Abortion is on the ballot in 2022. Gas prices are on the ballot in 2022. Everything you care about and hold dear is on the ballot in 2022 because democracy is on the ballot in 2022. The truth is that our ability to get our desired outcome on these issues and more is contingent upon our remaing a democracy. The beauty of our system is that we can have a contest of ideas until the best ideas win out. If we get it wrong the first time, well with enough time and organizing we can revisit the issue and get it right the next time. Just look at what happened with the gun safety bill. It took us awhile, but we got there.
If the January 6th hearings have made anything abundantly clear it’s that this entire system is under threat. This means that our ability to have our voices heard and a government responsive to our needs is also under threat. That may sound alarmist but it’s not hyperbole.
So here’s how you should condition your vote in 2022: everyone running for office should be asked one simple question: is Joe Biden the duly elected President of the United States? If they don’t answer unequivocally, yes – if they dither and try to avoid the subject, or if they outright say no, they do not deserve your vote, because here’s the deal: even if you believe there was massive fraud in the 2020 election – despite loads of evidence to the contrary – the fact is that the Trump campaign failed to make it’s case: in the courts, to investigators, to election officials, even to their own Justice Department. The process played out under the rules established before the election and the former President failed. That’s how our system works. That’s how law and order works. The president exhausted all of his legal options and he failed.
What all of this means is that means Joe Biden is the duly elected President of the United States, just like someone who’s found not guilty can not legally be considered a felon, no matter how much you think they committed the crime. You don’t get to lock them up in your basement because you think they belong in jail. All the attempts to pressure election officials, the Justice Department, and even his own Vice President – to break their oaths to the Constitution and overturn the election results – that was the equivalent of locking someone up in your basement (which you didn’t need to do in 2020 because Biden locked himself in his basement?. Had Trump succeeded we would have had a Constitutional crisis on our hands because we would have had a President in power not duly elected under the laws set forth in the Constitution.
So, again, the law is clear. We elect our leaders based on rules set forth BEFORE the election and we agree upon a process to settle any and all election-related disputes BEFORE the election. Once that process plays out, that is the end of the line. Going outside that system is an attack on the very foundation of our democracy, and any candidate who refuses to acknowledge that simple fact has a squishy relationship with democracy and does not deserve your vote. I know it’s hard to focus on something so esoteric when there are so many other concerns front and center, but democracy is THE issue in 2022.
Our system, where people elect their leaders and then hold them accountable for their actions while in office, has worked for over 200 years. If we lose that we lose everything. Democracy is on the ballot in 2022. Vote accordingly.
If this war in Ukraine has taught us anything (other than the fact that Vladmir Putin obviously has a very small penis) it’s that we’ve got to end our reliance on oil and gas. Let’s put global warming off to the side for a second. We hear a lot of talk these days about energy independence, but the truth is that we can never actually be energy independent while relying on oil and gas. Now, I know what you’re thinking, ‘we were energy independent under the last guy but then sleepy Joe came in and took it away.’ Well, that’s not actually true. The United States is a net energy exporter, and we produce more energy than we consume. We became a net exporter of petroleum in 2020 and that likely remained the case in 2021. And we produced more crude oil in Biden’s first year than we did in either of Trump’s first two years.
So the idea that Biden destroyed our energy independence – look, I get it, it’s catchy, simple, and an easy to understand answer to why gas prices are so high, but it’s simply not true. We are as energy independent today as we were under the last administration. But that still hasn’t isolated us from price fluctuations due to events outside of our control. So why?
Some of you may have been wondering: if we export more energy than we import and if we produce more than we consume, why are we importing oil at all? Why don’t we just use our own? Well, the reason for that is it’s actually cheaper – it lowers prices – when we import oil compared to if we just used all our own. And the reason for that is simple, it’s much more expensive to produce a barrel of oil in the United States than it is in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq – costing about twice as much – not because of regulations and taxes but because the oil here is really hard to get to. A lot of it is in reservoirs thousands of feet beneath the surface in the Gulf of Mexico, or in dense rock formations that need to be fractured – where the term “fracking” comes from.
In Saudi Arabia, by comparison, they have vast oil fields that all are really close to the surface of the desert. This is why Saudi Arabian oil is some of the cheapest in the world. So, again, the reason we import oil is because it’s actually cheaper.
