Matt Robison

Everything Joe Biden and the Democrats have done: Why the midterms should be a cakewalk

We tend to recall 1984 as an easy romp for Ronald Reagan, because he could run on a clear record of economic recovery.

But that record was actually a mirage, the message a con.

Reagan’s iconic “Morning in America” ad slyly noted that “Today, more men and women will go to work than ever before.” But the unemployment rate was actually higher (7.5 percent) than when Regan took office – it was just that the population had gotten bigger.

READ MORE: 'Be mentally prepared': GOP 'a normal polling error away' from ushering in 'a brutal authoritarian system'

And when Reagan asked – in his famous “are you better off than you were four years ago” debate question – whether people could better afford things, the actual answer was no. Real wages, people’s purchasing power, had actually gone down, while prices had gone up (food cost about 4 percent more; gasoline cost about the same).

People were simply being fooled by recalling not four years prior, but their experience during Reagan’s midterm recession, where unemployment topped 10%, inflation was also over 10%, and more than half the country said Regan’s policies were making things worse.

Reagan’s economic record was, simply put, bad. Yet he went on to win 49 states in 1984 on a message of growth and recovery.

Bear this in mind when considering this year’s elections.

READ MORE: Watch: Extremist Republicans openly attack public schools teaching science, history and social studies to kids

Joe Biden and the Democrats who control Congress have put together a record of massive achievement, particularly on the economy, one that absolutely towers over not just Ronald Reagan’s but virtually all presidents in their first two years.

No need for smoke and mirrors.

It’s an overflow of facts.

If Americans were being asked to vote based on how this administration has done, Democrats would be crushing.

We are not hearing that argument mostly because of the tactical choices made by individual campaigns. But it is still something – the most important thing – that voters should consider.

So here, in one place, is a concise summary of that record under Biden and the Democrats in Congress – what would have been a slam dunk closing argument not that long ago. (Please note, this is all very real, and very full of proof: sources include reports from outlets like the Columbus Dispatch and the AP, PolitiFact and the White House:

  • Jobs: Achieved the greatest single year of job creation in American history, more than 6 million in 2021, a decrease of 16 million receiving unemployment benefits, and the biggest drop in the unemployment rate in history.
  • Manufacturing jobs: The biggest yearly increase in US manufacturing jobs in nearly 30 years. Democrats’ new incentives for key industries have already led to announcements of thousands of new manufacturing jobs.
  • Healthcare: Democrats’ new tax credits drove a record 14.5 million Americans signing up through the ACA, including 5.8 million new people getting coverage. They forced drug companies to negotiate prices for the elderly and capped costs at $2,000 per year. This will save elders thousands annually.
  • Poverty: The Dems’ child tax credit created the largest-ever one-year decrease in childhood poverty in American history, about 3 million kids. Households saying they didn’t have enough to eat dropped by a third.
  • Safety: Passed the biggest anti-violence measure in decades, including the Gun Safety bill and strengthening the Violence Against Women Act.
  • Supporting police: Democrats passed four bills on supporting both police and crime victims.
  • Covid: Biden executed the most successful American vaccination program in history – from under 1 percent of adults fully vaccinated to over 75 percent, with over 500 million shots administered – and from less than half of schools open to almost all of them.
  • Roads, bridges, energy: the bipartisan infrastructure bill will finally fix America’s infrastructure. In 2022 alone, repairs are starting on 65,000 miles of roads and 1,500 bridges, with thousands of jobs created.
  • Protecting America and our allies: Biden kept the NATO alliance together in support of Ukraine following the Russian invasion, brought in two new countries and took out the world’s number one terrorist, Ayman al-Zawahri.
  • Veterans: Dems allocated funds for hundreds of thousands sickened by burn pits in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
  • Climate: The Inflation Reduction Act includes the largest investment in history to address global warming. Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Accords and the EPA established strong new fuel economy standards.
  • Diversity, equality: Democrats made lynching a federal hate crime, made Juneteenth a federal holiday and Biden appointed more Black women to the US Court of Appeals in one year than any president in history.
  • Budget: The Inflation Reduction Act reduces the deficit by $300 billion.

Of course, Republicans are continuing to bamboozle us out of thinking about this record by screaming about three main things on Fox and in their campaigns (as if there were a difference).

One is inflation.

Yes, high prices are bad and hurt working families, but Democrats’ policies did not cause them and will actually help fix them while Republicans have no plan that will help.

Second is crime.

But major crimes, including murders and shootings, are down across America, and crime rates are higher in Republican-run states.

Third, immigration.

But the Cato Institute correctly points out that we’re seeing more migrants trying to cross the border, because we’re creating so many jobs, not because of Democrats’ border enforcement policies, as Republicans claim.

None of this changes reality.

In a highly partisan America, facts can be easily drowned out by hot-button shouting. Or, as longtime Democratic strategist and 2020 Biden ad-maker Cliff Schecter observed, “the gulf in perception of Biden’s record vs reality exposes the challenge posed by rightwing media, rampant disinformation, and a mainstream media trying to play it straight with both sides but actually just playing dumb.”

We can’t entirely fix that problem right now. What we can do is ask voters to remember the flaming dumpster fire that was America two years ago at the end of the Trump term: an economic and public health calamity, massive abuses of power and the ultimate culmination – an insurrection fueled by an American president.

And now, think of the summary above, and what Biden and Democrats have achieved in the two years since.

Then ask yourself: are you better off than you were two years ago?

Is our nation better off than we were two years ago?

READ MORE: Fascism in a nutshell: Is America ready to trade democracy for cheap gas?

Why Democrats were right to 'interfere' in GOP primaries

You may have heard that the Democrats meddled in GOP primaries. You may not have heard that “meddling” doesn’t do it justice.

Democrats pumped $53 million into helping Republicans. Not just any Republicans – a crop of some of the most extreme, Big Lie-touting, election-denying, insurrection-apologizing, QAnon-curious, Maga loyalists around.

Now, trying to line up the weakest opponents is not particularly novel. Almost universal condemnation across the punditariat is.

READ MORE: Lauren Boebert’s Democratic challenger tears apart her anti-veterans voting record

The Dem old guard denounced it. Media commentators were aghast. The rightwingers tut-tutted about the hypocrisy of it all. Indeed, how could Democrats campaign against the Maga threat while spending tens of millions helping the most active Maga threats?

I even fretted on the air that the maneuver might be, as former House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt put it, “playing with fire.” It sure did sound like Smokey the Bear handing out kerosene.

But the pundits were wrong. So was I.

A new analysis shows that six out of the 13 attempts got Democrats their weak opponent. That significantly increased their chances of winning three governors races, two House seats and a Senate seat.

READ MORE: Trump-supporting GOP candidate condemns women’s voting rights

How much does a weak opponent tilt the odds?

Democratic US Senator Maggie Hassan spent all year underwater in voter approval in New Hampshire while pre-primary polling showed Republican challengers neck and neck with her.

But after a few million dollars of “interference” helped MAGA loyalist Don Bolduc (Republican Governor Chris Sununu called a “conspiracy theorist”) eke out a primary win, Hassan is now up by more than 10 points in the latest polls and an 87 percent favorite to win. In a split Senate and a five-seat House majority, races in the bag matter.

But that’s not the reason Democrats were right to meddle.

The reason is that all the criticism assumes that there is a meaningful difference between the Republicans. There isn’t. Not anymore.

No matter how many noises today’s Republican candidates make about moderation, respect for freedom or commitment to democracy – many of them, perhaps, sincere and heartfelt – once in office they will be subject to the same backbone-melting political forces that have assailed all of their fellow party members.

They’ll fold or get rolled.

Most will fall into Team Fold. When presented with unassailable evidence of impeachable behavior, all but 10 House Republicans voted against impeaching Trump. One hundred and thirty-nine of them – a majority – stepped over the glass shards and blood stains of the J6 insurrection to vote to overturn the 2020 election.

The captain of the spine-melt team is House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy. His repeated, clumsy groveling to Donald Trump is even more embarrassing than Trump’s bootlicking abasement to Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. His brief bid for freedom after the insurrection illustrates the point. McCarthy swiftly remembered that he needed Trump to fulfill his own ambitions, lied about ever turning, was presented with audio tape that he had, and stuck with the lie.

Better to lie to reporters’ faces than get Truthed online.

The alternative in today’s GOP is to get rolled. The most famous example is of course Liz Cheney: dumped from her leadership post, ostracized, and ejected from office (as were 8 of the 10 who voted to impeach) for standing up for truth and the US Constitution.

This is all painful to say.

As a congressional staffer, I worked closely with Republican counterparts to help pass important laws to infuse economic development aid to people in poor, rural counties and to expand health insurance coverage for young adults. I continue to feature conservative experts, colleagues and friends on my radio show and podcast to have thoughtful exchanges. I believe that’s healthy for democracy, informative for listeners and entertaining.

But electing a handful of additional Republicans of conscience over their redhat counterparts will not meaningfully reduce the threats to democracy. A Post headline last week laid out why: “Most of the House GOP has opposed each effort to protect elections.” Voter suppression and subversion are part of the GOP platform.

And the case that a pro-choice, or moderately pro-life, Republican Senator would help protect reproductive freedom was definitively crushed when Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins waved Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett through the turnstile.

Fool me once, senator … but you don’t get fooled again.


On every issue of substance, decades of research has shown that elected Republicans have become not just increasingly conservative, but increasingly cohesive. And today’s elected Republicans stick together on the right-wing agenda about twice as much as they did a decade ago. The few remaining apostates have been subjected to the redhat inquisition, to be converted or electorally beheaded.

Ten years ago, I was the chief of staff for the Democratic US Senate candidate in New Hampshire. The Democrats chose not to interfere in the Republican primary. The Republican widely-perceived as “moderate” defeated a right-wing pro-life extremist by under 1,000 votes, and cruised to victory against us in the red wave of 2010.

Kelly Ayotte then went on to a six-year stint as a “rank and file” Republican senator, voting along with her party whenever it mattered. Just like the more extreme candidate would have.

Would the more extreme Republican have voted differently? No. Might we have fared better against him? We’ll never know.

Simply put, if this year’s meddling lands a few more Maga Republicans in office, we will never be able to tell the difference.

But if it results in the Democrats holding the Senate, or even narrowing losses in the House, it will make all the difference.

READ MORE: Liz Cheney throws a Trump-supporting GOP lawmaker under the bus

More than one way for SCOTUS to screw democracy

“Extremist justices are aiming their next dagger at the heart of the entire democratic enterprise,” says law professor Lawrence Tribe. “The Supreme Court’s next move could fundamentally change our democracy” warns the Post. It’s a “body blow” said the law professors behind the podcast Strict Scrutiny.

Got your attention? It certainly got mine.

There’s definitely something to worry about.

READ MORE: Defeating 'fetal personhood' by taking it to extremes will fail

But let’s be clear about what.

How bad can things get?

The alarm is over the court agreeing to hear Moore v. Harper. The court could rule in favor of something called independent state legislature theory (ISLT).

As Eliza Sweren-Becker of the Brennan Center for Justice explains, ISLT is a fringe legal theory that “state legislatures [hold] near absolute power over the laws governing elections for federal office — leaving state courts, state constitutions, state governors and other state entities powerless to stop [them].”

READ MORE: House of Representatives to hold vote to protect marriage equality

Ring a bell?

That’s John Eastman’s memo.

You know, the blueprint for Donald Trump’s coup.

Courts took a dim view of cases tied to the Trump plot. But the problem of course – and the reason that the system is now blinking red for so many legal experts – is that fresh off the Dobbs decision, any reassurance that the court would never uphold a “debunked” constitutional argument is cold comfort.

After all, if the rightwing supermajority is willing to apply tortured legal reasoning to overturn half a century of what we thought was settled law, the fact that four justices are saying they are open to another equally radical view of our fundamental rights should be disturbing to say the least.

So if a fifth justice climbs aboard this particular crazy train and rules that ISLT is legitimate next year, how bad would it actually be?

More than gerrymandering

The Brennan Center’s Ethan Herenstein and Thomas Wolf summarize what we know for sure: “state constitutional bans on gerrymandering in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and other states could die, as could independent redistricting commissions in Arizona, California, Michigan and other states. Other state constitutional provisions – like the right to a secret ballot – could be wiped out.”

In other words, voter suppression could get a whole lot worse.

Remember, this isn’t just about gerrymandering.

A recent report documented that legislatures in 33 states are considering 229 bills that politicize, criminalize or interfere with elections. Fifty such bills have already been enacted or adopted. Under a pro-ISLT ruling, these laws could be totally illegal under state constitutions, but there would be nothing that state courts could do to stop them (and don’t expect federal protections either).

But what about the notion that democracy would be more fundamentally ended, in that people’s votes in federal elections would be made almost meaningless?

An illustration of that nightmare comes from progressive talk show host Thom Hartmann. He suggested a 2024 scenario in which “Biden won the popular vote in Georgia,” but “their legislature decided it can overrule the popular vote and just awarded the state’s 16 electoral votes to DeSantis instead of Biden.”

Almost as destructive

Fortunately, this isn’t likely to be the real danger.

Law professors Leah Litman, Kate Shaw and Carolyn Shapiro write that “even if the court embraces the revanchist ISLT, that would not permit state legislatures to throw out votes already cast to appoint presidential electors of their choosing.” As Herenstein put it to me: “ISLT is not a license to coup.”

But there’s a related and more subtle threat, almost as destructive.

Rick Hasen suggests that GOP-controlled legislatures could try to use any normal election rule issued by an administrator or state court as pretext to argue that the whole presidential election was not conducted in the way that the legislature directed (and remember, one flavor of election-subversion laws from Republican-controlled legislatures in the past year has been to give themselves the power to conduct shady partisan “audits” of election results, which would give them even more ammunition for such a claim), and therefore, that the legislature would be empowered to step in and pick the slate of presidential Electors.

Again, even if the court OK’s ISLT, that might not be legal.

But it would be confusing.

Clear anti-democratic damage

It could easily plunge our next post-election period into far worse chaos than we saw in 2020. Lawsuits would fly. Lower courts would be more willing to defer to legislatures’ decisions presuming a ISLT precedent set by the high court. A House GOP majority might accept a legislature-appointed slate of electors.

And ultimately, the court – with public credibility at a historic low – would be called upon to try to clean up the mess that it unleashed. And what would happen next? Think nationwide post-Dobbs protests meets post 2016 election marches meets January 6.

We don’t know, but it isn’t good.

Luckily, we aren’t quite there yet.

As Thomas Wolf points out, four justices agreeing to hear a case is a long way from five justices issuing an extreme ruling on it. And Democrats have at least some control over the future here if they put the focus into key state legislative races that they deserve.

But we see the pathway ahead to clear anti-democratic damage, and if not a direct end to democracy itself, a prescription for turmoil and systemic meltdown. That’s plenty to be worried about.

READ MORE: Institutionalism versus democracy: Can the system be saved?

The states have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. Democrats should take it over the finish line

Facing an imminent Supreme Court decision that will take women’s legal status literally back to the 17th century, it may be time for Democrats to consider doing something bold, proactive and just.

Democrats should ask themselves if they are ready to enact the Equal Rights Amendment. As in, right now. Believe it or not, they could.


Five weeks ago, Democrats weren’t planning to fight the midterms on abortion for good reason: they know this has never been a winning issue. The new dream of party activists – where legions of outraged pro-choice voters descend on the polls this November to rescue Democrats from the midterm jinx – is dubious at best.

