin
Trump vs. Biden               -5.7
Trump vs. Warren            -1.0
Trump vs. Sanders           -2.7
Trump approval                -11

There are a couple of important takeaways from this polling, even though the election is still a year away. The first is that Joe Biden is a stronger candidate in the swing states than Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. In six of the seven swing states with recent head-to-head polling, Biden leads Donald Trump. Warren fares worst of the three top-tier Democrats, but Bernie Sanders is not much better.

Second, Trump approval is a pretty good proxy for how he stacks up in a head-to-head matchup in most cases, although this is dependent on individual candidates as well and the numbers don’t match up exactly. In only one of the states examined, Iowa, does Trump have a negative approval rating but leads in polling.

Finally, as we saw in 2016, it isn’t enough for the Democrats to win the popular vote and expect that to translate into an Electoral College victory. The Democrats must give Donald Trump a 5-10 point shellacking in the popular vote to be assured of winning enough swing states to secure the White House. This is especially true due to the difficulties of state-level polling in swing states.

Based on the current polling presented above (while assuming Ohio stays red), Joe Biden would win the Electoral College by 333-205 and Bernie Sanders would eke out a 273-265 victory. Elizabeth Warren would lose by 258-280, but many states are actually too close to project in a Warren-Trump matchup. Neither side could be confident of victory at this point, although Warren does seem to represent Trump’s best chance at reelection.

The election is a long way away and a lot can happen. In the current cycle, that is even more true than most years due to the breaking Ukraine scandal, impeachment, the slowing economy, and a number of other factors. While the swing states are not looking good for Donald Trump, they are looking much better than the national average, but that’s why they call them battleground states.

While many of the state-level races are not polled frequently, it will be important to watch them for trends over the next year. Significant movement in one direction or the other could represent a changing dynamic within the election.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Friday, October 11, 2019

Biden, Warren Rise In New Fox Poll


A new poll from Fox News confirms that the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is now a two-person race. Following Bernie Sanders’ heart attack, both Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren have gained while the Vermont senator has stagnated and Kamala Harris’ slide continues.

In the new poll, Biden and Sanders together command the support of 54 percent of Democratic voters with Biden up three points to 32 percent and Warren up six points to 22 percent. Bernie Sanders was statistically unchanged with a one-point drop to 17 percent. Kamala Harris lost two points, falling to five percent, followed by Pete Buttigieg at four percent and Beto O’Rourke at three. No other candidate polled higher than two percent while “don’t know/none of the above” drew six percent.

Interestingly, Democratic primary voters say that the Ukraine scandal has made them more likely to support Joe Biden by 21 to 10 percent. Sanders’ heart attack made 31 percent less likely to support him.

In the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Biden still holds a slight lead after declining since the onset of the Ukraine whistleblower scandal in mid-September. More recent polling shows an uptick for Biden over the past few days. Elizabeth Warren now trails by an average of 1.5 points after a slow climb in the polls that began back in June.

Both Biden and Warren both seem to be benefitting from the destruction of the Harris campaign and concerns about the health of Sen. Sanders after his Sept. 30 heart attack. Sanders dropped three points in the polling average since his health scare.

Despite the media narrative that Warren is favored in the Democratic primary, Joe Biden remains the frontrunner. However, the race is hotly contested and could be upended by scandals or gaffes on the part of either candidate, such as this week’s revelation that Warren’s claim that she was fired for being pregnant was not true. At this point, it looks as though the race will go down to the wire and will likely hinge on grassroots get-out-the-vote efforts at the state and local levels.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

New Lying Scandal Hits Warren As She Rises In Polls



Elizabeth Warren has been steadily rising in polling over the past few months, but her success has attracted some unwanted attention in the form of a skeleton emerging from her closet. On the campaign trail, Warren has often described how she was fired from her teaching position in 1971 because she was pregnant. Now, new evidence has emerged that suggests that the story is false.

The Washington Free Beacon reported that the minutes of the Riverdale N.J. Board of Education showed that Warren was unanimously offered an extension of her two-days-per-week speech pathologist job for a second year. At another board meeting two months later, the minutes record that Warren’s resignation was "accepted with regret." Fast-forward to 2019 and Warren says that’s her story and she’s sticking to it.

"All I know is I was 22-years-old, I was 6 months pregnant, and the job that I had been promised for the next year was going to someone else. The principal said they were going to hire someone else for my job," Warren told CBS News on Monday.