The other reason is that our oil refineries are actually not set up to process the type of oil we produce here at home. We have so called “sweet crude,” or crude oil with a very low sulfur content. Our refineries were set up decades go, before the shale revolution, and they were designed to process a heavier grade of crude with a much higher sulfur content. So it makes economic sense for us to export our oil to countries that have the refineries to process it, and to import cheaper oil which our refineries can process most efficiently. We also don’t have the pipelines to ship oil from the gulf coast, where most of it is produced, to the east and west coast. And I know what you’re thinking, no the Keystone Pipeline wouldn’t have helped with that. It would have brought oil from Canada down to refineries in Texas. Also, even before the project was aborted, it wasn’t set to be completed until 2023. Though, fun fact, that might be the last abortion to ever happen in Texas.
So as you can see, being energy independent does not necessarily make energy cheaper. But even if it did, there’s still one very important reason why the US can never be energy independent while relying on oil. That is because we just don’t have that much of it. The US only has about 4% of the world’s proven oil reserves. We consume 20%. The math just doesn’t add up. The countries that have the most oil? Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Iran, Iraq, and, of course, Russia, all countries – with the exception of Canada – that are unstable, run by dictators, or both (though some on the right would consider Justin Trudeau a dictator).
But even if you hate Justin Trudeu, that should just make you want to move away from oil quicker, as the US gets more than half of its oil from Canada.
So the big question on everyone’s mind, of course, is how do we get the prices down? Well it’s a simple case of supply and demand. To decrease prices we need to increase supply. We could do that here at home, and we are, but that takes time. Experts say there’s about a six-to-nine months’ lag, between today’s high prices and when we can bring new production online, but other countries have the capacity to ramp up much more quickly. Biden’s been criticized for so called “begging OPEC” to produce more, but OPEC controls nearly 80% of the world’s proven oil reserves, so he kind of has to.
And look, I know there’s good reasons we don’t want to do business with these countries but as long as we’re relying on oil and gas we’re going to have to rely on other countries, and lets face facts: most of the oil rich countries are run by murderous dictators. So if we really want to be “energy independent” we’re going to need a source of energy that we have here, in the United States, in abundance.
I’m not saying we should go 100% solar and wind tomorrow – that would not be practical – but by not moving to these energy sources as fast as is practical, and by not investing in sources of energy that we have in abundance here at home, we are ensuring that we pay more for energy, not less, and that we are more dependent on people like Vladmir Putin, Nicolas Maduro, Mohammad Bin Salman, and if that doesn’t scare you; Justin Trudeu.
And finally, we don’t talk about this much but there’s a cost too in terms of human life. Estimates vary but experts believe that somewhere between 7 and 8 million people die every year because of air pollution, including hundreds of thousands here in this country. And who knows, maybe some of those people are racists or Pete Davidson, but most probably don’t deserve to die.
Here’s the thing: there’s no evidence that price gouging is the reason for high gas prices. Below is the price of a gallon of gas relative to the price of a barrel of oil. Before COVID hit, a gallon of gas cost about $0.04 on the dollar. Today? About $0.04 on the dollar. Gas prices are a lagging indicator, similar to how COVID deaths always lag COVID cases. Saying that gas companies are price gouging because the price of a gallon didn’t immediately go down after the price of oil falls is like saying COVID is getting more deadly because deaths don’t fall as soon as cases. The gas we’re pumping today was likely purchased by the gas station when the price of oil was higher so the price is going to reflect what it cost when the companies bought the oil, not what it costs today.
Republicans are wrong to blame Biden for high gas prices but Biden is wrong to blame price gouging. The truth is that gas prices are high because that is the nature of the oil market. It’s volatile. Gas prices will go down again, but just as sure as they will go down they will also go back up the next time a murerous dictator in a Petrostate does what murderous dictators in Petrostates do: destabilize shit. If we want to be truly energy independent, it’s time to look beyond oil and gas.
Now that it’s officially 2022, it’s time for the midterms to kick into full gear! Republicans are bullish on their chances and, judging by the wave of Democratic retirements, so are Democrats. We all know by now that one of the golden rules of American politics is that the President’s party loses seats in their first midterm, and with Democrats already holding extremely slim majorities, their hold on power is hanging by a thread. But Democrats have a couple of things going for them that could help them buck history:
First, the Senate map actually looks good for Democrats. Republicans are defending 20 seats and Democrats 14. Moreover, Republicans are defending two seats in states that Biden won while Democrats are defending zero seats in states that Trump won. I’m not saying Democrats can’t lose the Senate, just that if they lose the Senate they’ve almost certainly already lost the House that’s the least of their worries.
