I'm a liberal who could help tilt the poll results more in that direction, by one whole person/vote. But I don't answer calls from unknown numbers. I know a lot of liberals who also don't answer calls from unknown numbers. I suspect there also are a lot of conservatives who ignore unknown calls, too. This is a huge problem for pollsters and for those who might rely on poll results. If it weren't for so many spam/scam/junk phone calls, more people would be willing to answer these unknown calls and poll questions, which might make the results a bit more reliable and helpful.
It's unfortunate, frustrating, sad and puzzling that Democrats and liberals always seem to have a lower voter turnout than Republicans and conservatives. Why don't Democrats and liberals turn out and vote their values as citizens most inclined to believe in democracy? It's crazy that they don't. It's not that difficult, especially considering absentee voting and voting by mail options that are available. And with Republicans working so hard to make it more difficult for some liberals to vote, it's all the more important for liberal voters to do their duty and exercise their privilege. I don't understand why this is an ongoing issue. I started voting 56 years ago and since then haven't missed a single opportunity to cast my ballot.
What is it that needs to happen to get liberals out to vote? Or to request and mail in their ballots?
Carl Kerasti ; Have you read about the 'purging' of voter rolls on some Southern states? The removal of drop boxes and even polling places? The limitations on times to vote? The long lines that prevent those with young children, those with handicaps, the elderly from voting? One polling place for a million Texas voters? Wrong hours to vote deliberately posted? Owners of factories threatening that if the Democrats win the factory will close and go overseas? Why isn't election day a national holiday? Long lines guarantee that many will not stand outside in all kinds of weather for very long amounts of time in order to vote. With Dejoy running the Postal Service, would you trust that your mail in ballot will get to its destination? Lastly, when we have witnessed so many questionable election results, there are many who don't believe it's worth it. It is disheartening to be robbed again and again.
Responsible citizens must overcome these obstacles to save our democracy, read "The American Republic can Save American Democracy" by Gary Hart. The Greatest Generation fought fascism, so must my generation. The challenges are from within, today.
I stand by my comment describing how voters are blocked. A mother with young children facing long lines has a real challenge that cannot always be remedied. Same for older people: even the able bodied who must get to work. Suggesting that people are 'irresponsible' is adding insult to injury to these would be voters. What if you are 'purged'?
A shout out to Fairfax County (Virginia) who emails me when my ballot arrives at the Post Office and again when my ballot is counted (it already has been). Voting is made safe and easy.
Laurie, you presented the dilemma well. We the people have permitted unscrupulous people with no goals other than to gain money and power to control our elections and Congress and the Supreme Court are fine with it. I really don't know how to stop this anti-American behavior. Our media has done little to call it out worrying they might not look "balanced." We have learned that it is nearly impossible to prove a negative, that there is not any fraud of consequence and is mostly among Republicans in the rare instances where it exists. Republicans have no proof of fraud, but the media reports their BS claims as though well, maybe, their might . . . . Some media do print/broadcast that their claims are untrue, but that is after they have played the claim first. The "it isn't true" sounds like an afterthought with no conviction rather than what is real. Congress should have passed all of the voting bills this past nearly two years and so many of the challenges you present here would have been to at least some extent mitigated. At least now, if someone is fired for going to vote and not showing up at work on time, people have job options and can report it to the Department of Labor. When the jobs market was narrow and unemployment high, there was not that ability. Yes, Election Day should be a Federal holiday totally recognized by every state, even the most pathetic "red" states. We the people have a lot of work to do.
But I do think that most states offer extended voting periods and that maybe voters do not have their shit together enough to vote earlier when there might be fewer people, or in the mail. Democrats should do all we can to facilitate this kind of voting. It’s not THAT draconian, if you are informed and equipped with help.
Yes, I am well aware of the many ways voting has been made more difficult in some states, particularly for segments of the population who tend to lean liberal. Without listing specifics, this is what my comment about "Republicans working so hard to make it more difficult for some liberals to vote..." referred to.
Unfortunately, there are many liberals who have established their own mental barriers to getting out and voting. These are liberals who are choosing to not vote, for whatever reasons.
I really wish more young people (and other leftists) would vote. Their (our!) future is at stake. But progressive spokespeople spend so much time destroying their moderate brethren (who often have the same policy goals, in the end) to idealists that many people I’ve engaged with on social media at least are just as against Biden as the GOP. No one on the far left seems to see a correlation between numbers in Congress and policy possibilities, they never even like a comment urging voting as the planet is at stake. I am as left as anyone, but sorry for actually seeing the dire need to VOTE for imperfect candidates over monstrous ones! What Ye says on social media or really any other commenting on issues that might be described as “woke” and combatted by what is seen as “cancellation”—in other words, divisive label issues—FAR from our number one urgency right now! Democracy, climate, and the potential for Russia to use nuclear weapons should be at the top of peoples minds instead, with the current economy being also a matter addressed.
ALL Texas residents should review the Equally Sacred Priorities at networklobby.org & study American economic history. Republican economic policies were responsible for the Great Depression (Hoover), the S&L crisis (Reagan), the Great Financial Crisis (George W. Bush), & Trump's tax cuts for the rich & powerful exacerbated wealth & income inequality & our growing deficit. Republicans have no answers for inflation because Trump will not allow them to speak ill of Putin or Saudi Arabia. Trump has sold secrets to these enemies which reward him & his family (Kushner) financially.
The young voters are turning out for Beto in Texas. Twitter & Facebook are both full of live videos from college campuses. Democrats have to overcome the two issue voting (abortion & LGBT&Q) of conservative Catholics & evangelicals, & the fallacy that Republicans have the answers for economic issues. Texas needs an educated citizenry, that is paying attention.
Juliet, there is a lot at stake for Republicans to help divide Democrats. If they keep pointing out the places where Dems are at odds with each other, they can drive additional wedges in. I saw this with some folks in the Bernie clan that just couldn't support Hilary Clinton and went with Trump because well, . . .. Who knows! I get it that progressives want all our issues addressed and I get emails about nearly every one in the hundreds of emails I get every day, but there is reality as you point out. If we don't pay attention to the issues you name: climate change (global warming), damage to our democracy, Russia and their nuclear threat, and of course the economy, we will have given up a lot of our rights as citizens, as Americans to a bunch of loose canons who can't see past their immediate desires, like children who never had to grow up.
We no longer teach Civics in many places. So people don’t realize how government works. Not sure , but suspect it’s red states that have removed Civics. I could be wrong. But there’s a connection.
The US's great advantage in the past was the "either/or" choice. The result was often decisive, and a decisive result gives a strong mandate for action (one might say "too strong" in the case of Reagan and Thatcher). However, the two-party system has now become a close-run race, and that means that huge swathes of the country are very dissatisfied with "almost" winning, and the winning party sees the need either, for the Republicans, to surge to the right in the confident hope of taking their supporters with them and garnering even more as they do so, or veering back to the middle to keep "everyone happy" (as has happened in France) or, for the Democrats, to shilly-shally with supporting workers whilst not bashing employers.
The word coalition has no place in the US, and yet it's a feature of most European governments. Without the existence of coalitions, smaller parties like the Greens would never have got anywhere, because a vote for them was always a lost vote, cast for a lost cause. Yet, now they are present as minority parties in many European governments and they are making a difference. In the US, a Green candidate would be a loser from the outset, even before the great polarisation of today. A vote for either party in the US is and always has been a vote for a general trend but not for an entire manifesto, because there will always be something voters have reservations about. And at the moment, the trend of the Democrats, somewhat inherent in the party's name, is failing to convince a lot of people that that is what they value above all else. That needs addressing. Because when Federal government starts telling the 50 states what they can and cannot legislate on, democracy is being imperilled, and it won't stop at rights not to procreate. Everyone'll be procreated.