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight tweeted of Warren’s new scandal, “It's interesting that it's circulating on both conservative Twitter and Bernie Twitter but getting almost no mainstream pickup.” This is perhaps unsurprising since Warren seems to be the favorite du jour of the progressive left, which includes many mainstream media outlets and journalists.


In a separate article, FiveThirtyEight analyzed Warren’s rise in the polls. Recent polling has shown that the Massachusetts senator’s support has begun to broaden beyond her liberal base to Democratic moderates and (relatively speaking) conservatives. She is also making gains among white voters without college degrees and black voters, two groups with which she has struggled.

“To be clear, Biden is still leading in the polls, but the distance between him and Warren has narrowed considerably,” writes Geoffrey Skelley of FiveThirtyEight. “There’s still a lot of progress left for Warren to make, particularly among voters of color, but for now, her trajectory for the 2020 Democratic nomination is moving in the right direction — up.”

It’s too early to tell whether PregnantTeacherGate will affect Warren’s upward trajectory but the misstatement of basic facts about her personal history leads to questions about her credibility. This is especially true in light of her previous false statements about her Native American ancestry.

In any other election, Warren’s fact-challenged biography might be a bigger problem, but in 2020 the other two frontrunners also have serious problems with the truth. Her chief competition for the Democratic nomination, Joe Biden, often has senior moments that seem to border on senility while President Trump’s factual missteps have achieved legendary status. I have to wonder whether truth will play a significant role in next year’s elections or whether America has moved beyond objective reality to a post-truth society.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Tuesday, September 3, 2019

There Are Only Three Viable Democratic Candidates


We are still six months away from the first primary elections and already the Democratic field has effectively winnowed itself down to only three likely candidates. Despite – or perhaps because of – a historically large field of more than 20 candidates, the majority have failed to gain traction and are unlikely to do so in the future. The odds are overwhelming at this point that the eventual Democratic nominee will be either Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders.

The Real Clear Politics average of polls shows clearly that Biden is the frontrunner and is followed by Warren and Sanders whose support combined is approximately equal to Biden. No other candidate, including Kamala Harris, is polling above 10 percent.

In particular, Kamala Harris’ failure to launch is surprising to many observers on both sides. Harris seems to be 2020’s version of Jeb Bush in 2016: A candidate widely expected to receive a coronation by the party elites but who never caught on with voters.

Biden, on the other hand, has defied the pundit predictions that “his first day on the campaign trail will be his best.” Looking back six months ago on the RCP average, Biden was at 28.3 back in February. His position as I write this? 28.9 percent. There have been ups and downs over the spring and summer, including a surge after his campaign announcement in April and a decline after his lackluster performance in the first debate, but the former vice president’s support has proved remarkably resilient.

As I have predicted numerous times in the past, Biden seems to be benefitting from the fact that most of the Democratic candidates are far-left progressives while a large part of the Democratic base is not. Biden holds a plurality of support while the progressive candidates split the vote of the “woke” wing of the party. There may be more progressives than blue dogs in the Democratic party, but internal divisions allow Biden to come out on top. The situation is very similar to the Republican primary in 2016 in which Donald Trump won without a majority as the conservative candidates split the non-Trump vote.

The darlings of the political left, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, are hobbling each other, just as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich prevented each other from defeating Donald Trump. If either Sanders or Warren dropped out, the other might be able to mount a serious challenge to Joe Biden, but neither seems likely to take one for the team.

Even then, it might not matter. A recent Morning Consult poll that asked about second choices of Democratic voters showed that Joe Biden would benefit about as much as Sanders or Warren if the other dropped out. At 30 percent, Biden was the top second choice of Sanders voters compared to 26 percent for Warren. Twenty-four percent of Warren voters picked Bernie as their second choice, but Biden was only two points behind.

Interestingly, the political betting markets at Predict It are not following the voters. Bettors there are picking Elizabeth Warren, with a 33 cent ranking, to be the nominee. Biden is a fairly close second at 26 cents. Bernie is a distant third at 15 cents.

Biden has retained his lead despite frequent gaffes in large part because of his support among black voters. Politico pointed out that Biden has the support of more than 40 percent of all black voters. Biden’s support rises to almost two-thirds of black voters who are older than 65.

So what could upset Biden’s chances to become the eventual nominee? The most likely scenario is probably a catastrophic gaffe, but at this point it seems that Biden’s gaffes, like Trump’s, are baked into the cake. Biden, like Trump, benefits from low expectations.