Yes, about two-thirds of Americans say they want to keep Roe. But the muddier reality is that only one-third of Americans support second-trimester abortion, 30 percent of Democrats identify as pro-life and support for various restrictions, even fairly intrusive ones, crests in the 80-90 percent range. Most important, abortion views in the critical swing states and congressional districts are mostly dead even.

Democrats will likely find running on abortion this fall is like shouting into a sinkhole. Americans have very little understanding of what the Dobbs ruling will mean. To the extent that they do, most will be OK with their own state’s approach. Or they are already activated on this issue, so the ruling will change little. Not to mention that Republicans have already deployed water-muddying talking points that polling and history suggest will be highly effective in blunting attacks.

So if approaches focusing the election on abortion are likely to come up short, Democrats should do the opposite. Go bigger.

If they can’t prevail – but can’t ignore a fight their base will demand – take Dwight Eisenhower’s advice and enlarge their problem.

How it would work

Fighting over the Equal Rights Amendment would make abortion a subset issue of equality (as Ruth Bader Ginsberg always wanted) and tie it to core economic and cost-of-living issues like pay, family leave and health parity that powered Democrats among suburban women in the last two elections and remain top issues this year.

How would it work?

Congress passed legislation to enact the ERA in 1973. It also included a deadline to ratify it. Remember a Constitutional Amendment must be ratified by three-quarters of the states to go into effect. But as of the deadline, the ERA was three states short. It’s been dormant for years.

But then a funny thing happened.

Starting in 2017, three more states suddenly ratified it, bringing it over the goal line. Now, the major remaining obstacle was the deadline. But advocates argued that the Constitution says nothing about Congress setting a time limit. In fact, the 27th Amendment (regarding salaries of members of Congress) was ratified 200 years after Congress passed it.

And here’s the key thing:

Constitutional law experts agree that the national archivist, who works for the president, could – and, under the Constitution, should – recognize the ERA as enacted the moment it’s been ratified.

It’s been ratified.

Now what?


It should have already been published as part of the Constitution.

In fact, the current archivist’s refusal to do so has relied on an opinion from Donald Trump’s Department of Justice, which famously and egregiously operated based on ex-Attorney General Bill Barr’s agenda.

We now have a new AG who isn’t cooking the books. A new president could ask the DOJ to review and reissue their opinion immediately.

Or Joe Biden could simply say that on the basis of the Constitution and existing legal briefs, the official executive branch position is that the ERA has been enacted and that all agencies should treat it that way.

So long story short, the means exist to declare the ERA enacted.


There are two basic objections to this approach.

One is that simply publishing the Amendment doesn’t necessarily create a legal effect either for ensuring equality or for protecting abortion specifically, especially since the status of the Amendment would almost certainly end up litigated before the Supreme Court.

But a broad coalition of women’s rights groups argues that simply publishing it would advance state efforts to fight discrimination.

Many legal and constitutional scholars agree that enacting the ERA would open up the potential for powerful legal protection for abortion.

University of Baltimore School of Law professor Kim Wehle says that “it would have a tremendous impact,” because “it would get around the argument that substantive due process – which is the basis for privacy – has got to be expressed in the Constitution.”

The second objection is political.

Since the ERA would immediately fall into a legal morass, it might be no more compelling to the American people than the Dobbs ruling.

Plus declaring the ERA enacted could look like political interference with federal agencies, which could open the door for a future president (including Trump) doing more of the same.

A fighting chance

Shifting the messaging fight to the ERA would be far from a political sure thing. But it is still a better battle to wage.

Democrats should prefer a situation where Republicans have to try to explain why they are trying to rip equality for women out of the Constitution over them merely having to repeat the abortion battles they’ve already shown they know how to win. Republicans fear an ERA fight, because they know that opposition is a lot harder to explain.

As for the interference argument, it’s hard to see how this highly specific situation could be generalized. Or how a president following the advice of legal scholars to adhere to the plain language of the Constitution would be an act of politicizing the Department of Justice.

Most of all, it’s worth picturing what the McConnell-ite Republican Party would do if the tables were turned. Would they clutch pearls at the idea of asking an archivist to press the print button?

We know the answer.

Democrats can watch as the inevitable plays out.

But if they are bolder, they’d have a fighting chance.

Democrats need to target 'local and less glamorous' races in 'strategic places' to stop GOP destruction

If you’ve consumed any news media lately, you’re probably worried democracy is getting strangled by Trumpist-Republican sectarians.

You’re right.

Sober analyses in news outlets like NPR, Washington Post, New York Times, Newsweek and many others are downright frightening.

But the bad news doesn’t end there.

Ron Brownstein pointed out in The Atlantic last year that “though [the] proliferation of bills restricting ballot access in red states has commanded national attention, it represents just one stream in a torrent of conservative legislation poised to remake the country.”

Alarmed Democrats have been responding the ways we usually expect: by giving money and in record amounts. In 2020, with a $1.5 billion barrage of digital pleas, Democrats poured heretofore-unseen sums into federal races and outspent Republicans across the board.

The problem is our aim.

As former Ohio Democratic Party Chairman David Pepper vividly describes in his book Laboratories of Autocracy, state legislatures shape all the other levers of power in our country – how we vote, who gets to vote, what the districts are and whether our votes count.

State legislatures also have a bigger role than the federal government on many of the issues that affect our day-to-day lives.

That’s to say nothing of local offices.

As Run for Something’s Amanda Litman says, they “affect people's lives on everything from schools to business licenses to climate change.”

Yet 70 percent of local races go uncontested.

In the 2020 election, the Democratic Party spent a scant $50 million on all state legislative races across the country (local races garnered way less). They poured seven times more into winning the US House.

Heck, they wasted almost three times more on a fruitless campaign against a single Republican senator.

It’s bad enough that they obsess over federal races while underfunding state races and overlooking local offices. They also massively overfund campaigns that are unwinnable or in the bag.

AOC raised $20 million to win … by almost 50 points?

The Times’ Ezra Klein summed it up: “Democrats chase shiny objects.”

But Jason Sattler gave a more pointed example, noting that Marjorie Taylor Greene “could marry Hunter Biden, put her pronouns on her Twitter bio and give herself a real-time abortion on Tucker Carlson’s desk while wearing a rainbow-colored N95 mask – she’d still win.”

Yet Democratic donors stampeded to give an eye-popping $5 million to her longshot challenger, double what incumbent Democrats have gotten in toss-up seats, people like Angie Craig and Jared Golden, who have a real chance and must prevail if we are to hold the House.

If Democrats want to protect American democracy and advance meaningful policy that improves lives, we need to refocus.

Fortunately, these are choices each of us can make.

First, and most important, you can concentrate more of your own giving on campaigns that a) are challenging but winnable, b) affect the balance of power and c) happen in strategic places.

It’s depressingly easy to find fitting targets. Republicans hold trifectas in 23 states, including presidential swing states, like Georgia, Arizona and New Hampshire. They also hold triplexes of the officials that have the most direct power over voting – governor, attorney general, and secretary of state – in 22 states, including Florida, Ohio and Texas.

Winning back a legislative chamber could slow the rightwing assault. Closely divided bodies that could flip in 2022 include Arizona (both chambers), Georgia, (both), Michigan (House) and Pennsylvania (both).

One donation option is to give to state-based committees focusing on winning key legislative races, like the Arizona Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, or to state Democratic parties giving an easy online option to target swing races as in Pennsylvania.

Or you could give to the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) which supports key state legislative races across the country.

If you like to curate your giving, there’s a little legwork to do (especially because primaries have not happened yet). But it’s not too much. The DLCC has a handy key-races guide you can peruse.

Political analyst Matt Bennett provides a guide to key secretary of state races we need to hold (Michigan) or flip (Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada). Democrats’ candidates for them are a Google away.

Or you can keep your own eye on strategic races in flippable legislatures. In Minnesota, Republican state Senator Warren Limmer (author of the 2012 constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage) won in 2020 by less than a point. In New Hampshire, state Senate District 12 has flipped five times in the last six elections. Former Democratic senator Melanie Levesque is back for a rematch.

A second way to refocus your personal action is to volunteer or run for critical local jobs. ProPublica surveyed 65 key battleground counties and found that 8,500 new Republican precinct officers had responded to Steve Bannon’s call and signed up to work the polls.

You can balance out this influx by signing up to be a poll worker through the nonprofit Power the Polls and you can get information and training through the Fair Elections Center.

Or, if you are willing to take a further step, sign up to explore becoming a candidate for local office through Run for Something, which can help find offices and even help your campaign.

Third, we can adjust our personal political media diets. Social media noise and fundraising solicitations overwhelm our senses. No less an authority than former DCCC Chairman Steve Israel says we should unsubscribe from every single campaign email list.

Instead, we can tune our brains to more reasoned sources (I endorse the Editorial Board, as well as my own podcast), along with following people on social media who are cited in this article and who highlight the true threats and the strategic targets to focus on. (This article has linked to their Twitter accounts throughout. This is mine).

Everyone should spend their money and their time as they see fit.

No one is suggesting going cold turkey on federal races.

But the truth is, when we are more strategic, it works.

State and local-based approaches have led to critical victories for protecting democracy. As Ohio-based Democratic consultant Cliff Schecter put it, "We got those wins by doing what the right does all the time, focusing on where the power was. Sometimes [the job] is more local and less glamorous, but it is every bit as important."

How Joe Biden 're-ignited our government engine' after Donald Trump's damage

What is the source of American power? What, to reclaim a denuded phrase, makes America great? Not the biggest economy, the most powerful military, nor the most coveted cultural icons.

Those are end products, not causes.

They beg the question.

Our strength derives from basic factors: openness to ideas, exchange of argument and ability to process information into good decisions.

If these seem like fuzzy qualities, they’re not.

Economists generally agree our greater capacity to innovate and our superior ability to process complex information in a modern economy won the economic battle of the 20th century. Our relative wealth and qualitative technology advantage flowed into military might.

That combination won the Cold War.

Our federal government plays a central role in that story.

At its best, it reflects the same advantages. That has rarely been clearer than in the way the administration under President Biden has navigated the crisis in Ukraine, displaying forethought and balance, innovating in information warfare, leading and reinvigorating our alliances in Europe, carefully calibrating devastating sanctions, and avoiding disastrous missteps that could lead to World War III.

None of this happened by accident.

Read this description from Max Bergmann, a former senior State Department official, of how our government’s process works (or is supposed to, when it is well-run) in a situation like we face right now:

There are countless inter-agency meetings. There are conversations happening on defense, on military assistance, on sanctions. Experts are exchanging information and ideas.

If State says “we need to turn the screws more on Russia on energy,” Treasury might say, we have some concerns – and then they’ll work together to figure out how to make it work, while someone from Energy will describe where our oil comes from and where we could get other supplies.

Then we might bring in the Middle East experts. Oftentimes there'll be a meeting and then you realize there's like eight other things you need to find out.

Eventually you might develop four different options, but then two options will go up further to the secretaries and the president.

And sometimes the president says “I don't like any of these options, bring me more” and then it kicks back down.

Bureaucratic and even a bit tangled? Sure.

Our system produces plenty of mistakes.

But notice the virtues: the tremendous amount of information we harness, the constructive argument, and the ability to give the big boss information he may not want to hear.

Contrast that with the disconnect, both physical and mental, between Russia’s leader and the system he presides over – whether he is sitting a field goal’s length from his advisors or overseeing a bizarre, fake “exchange of views” before berating the head of his spy service for blowing the pre-arranged script.

So why, as Bill Clinton would say, am I telling you this?

Because few people fully appreciate the true significance of the executive branch agencies in our federal government, how badly former President Trump damaged them and how much value we are thereby getting out of electing Joe Biden as president.

As Michael Lewis showed in his book The Fifth Risk, the federal government is the greatest information collection and processing machine ever devised by humankind for making better decisions and driving a nation’s business and economic success.

Trump Russia-fied it.

He rifled through his rolodex of oligarchs and installed sycophantic bumblers (a man who couldn’t recall the existence of his agency), ideologues compromised by foreign governments, grifters and corporate raiders on the make into key leadership positions.

The most senior leaders seemed to neither know nor care what their job was while experienced government professionals in the levels below stood aghast at the wreckage to good government.

Trump not only failed to leverage the potential of the system (unsurprising from a man who believed that he “alone” could fix things), he pulled a full Putin by outright ignoring the collective smarts of his massive support structure whenever he was seized by a fantastical notion or random whim.

The most famous incidents varied from the comic (think sharpie-hurricane), to the tragi-comic (injecting disinfectant), to the downright tragic (the Syria withdrawal that even leading Republicans called “disastrous” and a “betrayal”).

But the damage went much deeper.

The federal agencies are not just a source of knowledge and idea generation to support decision-making at the top.

They are the workhorses of governing in America.

In fact, given the relative dysfunction of the Congress, executive branch agencies are where most policy affecting people’s lives is made.

And it’s a normal function of any administration to use the might of federal agencies to push through their preferred policy agenda.

So even when Trump wasn’t filling the government with incompetence or larceny, his agencies were still implementing a lot more policy with real consequences than people realize.

The internet is replete with lists (here’s a great example) of how much happened each week during Trump’s four years. It is noteworthy that not all of it was rightwing – and whether by inertia or design not all of it was bad – but much of it was, and the net effect was profound.

Uber drivers lost health insurance, nursing home residents could be forced into arbitration, more defrauded students will be compelled to repay student loans, and safety measures for toxic chemical exposures in the construction industry were rolled back, to name a tiny fraction.

Not to mention the invaluable data that has fueled waves of innovation and economic growth that was diverted to Trump cronies.

All of which is why the “Biden dividend” is so much bigger and more consequential than the paltry amount he gets credit for.

By Merely putting a stop to what Trump’s team had underway as they left office and then issuing “savvy” executive actions that unwound the worst damage, the Biden administration fundamentally changed the substrate of US policy. With agency staff still coming into place and reviews still underway, the most profound impacts are yet to come.

None of this is sexy.

There will be no 30-second ads about agency rulemaking, no bumper sticker slogan about fixing the gears of government.

We won’t hear much in the fall about how Biden’s team gathered data and developed ideas to smartly navigate a great geopolitical crisis.

But make no mistake: Joe Biden has already shown he knows how to tap into the greatest gifts of the American system, and has re-ignited our government engine of policy progress and economic innovation.

The reality is that Biden has done a great job — but the pundits can't admit it

As President Biden marked the anniversary of his first year in office Wednesday, the reviews have come in. A raft of pundits and pollsters describe him as “limping,” “struggling” even “failing.”

Have you people lost your minds?

The answer to the question “what grade do you give Biden’s first year in office?” is “A+.” Anything else is insane.

Think back to where we were by the second half of 2020, almost four years into:

READ: A case headed to the Supreme Court puts Native tribal sovereignty on the line

Think now of the barrels of real and virtual ink spilled over imagining the Biff Tannen-esque dystopia (not a joke – Trump in power was literally the model for the worst future the screenwriters of 1989 could imagine) of what a Trump second term would be like right now.

America run by the worst of the worst sycophants and scoundrels, and the Trump family stealing and self-dealing in ever-larger amounts.

Faster global warming. Endless vendettas. Jailing dissidents. Clawing back LGBT rights. MAGA budgets and widespread hunger. Endless trade wars and rising nuclear standoffs. An impenetrable wall of judges. A chokehold on immigration. The end of democracy.