The great advantage the US had in the past, along with its material advantages, was a consensus of most of its elites on fundamental principles and even on many policy issues.In other words a foundation for bipartisanship. And that no longer exists.it's been replaced by too much of a winner-take-all Zero Sum mentality.
It's just a thought, and I have nothing but visceral feelings to support it, but in asking myself when things began to turn in that direction, I wonder if Mr Bush and then Mr Obama weren't the turning point.
What struck me in the George W. Bush "chad" controversy was that Bush claimed his victory even before Al Gore had conceded defeat, which he is recognised as having done in order to save the country a drawn-out debate on punched cards. Grace might have dictated that Bush delay his jubilance until either the matter had been settled or Gore had gracefully put down his fists. But he pre-empted Gore's defeat before it was known. When Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice appeared in the Bush administration, their appointments were viewed as satisfactory for the representational issues, though their policies and manner fell far outside the otherwise classic "Black Democrat" model, to the point where one wondered whether they were "placeholders" for equality, rather than holders of competent skills. Perhaps both; perhaps neither.
Mr Obama was the first black president, and hopefully not the last, yet I wonder how many voted for him because of his skin colour, rather than his politics. The US is in parts tipping towards having a majority Spanish-speaking population. Would a Latin candidate then garner the entire Hispanic vote simply because of a language?
Exactly! I was a phone banker for a state senate candidate. Almost no one answered phone calls. Occasionally, I was able to leave a voicemail but I doubted the effect of that. Now, responding to text messages with a donation seems to have a multiplier of three more such text requests.
As for a reticence to vote in midterms, perhaps that is because more BIPOC Democratic voters are thwarted by distant rural locations and the voter repression tactics that keep people from long lines, no water allowed, menacing Trumpers, et al.
I feel the collection of data is too haphazard and too unscientific to be reliable in most surveys. It's different if there is some confidence that the statistical sample is valid, but unless there is a history of reliability, the sample is probably worthless.
Garbage in -- garbage out.
IMHO fundamentals are more important. 70% of all voters are women or minority. Varies a little state by state. The fact that most women trend Democratic is a more important factor in some of the contested elections.
Where the Democratic Party has failed to live up to expectations is in the "ground game." Precinct captains are supposed to know every voter -- and at one time probably did but the party has chosen to rely on "data" which may/may not be valid.
All politics is local. Where I live, Baghdad By the Sea, things are generally transitory. We have had a mass migration here during the pandemic. Hundreds of thousands of potential voters are not registered. Many residents are not US citizens. Tenants have been removed from the rolls using voter preclusion methods perfected by Katherine Harris and JEB Bush in the 2000 cycle..
More importantly, our issues are not your issues. Fidel Castro may be dead but he is the main issue with 20% of our population.
What an extraordinary piece of legislation. Would it therefore constitute a criminal offence to administer water to a person who collapsed from exhaustion or heatstroke whilst waiting to vote? Would all simply look on and allow the thirsting voter to perish before their very eyes, fearful that giving assistance could see them served with a prosecution? Are you permitted to give people a lift to the polling booths? To assist them if they slip on ice or hold their glasses while they search in their handbags? Or are officials fearful that malevolent helpers might lace water with strychnine or pamper them with liquor? It looks to all intents and purposes like pettifogging legislation aimed at curing no problem in particular - the fact that folk get thirsty.
There are legal tests for "unconscionable", a lawyer once told me. But it could be like the angled piece of metal at the back of a Jeep: you've no idea why they would place this oddly shaped, crafted piece of kit on the rear bodywork, until you open the tailgate and the spare wheel whizzes round to crash into the coachwork. Just, no one's offering a cogent reason for this seemingly daft legislation, other than "keeping the thumb on people."
Oh Carl, you have rightly identified the challenge for Democrats. I have been wondering the same thing for decades. You have me beat by a few years. I have been voting for 51 years and only missed 2 elections, both primaries, but I felt so guilty even though there was nothing I could do about it either time. Anyway, for me voting was fun, interesting, and a responsibility my family took seriously. Only 1 of 5 siblings didn't immediately register to vote on turning 18 or 21 (my older sister). My youngest sister finally registered in 2004 and now is a poll worker, a really good one. I think it takes an issue, a particular candidate, or neighbors and family to get people to register to vote, then to choose to vote every election. Some groups like Red Wine and Blue are using this personal touch to get people to register and vote, direct, informed, and encouraging contact to friends and family. Maybe that's how a lot of things happen in our lives. So, think of family members and friends we can connect with to say "hello" and ask if they are planning to vote. If they say "no," ask why, then help them with information about issues they are concerned with and the candidates you think will help them most.
if they say "no." Lete's make this a huge Election Day for Democrats!
Imagine how many folks would take the time to vote, if every eligible American was automatically registered & there was a secure & easy way to do it from home, or at the very least a place they normally frequent. Sadly I think many don't pay attention to what is happening in politics and are tied up in the day to day activities of their own lives.
I'm a radical, I've declined to answer polls for many years, and I never answer unknown numbers. My voting preferences---and I ALWAYS vote---are completely invisible to the polling industry.
On a similar note, I am fed up with polls addressing Biden's appoval numbers. The pollsters never point out that it is unprecedented to have a former potus tossing up so much negativity about the current potus, not to mention the election deniers that affect the approval numbers. And don't get me going on the negativity put out by Fox every damn day directed towards Biden.
Biden's real problem is that he sacrificed 10 points in his Afghanistan exit. They have never been recovered, nor will they be, a perfect set up for this midterm election and for Trump. So while I understand you're not liking coverage of Biden's approval numbers, they do, in fact, matter.
tRump made sure that the Afghanistan exit would be very difficult. Read up on it. The necessary paperwork for those translators who helped support the U.S. forces was delayed by tRump illegally (surprise) ; agreements on timelines for withdrawal were made ( by tRump) that were impossible to meet. I think the blame on Biden for the difficult withdrawal is a winger talking point.
Not sure about the winger talking point part of your comment. But you are right that he did have a lot of presets to his decisions. But he could have overruled them. Important stuff.
He didn’t do it perfectly or anything close to that. I don’t think the administration’s side was reported enough at ALL though, and most news people went on and on about how we left Afghans behind. We did, but how did so many other factors come into play here? Why is our immigration system so inefficient? Why in God’s name did Trump make a deal with the Taliban? As if that kind of thing had such ample wiggle room. I agree that this was the turning point for Biden. And after BBB didn’t go through, many on the Left forgot that he was really ambitious and that we VERY NEARLY got it through. Did anyone learn the lesson (who already weren’t aware) that maybe VOTING for MORE Dems would help here? Instead people don’t get over perceived total failures (or real failures) and swing to this state of constant pissing on Biden et al. This does not help in the midterms. Biden’s ratings only reflect the distortions that come from media-frenzied focuses instead of awareness of the way things are and have been…
I'm sure that they are extreme Republican talking points and believe that Biden did as good of a job on that withdrawal from a war that should never have happened as anyone could have done. A war started by George W Bush ; another 'president' who did not win the popular vote. Just like tRump.
Okay... Just getting back. My using the word presets was in reference to another post about there being agreements on leaving Afghanistan that were left by the T administration. Overruling them would have involved reversing actual signed agreements. Thus the deep sense of leaving being "baked in" from before Biden took office. However, he could have done that. And arguably should have with the results being as horrific and costly as they were. This exit was extremely poorly executed in my opinion. But for you? -- Peace.