It is possible that another candidate might emerge that would unify both wings of the Democratic Party, but it is unclear who that would be. Michelle Obama is a candidate that could probably enter the race and immediately become the frontrunner, but the former First Lady said last month that there was “zero chance” that she would run.

Barring a health crisis or the unlikely discovery of some long-dead skeleton in his closet, Joe Biden is likely to emerge next summer as the Democratic nominee to face a Republican nominee that will almost certainly be Donald Trump, a candidate who at this point is trailing all of the aforementioned Democrats (plus Pete Buttigieg) by a historically large margin. The resulting campaign between two gaffe-prone senior citizens, a “gaffe-o-lympics” if you will, will be a comedy of errors the likes of which this nation has never seen.  


Originally published on The Resurgent

Thursday, August 1, 2019

Debates Exposed Schisms In Democratic Party


The most important takeaway from the second round of Democratic debates, other than the fact that Joe Biden performs better after a practice round, is that there is a deep division within the Democratic Party. Contrary to claims by many of the pundit class, the Democrats are not all in lockstep solidarity with the democratic-socialist left. Over the past two nights, several Democratic candidates sounded almost (but not quite) conservative.

In particular, there seems to be an ongoing struggle between different factions of the party with respect to two issues: immigration and health insurance. Several sharp exchanges in the debates related to whether healthcare reform plans should eliminate private medical insurance in favor of Medicare-for-all and whether illegal immigration should be decriminalized.

Joe Biden led off the second night of debates with an attack on Kamala Harris’ plan to replace private health insurance, saying, “There is no talk about the fact that the plan in 10 years will cost $3 trillion. You will lose your employer-based insurance. And in fact, you know, this is the single most important issue facing the public. And to be very blunt and to be very straightforward, you can't beat President Trump with double-talk on this plan.”

Sounding almost like a conservative, Biden continued, “The plan, no matter how you cut it, costs $3 trillion when it is, in fact, employed, number one. Ten years from now, after two terms of the senator being president, after her time. Secondly, it will require middle-class taxes to go up, not down. Thirdly, it will eliminate employer-based insurance. And fourthly, what happens in the meantime?”

Biden is on firmer ground here than Harris. The former vice president was deeply involved with Obamacare, the 2010 health care reform bill that was intensely unpopular until Republicans came close to replacing it in 2017. At that point, Obamacare suddenly gained more fans and maintains a 10-point advantage in polling.

On the other hand, the approval of Medicare-for-all fluctuates wildly in polling and is heavily dependent on the details. AP polling from January found that voters like the idea of Medicare-for-all but not the higher taxes and longer wait times that it could bring. More recently, FiveThirtyEight pointed out that more voters are on board with the idea of allowing people to buy into Medicare voluntarily than in eliminating private insurance and forcing everyone into the program.

This is underscored by the recent endorsement of Joe Biden by the International Association of Fire Fighters, who said in a statement that union members “do not support the concept of abandoning those plans for a government-run single-payer plan,” adding, “The elimination of employer-based insurance in favor of a Medicare-for-all or government-run single-payer proposal is a bad idea that punishes working families who have secured quality healthcare.”

In his opening statement on the first debate night, John Delaney, a former Maryland congressman, argued that the focus on Medicare-for-all could cost Democrats the election. “We can go down the road that Senator Sanders and Senator Warren want to take us with bad policies like Medicare for All, free everything and impossible promises that’ll turn off independent voters and get Trump reelected,” Delaney said. “That’s what happened with McGovern. That’s what happened with Mondale.”

Later that night, Delaney took on Sanders directly, saying, “His math is wrong” and warned that many hospitals across the country would close if they had to rely on Medicare reimbursement rates.

“Why can’t we just give everyone healthcare as a right and allow them to have choice?” Delaney asked. “I’m starting to think this is not about healthcare. This is an anti-private sector strategy.”

Amy Klobuchar voiced similar concerns about the Medicare-for-all plans of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. “I just don’t buy… that it’s somehow not moral to not have that public option,” she said.

The other big policy disagreement between the Democrats was over immigration. When former Obama Housing Secretary Julian Castro advocated decriminalizing illegal immigration, it was Joe Biden once again who resisted the urge to pile on the popular liberal talking point.