So to repeat: are people kidding with this “limping” nonsense?

READ: Cracks are emerging between Republicans as the fake 2020 electors scheme comes under more scrutiny

Do not accept the premise of the underlying question here. A year ago, we were all trapped in a flaming car that was speeding to the edge of a cliff. Joe Biden sprayed us with a fire extinguisher and slammed on the brakes.

The next question is not “but isn’t his driving a little slow today?”

The president could be doing literally nothing right now except sitting in the Oval Office and playing with his German Shepherd – and maybe occasionally nominating sane, competent, non-larcenous people to open agency posts and judgeships – and that would be outstanding.

We’re not on fire and we’re still on top of the cliff.

READ: ‘I will not stand by silently’: Sotomayor blasts her conservative colleagues in Texas abortion ban dissent

But what if, after fulsomely acknowledging that by electing Biden we have saved ourselves from going into absolute free fall (for now, though there’s always 2024), we made a serious, mature attempt to weigh Joe Biden’s performance in office? Even here, the media has been way off, and the assessment is badly distorted.

It is legitimate to acknowledge flaws. After all, haven’t there been missteps? Doesn’t America have problems? Yes, of course there were, and of course we do. Reality has a funny way of not being like a Trump fantasy realm of never-ending magic perfection.

But we can’t allow ourselves to be had by the “what about her emails” crowd.

You hear a lot of this on the economy, for example, from opportunistic right wing spin doctors: “Bu bu but inflation!” Inflation has been high and has lingered longer than expected. Voters have every right to feel anxious, upset, and irritated about it.

READ: The battle over who the 'real Americans' are is taking us to the brink

At the same time, the vast majority of economists agree that the economy is doing far better today than a year ago or than they expected. That’s why consumer confidence is high and rising.

The effects of higher prices have been largely offset for many by higher wages and much greater levels of employment, business is booming, the stock market is way up and prospects ahead are good.

Clearly, most things have gone well in the economy, and a few have gone poorly. Not exactly a “struggling” economic record, nor a sign of a wandering president; though to hear Fox News tell it, anyone who speaks these economic facts must be off their rocker because inflation!

It’s the same elsewhere.

READ: ‘Culture war’ bills from far-right Arizona Republicans are becoming increasingly ‘extreme’: report

But the Afghanistan withdrawal had deadly errors! But not enough covid tests!

Yes, the withdrawal from Afghanistan had many mistakes and tragically, horribly, 13 Americans and many Afghans were killed. When have we ever gotten out of a war easily, or without tragic loss?

Yes, we should have stockpiled covid tests and masks earlier this year. We have also achieved the fastest and biggest vaccination program in history.

We even see some of the same dynamic on the left, reflected in voters who tell pollsters that they are “disappointed” in the president.

But BBB got stymied! But we didn’t pass election protection! But we need more on climate!

Yes, administration officials, including the president, have occasionally given confusing or awkward messages or raised expectations too high. This president has also been more successful in passing meaningful legislation in his first year than any in living memory, leading to truly historic economic gains, lifting 3 million children out of poverty, finally investing in desperately-needed infrastructure, including major climate progress and environmental justice, and saving millions from eviction.

Along the way, outside of Congress, he reversed the Trump administration’s assault on the environment, gotten more judges confirmed in his first year than any president in 40 years, ended the European trade war and stopped the panic of global allies.

Neither should we be hornswoggled by the fallacy that failing grades are coming from voters. Any pollster worth their salt will tell you low approval ratings are not a serious assessment of performance. They are a mirror of voter’s feelings about their situation.

Amid higher prices and the omicron wave, voters are understandably very unhappy. They voice low approval ratings and grades to pollsters, which is the major avenue they have for signaling that unhappiness, especially the Republicans whose responses account for the bulk of negative Biden ratings.

Again, are voters unhappy about how the world is right now? Clearly. Does this really reflect Biden’s performance? Nope.

Joe Biden’s job performance in his first year is mostly praiseworthy. But that is beside the point.

One of Biden’s favorite lines is “don’t compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative.” He has done what we, the voters, asked him to do.

He saved us from disaster. That deserves the highest marks.

Biden is under fire from a familiar GOP tactic — here's what Democrats need to do to fight back

It started just over two weeks ago with a Wall Street Journal opinion headline: “Biden’s covid Death Milestone: More Americans have died of the virus in 2021 than in all of 2020.” That unleashed the pig pile.

Republican politicians and their right-wing media sock puppets fell over themselves claiming Biden and Trump were somehow the same on covid. Or perhaps – gasp – Trump was better. It’s hogwash.

But it isn’t exactly crazy. This maneuver is actually an intentional, subversive attack on our brains, a gateway drug for an even more devastating reframing of how we think about the pandemic.

A lot is riding on whether Republicans can pull this off.

READ: Devastating supercut video contradicts Marjorie Taylor Greene’s claim that she isn’t anti-Islam

The pandemic is the fulcrum of our politics, the most important dynamic in all of our lives, the key to most Americans’ economic experience, and the likely reason we aren’t living through a second Trump term. With the omicron wave probably around the corner, Americans are about to rethink our internal narrative on what has happened to us, why and who is responsible. And as our recall of 2020 grows fuzzier – with Donald Trump readying for a comeback and voters souring around perceptions of continued instability under President Biden – the timing is right for Republicans to try to invert voters’ sense of reality and pave the way for a Trump resurgence.

First, let’s dispose of this wrong argument. Then, let’s talk about why Republicans make it so cynically and what Democrats can do about it.

The GOP’s bad faith
A comparison of covid deaths between 2020 and 2021 is asinine. In 2020, we started from a base of zero cases and did not record a death until the last day of February. In 2021, we started with a base of millions of cases, President Biden was inaugurated into a full-blown pandemic, and he came into office literally in the week where we saw the peak for deaths in the US. On top of that, Biden dealt with a summertime delta wave, which was like hitting the reset button back to May, 2020, on covid. When we look at much more sensible comparisons on equal time scales or against other countries, they show that Biden has done far better than Trump.

But as stupid as the math is, the underlying logic of the Trump-Biden equivalency is even worse. Through terrible planning, denial, deception, distraction, magical thinking and incompetence, Donald Trump was directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of American deaths when he was president. That’s according to nonpartisan scientists and his own covid leadership team. Even more insidious, he fueled the political movement against covid vaccination that’s causing most of the deaths under Biden's watch. Even out of office, Trump is tilting the covid scales toward death.

READ: ‘Those are your friends’: Rep. Raskin shoots down Rep. Greene after she calls Democrats ‘communists’

By contrast, President Biden is doing everything he can – mandating vaccinations, pushing boosters and paying for outreach and testing – with Trump Republicans fighting him every step of the way, even giving people financial incentives to remain unvaccinated. (Trump did get one thing right. Operation Warp speed made a real contribution – a small one – to the development of our current crop of highly effective vaccines. But further note that President Biden is the one who led the fastest vaccination effort in American history.)

The facts are clear. Trump made the pandemic much worse, and Trump forces continue making it worse. Biden is making things better, despite bitter opposition. So those same people trying to gaslight us about Biden’s record are a case of the arsonist blaming the fire brigade.

Bad faith works for the GOP
Republicans know that. So why aren’t they afraid to make an argument so obviously vaporous? The reason is most of the time, in this political and media environment, it works. There are three reasons why.

The first is Brandolini’s Law, which states that, “the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” By throwing out even patently cockamamie ideas, Republicans tie Democrats in knots. The more they flood the zone with bullshit, the harder it is for Democrats to marshal the focus and attention needed to debunk it all. Not to mention that merely engaging in the argument lends credibility to the BS side and drains credibility from the fact side. Hence, the old adage: never get into an argument with an idiot, because onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

READ: Liz Cheney hints at criminal charges for Trump in panel vote to hold Mark Meadows in contempt

Second, expending all that effort to win the case with facts may be to no avail. Fact-checking doesn’t make people abandon political fantasy. With right-wing media dominating mainstream media, a giant chunk of our country is only one click away from yet another helping of sugary propaganda to wash away that side salad of facts.

Third, Swiftboating is effective precisely because it goes at your opponent’s strong point. Military historian John Keegan traces this strategy back to Alexander the Great, but look no further than the namesake 2004 attack on John Kerry’s military service. Kerry made his war record his candidacy’s foundation (he opened his convention speech with a salute) when the Iraq War was the biggest issue in the election. But rather than building on that strong base, he ended up having to litigate it. The attack didn’t have to succeed definitively. It merely had to degrade Kerry’s biggest advantage. And it did.

How Democrats can still win
Now President Biden finds himself subject to the same kind of assault, on a topic at the forefront of voters’ minds, and on an issue that should be his biggest strength. What can Democrats do about it? When the other side is flooding the zone, you have to strategically pick your battles, and then you have to go all-out on the ones you do pick.

So congressional Democrats must not shrug this off. They must make this one of the few battles they wage. They must go all-out to win it, not just with facts, but by consistently, concisely reminding Americans of all that Trump has taken away from them. Remember: it may seem easier to win an argument against total bullshit. But it is not.

READ: 'This is called a coup': Legal experts weigh in on bombshell Mark Meadows news

And Democrats ignore this lesson at their peril.

There's a reason we never talk about the government's massive bias for the old over the young

There's a deeper battle happening in Washington than the ones we usually hear about. It's lurking right under the surface of the Build Back Better (BBB) bill. It's woven into the established order in this country. It's something we're afraid to say out loud.

America has become a gerontocracy.

It's time to overthrow it.

This isn't about our country's leaders being in their 70s and 80s, though that matters. This is about how we lavish so much of our limited resources on our elders at the expense of younger generations.

Americans over age 65 make up only 17 percent of the population. Yet we spend about 40 percent of our entire federal budget on them. This is an outgrowth of a long-ago senior poverty crisis in America.

That's why we created Social Security and Medicare, and they worked like gangbusters: over the last five decades, the poverty rate among seniors has dropped by two-thirds. Today, seniors have the lowest poverty of any age group in America, the greatest wealth and the most home equity and home ownership, the least debt, and their overall household income has risen at double the rate of everyone else's.

Meanwhile, children under age 18 are the poorest age group in America. One in six children of this country lives in debilitating poverty. In fact, Americans under age 35 have twice the poverty rate of Americans over age 65, and the gap is steadily widening.

This is insane.

If we accomplish nothing else through the Biden agenda, it will be to start dragging our society's investment levels across the generations back to some kind of coherence (the American Rescue Plan lifting 5 million kids out of poverty is a good start). But eventually we have to go much further. There are three big reasons why.

First, things are about to get a whole lot worse. The amount we spend on seniors is set to explode, dwarfing every other item in the federal budget and everything we do as a society. In 10 years, 50 percent of our federal budget will go to people over age 65. Far worse, over the next 30 years, Medicare faces a $71 trillion shortfall and Social Security faces a $31 trillion shortfall (the rest of the budget faces only a $3 trillion shortfall — so 98 percent of our debt comes from two giant programs mostly for seniors).

And because we pay interest on all that debt, by 2050 half of all tax dollars will go to paying interest. Forget investments in health, education, housing, infrastructure, the economy or even defense. Everything will get crowded out by our addiction to senior subsidies.

Second, spending on seniors manages to be contrary to both progressive and conservative values (a mind-bending feat in today's politics). Senior subsidies are profoundly regressive. As noted above, older Americans are the most well-off age group in our society. In fact, there are currently 4 million retiree households that hold more than a million dollars in investable assets, 2 million who are earning over $200,000 a year after retirement.

Yet many of these wealthier seniors get an opening annual Social Security benefit as high as $50,000 per person, which they clearly don't need, and is higher than what the average retiree gets. Overall, this well-off group will receive $1.6 trillion in Social Security benefits over the next decade alone. And by the way, for anyone who cares about racial justice, seniors are much, much whiter than younger Americans.

Amazingly, this setup is also at odds with conservative values. Conservatives are of course not exactly fans of an expansive social safety net to begin with. But if we are going to have social programs, it would be far more conservative to spend society's resources on giving young people health, education and training so they have an equal opportunity to be successful in life and develop their own resources than to have the government step in after someone has worked throughout their life and throw in a bonus regardless of need.

Third, spending on younger people is simply a much better investment in our economy, society and federal budget. The economic return of providing pre-k to 4 year-olds is $83 billion for each cohort of kids. We could be stacking that up year after year. Even getting kids the basics like more food and health coverage through food stamps and Medicaid creates better health and lower health costs in adulthood. Not to mention that expanding child care and parental leave increases women's labor force participation, income, and tax revenue.

All told, this isn't exactly rocket science: investments in younger generations mean more people living healthier lives, costing the government less, paying more taxes and having more of their own resources later in life.

Of course, there's a reason we never talk about these things out loud (certainly politicians are afraid to): the counterattacks and accusations seem devastating. But looking closer, they are pretty thin gruel.

The primary charge is that any reduction in benefits for seniors amounts to elder cruelty. It is nothing of the sort. Social Security and Medicare are two of the great achievements of our society. Removing fear and misery from old age is something to celebrate and defend, and no one is arguing for a return to senior penury.

Rather, this is about dialing back the spending spree on the people who don't need it to help the people who do. It's the same argument against the Trump tax cuts, the same argument for the Biden BBB … shoot, it's the same basic argument from the story of Robin Hood.

Another attack: you want to take away people's money. After all, these are contributions that seniors have made to Social Security and deserve to get back. But this represents a fundamental, often willful misunderstanding of Social Security, and was the exact same mistake that George W. Bush made when he argued to privatize it.

Social Security is an insurance program, not a savings program. You don't put money in some giant Social Security bank and withdraw it later with interest (that was actually the Bush plan). You pay premiums in what is an insurance plan against poverty in old age. And after all, if you pay homeowners insurance, you collect if, and only if, you have a fire. But it's better if you never have to.

A final criticism — this is just an argument to oppose the Sanders plan to give vision, hearing and dental coverage to seniors, or even the broader push to provide "Medicare for All." Not really.

There is actually an excellent case to cover those three critical aspects of health. But if we want to provide those things, we must show how we are going to do it within the context of refocusing our society's support toward younger Americans.

Ultimately, we have to make choices, not pretend that math is simply a Fox News conspiracy. As for Medicare for All, that is a non sequitur. If we want to have a robust debate about a single-payer system and how it would benefit younger folks, that's great. Helping younger folks is the name of the game. But let's not sneak in single payer through the back door by expanding Medicare now and then giving it to more people … maybe … later.

None of this is intended to blame seniors for where we have landed. This wasn't necessarily intentional. Seniors vote, young people barely do, and our kids can't … so it's not surprising that voters voted for their interests. But we can't continue to let things slide any further. It's time to look at reality. It's time to end the gerontocracy.

There's a big insidious problem in opinion polling that the media is missing

Lee Drutman — a scholar in worthy pursuit of a means of fixing America's vicious polarization — recently offered an analysis in the Times that demonstrated an aspect of American politics that's at least skewed, at most broken.

The core of his article is a sensible argument that America needs a more balanced, flexible party system. To help us understand, he offers a 20-question survey of major policy issues (Question 1: "Marijuana should be legal," offering five response options ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree"). The aim is sorting readers into different political home bases. Drutman contends that these political home bases should be the foundation of a future six-party system.

Drutman's vision sounds better than our current neck-on-throat two-party standoff. (He literally wrote the book on it.) The problem is the survey itself. Can it really support the weight placed on it?