Randy Gaul ; Since Biden is the President that we now have (and an imperfect human being, as we all are), I think in our present situation of 'all hands on deck' we should pull together. I have had my gripes about Joe Biden, ( as I do about myself), but now is not the hour, IMHO. I have been subjected to enough criticism about our President for now ; especially when I compare him to the MAGAt leader and his minions. At least he is not a Putin, Kim Jong Un, Orban, Nazi worshipper.
Boy. Chris, you said it. I keep coming back to the media. I simply can’t turn on the news to see massive portraits of donny of the tiny hands making his faces. Don’t they realize that any publicity is good publicity? And it goes on and on. Me and most of my friends have stopped watching the news. Why, particularly MSNBC and CNN, can’t stop with the poll numbers of Biden’s approval rating and follow him around and tell us what he does every day. He does his job. Why not report on that? It would be interesting to see. Is he expected to make loud, obscene tirades to get attention ? It seems whoever gets the most media attention gets the approval ratings. “The Media is the message”. remember that?
Anyone else REALLLLLY concerned that we even have to worry about margins of error and polling trends at a time when one of the two major political parties has publicly declared a commitment to ignoring results they don't like, supporting cop-killing, treasonous mobs, hearing a Nazi's "side of the story" and using tax dollars for billionaire bailouts but not baby food?
This idea might rile up folks but in Australia people are required to vote and if they don’t they’re fined. If everyone voted in this country we would never have Donald Trump elected or anyone like that. Voting is not only a right but a duty.
Compulsory voting is enacted in two other countries that I know of: mine (Belgium) and Egypt.
Failure to vote in Belgium carries a mild penalty of a few euros, around 50 or 100 euros, I guess. In Egypt, there was mass absenteeism in an election a few years ago and the office dealing with issuing the fines virtually collapsed with the paperwork involved in penalising non-voters.
The obligation in Belgium sticks a little in my craw: I believe wholeheartedly in being under a duty to vote, but am not in favour of the legal obligation to vote. That's like being made to eat up your supper, because children in Africa have nothing to eat. The fact is that eating up my own supper won't put food in the mouths of African children. And my being made to make a choice I feel incapable of making (you can turn up and spoil your paper, if you wish) is no help to finding the right candidate.
What spurs me to exercising my right of suffrage is the fact that people for centuries had to die before it was accorded. And it's its exercise that may avoid future generations having to die for the loss of it.
That’s the thing. We have a right to participate in our own government, however attenuated it might be . We have some control. It’s a hard won freedom that many don’t have on this planet.
Excellent idea! We are mandated to pay taxes, voting should be a requirement for all citizens! Now that's Democracy. Fines would help clean up some of the messes left behind elections.
Yes, all democrats wish universal mandatory voting were possible to enact. It’s really hard to get things to happen with our system. Of course, Republicans would be dead against this. But there’s also the states issue…most people here point to the Electoral College system (presidential) and Senate (2 Senators per widely differently populated state) and state by state gerrymandering as the primary issues.
I do think the everyone-must-vote issue should be raised more. How to make democracy true? Make everyone vote. Duh. (And each person would have to count equally, tho, with the states problem, nearly impossible to change due to how hard it is to amend the constitution.) people say, “well, why shouldn’t voting be a PRIVILEGE, and isn’t it bad for the ill-Informed to vote?”Well, to the latter, that’s already happening more often than not. It would be great for everyone to have to vote just so more people would know and care a little more…if that would actually happen. And you could have an opt not to choose check box on the ballot.
Red states would certainly want to weigh in. The bigger question would be how to get it on the ballot, but I do believe we need to keep thinking outside the box & find ways to challenge the current inequities.
In America school is mandatory to age 18 - but just look at the things that some people believe (and, indeed, post to this Substack); there's a thin line between a duty & an obligation...
"Roe, Roe, Roe to Vote!" I read that this was on a T-shirt. Cited by none other than Donna Brazille! But the article, "Will Abortion Be Enough To Save Democrats in November?," (Susan Glasser, in the New Yorker) also cites her as saying that unless people understand that Democracy itself is on the ballot they are unlikely to turn out in sufficient numbers. That is the real key. That Democracy itself is on this election ballot. -- And incidentally, curses on the Democratic party for supporting supposedly easier to beat radical right wingers. How many of them will now be elected? -- Anybody's guess.
I actually think a lot of people mistakenly omit the fact that our planet and the future of our species are on the ballot, too. The more you read about climate, the more you realize how very dire the matter is. At this crucial moment, we can’t afford to lose Congress. Humanity actually NEEDS Dems to win, however imperfect they might be. Everyone but Manchin was on board for way more climate mitigation legislation & funding.
this is true Juliet. The u.s. annual reduction in greenhouse gases required in order to meet the administration goals by 2030 is far far higher than what has been accomplished in the last 19 years. 1% reduction per year versus 6% now needed through 2030.if the Republicans regain the House they may very well succeed in blocking climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act not to mention all the additional legislation that is required to avoid catastrophe. any delay in reductions that the Republicans cause means that 6%, already very difficult to accomplish, will rise even higher. You can do the math to see that the White House goal of 50% ghg reduction by 2030 from a 2005 Baseline quickly becomes impossible.
Our media has massively failed to inform the public.
Exactly! Thanks for putting down the numbers! I’m not a scientist, but science-minded friends of mine all say humanity is LITERALLY hopeless. I wish our politicians as well as media were better able to communicate this threat! I don’t want to live in this future. And I care so much about what’s happening to all the animals and their habitats! Why do these things never enter the mouths of media or politicians?!?
Just hang on a minute, or, to put it Mr Reich's way: But wait.
Forgive me for being naive, isn't an election decided on who votes for whom? Not on who polls for whom? Who answers the phone 27 days out is irrelevant; it's who goes and votes on polling day that counts.
Or is this a Mohamed Ali boxing bout, where half the battle is the sharp one-liners exchanged at the weigh-in? To decide who wins, we vote, not poll. And if polling will affect how you vote, then you need to either not vote or be looking at the manifestoes in greater depth.
Pollsters do know about the factors like what demographic answers the phone. 538 rates pollsters on myriad similar considerations—they’re very mindful of all the inner workings of polls and similar data gathering…I’m grateful for this resource.
I have heard on their podcast that it isn’t clear what polls’ effects are—whether their being low for one candidate makes people vote more or less. They don’t think it’s super significant, unless figures are effectively employed by candidates.
Why are you grateful for this resource? Does it affect how you vote? It does, we know that much, but how? Do you vote for the underdog, like everyone is voting for Ukraine right now? Do you go with the apparent front runner, because you like to be associated with winners? Or do you vote, come what may, for the party you believe is right, or less wrong, or whatever the criterion is? In France, the power of polls is recognised by not allowing any the day before the election; that's like disapproving of smoking, but taxing smokers anyway.
I’m grateful to 538 because they are a meta-resource on polls—they provide transparency and reliable reporting. No, I do not vote like a total moron. I care about issues deeply—the planet first, conservation, economic and racial equity, women’s rights and things like paid maternity leave, democracy and systemic changes required for it, gay rights, animal rights (however inadequately addressed), I am opposed to war but mostly at this point want the Defense department substantially less funded, education reform K-12 (as in way more resources for poorer district schools, much higher teacher pay, more teachers per student), I want substantial immigration reform to make things humane for immigrants…I care about polls only because I care about the outcome of the elections, it’s already quite clear for whom I will vote. :)
I appreciate all your reasons, and if they were all the utter reverse of what you say above, then I'd still say that, because you are keenly aware of what urges you to vote the way that you do.