“I have guts enough to say his plan doesn't make sense,” Biden responded to Castro. “Here's the deal. The fact of the matter is that, in fact, when people cross the border illegally, it is illegal to do it unless they're seeking asylum. People should have to get in line. That's the problem. And the only reason this particular part of the law is being abused is because of Donald Trump. We should defeat Donald Trump and end this practice.”

There was one other issue where one Democrat sounded more conservative than present-day Republicans. At one point, John Delaney mounted a spirited defense of free trade, something rarely heard these days in either party.

“So listen, this is what I don’t understand,” Delaney postulated. “President Trump wants to build physical walls and beats up on immigrants. Most of the folks running for president want to build economic walls to free trade and beat up on President Obama.”

“I’m the only one running for president who actually supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” Delaney continued. “President Obama was right about that. We should be getting back in that. Senator Warren just issued a trade plan that would prevent the United States from trading with its allies. We can’t go and we can’t isolate ourselves from the world. We have to engage with fair, rules-based trade.”

At the end of the two nights, it was obvious that there are two different overlapping factions within the Democratic Party. One is the Obama faction represented by candidates like Biden, Delaney, Klobuchar. The other is the far-left faction of Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren. After attempting to keep one foot on both sides of the party in recent months, Joe Biden seems to have firmly embraced his position in the moderate lane.

As I’ve argued in the past, Biden is the dominant moderate candidate in the Democratic primary while numerous strong candidates are vying for the limited number of progressive votes. Barring unforeseen circumstances such as a gaffe of Trumpian proportions or a sudden health problem, this makes Biden likely to become the eventual nominee.

It also makes Biden likely to eventually become president. As he stakes down middle-of-the-road policy positions, he makes himself palatable to the moderate and independent voters who will decide the election, voters who have been all but ignored by Donald Trump for the past three years. As Biden attacks Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders, he is also inoculating himself from charges of socialism by Republicans and positioning himself for the general election.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Thursday, June 6, 2019

Tucker Carlson: Elizabeth Warren ‘Sounds Like Trump At His Best’




No, that’s not a typo. Proving once again that Fox News is not a monolithic hotbed of conservatism, Tucker Carlson heaped praise upon none other than Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren on his show last night. A few months ago, I pointed out that the Fox host sounded a lot like Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Now, he is openly praising Warren’s economic policy.

Carlson began by quoting a long, anti-corporate diatribe by Warren in which the Massachusetts liberal said, “Giant American corporations… wave the flag — but they have no loyalty or allegiance to America.”

“These American companies show only one real loyalty,” Warren said, “to the short-term interests of their shareholders, a third of whom are foreign investors. If they can close up an American factory and ship jobs overseas to save a nickel, that’s exactly what they will do — abandoning loyal American workers and hollowing out American cities along the way. Politicians love to say they care about American jobs.”


“But for decades, those same politicians have cited ‘free market principles’ and refused to intervene in markets on behalf of American workers,” Warren continued. “And of course, they ignore those same supposed principles and intervene regularly to protect the interests of multinational corporations and international capital. The result? Millions of good jobs lost overseas and a generation of stagnant wages, growing inequality, and sluggish economic growth.”

“What part of that statement did you disagree with?” Carlson then asked. “Was there a single word that seemed wrong? Probably not.”

“Many of Warren’s policy prescriptions make obvious sense,” Carlson added before gushing, “She sounds like Donald Trump at his best.”

I’m not sure whether that is more of an indictment of Trump or Warren.

Despite his embrace of Warren's economic policies, Carlson did stop short of endorsing her completely. He decried her “race hustling, gun grabbing, abortion extremist” positions and then said, “That is exactly the problem, not just with Warren, but with American politics.” In Carlson’s world, both Democrats and Republicans are “resolutely libertarian” while Democrats “nod in total agreement” because they are “on the same page” with respect to the defense of free markets and liberal social issues, such as the legalization of marijuana.


Carlson embraces President Trump’s “innovative new way to protect American workers from the ever-cascading tidal wave of cheap third-world labor flooding this country,” his plan to tax American consumers and businesses in hopes that the economic pain will trickle across the border to Mexico where it would, ironically, probably spur more economic refugees to cross the border in search of new opportunities in the United States. He also fails to note reports that Donald Trump supports legislation that would allow the states to decriminalize marijuana.

What Carlson admits that he wants is not a small government, conservative policy but big government economic policy paired with conservative social policies. In his own words, Carlson wants candidates who are “nationalist on economics, fairly traditional on the social issues.”