Second, with a little bit of luck we’ll have COVID behind us and the economy roaring again by November. That should help put some wind behind the Democrats’s backs – so long as they make sure to get credit for it. We’re on track to have more than 80% of the country vaccinated by November, as well as a good portion of the world, and inflation is expected to fall precipitously this year. The latest projection from the Fed had core PCE falling to 2.6% by the end of the year.
Third, the Republican party is tying itself to an unpopular President who’s voters only seem to only come out when he’s on the ballot. That’s bad politics, which Democrats can take advantage of. Democrats need to continue challenging Republicans on the extremism within their ranks and their refusal to disavow Trump. Most voters don’t like Trump. Democrats should take advantage of that fact and remind voters that Republicans are the ones who empowered Trump, appeased Trump, and are ultimately responsible for January 6th. Thankfully it looks like the 1/6 Committee is going to get to the bottom of things, and while the investigation should not be done with the aim of helping Democrats, it nonetheless will remind voters of what Republicans created.
A note on Virgina: There’s a risk of Democrats learning the wrong lessons from Virginia. The lesson isn’t to not talk about Trump, it’s to do so wisely. Instead of trying to tie every single person with an (R) in front of their name to Trump, Democrats should simply challenge them on some of Trump’s more anti-democratic tendencies and remind voters that, with Trump likely to run again in 2024, who counts the votes really matters.
Finally, Democrats have a President who’s intent on doing popular things. This is a good political strategy and should help them heading into November.
So if Democrats hope to win in 2022 they need to get COVID and the economy under control, remind voters of Republicans’ extremism problem, and continue to govern effectively and do popular things. But there’s one more piece to the puzzle: democracy reform.
Democrats need to reform democracy so they can govern effectively and, more importantly, protect the country from the anti-democratic forces threatening to pull it down. That means reforming the filibuster first and foremost. In today’s politics it’s difficult for any President to live up to expectations when the out-party has a blanket veto over their entire agenda and no incentive to work with them. I’ve often said that my goal for 2022 is for Democrats to lose because they deserve it, not because the system is rigged against them. Yes that’s a low bar, but it hasn’t always been clear that they would be able to meet it. While it looks like Democrats are going to dodge a bullet with redistricting, there’s still plenty of voter suppression and election subversion laws being introduced and passed in states that could make it more difficult for Democrats to win. Passing the Freedom to Vote Act, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, as well as updating the Electoral Count Act are key, not only to Democrats holding onto their slim majorities, but to America remaining a democracy (obviously an ECA update won’t affect the midterms but it’s important nonetheless).
So will Democrats hold onto the House and Senate? Probably not, but all hope is not lost. In 1998 and 2002 the President’s party bucked history and actually gained seats in the midterms. In 1998 it was backlash to Republicans’ impeachment of Bill Clinton. Democrats can hope for a similar backlash to Republicans’ continued embrace of Trump and Trump-backed extremists. In 2002 it was because of 9/11 and the rally around the flag effect. While it’s hard to see Americans rallying around the flag for anything these days, maybe coming out of the COVID emergency will foster some similar goodwill (I’m not holding my breath).
The Federal Reserve Bank of San Fransisco used the vacancy-to-unemployment ratio to asses the impact of Biden’s American Rescue Plan. They found that it’s likely to add .3% to inflation in 2021, .2% in 2022, and a negligible amount in 2023. That means that instead of the 6.2% inflation we had in October, we would have had 5.9%. Not all that big a difference.
As for the new spending, it’s not likely to have much of an impact in inflation either way. That’s because the spending takes place over the course of ten years and is going to be paid for by tax increases and savings elsewhere. In the long-run, there’s a strong argument to be had that both Build Back Better and the bipartisan infrastructure bill will decrease inflationary pressures by increasing productivity.
The Build Back Better Act should be voted on based on the merits, not based on fears over inflation. Even with today’s CBO score, which estimates the bill will add $160 billion to the deficit over ten years, we should keep that in perspective. The Federal Reserve is pumping $120 billion a month into the economy in the form of bond purchases, $16 billlion a year is a drop in the bucket. Plus, the Senate is likely to remove paid family leave and immigration reform, which together cost $315 billion according to CBO. Once they’re stripped out, the final bill it will actually reduce the deficit by $155 billion over ten years.