The question put by Reich is hard to gauge in absolute terms because he posits that polls are skewed, whether deliberately or otherwise, or that they happen to be inaccurate, whether they're skewed or just inherently unreliable. What he doesn't, however, posit, is how they affect voting on the day. And if that's because he, like the rest of us, just can't say with certainty what that effect is, then what is the nature of the scepticism that we ought to be pouring on them? Aren't we just arguing about whether Schrödinger's cat is or is not alive?
yeah, I just think the best resource out there for all this poll questioning and surmising is 538. (full disclosure: they pay me!) (just kidding.) I mostly watch the Politics Podcast and look at the info on polls
I think my response is, "Oh, do they? - oh, yes, ha, ha, ha," but I'm not sure why. Clearly, you believe polls (or those by Five-Thirty-Eight) are accurate, otherwise you wouldn't place such faith in them. And yet, you assert that your own views are so firmly grounded that they do not affect the way you vote. But that they could affect the outcome, because they could affect the way others vote? (Full disclosure: No one's paying me, and I'm not kidding.)
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps ... why don't we just declare the outcome based on the campaign finance that's raised? Save a lot of people a lot of counting and trudging out in the rain.
If ours was a culture of humility we would not take the outcome of the 2016 election as approval of our approach generally (Obama spent more in 2012 than all candidates in all previous elections combined; it was not an incremental increase in spending).
More seriously: it is our democracy; it is ours to lose! We could just as well enact campaign finance laws with spending limits (especially on "soft money" & corporate "speech") and - more importantly - make provision for the public financing of campaigns.
No, it's not yours to lose. It is ours as well. You perhaps, through modesty, I might add, underestimate the extent to which democracy in the US is held up as a model for the world. If democracy were to fail in the US, many another democracy would fail in its wake and many of us would get wet with the enormous splash that would be created: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/globalisation-rights-graham-vincent/
Further, there is no underestimate: democracies are being challenged in extraordinary (extraordinarily bad) ways thanks to the antics of America; we should have less such illusions - be they of grandeur or anything else.
Yes, I disagree. Ukraine's war is not Ukraine's. Roe v Wade was not an American court case. The Spanish empire was not Spain's. And American democracy was a major mover in the French revolution that sought democracy, and that gave birth to the 1848 revolutions. Because these things are not just an election, or a war, or a court case, or an empire, or a revolution; they are ideas and ideas spread like wildfire.
The Ukraine war is being fought by much of the world against much of the rest of the world, not just between Ukraine and Russia.
The Spanish empire gave birth to the French empire, the British empire, the Portuguese empire, the Belgian empire, the Italian empire, the German empire.
Roe v Wade spurred abortion legislation across the world, including Belgium, where I live. What will its reversal bring I wonder? Hungary spends 5% of GDP - 5% if you will - on encouraging women to marry and have children. Childless couples are now social pariahs there.
The big shift to the right in politics is the product of right wing dictatorship no longer being a notion restricted to banana republics in central America, it's now a recognised legitimacy in countries like Italy, Sweden, Hungary, and in many places where it hasn't yet declared itself as such, but where the enemy of the state has become the state.
If the USA allows democracy as an idea worth upholding to perish to where it is nothing but a vague label, then not only will you Americans have a job of work to re-establish it in the USA, we will all have a job of work to re-establish it across the globe.
Yes, I disagree: America's democracy is the world's democracy and, aside from Switzerland, virtually the first one ever to appear on the Earth's surface. Don't let it go from us.
I was working as a market research interviewer and I only was assigned political jobs. I called NJ, NY, NH, VA, GA and MI. From my own personal experience, respondents readily admitted to being trumpers. I spoke to people who didn't complete high school to one who was a doctor. I was so dismayed at the strong support given to tRump and his chosen candidates. I would say on the average of 10 respondents, 8 were very strong tRump supporting R's. I wondered where all the Dems were. It kinda scared me.
That's what I see, too, among friends, bumper stickers, and yard signs. I see more yard signs now for MA GOP governor candidate Diehl, which is frightening. But I have a sliver of hope because even in this blue state, I wouldn't dare install a Democrat bumper sticker or yard sign. Every time I see a driver honk impatiently or cut someone off, they're driving a vehicle with Trump stickers, usually painted black, most often a pickup. Logically, I'm hoping the problem is rational fear, not apathy, but logic doesn't seem to be the driving factor in today's politics, so who knows. I'm surprised to read Professor Reich's poll-result comments, because all I see in the media are stories about Democrats being behind. No bias there, though (!) PS, webmaster: I still, often can't "heart" comments here.
Mo777Jet: The heart worked this time! I agree with you that yard signs can be an indicator. I am so happy to report that, hearing that Boebert-Frish polls are very close, I took notice of Boebert signs yesterday, and there are FAR FEWER than I have seen in the past. Still a lot of Trump. I am one of four families in our small town that always displays Dem signs. I am going be hopeful based on this unscientific data.
I'd like to add when has the fear of losing our democracy ever showed up in a poll? The media has done a lackluster job iof exploring its significance. But I find the historical nature of this fear a harbinger of what will shape the midterms besides the relegation of women to second class status. Fury hath no rival like a woman scorned.
They talk about imperiled democracy constantly, from my perspective. Very inadequately do they address and explain the very serious and dire threat of climate change and the need to act now
I mentioned earlier I take online polls and have been given a lot of political polls lately. One question is always which issues are most important to you, and a long list including gas prices, inflation, abortion, seniors issues, education, etc. are given. Threat to Democracy is not listed, and I always add it when given the option.
No matter what the polls say, I'm going to vote. In a country where even the Supreme Court can be bought, I believe that some polls can be. There are established polls that I trust, but Dr. Reich's three points are more reasons to be careful of the weight to give polls. I am hopefully optimistic, because it's hard to believe that the majority of voters will vote so against their best interests.
A comment on how twisted thinking can be. I recently had a Trump supporter tell me that the Democrats are doing everything possible to destroy this country. Yikes!
It’s really weird how all the Republican talking points for years have been what would be true of Democrats to say but are the opposite of what Republicans actually do. Saying this, though, already makes me/us vulnerable to the same criticism we have of them—we are deluded and feeding on lies. They make this phenomenon happen so baldly it’s jaw-dropping. How is a free country with such diversity so susceptible to the echo chamber? But it is…I guess unacknowledged denial of motives like racism is what fuels the self-deception
What the hey! I don't think Democrats ever get overconfident what with how much is at stake. I know I never have. I only pay attention to polls to get a general idea of how elections are going. I would hope all my fellow Democrats would do the same. I've always viewed every election as a critical point in American politics, but the two upcoming elections have a seriously special importance with what uncle trump (sic) has done to this country. Who could have ever thought the Repubs could have scraped the sewer any lower than Nixon, Reagan or W.? But damn if they didn't by a long shot! Technically, trump isn't on the 2022 ballot, but his stench is always there and will be until he's finally lowered in the grave or securely locked up in the penitentiary. I have planned on voting by absentee here in Georgia. They have been jerking me around about my getting info on when and how to get my ballot. As of now, I still don't have it. This is concerning me much more than the inaccuracy of the polls. I'm afraid that older folks here could get discouraged and not vote. Not everyone is as determined as I am. The Repubs' plan was to do exactly that, and it might be working. We can't afford to lose any votes. By god, I will cast my vote. I just hope every other Democrat will follow suite. Let's send our people to Washington D.C., and in my state, Atlanta, GA, as well!
There's a parallel with the UK. Brexit voters and Conservatives vopters were underestimated in the polls because people might not want to admit having un-PC opinions. A rough estimate might be that 10% of voters don't admit their preference, and most of them are right wing. Here's an example: suppose of 100 voters 52 actually vote right and 48 vote left. But 10 voters haven't declared their intentions, and of these 8 vote right and 2 left. Then the polls show 44 right to 48 left, i.e 48% right, 52% left. In the Brexit vote the Brexiters won by a mergin of 52% to 48% whereas the EU poll of polls had it the other way round. Go figure.