“Would you vote for someone like that?” Carlson asks. “My gosh. Of course. Who wouldn’t? That candidate would be elected in a landslide. Every single time.”

The Fox host asks rhetorically, “What if the Republican leadership here in Washington had bothered to learn the lessons of the 2016 election? What if they’d understood, and embraced, the economic nationalism that was at the heart of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign?”

Yet Carlson overlooks the fact that Donald Trump did not win in a landslide in 2016, losing the popular vote and winning the Electoral College by a margin of only 50,000 votes over a handful of states. He also seems to forget the drubbing that Trumponomics took in the 2018 midterms. Donald Trump’s economic policies have propelled him to a 42 percent average approval rating and, since the onset of the trade war, President Trump is even underwater in many typically red states. Polling shows that Americans are opposed President Trump’s tariff war by about a two-to-one margin.

Carlson is correct that “almost nobody speaks for the majority of voters,” but not in the way that he means. Where the parties come together is on spending more and on expanding government influence to control a larger share of American life. They just don’t agree on what to spend on or how they want to exercise that control. Voters need a candidate and party that will leave them alone to live their lives without government interference.

I’d vote for that.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

What Do Tucker Carlson, Elizabeth Warren and Alexandra Ocasio Cortez Have In Common?


Elizabeth Warren and Alexandra Ocasio Cortez have made the news recently with their attacks on billionaires and capitalism. As proof that politics makes strange bedfellows, however, Tucker Carlson, the conservative, Trump-supporting Fox News commentator is sounding more and more like the two Democratic congresswomen.

To make the point, look at the three quotes below and try to determine which came from Carlson and which came from Warren and Ocasio Cortez:

·        “I’m definitely against a system where really the only success stories are like 27 billionaires who hate America, which is where we are now.”

·        “Our leaders don’t care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule.”

·        Uber is “not a sustainable business model. The only reason it continues is because of your generosity. Because you’re paying the welfare benefits for Uber’s impoverished drivers.”

If you suspected that this was a trick, you’re right. All three quotes are from Tucker Carlson. The first was from the 2018 Student Action Summit, the second from Carlson’s January 3, 2019 monologue in response to a Mitt Romney op-ed, and the third from an August 30, 2018 segment on his Fox News show. Without context, the lines could just as easily have come from Alexandra Ocasio Cortez or Elizabeth Warren, however.

Carlson’s rhetoric against billionaires and capitalism seems strikingly similar to Cortez’s statement last week that, “I do think a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong.”

Adding to the populist pileup is Elizabeth Warren, who recently unveiled her plan for a wealth tax on the superrich. “We are now in an America where one-tenth of one percent has about the same wealth as 90 percent of America,” Warren said. “And here’s the deal. Forty percent of America today can’t come up with 400 bucks in an emergency. That is not an economy that is sustainable, and it’s not a democracy that’s sustainable.”

The meeting of the minds between Carlson and the Democrats represents a crossover between the populist tendencies of the right and left. Carlson almost acknowledged this in a Jan. 26 interview with Salon.

“My intention in writing it [his monologue responding to Mitt Romney] was to remind the Republican Party that these are now issues of concern for you,” Carlson said, “because for a hundred years you represented capital over and against labor. I mean that's kind of the purpose of the Republican Party. They used to represent the investor class, right? So, the conventional criticisms of the Republicans as the party of management were 100 percent true, obviously.”

“What I wanted to remind Republican lawmakers was that it's no longer true, that's not your constituency anymore,” Carlson added. “You have a new constituency and it's people who are primarily wage earners and primarily, not low income, but lower income.”

Carlson seems to have bought into the liberal idea of a society that is divided into winners and losers rather than the traditional conservative belief that a rising tide floats all boats. A free market economy will necessarily produce wealthy people who have ideas that form the nucleus of companies that earn profits and create jobs. In contrast to the view that wealth is bad, the companies created by the wealthy help in the economy in two main ways. First, they provide jobs and, second, they provide products that raise the standard of living.

One such American success story is Amazon, but rather than celebrating the company that provides more than 600,000 jobs and made life better for millions, Carlson is critical. “Thousands of Amazon employees are forced to rely on food stamps, Medicaid and public housing because their wages are too low. And guess who pays for that? You do,” he wrote last year. “Frankly, I don’t believe that ordinary Americans should be subsidizing the wealthiest person in the world because he pays his employees inadequate wages.”