Consider that first question on marijuana. I chose "somewhat agree." I think we shouldn't send people to overcrowded prisons and ruin their lives for possessing marijuana, especially given the stark racial disparities in arrests. But I don't think marijuana should be exactly "legal" either, given our limited understanding of the drug.

But what conclusion can be drawn from my "somewhat agree"? Especially when it comes to the article's project of placing me into a political home base with like-minded people? Is this an issue I've thought a great deal about, or a spur-of-the-moment reaction? Is this an issue that will affect my vote? Do I not care much about this particular question, but still use a candidate's views on marijuana as a signifier of their ideology, which is something that I do care about?

These kinds of issues haunt survey research, as well as the broader enterprise of understanding and measuring how Americans form and act on political opinions. A 2017 meta-analysis of public opinion research concluded that "there is no agreement among political scientists on how to best measure public opinion through polls," and quoted a famous observation that "to speak with precision of public opinion is a task not unlike coming to grips with the Holy Ghost."

Most people have heard of the high-profile polling mishaps of recent years. But the less prominent, and likely more insidious, problem is that we're not measuring what Americans actually think or how they will act politically with anything near the accuracy that we believe we are. What we end up with is a murky lens through which to view our voters, our politics and our governance. Cloudy viewing leads to cloudy thinking: tautological, motivated reasoning about what people want, how we should be campaigning and what our leaders should do.

In the last 40 years, we have undergone a revolution in understanding how people make judgements we think we are testing in surveys. Much in the way that physicists for hundreds of years based their thinking on Newton's laws of motion, political scientists long-built theories of political behavior on the idea that people thought about public policy issues and made rational voting decisions based on their preferences.

But in founding the field of behavioral economics more than 40 years ago, Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and his colleague Amos Tversky proved that that's not really true. People make decisions via a whole bag of mental tricks — shortcuts and biases and heuristics that help them turn the complex into the familiar.

In polling, though, we still work in a pretty Newtonian world. If someone is asked for her opinion on issue X, we presume she will answer in a way that more-or-less accurately reflects her opinion. And if she is given the opportunity to vote in a democratic election, we likewise assume that she will rationally vote in a way that lines up.

But we really don't know the degree to which that is consistently the case. There's good reason to think that often it's not. The reality of our minds is much more complicated, and the way we react to questions and the link to our subsequent behavior is a lot more convoluted.

To continue the physics analogy, it is probably closer to quantum: in the same way that physicists believe that particles don't really have a definite position until someone directly observes them, many voters don't have a definite position on many issues until forced by some outside influence (i.e., being asked in a poll or being confronted with a voting decision) to express it.

After all, do most people outside elite political circles really spend their time thinking about health policy, let alone sub-issues like universal coverage, choice of doctors, or prescription drug price negotiations? No (one-third of Americans don't know that Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act are the same thing). And at the point that these issues are presented, the circumstances surrounding the question will go a long way to determining the answer they give.

There's no simple reality
This is why it can make such a huge difference in polling to make minor changes in how questions are worded or the order in which they are asked. One example: Pew found a seemingly straightforward question on whether "jobs are easy to find" in someone's area yielded a roughly even split in "yes" and "no" responses. But that turned into a yawning 27-point gap in favor of "no" when a single word ("good" jobs instead of just "jobs") was added. One version says the public is divided almost in half. The other describes a 60-33 landslide. How does one draw reliable policy or political environment conclusions from that?

One can see this complication in Drutman's and many other surveys. Question 16: "Should the government raise taxes on incomes above $200,000." What can one confidently conclude from a "yes" or a "no" answer about the respondent's views and ideology? Support for increasing the gas tax in surveys can run anywhere from a paltry 20 percent to a thumping 70 percent depending on whether the question explains how revenue will be used and percentage increases involved.

Ditto for questions like, "Do you favor or oppose providing a way for undocumented immigrants already in the United States to become citizens?" It depends on which immigrants the respondent has in mind. Other polls find support at 71 percent for farmworkers, but only 44 percent for all undocumented immigrants. And even those numbers reflect embedded complexity, since they are a mix of "strongly support" and "somewhat support," which, as my marijuana answer shows, could be expressing very different underlying thinking.

When surveys can plausibly be used to support different takes on what people think, they tend to become fodder for advocates. Two years ago, progressives cited support for the Green New Deal at 80 percent, Medicare for All at 70 percent (including 52 percent of Republicans), and Free College for All at 60 percent. Moderate Democrats responded that support for Medicare for All dropped to 48 percent when voters were informed that it is the same as single-payer coverage, and 34 percent when told that it might raise taxes. Support for the Green New Deal similarly wobbled if brushed with a light feather of context.

The reality of what Americans truly thought on all of those questions? There's no simple reality. Each result was conjured out of the context of the poll: who was being surveyed, under which methodological choices, with what wording and order of the question, and in what general context. When political campaigns use polling to simulate how issues like this will resonate with the voting public, they do a more sophisticated version of this exercise. But it is still a simulation rife with assumptions that may or may not play out as intended.

What are we getting?
And of course, we can't forget the elephant in the polling room — the inaccuracy of polls when it comes to the most basic of political questions: who will win an election. There have been gobs of virtual ink spilled on this topic, and it is not worth belaboring. Suffice it to say that it remains a persistent and troubling problem. When the American Association of Public Opinion Research issued a report this summer looking into why national polling on the 2020 election was the least accurate in 40 years (state surveys were the worst in the last 20), they concluded that it is "impossible" to say for sure.

But it may come as a surprise that even before the high-profile shortcomings of 2020 and 2016, campaign "horse race" polling was a lot less accurate than people realize. Over the last two decades, the average margin of error of all polls has actually been a whopping 14 points. So if you see a poll reported showing a dead heat, statistically speaking it could also be showing a total blowout. Nor are we solving our polling problems. In 12 of the last 13 elections, the "generic ballot" has consistently underestimated Republican support, a continuing issue that pollsters can't quite account for or fix.

And while opinion research experts say they believe that issue-based polling is more accurate and less prone to these kinds of baseline errors (and spectacular misses) than candidate head-to-head polling, it's really not clear. Issue-based questions do have advantages. Probing for views on health care policy or taxes may not introduce the same set of biases in respondents. On the other hand, a horse-race question is a much simpler proposition for the voter to consider.

An additional layer of complexity comes from who is conducting opinion surveys. The website Fivethirtyeight famously brought polling averages into vogue, not only because they were supposed to smooth out the known statistical variations that come with individual polls, but also because pollsters are subject to all kinds of additional biases, methodological differences (we haven't even delved into the weighting and likely voter models pollsters apply — the "secret sauce" as one pollster described it to me — that represent the survey administrator's own judgement about what a "true" representative sample should be), wording preferences and general errors. Fivethirtyeight primly euphemizes all of this under the catch-all label "house effects."

Not to mention that after polling is released, shorn of the careful context that survey experts tend to apply and characterized by journalists and political operatives with various levels of expertise and agendas, it is really hard to know what you are getting.

Be careful how you read polls
The bottom line is that neither quiz-like surveys like Drutman's, nor research probing for voter views, nor their more sophisticated cousins that political campaigns use to calibrate campaign messaging, are measuring what people actually think about a given issue.

They are measuring how people respond to deliberately formulated question wording in a very particular and artificial format (i.e., in a poll or a focus group). They are frequently not asking questions in the terms that the voter themselves would use. These are questions designed by professional opinion researchers and/or political operatives who may be, intentionally or unintentionally, introducing terms and ideas that political elites tend to use.

But it is from this miasma that our political leaders and the professional class of political operatives, journalists, commentators and policy designers draw their conclusions about what people want and what kind of politics or communications will be effective.

To illustrate how this can go awry: Drutman's survey concluded that my views fit comfortably into a new "American Labor Party." That's … wrong. The survey clustered me with people who "focus on economic populism, with an appeal to working-class Democrats who don't have college degrees and don't follow politics closely." I'm an economically moderate former political operative with a Masters' degree who writes about politics. But funny examples aside (and I don't mean to pick on Drutman's survey, which is likely intended to be more illustrative than exacting), the basic problem is pervasive.

None of this is to say that all survey research — campaign-generated or not — is bunk. Carefully done surveys can measure changes in reactions to consistently-worded questions over time, and that tells us something. For example, that Americans' trust in government to "do the right thing" has gone from 75 percent to 25 percent in the last 60 years is a fairly robust insight into our general thinking about government. One can draw reasonable inferences from that.

Where we get into trouble in our campaigns and our political discourse is when we take survey research as a literal, or an all-that-precise guide into Americans' thinking. Any survey result is worth querying. Is the finding relatively consistent over multiple surveys, done by different groups, with different wording, and on an issue that respondents clearly understand as intended? Is it being cited to advance an agenda? Is there a different way to construe it?

Our politics have become more deeply mired in polarization, anger, and misinformation. We use opinion surveys and polls as our compass. If we aren't more careful with how we read them, we may be doomed to continue wandering through this barren political wilderness.

Here's the big failure in the fight to vaccinate the U.S.

America is paying a heavy price for a gaping hole in our collective ingenuity. Amid the massive success of American innovation in creating Covid-19 vaccines, there's been a massive failure of American innovation in persuading people to take them.

Only two-thirds of eligible people have gotten at least one dose. We've been stuck at about half a million new doses a week since June. So we're adding well under 1 percent a month to our vaccinated population while new cases have gone up 500 percent. If we're in a race between the vaccines and the variants, the variants are winning.

Now step back and look at the things that we've tried to get people to take the vaccines. From the country that conquered the moon, the genome and the microchip, is this really the best we've got? What's killing us, literally, is a stunning lack of ideas.

The mostly soft sell approaches we've tried have been weak sauce: perky public service announcements; appeals to throwback hip-hop videos and remixed country classics; hawking content on dating apps; rebranding as the "Trump Vaccine" for credulous Republicans; and doling out small prizes (lottery tickets, bonds, cash—and racing for two laps on the Talladega Superspeedway). If you're worried or downright apathetic about getting the shot, does the prospect of a $3 can of Bud really fire you up? And while psychologists assure us that the Zen of persuasion requires nodding along with people's misinformed concerns or outright lunacy, there's not a lot of evidence that this strategy is working, or that Americans are actually applying it where needed.

Meanwhile, the opposite approach of finally bringing down the hammer on the unvaccinated and calling them out—coming from sources as varied as Fox talking head Geraldo Rivera, Alabama's Republican Governor Kay Ivey and the Editorial Board's John Stoehr—is understandable, likely warranted and may even work on some. But it feels like a last resort from people who wish that they didn't have to go there.

So why haven't we tapped into American ingenuity for better options?

Let's break it down. As Magdi Semrau points out, the unvaccinated population can be split roughly between the potentially persuadable and the not-persuadable (though the not-persuadable could be potentially persuadable as conditions change or if we can figure out the right way to get through to them). But we don't need to get everybody. Herd immunity may no longer be possible. But increased rates of vaccination would slow the development of new viral variants; decrease deaths, hospitalizations and long-Covid; and allow us to return to normalcy. We need a big chunk of the potentially persuadable. We don't need grand slams. We only need some singles and doubles.

How do we do that? Find out who they are, figure out which of hesitancy camps they fall into and then apply the best mix of individualized tools to the persuadable to get a needle into them. Are there smarter ideas for how to do all three? You bet.

Take the first task. It's great that we know these folks are geographically concentrated in the places that voted for Donald Trump, but that doesn't really provide actionable intelligence. The idea of door-to-door canvassing to identify holdouts also has merit—and it's nice that it was successfully used in the 1940s by the March of Dimes—but this approach is also political TNT that relies on the very best of 19th-century thinking.

Meanwhile, in recent years political campaigns have developed sophisticated statistical methods to identify persuasion targets with tremendous accuracy. Plugin magazine subscriptions, zip code, what car you own, etc., and modern campaigns can know to a near certainty who you will vote for, not to mention a heck of a lot else about your behavior. Many companies develop stunningly spot-on insights into your health through similar data-chopping: Target was famously able to detect a teenager's pregnancy before her parents knew. And of course, Google and Facebook have entire world-leading business models built on detailed insights into who you are, what you think and what gets you going based on your scrolling and clicking patterns. Yet in a sea of laser-guided tools, the best idea we've seen from the government is arming church groups with clipboards and telling them to fan out across the neighborhood?

What about the second task of figuring out whether someone is persuadable at all, and what their precise hang-up is? Again, while the clipboard army is an option, there are thousands of companies using sophisticated chatbots to conduct sophisticated interactions: handle banking transactions, settle insurance claims, sell real estate and even treat depression using cognitive-behavioral therapy. A quarter of the country owns a smart speaker like Amazon's Alexa—and a full 90 percent of the country has a smartphone with "Hey Google" or Siri—both of which have the artificial intelligence to interface in complex and highly personal ways. Moreover, developers release more than 1,000 apps a day, and services like MyFitnessPal, Apple Health and even devices like Fitbit show that Americans are totally comfortable sharing personal health information with private companies through interactions with their own phones.

So clearly, the private sector has the ability to reach a vast majority and interact with them autonomously to learn about what drives their vaccine hesitation. But have we seen a wave of innovative tools rolling out through public-private partnerships?

And finally, what about the critical final step of getting people to actually show up and get the vaccine? There's an entire ecosystem of communications firms that create persuasive content on social media to hit the exact people we need to reach. We should know—we just watched the Trump campaign spend $107 million on Facebook alone to get pretty much the same folks we need to reach to show up and vote in record numbers (an act not too different in level of effort from going to get a shot).

Plus, the aforementioned app developers are constantly churning out addictive tools for health, achieving goals, taking quizzes, etc. If "wait and see" types need their concerns heard, why not a smart chatbot embedded in a fun game app that can interact, listen, provide accurate information (which three-fourths of the vaccinated find influential), answer questions, and even design an individually optimal set of persuasive inputs and available incentives to reward people for getting the shot?

Do the potentially persuadable really need to hear from a friend? Do they need to get a testimonial from a celebrity? See a video from a doctor? Get a ride or a beer or a bond? Technology can find the right pressure points for each person and apply them.

To be sure, all of this is a relatively short and unimaginative list (I confess to being a policy/politics person, not a marketing/social media technology person). If the federal government offered $100 million X-prize style to the 10 private sector companies that got the most Americans vaccinated through their own creative means, could our capitalist private sector come up with dozens of better ideas? Almost certainly.

We're in a war. Misinformation and ignorance are enemies. Innovation is the solution. We should deploy it with all the might that American ingenuity can muster.

Matt Robison is a writer and host of the Beyond Politics Podcast and the Great Ideas Podcast, both broadcast on WKXL in Concord, NH. He spent a decade working on Capitol Hill as a senior staffer and campaign manager. He now lives with family in Amherst, Mass.

Here's why ranked choice voting is different for Democrats

The New York City mayoral primary was the first time many Americans paid any attention to ranked choice voting (RCV)—the system by which voters select a list of preferred candidates in order, rather than picking just one. That brief spotlight led to a lot of predictable (and mostly wrong) post-election takes. Republicans lit up Twitter and op-ed pages with the usual take-downs, calling RCV a "corrupt" scheme to confuse and disenfranchise voters; Democrats and allied voting reform groups lauded it as a more fair, accurate and inclusive way to run an election. Neither case is right.

Take the cheerleading arguments for RCV with a big grain of salt. Ninety-six percent of the time it doesn't change election outcomes in the US, especially in primaries. Nor does it affect incumbents' reelection chances. There is some preliminary evidence of benefits for candidates of color, but hardly enough to say much definitively.