Rob's strong warning in the final para is therefore absolutely right. No complacency! Activists be out there! I remember being a telephone activist for Tony Blair's Labour party in 1997 on election night. He was careful to discourage complacency.
That 4% Brexit difference isn't even over the 5% of error that's allowed for in polls, and I did wonder that what was effectively a constitutional change went through on 4%. For a company to change its constitution, its objects, you'll generally even need a 2/3 or 3/4 majority.
In the end, I ended up as the only person I knew of who disapproved of the result and yet supported leaving: because I wanted to stay, but recognise the value of honouring a democratic ballot. Except that the pass mark should have been set a tad higher.
When Sweden voted to stay driving on the left in 1966, the government switched to driving on the right all the same. I'm not entirely sure why they ignored the referendum result, but no one really cared that they did. I do wonder if no one would really have cared if Cameron had ignored the Brexit vote, but, then, no one really cared about Cameron.
Dems at 65% on 538 in the Senate. 538 takes countless phenomena into consideration and is almost surely correcting for the things Reich is mentioning. Our chances in the House are at 29% by their model’s Deluxe calculation.
I’m sick of everyone talking about how the economy is bad because of the Democrats and Biden. Just because there is inflation does not mean it was caused by them. But on the 538 podcast, they take it as basically a given that gas prices (and not unemployment figures, at an all-time low) going down substantially is doom for Dems. I agree with that, but isn’t the media partly responsible for this, as well as the Dems themselves? It just seems like it’s impossibly hard to get through to people about what’s really going on, and what’s at stake here. ARGH
I agree with you so much on this, Juliet. People have a very simplistic and misguided view of what is driving inflation, gas prices, etc. If Hannity says it's Biden, millions will believe it is Biden. It is VERY frustrating that there is no way to get across simple facts to the nation as a whole, and Trump crowd in particular.
I get things in my inbox that request how I intend to vote and am suspicious that it could be MAGAts wanting to know where I stand. I don't participate. Unless it is a known entity, I delete it.
Yeah! That email scam has gone on since at least the early '90s. Someone telling you they're a Nigerian prince having millions of dollars he needs to park in a bank account, and he'd like to park it in yours, for which you'll be paid handsomely, if you give him your account and routing numbers. One of 'em working that hustle was just recently busted: https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/info-2019/nigerian.html I was just citing that as an example in my comment.
I would never trust that, and it is sad that anyone could today. There are many warnings now not to give out personal data and account information. Sad that so many are not informed.
I'm a liberal who could help tilt the poll results more in that direction, by one whole person/vote. But I don't answer calls from unknown numbers. I know a lot of liberals who also don't answer calls from unknown numbers. I suspect there also are a lot of conservatives who ignore unknown calls, too. This is a huge problem for pollsters and for those who might rely on poll results. If it weren't for so many spam/scam/junk phone calls, more people would be willing to answer these unknown calls and poll questions, which might make the results a bit more reliable and helpful.
It's unfortunate, frustrating, sad and puzzling that Democrats and liberals always seem to have a lower voter turnout than Republicans and conservatives. Why don't Democrats and liberals turn out and vote their values as citizens most inclined to believe in democracy? It's crazy that they don't. It's not that difficult, especially considering absentee voting and voting by mail options that are available. And with Republicans working so hard to make it more difficult for some liberals to vote, it's all the more important for liberal voters to do their duty and exercise their privilege. I don't understand why this is an ongoing issue. I started voting 56 years ago and since then haven't missed a single opportunity to cast my ballot.
What is it that needs to happen to get liberals out to vote? Or to request and mail in their ballots?
Carl Kerasti ; Have you read about the 'purging' of voter rolls on some Southern states? The removal of drop boxes and even polling places? The limitations on times to vote? The long lines that prevent those with young children, those with handicaps, the elderly from voting? One polling place for a million Texas voters? Wrong hours to vote deliberately posted? Owners of factories threatening that if the Democrats win the factory will close and go overseas? Why isn't election day a national holiday? Long lines guarantee that many will not stand outside in all kinds of weather for very long amounts of time in order to vote. With Dejoy running the Postal Service, would you trust that your mail in ballot will get to its destination? Lastly, when we have witnessed so many questionable election results, there are many who don't believe it's worth it. It is disheartening to be robbed again and again.
Responsible citizens must overcome these obstacles to save our democracy, read "The American Republic can Save American Democracy" by Gary Hart. The Greatest Generation fought fascism, so must my generation. The challenges are from within, today.
I stand by my comment describing how voters are blocked. A mother with young children facing long lines has a real challenge that cannot always be remedied. Same for older people: even the able bodied who must get to work. Suggesting that people are 'irresponsible' is adding insult to injury to these would be voters. What if you are 'purged'?
Reach out to your local Democratic office. They will help you overcome these obstacles. No excuses, VOTE.
BB ; It's called 'blaming the victim'! We need stronger laws protecting the voters.
I agree, but that will not happen until Democrats control the Senate & the House.
A shout out to Fairfax County (Virginia) who emails me when my ballot arrives at the Post Office and again when my ballot is counted (it already has been). Voting is made safe and easy.
so does Illinois
Oregon is really efficient with its mail-in ballots & provision of dropboxes.
Glennis Tronic ; Wow! Very cool! My twins were born in Woodbridge, VA , 27 years ago today! We lived there 18 months and are back to MA.
Glenis wouldn't it be something if this was done on a national level?!
Yes indeed!!
Why isn't election day a national holiday? Indeed. In many countries polling day is a Sunday, for exactly that reason.
I remember Election Day used to be a holiday in California. I don't know about now.
Laurie, you presented the dilemma well. We the people have permitted unscrupulous people with no goals other than to gain money and power to control our elections and Congress and the Supreme Court are fine with it. I really don't know how to stop this anti-American behavior. Our media has done little to call it out worrying they might not look "balanced." We have learned that it is nearly impossible to prove a negative, that there is not any fraud of consequence and is mostly among Republicans in the rare instances where it exists. Republicans have no proof of fraud, but the media reports their BS claims as though well, maybe, their might . . . . Some media do print/broadcast that their claims are untrue, but that is after they have played the claim first. The "it isn't true" sounds like an afterthought with no conviction rather than what is real. Congress should have passed all of the voting bills this past nearly two years and so many of the challenges you present here would have been to at least some extent mitigated. At least now, if someone is fired for going to vote and not showing up at work on time, people have job options and can report it to the Department of Labor. When the jobs market was narrow and unemployment high, there was not that ability. Yes, Election Day should be a Federal holiday totally recognized by every state, even the most pathetic "red" states. We the people have a lot of work to do.
But I do think that most states offer extended voting periods and that maybe voters do not have their shit together enough to vote earlier when there might be fewer people, or in the mail. Democrats should do all we can to facilitate this kind of voting. It’s not THAT draconian, if you are informed and equipped with help.
Yes, I am well aware of the many ways voting has been made more difficult in some states, particularly for segments of the population who tend to lean liberal. Without listing specifics, this is what my comment about "Republicans working so hard to make it more difficult for some liberals to vote..." referred to.
Unfortunately, there are many liberals who have established their own mental barriers to getting out and voting. These are liberals who are choosing to not vote, for whatever reasons.
I really wish more young people (and other leftists) would vote. Their (our!) future is at stake. But progressive spokespeople spend so much time destroying their moderate brethren (who often have the same policy goals, in the end) to idealists that many people I’ve engaged with on social media at least are just as against Biden as the GOP. No one on the far left seems to see a correlation between numbers in Congress and policy possibilities, they never even like a comment urging voting as the planet is at stake. I am as left as anyone, but sorry for actually seeing the dire need to VOTE for imperfect candidates over monstrous ones! What Ye says on social media or really any other commenting on issues that might be described as “woke” and combatted by what is seen as “cancellation”—in other words, divisive label issues—FAR from our number one urgency right now! Democracy, climate, and the potential for Russia to use nuclear weapons should be at the top of peoples minds instead, with the current economy being also a matter addressed.