Oops, sorry. Bernie Sanders actually said that. But Tucker Carlson made a statement that was very similar: “Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, is worth about $150 billion. That’s enough to make him the richest man in the world by far, and possibly the richest human being in all of human history. It’s certainly enough to pay his employees well. But he doesn’t. A huge number of Amazon workers are so poorly paid, they qualify for federal welfare benefit.”


Bernie and Tucker ignore the fact that there is no such thing as a bad job. Some Americans prefer part-time jobs so that they can spend more time with their families. Some take part-time jobs in addition to a full-time job. In any case, minimum wage jobs usually lead to higher paying jobs after the worker gains experience. This could be through promotions within the company or finding a better job at a completely different company. In any case, it is well established that mandating that companies increase wages [DT1] leads to fewer jobs.

The truth is that wages are increasing for all Americans. The Wall Street Journal reported in November 2018 that wages saw the biggest gain since 2009. While wages were slow to recover in the wake of the Great Recession as unemployment fell to less than four percent. As the economy grows, workers will benefit with higher wages as the market for labor tightens.

When conservatives embrace populism, they lose sight of the economic truths that have benefitted the West for hundreds of years. The result is a mishmash of emotion and policy that leaves both sides of the political spectrum confused and overlapping. That confusion didn’t begin in 2016 when Donald Trump espoused a trade policy that was very similar to that of Bernie Sanders. There was already a considerable anti-trade movement growing in the GOP even before Trump appeared on the scene, but the Republican populism was accelerated by the 2016 election.

Carlson’s solution seems similar to the Democrats in that he wants someone to direct the economy to do what he wants it to. He even told Salon that he is open to voting for Elizabeth Warren if she promises to exert centralized control over the economy in a way that he wants.

“If there was a Democrat in 2020 in this election who made that primary plank in the platform, I would vote for that person. That's how important I think it is,” Carlson said. “If Elizabeth Warren came out and said, ‘I wrote a whole book on this and I want our economy to support parents on one income, families on one income, not so we can hire some person from the Third World to work at minimum wage and raise your kids, but so that you can have an intact family. You can live in a way that we all know is better.’”

But Carlson’s goal of directing the economy to support single parents can only be achieved through bigger government that takes away wealth from people who earned it. That is not conservative or a free market policy.

Admittedly, workers have suffered over the past decade since the 2008 financial crisis. Wages were slow to recover in the Obama years and manufacturing jobs took a hit, although the populists misidentified the culprit. It was automation rather than outsourcing that caused much of the pain. Today, the economy seems to be undergoing a shift as part of the technological and internet revolutions, but a changing economy doesn’t mean that the underlying laws of economics are no longer valid.

Free market capitalism is still the ideology that has lifted millions out of poverty and the expansion of fairness through government control that Carlson and others seem to suggest would restrict the free market’s ability to help workers, not help it. Unfortunately, the idea that Big Government can make capitalism more fair is where the Democrats and the populist wing of the Republican Party come together.
Originally published on The Resurgent


 [DT1]https://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-leads-to-job-losses-2017-3

Saturday, October 20, 2018

Elizabeth Warren Leads Trump in 2020 Polling

Elizabeth Warren recently destroyed her reputation and, along with it, her chances of becoming president in 2020. At least, that is what the current narrative says. The Massachusetts Democrat’s embarrassingly fact-free claim of Native American heritage made her the laughingstock of the internet and, many assume, ended her 2020 presidential campaign before it began.

But what does the data say?

Rasmussen just released a poll showing a head-to-head matchup against President Trump. Surprisingly, Warren has the support of 46 percent of the likely voters polled while the president garnered support from only 44 percent. The margin of error is three percent making the race a statistical tie.

Before polling critics jump on the poll as fake news, I’ll point out that Rasmussen is a pollster that is friendly to Mr. Trump. Rasmussen presidential approval polling has consistently shown Trump at higher levels than other pollsters. In past weeks, Trump has reached 50 percent approval in Rasmussen’s polling while the polling average never topped 42 percent. Most recently, Rasmussen showed Trump approval at 47 percent. By way of comparison, Rasmussen pegged Warren’s approval at 41 percent.

Men and women among the 1,000 likely voters had similar views of Warren, but she benefitted from a gender gap. Women favored Warren while men favored Trump. Warren also was the overwhelming choice of black voters. Voters were more likely to choose Trump as their age increased. Both candidates won large majorities of voters from their own party, but Warren leads with unaffiliated voters by 53 to 36 percent.