Ranked choice voting gives the Democratic Party a way to hold its sprawling diverse coalition together. It provides every segment of the party a chance to have a stake in the ultimate winner.

You can also mostly ignore the lame gripes from opponents, such as Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield's airy and evidence-free claim that RCV somehow prevents us from forming grand political coalitions. (Question: do we see a lot of those forming via our usual election methods?) And while the somewhat bungled New York primary count was an eyesore, there's about as much evidence for Republican hysteria that RCV leads to corruption or depressed turnout as there is for bamboo ballots in Arizona. It's actually the regular runoff process that frequently leads to lower turnout, not RCV.

The real reason that Democrats tend to like ranked choice voting—and that Republicans usually treat it like a bioweapon—has to do with practical politics.

The Republican Party (up until the point Trump scrambled all of its political lanes like a toddler smearing his hand across a wet painting) is a party based on ideological identity. In a primary, Republicans vie to be slightly different flavors of the same thing: white conservative. It's like choosing between ice creams—if your choices were vanilla bean and French vanilla. That means that even in a rank-choice Republican primary, voters are going to get more or less the same thing no matter whom they choose.

The Democratic Party is totally different. It's a coalition of very different ideologies, interest groups, generations and racial diversity (for what it's worth, FiveThirtyEight counts five clusters). And it's all scrambled. Half calls itself moderate or conservative, the other half liberal. Black voters tend to be economically middle of the road. Highly educated white voters tend to be fiscally liberal. Young voters tend to be socially progressive and attuned to racial and climate issues. Party loyalists just want to win.

So when Democrats vote in Democratic primaries, they can choose rocky road, pistachio, or New York Super Fudge Chunk—and sometimes candidates that are a scoop of each of those flavors. Your vote can result in a very different nominee, and a very different outcome in office as different as Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin.

And that's exactly why Democrats gravitate to ranked choice voting. It gives them a way to try to hold that diverse coalition together. RCV provides every segment of the party a chance to have a stake in the ultimate winner. If you rank Bernie Sanders first on your presidential primary ballot and Joe Biden second, and Biden wins, then you still feel like you have some share in Biden's success because you actually voted for him.

This can mean a lot. To some degree, you've not only told yourself the winner is an acceptable outcome (the act of physically marking something on a ballot can itself be a meaningful trigger to your brain), but also because of the bandwagon effect (i.e., people like to identify with the winning side in elections) you are a lot more apt to feel connected to his or her victory and success. This is a big deal for Democrats who may have to overcome a relatively sizable gap between preferences and the party's nominee.

By contrast, Republican Party voters don't have to really worry about this problem. After a primary, they almost always end up with someone who is a virtual political clone of whomever they voted for. There is simply not that much of a gap to close.

Republicans are also incentivized to have only the most highly motivated ideological voters show up in a general election. Decreasing and shaping the electorate toward their motivated core helps them, because they have a smaller base but one that tends to vote more regularly. This is why Republicans have tended to do better in midterm elections, with an older and whiter electorate that skews their way. It's also why they are so keen on passing restrictive voting laws at the state level—proposing 389 of them across 48 states at the last count—that tend to disproportionately impact Democratic-leaning voting demographics like Black voters, young voters and voters of color. It doesn't take a lot of discouragement to turn a sometimes-voter into a nonvoter.

Losing those sometimes-voters can be perilous for Democrats, who desperately need to hold on to everyone across their coalition in a general election. When they do—as in 2018 and 2020—they win. In 2016, however, less than 80 percent of Sanders primary voters ultimately supported Hillary Clinton in the general election (almost 10 percent voted for a third-party candidate and 12 percent actually ended up voting for Trump).

The same thing is true in terms of the role of independents. Look at the 2018 Maine 2nd Congressional District race between Democrat Jared Golden and Republican Bruce Poliquin, a rare instance of RCV changing an election outcome. Golden won, because he was the second choice of people who voted for an independent. The Republican got the core Republican votes. The Democrat got a broader coalition.

Ranked choice voting may have a lot of great features that excite political scientists in theory, and that may get proved out over time. It may also have some downsides that Republicans are right to complain about. (It can be confusing to voters who aren't used to it.) But the practical politics is what's driving the parties. Democrats like it because it helps manage unwieldy coalitions, maintain turnout, and leverage independents better. Republicans know this full well, and that's why they're so against it

Could Dems and the GOP cut a deal on voting to help save our democracy?

If you have been horrified by Donald Trump's post-election napalming of American democracy, the idea of now accommodating Republicans – many of whom looked on in cowed silence – in terms of how we run elections in this country may seem repugnant. But that's exactly what Democrats should do: cut a deal on voting reform with the likely-Republican Senate. Even if it's painful. Even if it means accepting Republican priorities that are anathema to Democrats.

But before casting me out of the Democratic coalition, hear me out.

The American Spectator's Matt Mayer recently suggested four reforms that Republicans could accept, and should demand. One is a standard early in-person voting window in the two weeks leading up to Election Day, including weekends. The second (in exchange for the first) is getting rid of mail-in voting. Third is universal photo identification requirements (paired with ensuring that everyone gets a form of ID, and lenient rules like allowing smartphone selfies to count). Fourth is requiring uniform voter roll cleanup procedures (i.e., "purging") across states. Overlaying all of this – and this is key – reforms should be standardized, implemented by Congress, and "instituted and paid for by federal funds."

There are three compelling reasons for Democrats to try to work with this. First, a compromise built around this framework would actually improve overall voting access on balance, especially for disenfranchised groups. Second, it would strengthen Democrats' electoral prospects – although Republicans would have a political interest too. Third, and most important, it could save American democracy.

A deal built on this framework would significantly improve on the situation today. For all the attention that voter ID laws get, it is not any single barrier that plays the villain in the suppression story. As in Murder on the Orient Express (spoiler alert), lots of culprits are working together. There are around 10,500 different election systems in this country. Each presents a unique web of challenges from underfunded election administration, a paucity of voting locations, difficult registration processes, and in some cases, a single in-person Election Day.

While voter ID laws and registration purges are the cherry on that bad sundae, they are just a part of that bigger picture. They also vary a great deal. 36 states have laws requiring some form of voter identification, but 17 of them accept non-photo ID, and 12 demand a photo but with a fallback option (like signing an affidavit). Voter purge methods also vary wildly from state to state—and sometimes even from year to year depending on who's in office.

The point is that today, the only limit on how severe a state's identification and purging practices are – and they are often very limiting for poor, Black voters' access particularly – is how hard Republican elected officials have pushed them. And with Democrats losing ground in statehouses, the situation is probably going to worsen.

That's why a deal predicated on the Mayer proposal, with some Democratic refinements (Democrats hold the presidency and the House, they are not supplicants here), would be a step forward. Creating a federal elections agency to ensure uniform and generous approaches to early voting for everyone would start to cut through the thicket of barriers that plague voters, increase turnout, and particularly benefit Black voters.

And while curtailing mail-in voting in exchange would seem hard to swallow (there would have to be exceptions: the five states that conduct all-mail elections—and any others that wanted to go that route in the future--overseas and military ballots and people medically unable to travel), it's actually a more-than-fair trade to get more early voting. Mail-in voting is just not that great: according to the ACLU, rejected ballots are concentrated among "people with disabilities, trans and gender-nonconforming people, women, people for whom English is a second language, and military personnel," and polling shows that two-thirds of Black and Latino voters still prefer to vote in-person. And it's the spark for lawsuits, postal delay disputes, and confusion.

In addition, a standardized, federally-mandated approach on IDs that aggressively works to get them to everybody, on the federal dime, and with creative, inclusive standards on acceptable photos, would take matters out of the hands of the most aggressive Republican activists and improve access in the most restrictive states. The same goes for a more standard, federally-overseen process for cleaning up voter rolls, especially if it involved state information exchanges like the Electronic Registration Information Center that rationalize the process. These reforms would get rid of the most egregious disenfranchisement, while having one set of rules and standards would make it far more straightforward for voting advocates to help voters navigate the system.

Some will argue that, because in-person voter fraud is a rarity that Republicans use to justify voting restrictions that give them an advantage, Democrats shouldn't accede to any of this. But we have to deal with the world not as we wish it was, but as it is. Today, limiting voter access – often verging on outright suppression – is the reality. This kind of compromise would stop the increasing restrictions that are almost certainly coming in GOP-controlled states, and actually improve access, especially for the most frequently disenfranchised voters.

The post-election debacle was a low point in the history of Republican claims about voter fraud, ranging from the clownish (think Giuliani in front of Four Seasons Landscaping) to the dangerous (see Trump and the Wayne County elections board). But none of this is going away on January 20. More than half of Republicans believe that Trump's victory was stolen from him. Republican leaders who have long seen the fraud trope as a helpful base motivation tool are already looking forward to more of it. It's a proven winner with their voters, and may be the best way to keep engaging Trump supporters when he is no longer on the ballot.

So the right will keep returning to this well. And it will probably work, at least with their base. Democrats can't stop it by repeating facts – debunking does not end conspiracy theories. The best way to defend against this political weapon is to unload it. We need to get both parties to have a stake in defending the integrity and fairness of the system, because both had a genuine hand in crafting it. Republicans need to have skin in the game.

Of course, this might be where this argument falls apart – after all, if Republicans have such a potent political tool, why give it up? But there are two reasons they just might. One is that not all Republicans are as cynical as many people think – some of them genuinely believe in these voting reforms in principle (I've seen it with my own eyes working both in Congress and a state legislature). The second is that Republican leaders know that in Donald Trump, they have grabbed the wolf by the ears. Trump's appeal served Republicans well in 2016 (non-Trump Republicans succeeded despite him in 2020), but party leaders don't want to be yoked to Trumpism forever. And constant, entirely baseless claims of voter fraud have now become inexorably tied to Trump. A package of election reforms that genuinely reflects Republican priorities would allow them to retake ownership of the issue and start to sever that connection. Republican leaders want to turn that page.

Even if it comes up short, the downside risk for Democrats trying is minimal. With Republicans tilting so hard on fraud rhetoric, an attempt to craft a bipartisan initiative would put hypocrites in a tough position, and even if it succeeded only in smaller pieces (such as setting a uniform early voting window with federal support, or setting a floor on voter ID laws), voters would benefit.

Most importantly, coming to some sort of accommodation on this issue would help protect our fraying democracy. A situation in which one of our two major political parties is incentivized to undermine voters' belief in our elections – and in which a significant portion of our country truly believes that the results are illegitimate – is destabilizing and dangerous. We're seeing that play out right now.

Few appreciate just how close to the edge we have come. Months ago, I argued that to avoid a meltdown of our democracy, Joe Biden needed to win by three states' worth of Electoral Votes or more. That turned out to be critical: if the margin had been one state – or if Trump and his "legal team" were not so incompetent – we would still be neck deep in the muck, and might not have found our way out at all. And we may not be so lucky next time. A better organized effort in a close election by a less repulsive and clownish figure might well result in a genuine constitutional meltdown, or a soft coup d'état.

Democrats cannot simply wave this off. So far, their basic rhetorical strategy has been a version of the My Cousin Vinny line – everything "those guys" say is BS. But looking at the state of voter access in America, the vast numbers of Americans who believe the fraud story, Republican momentum in state legislatures (with redistricting looming) and the susceptibility of the entire American election system to an intractable standoff, it is clear that this strategy is not working.

It is time to do something different. The best thing for voters, for Democrats, for Republicans, and for American democracy is to start to take this issue off the table. It may be a bitter pill, but it is necessary medicine.

Here's the dirty little secret about Democrats' hold on power in the House of Representatives

Despite all of the pre-election warnings and pleas for patience, it's been a 72 hour emotional roller coaster for Democrats. Some of the angst was driven more by high expectations than reality (as AlterNet's Joshua Holland put it: "Think how happy we'd be right now if we had expected a tight race and hoped for a Biden win"). Some is based on real shortfalls with painful consequences.

But the fact that Democrats are poised to lose seats in the House should be the least of Democrats' worries.

Yes, the prospect of a relatively thin House majority is disappointing: Democrats clearly underperformed their set of opportunities. They lost seats when they might have gained, including in some off-the-radar races.

And yes, there is a real and potentially significant downside here: a much thinner margin to work with going into the 2022 campaign, which if current trends hold both in the presidential race (heading toward a Biden win) and midterm election (a likely pendulum swing against the party holding the White House), could be a relatively tough go for Democrats. Getting a running start on that race is the main reason that House Republicans are "celebrating" right now.

But no, the idea that Democrats will face any significant practical problems in managing a slim majority – let alone that those challenges could render the chamber "nearly ungovernable" as Politico opined – should not be a major concern.

As a senior House staffer for a decade – working both in the minority and the majority – I can share a dirty little secret: nowadays, House members usually cast only one truly consequential vote each term – the vote for Speaker, which cements who runs the majority. In part, that is because we are in an era of extreme partisan dysfunction, so Congress has steadily passed less and less real policy in the last three decades, except in rare instances of unified one-party control in Washington.

But in part that's just due to the basic structure of the House. You wouldn't hear much about this on Schoolhouse Rock, but the reality is that the majority controls just about everything, from assigning members to the committees that are responsible for shaping and advancing legislation, to deciding which bills are actually brought to the floor. And that would be true even in a majority that rested on a single member.

Perhaps the most subtly important clout that the majority wields (and one that is fairly opaque to the public, because it is pretty far down in the weeds) is through the Committee on Rules. In the House, each bill goes to the floor with its own rule attached for how it will be considered. In deciding what that rule will be, the majority almost always gets to tailor the outcome they want: they can determine how long the bill will be discussed, whether amendments can be offered, and even whether the usual standing rules of the House will apply (which can govern everything from procedures to limits on spending).

In fact, there is so much relative power in holding that majority that the offices of members of congress in the minority often become little more than constituent service and press release mills, with almost no substantive role in legislation or debate (constituent service is a noble and valuable function of congressional service; the merits of generating local media coverage are in the eye of the beholder). Once upon a time, there was more to it. For example, in the past, members in the minority could also bring earmarked project funding back home as a service to their districts, but that function has been lost to a somewhat misguided and puritanical earmark reform movement. And in yesteryear, there was more genuinely bipartisan legislation, or the potential for the minority to work substantive amendments into bills. Now, these opportunities are rare.

From the Democrats' standpoint, dealing with an emboldened Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (or a delicate 50-50 Senate, in their remaining dream scenario) will be a daily grind. But the relative challenge of managing their own chamber's minority will be pretty darn low. Republicans do have a few procedural tricks that they can use (Democrats use them too when they are in the minority). For example, they will continue to try to give Democrats tough votes using "motions to recommit" – a tool that allows the minority to lob a tricky issue at members in swing districts to make them uncomfortable during the final passage of a bill.

But nowadays members of congress are pretty inured to that kind of bait (it didn't cause any Republicans to break with their party in the eight years they held the majority between 2011 and 2019, and it's hard to find examples of anyone losing a re-election race due to a vote on a motion to recommit). And besides, a number of the most vulnerable Democratic members who might have been susceptible to those kinds of "gotcha" maneuvers have now been picked off in 2020.

On top of that, Democrats have governed with about the same size majority we are likely to have in the upcoming Congress – and with the same leadership team they now have – between 2007-2009. They know how to handle it. There is some deftness required, but with a likely Republican (or razor-thin split) Senate and Biden administration at a standstill on big legislative initiatives, they will not need to call on their most at-risk members to pass the kind hyper aggressive progressive bills that might cause them to squirm.