Joe Manchin has said he would support a $1.5 trillion reconciliation bill. He also signed an agreement along with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer back in July going into more detail about specifically what he can and can’t support. I’m still hopeful Manchin can be nudged up to $2 trillion, since that’s the amount of revenue his proposed pay-fors would generate, but either way, the most imporant parts of the Build Back Better agenda can still fit into a $1.5-2 trillion bill. Here’s my best guess as to what’s going to be in the bill based on various proposals and statements:
Pay-fors: Reduce Tax Gap: $711 billion Increase top rate on individuals to 39.6%: $100 billion Increase top capital gains tax to 28%: $123 Apply 3.8% medicare tax over $400,000: $200 billion Prevent tax havens: $25 billion Strengthen GILTI: $500 billion Raise corporate tax to 25%: $500 billion End stepped up basis: $204 billion Eliminate FDII deduction: $250 billion 15% minimum tax: $100 billion Total: $2.2 trillion
So as you can see, there is still a lot we can do with a $1.5-2 trillion bill. The bill could still include universal pre-K, free community college, subsidized childcare, paid family leave, extensions of the child tax credit and ACA tax credits, and clean energy tax credits. Plus if benefits were meand-tested, even more could fit into the bill. That’s the good news. The bad news? Manchinema is a myth! By which I mean, though both Manchin and Sinema are moderate holdouts for the bill, they’re each holding out for different reasons. Manchin is on board with the tax increases but doesn’t like a lot of the spending on climate provisions, Sinema is on board with the climate provisions but against the tax increases. That is going to be a fun one to figure out!
Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided in Brnovich v. the Democratic National Comittee to uphold two Arizona voting restrictions against claims that they violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The problem with the decision wasn’t that they upheld Arizona’s restrictions against casting a ballot in the wrong precinct, and so called “ballot harvesting,” the problem was that the Supreme Court used the case to severely weaken Section 2, just as many predicted they would.
I’m almost more upset with the DNC than I am the Supreme Court. The DNC should have never brought this case. Arizona’s laws were mild compared to some of the restrictions we’ve seen passed this year, and they should have known that the 6-3 conservative majority would use the case as an excuse to weaken Section 2.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, for those who need a refresher, prohibits any practice that, “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” In his majority opinion justice Samuel Alito takes it upon himself to offer new “guideposts” for judging Section 2 cases. Alito says that, “courts must consider the opportunities provided by a state’s entire system of voting when assessing the burden imposed by a challenged provision,” and that the size of the burden is “highly relevant.” A “mere inconvenience,” Alito says, is not a violation of Section 2.
The most bizarre part of his opinion is the section where he says that courts should look at any law in comparison to what voting was like in 1982, the last time Section 2 was updated.
If I’m reading this correctly, he’s essentially saying that if it’s easier to vote than it was in 1982, when most states didn’t have early or absentee voting, then the restriction doesn’t violate Section 2. I’m no election law expert but this seems like flawed reasoning.
Though he places a high burden of proof on those challenging a voting restriction, he places almost no burden on the state to prove the restrictions are neccessary, simply saying that trying to prevent voter fraud is a “strong and entirely legitimate state interest.” This suggests that a state can simply say they’re preventing voter fraud without providing any evidence, and as long as the claim is even remotely plausible, that’s good enough.
As I’ve said before, not all voting restrictions are the same. Preventing voter fraud is an important and legitimate state interest and states should be able to take reasonable steps to ensure their elections are free from fraud and abuse. But when you make it harder to vote you should at least be able to show some evidence you’re preventing fraud. The Supreme Court disagrees.
Though this ruling mostly deals with disparate impact, or claims a restriction disproportionately effects voters of color, it also weakens discriminatory intent claims. Discriminatory intent is harder to prove becuase not only do you have to prove that a law disproportionately effects voters of color, you have to prove the state intended to discriminate. This is at the heart of the Justice Department’s case against Georgia’s new voting restrictions. The filing claims that Georgia Republicans intended to discriminate against black Georgians, knowing that 9 in 10 of them vote Democrat. People smarter than me have speculated that DOJ focused on discriminatory intent instead of disparate impact because they anticipated yesterday’s ruling, but the ruling also makes discriminatory intent cases harder to prove saying, “partisan motives are not the same as racial motives.” This seems to suggest that you can discriminate against a protected group so long as it benefits you politically.