PROMOTE THE VOTE!
ALL Texas residents should review the Equally Sacred Priorities at networklobby.org & study American economic history. Republican economic policies were responsible for the Great Depression (Hoover), the S&L crisis (Reagan), the Great Financial Crisis (George W. Bush), & Trump's tax cuts for the rich & powerful exacerbated wealth & income inequality & our growing deficit. Republicans have no answers for inflation because Trump will not allow them to speak ill of Putin or Saudi Arabia. Trump has sold secrets to these enemies which reward him & his family (Kushner) financially.
The young voters are turning out for Beto in Texas. Twitter & Facebook are both full of live videos from college campuses. Democrats have to overcome the two issue voting (abortion & LGBT&Q) of conservative Catholics & evangelicals, & the fallacy that Republicans have the answers for economic issues. Texas needs an educated citizenry, that is paying attention.
Beto is cute
no offense
I like him
I like his enthusiasm & engagement with the people & his willingness to confront & criticize to their face the powers that be.
Juliet, there is a lot at stake for Republicans to help divide Democrats. If they keep pointing out the places where Dems are at odds with each other, they can drive additional wedges in. I saw this with some folks in the Bernie clan that just couldn't support Hilary Clinton and went with Trump because well, . . .. Who knows! I get it that progressives want all our issues addressed and I get emails about nearly every one in the hundreds of emails I get every day, but there is reality as you point out. If we don't pay attention to the issues you name: climate change (global warming), damage to our democracy, Russia and their nuclear threat, and of course the economy, we will have given up a lot of our rights as citizens, as Americans to a bunch of loose canons who can't see past their immediate desires, like children who never had to grow up.
We no longer teach Civics in many places. So people don’t realize how government works. Not sure , but suspect it’s red states that have removed Civics. I could be wrong. But there’s a connection.
The US's great advantage in the past was the "either/or" choice. The result was often decisive, and a decisive result gives a strong mandate for action (one might say "too strong" in the case of Reagan and Thatcher). However, the two-party system has now become a close-run race, and that means that huge swathes of the country are very dissatisfied with "almost" winning, and the winning party sees the need either, for the Republicans, to surge to the right in the confident hope of taking their supporters with them and garnering even more as they do so, or veering back to the middle to keep "everyone happy" (as has happened in France) or, for the Democrats, to shilly-shally with supporting workers whilst not bashing employers.
The word coalition has no place in the US, and yet it's a feature of most European governments. Without the existence of coalitions, smaller parties like the Greens would never have got anywhere, because a vote for them was always a lost vote, cast for a lost cause. Yet, now they are present as minority parties in many European governments and they are making a difference. In the US, a Green candidate would be a loser from the outset, even before the great polarisation of today. A vote for either party in the US is and always has been a vote for a general trend but not for an entire manifesto, because there will always be something voters have reservations about. And at the moment, the trend of the Democrats, somewhat inherent in the party's name, is failing to convince a lot of people that that is what they value above all else. That needs addressing. Because when Federal government starts telling the 50 states what they can and cannot legislate on, democracy is being imperilled, and it won't stop at rights not to procreate. Everyone'll be procreated.
The great advantage the US had in the past, along with its material advantages, was a consensus of most of its elites on fundamental principles and even on many policy issues.In other words a foundation for bipartisanship. And that no longer exists.it's been replaced by too much of a winner-take-all Zero Sum mentality.
It's just a thought, and I have nothing but visceral feelings to support it, but in asking myself when things began to turn in that direction, I wonder if Mr Bush and then Mr Obama weren't the turning point.
What struck me in the George W. Bush "chad" controversy was that Bush claimed his victory even before Al Gore had conceded defeat, which he is recognised as having done in order to save the country a drawn-out debate on punched cards. Grace might have dictated that Bush delay his jubilance until either the matter had been settled or Gore had gracefully put down his fists. But he pre-empted Gore's defeat before it was known. When Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice appeared in the Bush administration, their appointments were viewed as satisfactory for the representational issues, though their policies and manner fell far outside the otherwise classic "Black Democrat" model, to the point where one wondered whether they were "placeholders" for equality, rather than holders of competent skills. Perhaps both; perhaps neither.
Mr Obama was the first black president, and hopefully not the last, yet I wonder how many voted for him because of his skin colour, rather than his politics. The US is in parts tipping towards having a majority Spanish-speaking population. Would a Latin candidate then garner the entire Hispanic vote simply because of a language?
When I vote I am guided by the Equally Sacred Priorities found at networklobby.org . Try it.
I'm more of a "disestablishment" person, Brian. But I'll read the site.
I could not vote in the 1968 election (against Nixon) because I didn’t turn 21 until March of the following year. An avid voter ever since!
Exactly! I was a phone banker for a state senate candidate. Almost no one answered phone calls. Occasionally, I was able to leave a voicemail but I doubted the effect of that. Now, responding to text messages with a donation seems to have a multiplier of three more such text requests.
As for a reticence to vote in midterms, perhaps that is because more BIPOC Democratic voters are thwarted by distant rural locations and the voter repression tactics that keep people from long lines, no water allowed, menacing Trumpers, et al.
I feel the collection of data is too haphazard and too unscientific to be reliable in most surveys. It's different if there is some confidence that the statistical sample is valid, but unless there is a history of reliability, the sample is probably worthless.
Garbage in -- garbage out.
IMHO fundamentals are more important. 70% of all voters are women or minority. Varies a little state by state. The fact that most women trend Democratic is a more important factor in some of the contested elections.
Where the Democratic Party has failed to live up to expectations is in the "ground game." Precinct captains are supposed to know every voter -- and at one time probably did but the party has chosen to rely on "data" which may/may not be valid.
All politics is local. Where I live, Baghdad By the Sea, things are generally transitory. We have had a mass migration here during the pandemic. Hundreds of thousands of potential voters are not registered. Many residents are not US citizens. Tenants have been removed from the rolls using voter preclusion methods perfected by Katherine Harris and JEB Bush in the 2000 cycle..
More importantly, our issues are not your issues. Fidel Castro may be dead but he is the main issue with 20% of our population.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxdasCJNQZU
No water allowed? Can you explain?
Georgia specifically. Please see https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/5-egregious-voter-suppression-laws-2021
What an extraordinary piece of legislation. Would it therefore constitute a criminal offence to administer water to a person who collapsed from exhaustion or heatstroke whilst waiting to vote? Would all simply look on and allow the thirsting voter to perish before their very eyes, fearful that giving assistance could see them served with a prosecution? Are you permitted to give people a lift to the polling booths? To assist them if they slip on ice or hold their glasses while they search in their handbags? Or are officials fearful that malevolent helpers might lace water with strychnine or pamper them with liquor? It looks to all intents and purposes like pettifogging legislation aimed at curing no problem in particular - the fact that folk get thirsty.
It is extraordinary, outrageous & unconscionable.
Florida, too.
All the places where it gets a bit warm. I once stood in line at Disney-thing down there, and it was purgatory.
There are legal tests for "unconscionable", a lawyer once told me. But it could be like the angled piece of metal at the back of a Jeep: you've no idea why they would place this oddly shaped, crafted piece of kit on the rear bodywork, until you open the tailgate and the spare wheel whizzes round to crash into the coachwork. Just, no one's offering a cogent reason for this seemingly daft legislation, other than "keeping the thumb on people."