There will surely be some tough challenges ahead for the whole party. A hostile, Republican-dominated appellate and Supreme Court, failing to overturn Republican legislative majorities in key states that will now further gerrymander scads of congressional districts for the next decade, and Senate barriers to desperately needed pro-democracy reforms are real problems. Fortunately, a diminished House majority is not. Dems can be fretful about a lot of things, but the House isn't the place to lose sleep.

Here are five critical things to watch on Election Night

Nervous as hell? Don't think you can take election night? Girding yourself for weeks of counting torture?

There is unfortunately nothing that can completely alleviate that stress. But as the night of unfolds, there will be a few things to keep an eye on that could provide some real and significant early clues as to whether events are trending in the right direction, or if you should be stocking up on a two-week supply of bourbon (or a four-year supply of Prozac).

Before diving into them, it is helpful to note a few important assumptions up front about the dynamics of the vote.

One is that record-breaking early voting has favored Democrats, and the Election Day vote will favor Republicans. This is fairly well documented: as of a week before Election Day, Democrats were ahead by about a 2-1 margin in the states that track returned mail-ballots by party registration. On the other side of the coin, polling has consistently shown Republicans preferring to vote in-person on Election Day. The upshot is that in general, mailed and early ballots will skew Democratic, and votes cast on Election Day will skew Republican.

A second, related presumption is that there will be at least some "Blue Shift" after Election Day in states that are still counting. Ballots counted after Election Day tend to skew Democratic, both because Democrats' ballots are more likely to be challenged and end up as provisional ballots, and also in cases where Democrats are mailing in more votes that get counted late (this tends to happen especially with younger voters). So Election Night counts – i.e., before all the votes are counted – can often look a lot redder if there are still mailed votes outstanding, and effect that has been termed "Red Mirage."

And finally, it is likely that any close result in a swing state will enter the Twilight Zone. The Supreme Court has allowed late-arriving mail ballots to be counted in a number of critical states, but has opened the door to re-considering. Signature mismatches, "naked ballots" that aren't enclosed in a security envelope, and other ballot issues will come under close scrutiny and almost certain litigation – in fact, more than one million people could ultimately lose their vote due to these issues. The bottom line is that unless a state's reported winning vote margin is greater than the number of ballots that could end up being contested, the state will carry a big asterisk.

With that general view of the landscape, here are five things to pay attention to that could help cut through the maze of information and speculation and give some meaningful early indications about the outcome.

1) Trump's Mission-Critical States

As reported in Axios – and according to multiple sources –the number of likely state wins for Trump has dwindled in recent weeks, but Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien has plotted three remaining paths to victory. The first is for Trump to win Arizona, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. The second one swaps out Pennsylvania for Michigan. The third requires Trump winning the combo of North Carolina, Michigan and Nevada.

Notice the common points in those scenarios: all three require North Carolina, two depend on Arizona, and two need Michigan. So those are the mission-critical states, and Biden winning any of them would slam a door in Trump's face. Forecasting models agree: for example, FiveThirtyEight's interactive forecasting tool shows that a Biden win in North Carolina raises his win probability from 90m percent to 99 percent, in Arizona to 98 percent and in Michigan to 92 percent.

Since Arizona and North Carolina start counting mail ballots either upon receipt or otherwise before Election Day, there is a real possibility of getting results relatively quickly—either this evening or tomorrow. So if they are looking strong for Biden, it would be a meaningful sign.

One important caveat though. Arizona officials plan to release initial results at around 8:00 pm local time based on the ballots cast before Election Day. These votes are therefore likely to look better for Democrats. They then plan to count the ballots cast in-person on Election Day (skewing Republican), followed by votes received by mail that day (back to Democrat). So before popping a champagne cork or driving your fingernails into your palm with each fresh tranche of numbers, pay close attention to the time and estimated percent of votes tallied: Arizona's figures could gyrate throughout the evening. North Carolina's probably won't have the same flip-flop pattern, but could start out by leaning Democratic and then migrate steadily toward Republicans because state officials intend to start with ballots cast pre-election and then count Election Day votes last.

2) The "Red Zone" States

In football, the last 20 yards before the goal is called "the red zone." There is a red zone for each presidential campaign too. The three scenarios above first require Trump to hold closely contested states Ohio, Florida, Georgia, and Iowa that Stepien explicitly cited as foundational to the paths laid out above (Texas apparently went without saying).

Losing any of them would be a powerful sign that Trump's drive will fail – so powerful that the FiveThirtyEight forecasting tool moves the Biden win probability above 99 percent if he takes any of those states. Earlier absentee vote counting in Florida and Ohio means that there is a decent chance of having significant information by Wednesday morning. And again, based on the order of counting, be wary of initial tallies in Florida, Texas, Ohio, and Iowa which may first skew Democratic and then trend steadily in a Republican direction.

And of course, Biden's got a red zone too. His pathways to victory assume solid win probabilities in swing states like Minnesota, Nevada, and Michigan. A reversal in any of them would be significant. Take Minnesota, for example (which counts mailed votes upon receipt), currently forecast as 94 percent likely to go to Biden by FiveThirtyEight. But if he does lose it – which we expect to know no later than noon on Wednesday (Minnesota combines early and Election Day counts so there should be fewer wild swings along the way) – his overall chance of winning the election drops to just 29 percent. Nevada similarly counts absentee early (a loss drops Biden's win probability to 37 percent), and while Michigan election officials expect a slower count, a loss there could be devasting (11 percent).

A final, critical note about those forecast probabilities: they bake in the idea that there is some correlation among state results. So a win in Ohio is given credit not just for the Electoral Votes it delivers, but also for what it augurs elsewhere. But of course, other states may not break the same way.

3) Winning Before the Blue Shift Sets In

The two indicators above are focused on swing states where we could get reasonably firm results earliest. But another way to think about it is in the other direction: what if Biden is already doing well in the slow mail-counting swing states? If those states are already looking good by the wee hours of November 4 with most in-person votes tallied, that would be a strong indicator that Biden is in a winning position.

The two states to pay attention to here are Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In Pennsylvania, not only do election officials wait until 7:00 am on Election Day to even start opening mailed ballots, but some key counties wait until every other kind of vote is tallied and then start counting the mail-in votes last (Republican-run Cumberland County plans to wait until the next morning). Wisconsin similarly waits to open mailed ballots and then conducts precinct counts which could result in slow results.

And again, there is a flip side: if states like Arizona, Minnesota, Nevada, and Georgia that plan to tally absentee votes quicker are looking good for Trump as the sun comes up on November 4, it is a lot less likely that there will be a well of outstanding Democratic votes to turn things around.

4) Exit Poll Turnout and Demographics

Data so far indicate that more than half of this year's total vote will come in before Election Day (Texas, for example, had already surpassed its total 2016 vote). The more this Democratic-leaning vote is in before Election Day, the more Donald Trump needs the swing state electorate to be very Republican on Election Day itself in order for him to close the gap.

Figuring out if the Election Day vote is coming through for Trump is something that can potentially be estimated via early exit poll data. There is a fraught history around the accuracy of exit polling, which has often been a mess. But there have been steady improvements, and the two competing approaches to exit polling this year should give a better range of plausible numbers. If media release Election Day-specific turnout demographics, which they could start to do as early as 5:45 pm, those data could signal whether Trump got the highly Republican electorate he needed to close the gap.

Take Georgia for example. Several days ago, 30.4 percent of mail-in votes had come from Black voters, 14.3 percent from voters under age 35, and 56.5 percent from female voters. We know that these groups favor Democrats (in the latest Monmouth poll of the state, Black voters favored Biden over Trump 90-7, young voters 54 -40, and women 53-44). Given Republican voting preferences, one would expect the proportion of voters from those Democratic-leaning demographics to dip significantly in the Election Day electorate. If it doesn't, that is good news for Biden.

5) Bellwether Counties

There is a long history of looking at "bellwether" counties to try to determine how the election will go, but it's a mixed one, and evolving populations are continuing to scramble the picture. Still, there are a handful that are worth paying attention to.

One is Arizona's Maricopa County. It is significant because it is close and it is large. Home to about 60 percent of the voting public, the result there has driven the winning side in the last 9 Arizona elections. Ever since Donald Trump won it by almost exactly the 3.5 point margin that he won the state in 2016, it has been trending toward Democrats. A Biden win there would be big.

In another Trump state linchpin, North Carolina's Jackson County could be an indicator. It is a true swing county that is one of only four of the state's 100 counties to vote with the winner in at least 10 of the last 12 elections. It is on the small side as North Carolina counties go, so it will not drive the outcome, but it could provide a useful litmus test.

In Florida, it is actually worth keeping an eye on two strong Republican counties – Sumter and Pinellas – where Trump needs giant margins in order to hold the state, but where there have been hopeful signs for Democrats so far in early voting. Anything less than a 2-1 margin for Trump in those places would be a flashing red bulb over Trump's chances in Florida and, by extension, the entire election.

And in the rust belt, there are a few places to watch. Kenosha County in Wisconsin is a true bellwether having voted with the winner of the last 7 partisan statewide elections. And in Pennsylvania, Erie County is considered a useful barometer, having split the statewide races (while voting for Trump) in 2016 and preferring Democrats in 2018 en route to being the only county to vote with the winner in all seven of the last partisan elections. However, county officials plan to count in-person votes starting at 8:00 pm, followed by absentee starting around 11:00 pm, then stop counting at 2:00 am before resuming in the morning of November 4. So bear that pattern in mind when watching returns there, since there is likely to be Blue Shift into the early morning.

Republicans are setting up a trap for Democrats on COVID relief

The news that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell none-too-subtly expressed his opposition to passing any pre-election Covid economic relief dragged a simmering political question into the light: why exactly are Republican Senators being so stubborn about stopping something that would appear to help them politically--certainly a lot more than it helps Democrats?

There would seem to be a compelling case for them to have made a deal. Further Covid relief is wildly popular, including among 55 percent of Republicans (and it is pretty hard to find many issues these days that can garner that kind of Republican approval and get 88 percent of Democrats). It is also highly salient to voters: two-thirds of voters in key battleground states want the Senate to prioritize Covid relief over confirming Amy Coney Barrett, and overall, the pandemic remains voters' top concern.

Even more important for Senate Republicans' calculus, GOP Senators like Susan Collins, Thom Tills, Cory Gardner, and Martha McSally, who are the most endangered, would benefit the most by delivering an economic boost in the runup to the election. Among the nine or so Republican Senators in the greatest electoral peril, most have come under direct fire on Covid relief, said they are in favor of further aid (some are even running on their Covid relief credentials), and have positioned themselves as problem-solvers who aren't in lockstep with their party on the issue. A successful Covid bill would solve some of these problems and fit powerfully into their narrative. It wouldn't have to be a major watershed either: even a slight bump of 2-3 points might give Republicans a chance to eke out a handful of wins and hold on to their majority.

So what's going on? The answer has changed over time.

The emerging thinking is that right now, McConnell sees the writing on the wall. He may soon be a Minority Leader under a Democratic President. So his best move has become to leave his option open to lay the entire economic mess created by the pandemic at Democrats' collective feet, in order to jam up their agenda in a re-run of the 2009 stimulus playbook that was so politically successful for his party.

In fact, he's probably decided in recent weeks that he's actually got Democrats poised over a pretty good January trap door: instead of hitting the ground running by fixing the census, passing pro-democracy reforms, or doing a big climate bill, a new president and potentially a new Senate majority will have to expend precious political capital (including possibly blowing up the filibuster) and take responsibility for trillions in additional spending, with all of the inevitable problems and Republican donor outrage that goes with it.

But several Senate insiders – all granted anonymity due to the sensitive nature of this issue – stressed that things have changed a great deal during the five months that another round of federal economic support has been under discussion. If there's a major trap ahead now, it is not as if Democrats have blundered into it: there were solid reasons for each party to have followed the course they did.

In mid-March, as Covid lockdowns began, Democrats and Republicans were largely on the same page, and their political incentives for major economic intervention were going in the same direction. Right after the Senate passed the CARES Act 96-0 and with the US GDP in free fall, one veteran Democratic leadership staffer told me that it was inevitable that there would be multiple rounds of major, bipartisan Covid-related stimulus through the fall. At the time, this sentiment was widespread and seemed totally warranted.

However, only weeks later, rapid re-opening especially in Republican-led states caused swift drops in weekly unemployment claims and a surge in the retail sector (these kinds of positive economic indications even had Democrats temporarily fretting about the potential for a "V-shaped" recovery that would lead to a roaring third quarter economy and, despite all of Trump's disastrous blunders, make his economic management appear strong).

By the summer, headlines began to focus on a "mixed" recovery, and as a result, both parties could look at the same data and reach different conclusions. Democrats were eyeing weak durable goods and industrial production, a looming eviction crisis, and state and local government deficits with alarm, and Republicans were seeing unemployment and stock market rebounds and concluding that things were looking up.

This is at least part of the reason why after the House Democrats passed their $3 trillion HEROES Act in May, Senate Republicans waited until July and only then proposed their much slimmer $1 trillion HEALS Act. They could have acted more aggressively, but didn't see a pressing need – indeed, they continued to believe that time and economic trends were on their side. For their part, Senate Democrats could have gotten on board with the Senate Republican bill and, perhaps following some amendments, set a reasonable floor for negotiators to work with to achieve a bill by September. But at the time, they still saw further relief as so obviously necessary – most of all for Donald Trump's politics – that there was no reason to negotiate against themselves.

And of course, other factors were at work. Some Republicans (think Rand Paul, the lone Republican Senator to vote against his party's Covid relief bill) have genuine ideological opposition to further spending. Others with more philosophical flexibility were eyeing their political positioning in a party facing an uncertain, potentially Trump-less future: traditionally, being against government spending is the safest political ground for ambitious Republicans to stand on.

On top of that, President Trump pulled his usual routine of giving no indication of what he wanted, leaving Mitch McConnell with a fractured caucus (despite Democratic caricatures, McConnell does not pull all of the strings, but actually has to read and react to his team). Not to mention that once the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg opened up the prospect of a polarizing Supreme Court nomination fight, Senate Republicans and Trump operatives jumped at the chance to ignite their base and move the campaign focus onto relatively more favorable ground (with just about anything being better for them than more focus on Covid). Indeed, at this point, keeping the confirmation on track has become another reason to avoid diverting to Covid relief.

The bottom line is that Democrats may now be poised over a dangerous January trap, but it's not as if they were strategically slipshod or that Republicans were exceedingly clever. Indeed, Democratic leaders may have been right all along that a Covid relief bill would be in Republicans' best interest, but there were simply too many cross-currents that intervened along the way.

The next question will become if Democrats are facing a looming trap, can they evade it? If – absent a Trump victory – the incentives all line up for Senate Republicans to hold out until the new year and stick Democrats with the mess, there are still opportunities in the form of two pieces of legislation considered to be "must-pass" in a post-election lame duck session: the National Defense Authorization Act and a Continuing Resolution to fund the government past December 11. This means that there will be chances for Democrats to at least defray some of the costs of a January Covid bill by attaching them to government or defense funding and getting them done on Republicans' watch. They could, for example, accept Senate Republicans' $500 billion Covid relief bill with additions in the House, attach them to one of these legislative vehicles, and dare them (and a potentially outgoing President Trump) to shut down the Pentagon or most of the federal government to stop it.