It there’s any silver lining to this ruling it’s that it’s made it abundantly clear that we need to pass new legislation to protect voting rights. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would update the formula for deciding which states are covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, based on whether they have a history of discrimination and voter suppression. States covered under Section 5 need to preclear changes to their voting laws with the Justice Department. Today, Congressmen Mondaire Jones (D-NY) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) introduced a bill to strengthen and restore Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in response to the Brnovich decision. There’s also the For the People Act, which would set a floor for voter access, making voting easier and more accessible. It would also deal with vote dilution by ending partisan gerrymandering. It would also nullify many of the draconian measures we’re seeing passed in states today.
The Supreme Court has proven they will not protect voting rights, in fact, bringing cases before them only seems to make things work. This is a problem only Congress can solve. In reaction to the Brnovich decision, DOJ put out a statement saying, “the department urges Congress to enact additional legislation to provide more effective protection for every American’s right to vote.” President Biden simply said, “democracy is on the line.” Will Congress protect it?
Today, for the first time, Joe Manchin endorsed redistricting reform, including a ban on partisan gerrymandering and taking mapmaking out of the hands of politicians once and for all. Manchin has good timing, since just today I was working on this piece about why redistricting reform is the most important item on the Democrats’ agenda. Everything else should take a back seat to ensuring that the districts drawn in 2021, which will be used for the next decade, are fair and impartial. The reason is simple: everything else on Democrats’ agenda is dependent on them holding onto the House and Senate in 2022.
The Senate, of course, isn’t effected by redistricting and Democrats have a good shot of holding onto the chamber in 2022, since Republicans will be defending 20 of the 34 Senate seats up for reelection. Democrats might even pick up a seat or two if they have a really good year. This is especially important since we’ve seen the limits of what a 50-50 Senate, with Joe Manchin as the swing vote, is able to accomplish. They couldn’t even create a bipartisan commission to investigate an attack on their own chamber. I see little hope for things immigration reform, gun safety, police reform, and while they do have two more shots at reconciliation, there’s a limit to what can pass through that process (it must be related to budget or spending) and it’s not even clear Democrats have the 50 votes needed use the reconciliation process to pass priorities like President Biden’s American Jobs Plan or American Families Plan, as Manchin is yet to sign onto either. Picking up a Senate seat or two will give Democrats a little more breathing room, but none of that will matter if they lose the House.
Now before I’m accused of admitting that the Democrats’ push for voter access and redistricting reform is some kind of power grab, let me start by saying something black people have been telling white people who feel threatened by the push for equal rights for years: equality feels like oppression when you have privlege. Republicans have privledge when it comes to the distribution of power. They currently have an advantage in every branch of government, and though there’s nothing Democrats can do about the electoral college or the Senate, both of which were designed to protect the rights of small states, the House, by definition is meant to be representative of the people. Unfortunately, because of partisan gerrymandering, Republicans have consistently held an advantage, which is how they won House majorities in 1996 and 2012 while losing the popular vote. This could get worse after the next redistricting cycle. Republicans have the sole power to draw the lines for more than 2.5X as many districts as Democrats (187 vs 75). I have no doubt they will use that power to gain maximum political advantage (as I’m sure Democrats would do if they were in the position). So ending gerrymandering may seem like a Democratic power-grab but it’s not. It’s just levelling the playing field.
So what does redistricting reform look like? Well one thing both the For the People Act and the Manchin proposal have in common is a ban on partisan gerrymandering. This is important because the Supreme Court decided a few years ago that there’s nothing they can do about partisan gerrymandering. Currently only racial gerrymandering is illegal. Putting a statuatory ban on partisan gerrymandering would give the Supreme Court the ability to strike down maps that are created to unduly favor one party over another. But a ban on partisan gerrymandering isn’t enough. Court cases take time, and often by the time the maps are struck down multiple elections have taken place on them.
Both Manchin’s compromise and the For the People Act would also change how maps are drawn, so it wouldn’t take years of litigation to get a fair map. Most states still have their legislatures draw the maps, with approval from the governor. If one party happens to control all the levers of power, they can’t help but draw maps to cement their own power. The For the People Act’s solution is to require states to create independent redistricting commissions to draw maps. The commissions would be made up of 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats, and 5 independents. In order for a map to be enacted it would need to be approved by at least one member of each party.