Maybe they want democracy to work for them and assume it'll always just be there to do that, without them having to work for democracy.
Oh Carl, you have rightly identified the challenge for Democrats. I have been wondering the same thing for decades. You have me beat by a few years. I have been voting for 51 years and only missed 2 elections, both primaries, but I felt so guilty even though there was nothing I could do about it either time. Anyway, for me voting was fun, interesting, and a responsibility my family took seriously. Only 1 of 5 siblings didn't immediately register to vote on turning 18 or 21 (my older sister). My youngest sister finally registered in 2004 and now is a poll worker, a really good one. I think it takes an issue, a particular candidate, or neighbors and family to get people to register to vote, then to choose to vote every election. Some groups like Red Wine and Blue are using this personal touch to get people to register and vote, direct, informed, and encouraging contact to friends and family. Maybe that's how a lot of things happen in our lives. So, think of family members and friends we can connect with to say "hello" and ask if they are planning to vote. If they say "no," ask why, then help them with information about issues they are concerned with and the candidates you think will help them most.
if they say "no." Lete's make this a huge Election Day for Democrats!
Imagine how many folks would take the time to vote, if every eligible American was automatically registered & there was a secure & easy way to do it from home, or at the very least a place they normally frequent. Sadly I think many don't pay attention to what is happening in politics and are tied up in the day to day activities of their own lives.
I agree completely. My first election, I got to vote for McGovern, and haven't missed an election yet, nor can I conceive of not voting.
Me too. My first vote was for JFK.It was and continues to be a big deal
I'm a radical, I've declined to answer polls for many years, and I never answer unknown numbers. My voting preferences---and I ALWAYS vote---are completely invisible to the polling industry.
On a similar note, I am fed up with polls addressing Biden's appoval numbers. The pollsters never point out that it is unprecedented to have a former potus tossing up so much negativity about the current potus, not to mention the election deniers that affect the approval numbers. And don't get me going on the negativity put out by Fox every damn day directed towards Biden.
Biden's real problem is that he sacrificed 10 points in his Afghanistan exit. They have never been recovered, nor will they be, a perfect set up for this midterm election and for Trump. So while I understand you're not liking coverage of Biden's approval numbers, they do, in fact, matter.
tRump made sure that the Afghanistan exit would be very difficult. Read up on it. The necessary paperwork for those translators who helped support the U.S. forces was delayed by tRump illegally (surprise) ; agreements on timelines for withdrawal were made ( by tRump) that were impossible to meet. I think the blame on Biden for the difficult withdrawal is a winger talking point.
Not sure about the winger talking point part of your comment. But you are right that he did have a lot of presets to his decisions. But he could have overruled them. Important stuff.
He didn’t do it perfectly or anything close to that. I don’t think the administration’s side was reported enough at ALL though, and most news people went on and on about how we left Afghans behind. We did, but how did so many other factors come into play here? Why is our immigration system so inefficient? Why in God’s name did Trump make a deal with the Taliban? As if that kind of thing had such ample wiggle room. I agree that this was the turning point for Biden. And after BBB didn’t go through, many on the Left forgot that he was really ambitious and that we VERY NEARLY got it through. Did anyone learn the lesson (who already weren’t aware) that maybe VOTING for MORE Dems would help here? Instead people don’t get over perceived total failures (or real failures) and swing to this state of constant pissing on Biden et al. This does not help in the midterms. Biden’s ratings only reflect the distortions that come from media-frenzied focuses instead of awareness of the way things are and have been…
I'm sure that they are extreme Republican talking points and believe that Biden did as good of a job on that withdrawal from a war that should never have happened as anyone could have done. A war started by George W Bush ; another 'president' who did not win the popular vote. Just like tRump.
Let you tell about 'important stuff'!
Randy Gaul ; Huh? Who could have "overruled them" whose "presets"? Whose "decisions"?
Okay... Just getting back. My using the word presets was in reference to another post about there being agreements on leaving Afghanistan that were left by the T administration. Overruling them would have involved reversing actual signed agreements. Thus the deep sense of leaving being "baked in" from before Biden took office. However, he could have done that. And arguably should have with the results being as horrific and costly as they were. This exit was extremely poorly executed in my opinion. But for you? -- Peace.
Randy Gaul ; Since Biden is the President that we now have (and an imperfect human being, as we all are), I think in our present situation of 'all hands on deck' we should pull together. I have had my gripes about Joe Biden, ( as I do about myself), but now is not the hour, IMHO. I have been subjected to enough criticism about our President for now ; especially when I compare him to the MAGAt leader and his minions. At least he is not a Putin, Kim Jong Un, Orban, Nazi worshipper.
Boy. Chris, you said it. I keep coming back to the media. I simply can’t turn on the news to see massive portraits of donny of the tiny hands making his faces. Don’t they realize that any publicity is good publicity? And it goes on and on. Me and most of my friends have stopped watching the news. Why, particularly MSNBC and CNN, can’t stop with the poll numbers of Biden’s approval rating and follow him around and tell us what he does every day. He does his job. Why not report on that? It would be interesting to see. Is he expected to make loud, obscene tirades to get attention ? It seems whoever gets the most media attention gets the approval ratings. “The Media is the message”. remember that?
Anyone else REALLLLLY concerned that we even have to worry about margins of error and polling trends at a time when one of the two major political parties has publicly declared a commitment to ignoring results they don't like, supporting cop-killing, treasonous mobs, hearing a Nazi's "side of the story" and using tax dollars for billionaire bailouts but not baby food?
This idea might rile up folks but in Australia people are required to vote and if they don’t they’re fined. If everyone voted in this country we would never have Donald Trump elected or anyone like that. Voting is not only a right but a duty.
Compulsory voting is enacted in two other countries that I know of: mine (Belgium) and Egypt.
Failure to vote in Belgium carries a mild penalty of a few euros, around 50 or 100 euros, I guess. In Egypt, there was mass absenteeism in an election a few years ago and the office dealing with issuing the fines virtually collapsed with the paperwork involved in penalising non-voters.
The obligation in Belgium sticks a little in my craw: I believe wholeheartedly in being under a duty to vote, but am not in favour of the legal obligation to vote. That's like being made to eat up your supper, because children in Africa have nothing to eat. The fact is that eating up my own supper won't put food in the mouths of African children. And my being made to make a choice I feel incapable of making (you can turn up and spoil your paper, if you wish) is no help to finding the right candidate.
What spurs me to exercising my right of suffrage is the fact that people for centuries had to die before it was accorded. And it's its exercise that may avoid future generations having to die for the loss of it.
That’s the thing. We have a right to participate in our own government, however attenuated it might be . We have some control. It’s a hard won freedom that many don’t have on this planet.
Excellent idea! We are mandated to pay taxes, voting should be a requirement for all citizens! Now that's Democracy. Fines would help clean up some of the messes left behind elections.
Yes, all democrats wish universal mandatory voting were possible to enact. It’s really hard to get things to happen with our system. Of course, Republicans would be dead against this. But there’s also the states issue…most people here point to the Electoral College system (presidential) and Senate (2 Senators per widely differently populated state) and state by state gerrymandering as the primary issues.
I do think the everyone-must-vote issue should be raised more. How to make democracy true? Make everyone vote. Duh. (And each person would have to count equally, tho, with the states problem, nearly impossible to change due to how hard it is to amend the constitution.) people say, “well, why shouldn’t voting be a PRIVILEGE, and isn’t it bad for the ill-Informed to vote?”Well, to the latter, that’s already happening more often than not. It would be great for everyone to have to vote just so more people would know and care a little more…if that would actually happen. And you could have an opt not to choose check box on the ballot.