Would this maneuver work, or at least improve the politics of a big January aid bill? It's too soon to know. The only thing that has been clear from the winding path of Covid relief is that Democrats will have to stay nimble – things can change fast.

Donald Trump is gaming the Census--can Dems repair the damage if they win?

The Census, as newspapers are at always at pains to remind us, is sneakily important. It helps drive how much power each political party holds in Congress for the next decade, and where trillions of dollars in government funding go. It determines where we draw congressional district lines inside our states and guides how we understand and improve the condition of our people.

And it is in trouble.

There have been two sets of problems. The first, brewing since as far back as 2017, was a mix of mismanagement, mistakes, and bad luck, including "budget woes, potential cyber-security weaknesses, hiring shortfalls, testing cutbacks, [and] a bankrupt printing company." All of which was followed of course by the massive disruption of the pandemic. While efforts have been mixed, the Census Bureau has at least tried to work through these issues.

The second, however, was deeper and more insidious: a series of engineered crises intended to manipulate the count. The most notorious was the Trump administration's plan to include a question on citizenship status, ostensibly to improve the estimate of how many people could vote but actually intended to "allow Republicans to draft even more extreme gerrymandered maps to stymie Democrats." This is not an assertion by Democrats, it is a documented fact (verified, improbably, through an estranged daughter's discovery of a hard drive belonging to a deceased Republican operative).

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts slapped down that plan as a transparently audacious ploy with a paper thin alibi, but there have been other attempts to skew the results that were almost as brazen. Trump issued an Executive Order directing the Census to use other federal data to identify and remove undocumented immigrants from the count (despite the fact that likely no such data set exists and the constitution directs that all persons be counted regardless of immigration status; Trump has requested expedited Supreme Court review of his order).

And the Census Bureau decided to stop its count early – a plan subsequently halted and then reinstated by the Supreme Court – leading to what Government Accountability Office (GAO) managing director for strategic issues Chris Mihm called a likely "drastic undercount" of nonwhite communities, as well as other potential gaps and distortions.

The count is now battered, with unknown consequences. "We essentially are in unchartered territory in modern Census history, first because of the unprecedented scope of the disruption to Census operations, and then because of the unprecedented political interference in Census implementation, which clearly could result in unacceptably flawed Census data," said Terri Ann Lowenthal, a nationally-recognized expert on the Census.

So the big question– with the Trump administration clearly hellbent on manipulating the process for the remainder of its time in office – is whether there is anything that Democrats can do to save it if they take control of the presidency, and especially if they add a Democratic Senate.

The answer seems to be possibly, if the problems are clear, and if Congress gets in gear quickly.

According to Justin Levitt – a professor of constitutional law who has written about the legal ramifications of the Census debacle – the first step in a rescue would be to use congressional oversight and executive control of the agency to open the books. "Transparency and communication have been so sharply curtailed in recent months that nobody really knows what's going on under the hood there," he said. "The problems may amount to paper cuts or they could be cuts to the jugular, but to fix them we would have to understand them better. It's sort of the old G.I Joe refrain – knowing is half the battle."

If there are gaps, or if the count has been manipulated to remove respondents based on purported immigration status using other federal data sets, Levitt says that Congress could potentially move quickly to enact a new law resetting the deadlines for finalizing the results: "Census has been asking all year for more time to do the analysis and data cleanup right, and it hasn't happened. So if there's a change of control, you'd likely quickly see a move to pass a new statute allowing more time to do the post-count processing to get the data as accurate as they can be."

But a critical element in getting that done, especially quickly – let alone enacting any other further policy direction on how to handle a repair – could be the GAO report that comes out with the Census Bureau results and details any issues with accuracy or undercounts. If there are gaps that mostly affect Democratic constituencies or blue states, Republicans are likely to be unmoved – indeed, any Democratic-led moves that could affect the numbers, and therefore tilt the apportionment of House seats in the 2020s, is going to create a DEFCON 1 level of alarm for Senate Republicans. Even in the fraught scenario where Democrats have removed the filibuster, Republicans can still slow the process, and there remains a high likelihood of lawsuits in response to any Democratic legislation that lacks bipartisan support (there's probably going to be litigation even with such support).

However, a GAO report produced under the current Republican administration that corroborates undercounts – and especially that shows them occurring in rural, Republican-leaning areas in Republican or mixed representation states with multiple House seats (think Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.) – could garner Republican Senate support. The 2010 version of that report showed some significant undercounts even absent all of the considerable problems of recent years, and there are early indications that some gaps are indeed occurring in Republican-leaning areas, with some of the lowest self-response rates falling in states like Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alaska.

If Congress does manage to push back the timeframe for finalizing the count early in 2021, further steps could get even trickier. For one thing, some of the mess may be hard to clean up or even identify – "it's not like their data files are going to have numbers crossed off in bold red lines that you can just undelete," notes Levitt. Agency executives and congressional investigators are going to have to dig through reams of data and a lot of weedy statistics to make sure they understand the contours of where and how problems occurred.

Another challenge is that if gaps are found (mostly in the form of undercounted areas, but also overcounted areas which can also skew the numbers), there are limits at present on how much the raw numbers can then be adjusted to bring them closer in line with reality through modeling and statistical methods. Under current law, these methods are allowed and can even be mandatory for drawing district lines and calculating funding formulas, but not for the all-important apportionment of congressional districts among states – which is the area of greatest interest to the two parties since it affects control of the House of Representatives.

That is an issue that a newly-Democratic Congress could also fix, since it's the legislative branch that ultimately sets the policy on how the numbers are calculated. "Congress, which has constitutional responsibility for the Census, must look long and hard at whether 2020 Census data can and should be used for purposes fundamental to a representative democracy and in ways that allow Congress to carry out its constitutional role as a prudent steward of federal dollars," said Lowenthal.

However, with a fast-ticking clock, lags in passing new bills, legal challenges, and the partisan pitfalls of developing legislative guidance on how to repair the count (through modeling, unwinding Trump directives on undocumented immigrants, or cross-referencing numbers with other data to verify accuracy), nothing is going to be straightforward.

No matter what Democrats do, the Census is sure to be controversial and hard-fought. Given the stakes, it will need to be early and high on the to-do list.

Trump's support is collapsing — but there are 7 reasons why Dems shouldn't get too comfortable

The run of strong polls for the Biden campaign over the last week – including both national polls with eye-popping leads and swing state results with growing margins – has led to some cognitive dissonance.

On one hand, the sheer volume of promising results has launched a streak of "it's obvious that President Donald Trump is going to lose" analysis from influential outlets like The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Politico. When added to other factors like the drumbeat of bad news for the president, the shrinking calendar, and a mounting Democratic advantage in swing state TV advertising, confident Democratic whispers have been spreading.

On the other hand, many remain haunted by 2016. All this year, each fresh piece of encouraging news has had an almost perverse effect, as Democrats now harbor Pavlovian expectations of letdowns, like a never-ending "Debbie Downer" skit on Saturday Night Live.

The dilemma is that accepting recent evidence at face value feels jinx-y and complacent. Ignoring it feels oblivious and obstinate.

But there is a coherent middle ground to stand on: it is reasonable to believe both that Biden's position is strong, and yet that lingering pitfalls ahead – especially given the astronomical stakes involved – are grounds for caution.

Here are seven reasons that Democrats can feel justified to tap the brakes on their optimism without feeling like they are being hopelessly paranoid.

1) The way people respond to polls could make recent results more blip than bump.

Big news events can make members of one party more likely to respond to polls, introducing a temporary bias. This could very well be happening right now in the wake of revelations about Trump's taxes, Covid diagnosis, and wild first debate performance.

Even if it is limited, this bias doesn't have to be much to account for recent results. Biden's margin in polling averages (a far better measure of where things stand than individual polls) has actually increased only two or three points, well within the range of quirky polling effects. His average margin in the swing states has only increased by a point. This is why Democratic operatives feel good about the consistency of Biden's polling leads up to now, but are not too enthusiastic about the recent surges. When a series of gaudy Quinnipiac state results emerged on Wednesday, Priorities USA Chair Guy Cecil took to twitter to call shenanigans: "I…will chime in here to simply say we are not up 11 in Florida and 13 in Pennsylvania."

2) Tightening down the stretch could still put key swing states within reach

There is a long-held belief that high-profile races tend to get closer at the end, as wavering partisans drift back to their political home base. The evidence is inconclusive: the fact that almost all presidential elections since 1980 have ended up tighter down the stretch is an indication, but hardly dispositive.

The more pertinent factor is that the a comparison of polling averages in top battleground states between 2020 and 2016 shows that Trump's deficit right now is basically where it was four years ago. Biden's average advantage is 4.7 points. Clinton's was 4.8. Biden is in a much stronger position than Clinton was in many ways, and methodology adjustments from pollsters have probably made it less likely that there are systematic errors masking Trump strength. But still, even a couple points of tightening (especially from a possibly temporarily inflated average – since the margin was only 3.7 a week ago) would bring a number of swing states into real palm sweat territory.

3) The skullduggery factor

If the swing state margin ends up closer to 3 or 4 points, we start to enter "The Suppression Zone": a range where determined Republican efforts to undermine the Election Day vote could tilt the outcome. As an example, while Democrats are generally a lot more likely than Republicans to vote by mail this year, two-thirds of African American voters prefer to vote in-person. At the same time, this will be the first Presidential election since 1980 where Republicans have been freed from a legal consent decree preventing them from, among other things, "seeking to discourage African-Americans from voting through targeted mailings warning about penalties for violating election laws and by posting armed, off-duty law enforcement officers at the polls in minority neighborhoods." Not only has Trump pledged to resume these kinds of activities (following explicit, albeit slightly more subtle, efforts to "suppress" black votes in 2016), but his Russian allies are actively trying to bolster his efforts by once again targeting racial divides.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton's underperformance in just 10 majority-black zip codes in Wisconsin cost 24,000 votes in a state Trump won by 23,000. Targeted Election Day vote suppression aimed at key African American majority precincts could easily close moderate swing state polling gaps this year. Already, stunningly long lines for early voting, targeted removal of (disproportionately Black) voters from voting rolls, and elimination of ballot drop-off locations are disrupting the ability of Black Americans to vote.

4) Counting rules

Matters are far from smooth on the mail-in voting side either. Given that absentee ballot requests from Democrats are outpacing Republicans' in swing states by as much as 3 to 1, Democrats are right to be concerned about the craggy landscape of state counting rules. Democratic attorneys have mounted a robust legal effort to protect mailed votes, but many lawsuits have ended with "mixed results." New rulings portend serious problems: in Pennsylvania, for example, a state Supreme Court decision discounting so-called "naked ballots" puts more than 100,000 votes at risk.

The vote-by-mail proposition has always been fraught. Back in 2008, experts estimated that "3.9 million requested ballots were never received; 2.9 million ballots mailed to voters were never returned; and 800,000 returned ballots were rejected." People who vote from home are also more likely to make mistakes, and signature mismatches remain a significant source of rejected ballots.

While states have been working hard to improve their ability to process the vastly higher volume of mailed votes this year – and mitigate the kinds of problems that go with them – many remain hamstrung by rules that will add confusion and conflict. A number of key states such as Iowa, Michigan, and New Hampshire only start to process mailed ballots a few days before Election Day; Wisconsin and Pennsylvania do not start until November 3rd itself. Delays, confusion, challenges, and the inevitable wave of post-election lawsuits are exactly what Trump is hoping for in order to shave down Democratic vote margins or create a contested election adjudicated by federal courts.

5) The Supreme Court

This is such a longstanding and well-plumbed source of Democratic stress, with a few significant new pieces emerging in recent weeks. The current 5-3 Republican-appointed Court seems to be leaning toward applying the "Purcell Principle" to various state voting disputes, which holds that courts should avoid last-minute changes to election laws that could introduce confusion. It's a reasonable proposition, but the problem is that without such changes this year, it will be hard to fix problems that will lead to even greater voter confusion and wrongly-discarded votes. Already, the Court has reinstated a South Carolina ballot witness requirement on these grounds, and it seems poised for similar vote-limiting rulings in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. There is also justifiable worry about what a Justice Amy Coney Barret would do in a contested election: there are certainly a number of realistic scenarios where the Supreme Court could get involved to resolve the outcome, and she has refused to recuse herself.

While some experts have downplayed this danger because "the Constitution places a heavy thumb on the scale toward counting every vote…[and] there is no legitimate role for the Department of Justice during an election contest," there is little indication either that the current Attorney General will apply the law evenhandedly or that the Supreme Court will faithfully interpret the Constitution. The 2000 Bush v. Gore case put an end to the quaint idea that the Supreme Court would not employ tortured logic to deliver a partisan outcome.

6) The Senate

The presidency delivers an awesome degree of power (though not quite in the way people usually think). So a Biden win is critical, especially compared to the alternative. But a Senate majority would give Democrats a real chance at instituting badly-needed pro-democracy reforms that could save our entire system of government, and then passing actual policy through legislation. And the race for the Senate is poised on a knife's edge. Between the Cal Cunningham "scandal" in North Carolina, close polls in key states, and Georgia's unusual primary system--and the possibility of Democrats stumbling over themselves--there is good reason to feel that no amount of Democratic surge is too much, especially since these races will be subject to all of the same potential for suppression, confusion, and delay as the presidential race.

7) 270 is not enough

As I've argued previously, thinking of the presidential contest as merely being about achieving 270 Electoral Votes is no longer sufficient. Given the surprisingly high chance of a complete collapse of the American system of government following a close election this year, Biden likely needs to win by multiple states' worth of Electoral Votes for Americans to feel reasonably sure they've averted a catastrophe.

In sum, politics is hardly a predictive science. So it is still entirely possible that Biden and Senate Democrats will win in a romp, and if that happens, plenty of pundits will say that the signs were there all along. But there are also some darker linings to the past week's worth of silver clouds. Democrats certainly have plenty of firm evidence to feel good. They are also well-justified to continue to feel uneasy.

Donald Trump can't escape blame for America's disastrous failure to manage Covid-19

Bob Woodward's revelation that President Trump was well aware of how deadly and contagious Covid-19 was in early February definitively answered a famous question from an earlier presidential scandal: "what did the president know, and when did he know it?" But there has still been much lingering confusion – much of it intentionally sown by the president – around two related questions: whether the US really did fail in its pandemic response, and whether that failure is actually Trump's fault.

So let's clear this up once and for all. The answers to both questions are a resounding yes: we failed on Covid, and Trump was the leading cause.

As examples of some of the rationalizing and data-chopping that have muddled the issue in recent months, the president claimed in July that our high Covid case counts are simply due to more testing, and then this week he claimed again that we were doing exceptionally well relative to an invented baseline of two and a half million deaths, especially if you only count "red states."

The conservative media have helped Trump muddy the waters. The libertarian journal Reason reached a mixed verdict on whether the US compares favorably to the European Union on Covid mortality rates. Ross Douthat argued in the New York Times that America's performance is satisfactory on cumulative excess deaths when measured against peers in Europe or Latin America, and that any struggles we have are attributable to multiple causes.

These assertions are misleading at best, and simply wrong at worst. More testing was not the cause of more cases (Sten Vermund, dean of the Yale School of Public Health, called this claim "blowing smoke"). Red states alone have one of the worst death rates in the world. And the favorable death rate comparisons are cherry-picked. In reality, we have the most deaths of any country by far and our per capita death rates are twice as high as the average among high-income countries. The FREOPP World Index of Healthcare Innovation (a source that Douthat paradoxically cites) puts the US 27th out of 31 countries in its "COVID-19 Pandemic Performance Rankings."