Despite these headwinds I still believe that Democrats can buck the trend and hold onto their majorities. They should have a fair bit of wind at their back heading into 2022, with the economy roaring and COVID in the rearview plus Biden seems to understand what is the most underappreciated rule in politics: if you want people to like you, do things that they like. He seems to, wisely, only be going after the low-hanging fruit at the start of his Presidency, i.e. pursuing things that have broad bipartisan support. This should keep him, and by extension Democrats, fairly popular heading into 2022. Finally Republicans seem to be doing everything in their power to blow it; leaning into or at least failing to push back on Trump and the rest of the crazies in their party. Turning off the very suburban voters they lost in 2018 and 2020. Potentially for good.
Democrats will only be able to capitalize on these trends if they ensure that the next election happens on a level playing field. They may still lose. In fact I’d still say Republicans are favored, but at least if they lose it will be because voters rejected the Democratic agenda and not because of unfair maps that put a thumb on the scale, and that is the least we should expect of our democracy.
So that’s where we are. Though it may seem like the two sides are still far apart, last week’s developments make a deal seem all the more likely. Mitch McConnel’s $800 billion figure is roughly in line with what Biden’s American Jobs Plan spends on hard infrastructure, which is anywhere from $932 billion to $658 billion, depending on whether you count money for electric vehicles and power, plus in an interview that aired Wednesday, Biden said he was open to passing parts of the plan in a bipartisan bill and parts without Republicans. For the purposes of this story, we’re going to assume that they’ll reach an agreement on how much to spend and what to spend it on and instead we’re going to focus on the hard part: how to pay for it.
So as you can see there’s a real shot that this week might actually end up being infrastructure week! Both sides seem close on the scope of the package and though they are still pretty far apart on how to pay for it, as I lay out in this piece, there are a number of options that should be palatable to both sides. This week is going to be a big test of whether a bipartisan deal can be reached and whether both sides can meet their goal of making significant progress by Memorial Day.
If Biden’s first 100 days in office have taught us anything (other than we don’t have to think about the President every day) it’s that being liked is a powerful yet often underappreciated asset in politics. By the 100 day mark in Barack Obama’s Presidency the “Tea Party” movement had already begun and rumors were percolating that he was a “secret Muslim” not born in this country. By this point in Donald Trump’s Presidency, we were all speculating as to whether he was a secret Russian asset, and to what extent his campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Why? Well part of it is politics. The opposition is always going to try and press their advantage by attacking whoever is in power in whatever way they can. But neither Obama nor Trump helped themselves. Trump made no attempt to appeal to anyone outside of his base, and it’s well known that his brash confrontational manner turned off most voters. Obama was often aloof, and could come off like he was talking down to you, giving power to claims of him being an elitist. A large segment of the population didn’t like them. Didn’t trust them. And were thus more likely to believe negative things said about them. Moreover many of their collegues didn’t like them, which made them more likely to say negative things about them.
Joe Biden doesn’t have that problem. In the first 100 days of the Biden Presidency, most of the outrage has been directed at Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato Head as opposed to Biden himself. Republicans aren’t demonizing Biden like they did Obama. They aren’t demonizing him because they can’t. Because people know him, and people like him. If the last three administrations have taught us anything it’s that Machiavelli was wrong. It is not better to be feared than loved. At least not in this country. Case in point: Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Mitch McConnell famously said, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” This month, when asked about Biden’s American Jobs Plan, McConnell first went out of his way to call Biden a, “first-rate person” before going on to criticize the plan as left wing yadda yadda yadda. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told Politico, “he’s one of the most decent people you ever want to meet,” and of course we’re all quite familiar of the video of Lindsey Graham getting choked up while talking about Biden, calling him, “as good a person as God ever created.” It’s really hard to convince people someone’s trying to destroy America, destroy their way of life, when you’ve just crowed about how wondrful a person they are.
Now, of course, none of this has translated to any Republican support in Congress, for Biden’s policies, but we also haven’t seen the backlash. The same backlash that led to huge Republican victories in 2010 and essentially stopped the Obama Presidency in it’s tracks. By neutralizing Republicans’ greatest weapon against a Democratic President: demonization, Biden is forcing them to change strategy and try to attack him on policy. The only problem is, Biden’s policies are broadly popular. The American Rescue Plan still enjoys support from about 7 in 10 voters, including almost half of Republicans and the American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan both garner support from around 2 in 3 Americans, according to polls.