The poll is not written in stone and many things can change between now and 2020, but the results underscore the difficulty that Donald Trump will face in his reelection campaign. If a candidate who has had as much bad press as Elizabeth Warren can poll ahead of the president, albeit in a statistical tie, it indicates that the president will have a tough fight with a more capable candidate.

Warren is not even the top choice of Trump opponents. Only 14 percent of Democrats and 11 percent of all voters think Warren is the best nominee to face Trump. Three-quarters of Democrats think the party needs to nominate a new face in 2020.

Earlier this week, CNN polling showed that former vice president Joe Biden leads Democrat preferences for 2020 at 33 percent. He is followed by Vermont Senator and 2016 candidate Bernie Sanders in a distant second and California Senator Kamala Harris. Elizabeth Warren placed fourth with single-digit support.  

The danger for Trump and Republicans is that the president’s popularity within the GOP will induce an echo chamber effect that will lead to overconfidence. Donald Trump is overwhelmingly popular among Republicans, but his approval outside the party is not good. He beat long odds in 2016 to become president but a more effective candidate than Hillary Clinton will lead to another tough race.


Originally published on The Resurgent

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Elizabeth Warren Is Revolting


Elizabeth Warren is revolting. No, not that way. She's leading a rebellion against moderate Senate Democrats. A partial rollback of Dodd-Frank regulations has enough bipartisan support to give it a real chance of passage and Sen. Warren (D-Mass.) doesn't like it.

Warren sent out a fundraising email attacking the Democrats who supported the banking reform bill. The email led in turn to a contentious meeting of Senate Democrats. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, (D-N.Y.), who doesn't officially support the bill, has not been vocal in his opposition. Schumer reportedly urged Warren to temper her criticism by focusing on facets of the legislation that she opposes rather than engaging in intraparty warfare.

“This is what I said I was going to do,” Warren reportedly told Schumer per Politico sources. “This is why I ran for the Senate.”

The bill, officially titled the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act,” but dubbed the “Bank Lobbyist Act” by Warren, has done what Republicans have been unable to to accomplish in other areas: split the Democrat caucus. The bill, which is favored by housing industry groups, counts 12 moderate Democrats among its cosponsors, more than enough to ensure cloture and passage.

The schism between leftist and moderate Democrats could easily lead to an intraparty rivalry similar to what Republicans experienced during the later Obama years. Moderate Democrats may find themselves pitted against the party's left wing and derided as “Democrats in name only” who are not liberal enough. It's easy to imagine Warren, the leftist stalwart, in the role of Ted Cruz, vying for the reins of the party and trying to steer it toward the left and away from compromise.

The problem for Democrats is that a strategy of going left is likely to have disastrous electoral consequences. Doug Jones in Alabama and Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania have demonstrated that moderate Democrats can be competitive in deep red Trump country, especially if Republicans continue to nominate flawed candidates, but the Warren strategy of forcing these moderates to the hard left after they are elected would invariably lead to a Republican wave similar to 2010 and 2014.

Schumer seems to realize this. His decision to allow moderates to work on the bipartisan bill to reform Dodd-Frank may have been made with the upcoming elections in mind. The success of the bill would allow moderates to crow about a positive accomplishment rather than being forced to run on opposition to President Trump.

DNC Chair Tom Perez hinted at a similar strategy in a recent segment on CNN. When asked about a Conor Lamb ad in which the candidate distanced himself from Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Perez replied, “Listen, Democrats are going to do what they believe is best to win their races.”

Dana Bash then asked, “So you don't think that Nancy Pelosi is a drag on Democrats in tough races?”

Perez deflected the question, but the answer is obvious. “San Fran Nan,” who isn't even popular with liberals these days, would be the kiss of death for moderate Democrats in red or purple states.

Democrats hope for a “blue wave” this November, but to make that a reality they will have to nominate candidates that are a good fit for the local electorate. Candidates for swing states will need to be more moderate than the Democratic Party at large and may not fit with the liberal orthodoxy on issues like guns, taxes and especially cultural matters such as gender and abortion. This is a recipe for conflict down the road.

The paradox of winning a majority is that Democrats will find that a larger congressional caucus means that the party is more moderate. While the Elizabeth Warrens of the left may not like this move to the center, to force representatives of swing districts into hard left voting patterns would mean that any majority would be short-lived.


Originally published on The Resurgent