Indeed, since the US has one of the best public health infrastructures in the world, the most money, and the most global influence, shouldn't we be doing far better than most other countries? And why wouldn't we compare ourselves to the Asian countries that lack some of our advantages and are still running laps around us? China was where the virus started, has four times our population, and yet has had 1/40th the total deaths of the US. Other Asian countries have shown that with smart government leadership it is possible to beat back Covid almost completely. They are certainly beating us hands down.

So of course we have failed.

Nor should one buy arguments that the blame for our dysfunction should be more broadly ascribed to cultural or bureaucratic factors. Of course there are many influences that contributed to the mess we are in. But the idea that libertarian social currents or CDC test-development delays are the real culprit are simply a "whataboutism." There are many clear, specific, and demonstrable ways that our government has cost us in lives and economic suffering. We can attribute most of them directly to Donald Trump.

Trump failed in three clear ways: he was responsible for missing the early signs of danger, for refusing to lead a fast ramp-up when he did know the danger, and for leading in the wrong direction ever since.

First, the Trump administration worked overtime to turn off the mechanisms that previous governments had established as our early-warning radar. The Trump administration "explicitly dismantled the office in the White House" meant to deal with potential pandemics. It cut CDC staff inside China by 2/3 and allowed other on-the-ground health monitoring functions to wither as tensions rose around Trump's trade war. And when the information that was available led US intelligence to warn the President with increasing urgency throughout January, he ignored it.

Second, Trump deliberately and stubbornly sat on his hands in the face of danger to the American people. The Trump-imposed blindness to the threat set us back by multiple – and critical – weeks. Yet there was still time to act by the end of January, when Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar announced a public health emergency.

But Trump spent February golfing, lunching, and watching TV, while claiming that the threat would disappear "like magic." He delayed accelerating production of personal protective equipment, especially masks, and was slow to lift tariffs on Chinese imports or invoke the Defense Production Act, steps that would have made equipment widely available earlier. These shortages led to concerns that medical providers would not have enough, and thereby contributed to confusing guidance for the public not to wear masks. That likely helped spread the disease much faster in the early days, with ripple effects that we are still feeling (studies show that routine mask use by even half the population would have flattened out disease spread and reduced the need for ongoing lockdowns).

There is no more damning fact than knowing that accelerating our national response by a mere two weeks would likely have prevented 90 percent of the subsequent first wave deaths, a figure that easily equals 100,000 Americans. This was totally do-able: the CDC's respiratory-disease chief publicly called for widespread school and work closures three weeks before Trump issued social distancing guidelines on March 16. Fifty-three countries imposed similar national guidelines or lockdowns before Trump took action.

Third, since March 16, Trump has spread confusion and inhibited our ability to implement public health measures that have been proven life-savers elsewhere. Researchers at Stamford University analyzed 38 million English-language articles about the pandemic and found that, as The New York Times described it, Trump "made up nearly 38 percent of the overall 'misinformation conversation,' making the president the largest driver of the "infodemic" — falsehoods involving the pandemic."

Trump pushed re-opening by Easter, urged a slowdown of testing, called for "liberating" states with anti-lockdown protests, pushed quack remedies like hydroxychloroquine or injecting disinfectant, and has sent mixed messages on masks. One could argue that America's opposition to mask-wearing is cultural, so Trump is not to blame. But pockets of mask resistance fall predominantly among Republicans, a group that is highly responsive to messaging from the President. We can only imagine what might have happened if Trump had clearly and consistently pushed mask-wearing as patriotic duty throughout this year.

Among the worst mistakes is that Trump has failed to lead on using all federal resources to address either the continuing shortage of tests or the resulting inability to enact meaningful contact tracing programs, neutering the most effective public health tools we have.

There are a lot of confusing and complicated things going on in this pandemic, as there are in our politics. The question of whether Donald Trump was responsible for a catastrophic failure in responding to Covid is not among them. Leadership matters in a crisis, and America's elected leader failed miserably. with disastrous consequences.

Democrats won't win the battle against Trump's illegitimate Supreme Court pick--but they can win the war

Boiling with outrage at Republican hypocrisy, agonized over the prospect of a 6-3 Republican-appointed Court, and encouraged by promising early polls, Democrats are revving themselves up for an all-out fight for the Supreme Court and egging on party leadership to do the same.

But as painful, agonizing, even repugnant as it may seem, the smartest and most strategic approach is to do the opposite. Democrats have to engage as little as possible on the nomination.

In other words, the only way for Democrats to win is not to try.

They need to start by confronting a difficult truth: despite the wishful thinking of some activists, Democrats are unlikely to actually delay the Senate confirmation vote past November 3. Numerous senior Senate staffers consulted for this article – and granted anonymity so that they could speak candidly given the tensions inside the party on this issue – confirmed that Democrats can at best be "annoying" in the coming weeks, but cannot create sufficient holdups to run out the clock before the election. Employing arcane tactics like quorum calls and adjournment votes, slowing the hearing process, or withholding unanimous consent might move the calendar back by a matter of days or a week. But this is not exactly "shutting down the Senate," and hardly enough to prevent a pre-election confirmation.

Some may see value in employing those tactics anyway in order to keep the stakes of this fight center stage. But the fight for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat was lost, before she passed away, in the 2016 race for the Presidency and the 2018 race to control the Senate, elections that gave Republicans, who have abandoned any fealty to democratic norms, the power.

The question now is whether Democrats can reclaim that power and win the larger fight. Not for this one seat, but for the longer-term and ultimately far more critical goals of having a fair Judiciary, preventing another authoritarian figure like Trump from gaining the Presidency again, and putting the rules of American democracy back on the level, so that Democrats have a fair chance to attain the power that the people's votes would otherwise confer.

These are battles that Democrats can win, but they require winning elections. And a good way to win is to set the terms of what the race is about. The Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu observed that "those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him." That is why President Trump and Republican strategists were so giddy at the prospect of a Supreme Court nomination fight: it gave them their best chance of dragging Democrats onto a field of battle of Republicans' choosing, moving from a set of issues on which they were definitively losing to one that at least gives them a puncher's chance. As Politico bluntly summarized it, "Trump allies [were] buoyed [that] the Supreme Court confirmation fight has taken focus away from the coronavirus outbreak six weeks before the election."

The coronavirus crisis – including the economic dislocation it has caused – and the attendant need for affordable health care coverage is a hands-down winning issue for Joe Biden and the Democrats. It drives turnout from the Democratic "base" by stoking anger at Trump's failures on the issues that progressives rank as their top concern. And it also moves the small segment of remaining swing voters: the sub-groups that lead Biden pollster John Anzalone has named as key drivers of Democrats' improved position in 2020 – including seniors, independents, college-educated voters, and suburbanites.

One need not speculate about whether Democrats can win with this message. They already are. The focus on the nexus of Covid, economic pain, and protecting health coverage has given Joe Biden an incredibly consistent polling lead both nationally and in the swing states (CNN polling guru Harry Enten called them "the steadiest on record").

So why at the very end of the most important American political race in living memory would Democrats allow Republicans to control the issue terrain by getting dragged into a battle over the Supreme Court that they can't win?

The case for engaging in this fight boils down to polls: some showing the Supreme Court as an important issue to Democrats, others showing voters more broadly aligned with Democrats on key Supreme Court issues like abortion as well as the general proposition that the winner of the election should choose the next Justice. Some have also argued that if Senate Democrats don't make a show of contesting the nomination, there will be a dampening effect on base voter enthusiasm.

But the polling case is superficial. It is true that there are polls showing Democrats rating the Supreme Court more highly as a voting issue than Republicans even in the weeks before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. For instance, a Morning Consult headline last month blared that "The Supreme Court Is Becoming More Important for Democratic Voters." But while the accompanying article showed that 57 percent of Democrats in their survey cited the court as a "very important factor," that actually ranked only 10th on a list of important issues to Democrats. The top three? Coronavirus, health care, and the economy.

It is also an almost-universal law of American politics: voters do not care about process. Inside-the-beltway talking points about Senate precedent and rules seem murky at best to them, and at worst seem like silly political games (this is why the staffs of Senators running for president are at such pains to get their candidates to stop talking about bills and hearings and amendments).

Trump's best chance to pull off a come-from-behind win starts with clawing back voters who were previously with him but have drifted away. He won in 2016 on his surprising, unforeseen strength with non-college-educated white voters. Their support has eroded by fourteen points this year. But this group also tends to break heavily his way on polarizing hot-button social issues. That is exactly why Republicans are so excited by the potential for a nomination fight: it draws the attention of the voters they need most onto the issues where they align best.

And it is not just the potential to sway these voters, but also to mobilize them, that has Republicans spoiling for this fight. In the three biggest swing states that determined the election in 2016, Trump has more headroom to grow than Biden because there are more non-college educated white non-voters who can be drawn off the sidelines than demographic groups that favor Democrats. Per NBC News, "In Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where Trump's combined margin of victory was just 77,444 votes, 4.9 million eligible noncollege whites didn't cast ballots in 2016. By contrast, only 1.6 million eligible nonwhites and 1 million eligible college-educated whites didn't vote."

Deciding not to take on a scorched-Earth approach to an illegitimate SCOTUS nomination does not mean Democrats have to meekly roll over. It means acting strategically to win in the long term: first by prevailing in the election, and then by asserting their power afterwards to make meaningful and enduring change.

To win the election, they should de-emphasize the Supreme Court nomination issue in itself, using it only as a pivot back to their winning message: Trump's coronavirus failures and determination to take away your health care. Smart Democrats across the party spectrum have recognized that this is the best approach. Elizabeth Warren said that Democrats need to speak about the nomination in terms of "what's at stake in the lives of millions and millions of families." And Nick Gourevitch, one of the Democrats' leading pollsters, tweeted: "An effective message against Republicans: People are suffering, dying, and out of work. And the GOP just doesn't care. They are doing absolutely nothing about it, instead dropping everything on a political power grab to rush a lifetime appointment through the Supreme Court."

Then, if Democrats manage to win unified control, they must then enact pro-democracy reforms as their very first order of business. As I have argued previously, the best thing Democrats could do to drive the enduring change that they want is to get rid of all of the systemic distortions, vote-suppression, and corruption that has built up under Republican control in recent years.

They already have the blueprints to do this. Democrats made the first act of their new House majority the introduction of the For The People Act of 2019, which would have put in critical structural improvements in three areas: campaign finance, ethics and, most importantly, voting rights. It is sitting on the shelf, ready to go. And just last week they introduced the Protecting Our Democracy Act, 153 pages of steps to wash away the abuses of the Trump administration. There are also ready-to-go plans to clean up the Justice Department and the Federal judiciary. Democrats can even make the pending lawsuit that could undo the Affordable Care Act under a 6-3 Republican Court majority moot with a simple bill (if they win the election).

And what about fixing the government institutions themselves – the Senate and the Supreme Court? The arguments around filibuster reform, expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court or federal appellate courts, enacting judicial term limits, and other measures are complicated (I happen to favor all of these steps). But none of these things are possible without first being in a position of power. That means winning the election.

This prescription is surely frustrating to many. It requires patience, discipline, and the ability to see the bigger picture. But this is also the best way to turn that frustration into something productive, to strike a lasting blow for democracy and equality that would truly honor everything Ruth Bader Ginsburg stood for.

Why Democrats need more than 270 Electoral College votes to avert a crisis

In the post-Labor Day sprint to the election, predictions of each side’s chances will be built on an assumption that’s so reasonable and so commonplace that no one gives it a second thought: that “victory” means achieving 270 Electoral College votes.

Keep reading... Show less

Here's why audio of Trump saying he knew COVID-19 was a killer is much worse for him than calling fallen troops 'suckers'

Last week’s revelation that Donald Trump – a man who invented a medical condition to escape military service – had called Americans who died for our country “losers” and “suckers” seemed like a flaming political disaster. Now comes a series of recordings that confirm that Trump knew how deadly and contagious Covid was but intentionally downplayed the danger while opposing steps that would have helped bring the virus under control. Twice in one week, Democrats have held their breath and once again thought that, maybe, just maybe, this time Donald Trump had finally crossed a fatal line.

Keep reading... Show less

The developing eviction crisis is a stealthy form of voter suppression

In the past week, Democrats’ fears about the Trump administration’s open assault on the United States Postal Service (USPS) have gone from a simmer to a boil, prompting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to rush the House back to Washington to vote on an emergency intervention.

Keep reading... Show less

Here's how a Biden presidency could erect new guardrails and prevent the next Trump

Last week, Joshua Holland highlighted an under-appreciated facet of Joe Biden’s candidacy: his unique opportunity to “fascist-proof” the presidency and prevent a repeat of our long, national Trump nightmare. Given Biden’s rare openness to being a transitional, one-term president--and against the backdrop of his experience as a Senate lifer--Biden may have the rare motivation and self-discipline to do America an historic service by reversing decades of incremental power-grabs by an increasingly “imperial” executive branch, thereby restoring the checks that our framers intended us to have on an out-of-control president.

Keep reading... Show less

The push to reopen schools is sheer madness — here are 4 key steps to doing it right

In the indelible 1983 cold war movie The Day After, the federal government convenes a group of farmers after a nuclear war to instruct them on how to start growing crops again. A hapless government official suggests that they simply “take off the top 4 or 5 inches” of contaminated dirt. An incredulous farmer responds that even if this were physically possible for the 150 to 200 acres each farmer owns, it would create a literal mountain of dirt. What hole do you toss that mountain into, he asks? How does that leave topsoil for growing anything?

Keep reading... Show less

Democrats have to win two battles to unseat Trump — here's how they can do it

We have learned from conflicts ranging from World War 1 to Iraq that it is entirely possible to win the war and lose the peace.

Keep reading... Show less

Here's why re-opening schools before next spring will be a disaster

We are sprinting toward a large-scale, real-time experiment on America’s health and safety.

Keep reading... Show less

Republicans are winning their shadow war on America's government

In America’s cold civil war, it’s easy to focus on the pitched battles for the presidency and congress and, aside from occasional Supreme Court decisions that manage to penetrate our consciousness, forget an entire third branch of government. That’s because the fights over the political branches are surface operations while the battle for the courts is most akin to submarine warfare.

Keep reading... Show less

Will Trump maintain his grip on the Republican Party even if he loses big in November?

Joe Biden currently holds a commanding lead over Donald Trump. He’s ahead by almost ten points in Real Clear Politics’ polling average (Hillary Clinton’s lead at the same point four years ago was five). And his national lead is reflected in the swing states, as a raft of state polls show Biden ahead everywhere from sunbelt states like Florida and Arizona to the critical rustbelt trifecta of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Keep reading... Show less

Here's a rough estimate of what Donald Trump's negligence in the face of COVID-19 has cost us (so far)

Donald Trump just hit us with the biggest tax increase in American history.

Keep reading... Show less

Here's how we might be managing the pain from COVID-19 if we had a functional democracy

The most famous torment of Greek myth was the punishment of Tantalus (the origin of our word “tantalize”), who was cursed to be forever hungry and thirsty with food and water just out of reach. Focusing on what might have been is invariably jarring, which is why psychologists warn against spending a lot of time thinking about what might have been if only circumstances were different.

Keep reading... Show less
@2022 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by