It also doesn’t hurt that Biden’s an old white guy. Biden has governed well to the left of Obama, yet you’d be hard pressed to find anyone that believes he’s a socialist, and he hasn’t garnered anything close to the mass “Tea Party” demonstrations that were already taking place at this point in the Obama Presidency. It turns out Obama’s biggest mistake as President may have been not being white.
Republicans’ best chance against Biden is to paint him as someone not in control. To say that the country is really being run by Nancy Pelosi or AOC. The problem with that strategy is, it creates an incredibly low bar, and everytime Biden comes out and strings a complete sentence together (which is most of the time) he clears that bar. This also fits nicely with the Biden strategy of underpromise, overdeliver.
Vice President Kamala Harris, left, and White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients, right, listen as President Joe Biden speaks about COVID-19 vaccinations at the White House, Wednesday, April 21, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Yesterday, on day 92 of his Presidency, the country reached Joe Biden’s goal of administering 200 shots in his first 100 days in office. But how impressive is this really? In the early days of his Presidency, when he was challenged about whether his original goal of 100 million shots in 100 days was ambitious enough, he was fond of saying something along the lines of, “When I made that promise you all said it was impossible!” So I wondered, is that true? What did people think of the goal when he made the announcement, and in the days leading up to his Presidency.
Biden made the announcement on December 8th. Because that was four months, one election, an insurrection ago, and an impeachment ago you can be excused for not remembering what people thought of the promise. Lucky for you, I have a computer and way too much time on my hands!
Before I get into what people said at the time, it’s worth remembering where we were at the time. No vaccine had been authorized for approval. Pfizer wasn’t given emergency use authorization until December 11th, and didn’t administer it’s first shot until Decmber 14th. Moderna wasn’t issued EUA until December 18th. There were also questions about whether we would have adequate supply.
Okay, now onto what people said at the time. The NY Times called the plan, “ambitious” and said that by setting a benchmark for himself, Biden was, “taking a certain risk.” They also said, “fulfilling it will require no hiccups in manufacturing or distributing the vaccine and a willingness by Americans to be vaccinated.” Well, you can’t be right all the time.
Doctor Anthony Fauci was quoted at the time as saying the plan was, “bold but doable.” though he said, “the road ahead won’t be easy.” Helen Branswell, senior writer on global health at US-based website Stat News, described the plan as “potentially realistic.”
As we got closer to inauguration day and the vaccine rollout was getting underway, there was still doubt as to whether Biden would be able to reach his goal. USA Today ran a story on January 14th saying it was, “a lofty goal to reverse a slow start to the nation’s vaccine rollout.” That same day, an article in Stat News quoted Michael Osterholm, a member of Biden’s Covid-19 task force, as saying the goal was “aspirational … but doable.’’ The article went on to say, “Most of the public health experts interviewed for this story still think Biden’s goal is achievable, even with the sluggish start to the U.S. rollout. But many cautioned that it won’t be easy.”
By inauguration day the 7 day average for vaccinations was approaching a million. Still there were a lot of unknowns. An article January 20th from Politifact said the task would, “not be easy.” Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers said, “I think it’s an attainable goal. I think it’s going to be extremely challenging.” There were still a lot of unknowns at that time, including whether the Trump administration had adequately prepared Biden’s team to take over the rollout (they didn’t), and how Trump’s impeachment trial would effect the rollout (it didn’t).
Still, within the first couple weeks of his administration it became clear that we were going to easily meet that goal and, sure enough, on March 18th, day 58 of the Biden administration, we reached 100 million doses. A week later at his first solo press conference, Biden set a new goal: 200 million doses in 100 days, a goal we reached yesterday.
So Biden is wrong when he says that everybody said it was impossible to reach 100 million doses in 100 days. In fact what people said was that it was possible but would not be easy., “bold but doable.” Had we simply met that goal, considering we were already giving nearly a million doses a day when he took office it would have been rather unimpressive. That we doubled it is fairly impressive. Put another way: if you had told me in December that we would administer 200 doses in Biden’s first 92 days, more than doubling his original goal, and that 51.5% of US adults would have recieved at least one dose of a COVID vaccine I would have been quite impressed.
Wonkness Blog 