And what if the question of the electoral college was put on the ballot?
whoa
It would only work in blue states I think
Red states would certainly want to weigh in. The bigger question would be how to get it on the ballot, but I do believe we need to keep thinking outside the box & find ways to challenge the current inequities.
In America school is mandatory to age 18 - but just look at the things that some people believe (and, indeed, post to this Substack); there's a thin line between a duty & an obligation...
= /
Woman Unite and Rise Up
Vote Blue 22
Down Ballot
Check your registration and voting place.
Bring your family and friends.
Contact your circles of friends, energize and mobilize with love.
The women of Ukraine & Iran should inspire you to confront the heresy of evangelicals & conservative Catholics, read "Jesus & John Wayne".
"Roe, Roe, Roe to Vote!" I read that this was on a T-shirt. Cited by none other than Donna Brazille! But the article, "Will Abortion Be Enough To Save Democrats in November?," (Susan Glasser, in the New Yorker) also cites her as saying that unless people understand that Democracy itself is on the ballot they are unlikely to turn out in sufficient numbers. That is the real key. That Democracy itself is on this election ballot. -- And incidentally, curses on the Democratic party for supporting supposedly easier to beat radical right wingers. How many of them will now be elected? -- Anybody's guess.
I actually think a lot of people mistakenly omit the fact that our planet and the future of our species are on the ballot, too. The more you read about climate, the more you realize how very dire the matter is. At this crucial moment, we can’t afford to lose Congress. Humanity actually NEEDS Dems to win, however imperfect they might be. Everyone but Manchin was on board for way more climate mitigation legislation & funding.
this is true Juliet. The u.s. annual reduction in greenhouse gases required in order to meet the administration goals by 2030 is far far higher than what has been accomplished in the last 19 years. 1% reduction per year versus 6% now needed through 2030.if the Republicans regain the House they may very well succeed in blocking climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act not to mention all the additional legislation that is required to avoid catastrophe. any delay in reductions that the Republicans cause means that 6%, already very difficult to accomplish, will rise even higher. You can do the math to see that the White House goal of 50% ghg reduction by 2030 from a 2005 Baseline quickly becomes impossible.
Our media has massively failed to inform the public.
Exactly! Thanks for putting down the numbers! I’m not a scientist, but science-minded friends of mine all say humanity is LITERALLY hopeless. I wish our politicians as well as media were better able to communicate this threat! I don’t want to live in this future. And I care so much about what’s happening to all the animals and their habitats! Why do these things never enter the mouths of media or politicians?!?
Just hang on a minute, or, to put it Mr Reich's way: But wait.
Forgive me for being naive, isn't an election decided on who votes for whom? Not on who polls for whom? Who answers the phone 27 days out is irrelevant; it's who goes and votes on polling day that counts.
Or is this a Mohamed Ali boxing bout, where half the battle is the sharp one-liners exchanged at the weigh-in? To decide who wins, we vote, not poll. And if polling will affect how you vote, then you need to either not vote or be looking at the manifestoes in greater depth.
Pollsters do know about the factors like what demographic answers the phone. 538 rates pollsters on myriad similar considerations—they’re very mindful of all the inner workings of polls and similar data gathering…I’m grateful for this resource.
I have heard on their podcast that it isn’t clear what polls’ effects are—whether their being low for one candidate makes people vote more or less. They don’t think it’s super significant, unless figures are effectively employed by candidates.
Why are you grateful for this resource? Does it affect how you vote? It does, we know that much, but how? Do you vote for the underdog, like everyone is voting for Ukraine right now? Do you go with the apparent front runner, because you like to be associated with winners? Or do you vote, come what may, for the party you believe is right, or less wrong, or whatever the criterion is? In France, the power of polls is recognised by not allowing any the day before the election; that's like disapproving of smoking, but taxing smokers anyway.
I’m grateful to 538 because they are a meta-resource on polls—they provide transparency and reliable reporting. No, I do not vote like a total moron. I care about issues deeply—the planet first, conservation, economic and racial equity, women’s rights and things like paid maternity leave, democracy and systemic changes required for it, gay rights, animal rights (however inadequately addressed), I am opposed to war but mostly at this point want the Defense department substantially less funded, education reform K-12 (as in way more resources for poorer district schools, much higher teacher pay, more teachers per student), I want substantial immigration reform to make things humane for immigrants…I care about polls only because I care about the outcome of the elections, it’s already quite clear for whom I will vote. :)
I appreciate all your reasons, and if they were all the utter reverse of what you say above, then I'd still say that, because you are keenly aware of what urges you to vote the way that you do.
The question put by Reich is hard to gauge in absolute terms because he posits that polls are skewed, whether deliberately or otherwise, or that they happen to be inaccurate, whether they're skewed or just inherently unreliable. What he doesn't, however, posit, is how they affect voting on the day. And if that's because he, like the rest of us, just can't say with certainty what that effect is, then what is the nature of the scepticism that we ought to be pouring on them? Aren't we just arguing about whether Schrödinger's cat is or is not alive?
yeah, I just think the best resource out there for all this poll questioning and surmising is 538. (full disclosure: they pay me!) (just kidding.) I mostly watch the Politics Podcast and look at the info on polls
I think my response is, "Oh, do they? - oh, yes, ha, ha, ha," but I'm not sure why. Clearly, you believe polls (or those by Five-Thirty-Eight) are accurate, otherwise you wouldn't place such faith in them. And yet, you assert that your own views are so firmly grounded that they do not affect the way you vote. But that they could affect the outcome, because they could affect the way others vote? (Full disclosure: No one's paying me, and I'm not kidding.)
(Perhaps polls can influence $ (campaign contributions) - which can influence outcomes...?)
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps ... why don't we just declare the outcome based on the campaign finance that's raised? Save a lot of people a lot of counting and trudging out in the rain.
If ours was a culture of humility we would not take the outcome of the 2016 election as approval of our approach generally (Obama spent more in 2012 than all candidates in all previous elections combined; it was not an incremental increase in spending).
More seriously: it is our democracy; it is ours to lose! We could just as well enact campaign finance laws with spending limits (especially on "soft money" & corporate "speech") and - more importantly - make provision for the public financing of campaigns.
No, it's not yours to lose. It is ours as well. You perhaps, through modesty, I might add, underestimate the extent to which democracy in the US is held up as a model for the world. If democracy were to fail in the US, many another democracy would fail in its wake and many of us would get wet with the enormous splash that would be created: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/globalisation-rights-graham-vincent/
Further, there is no underestimate: democracies are being challenged in extraordinary (extraordinarily bad) ways thanks to the antics of America; we should have less such illusions - be they of grandeur or anything else.
Again: "it is our democracy" (you appear to have disagreed).
Yes, I disagree. Ukraine's war is not Ukraine's. Roe v Wade was not an American court case. The Spanish empire was not Spain's. And American democracy was a major mover in the French revolution that sought democracy, and that gave birth to the 1848 revolutions. Because these things are not just an election, or a war, or a court case, or an empire, or a revolution; they are ideas and ideas spread like wildfire.
The Ukraine war is being fought by much of the world against much of the rest of the world, not just between Ukraine and Russia.
The Spanish empire gave birth to the French empire, the British empire, the Portuguese empire, the Belgian empire, the Italian empire, the German empire.
Roe v Wade spurred abortion legislation across the world, including Belgium, where I live. What will its reversal bring I wonder? Hungary spends 5% of GDP - 5% if you will - on encouraging women to marry and have children. Childless couples are now social pariahs there.
The big shift to the right in politics is the product of right wing dictatorship no longer being a notion restricted to banana republics in central America, it's now a recognised legitimacy in countries like Italy, Sweden, Hungary, and in many places where it hasn't yet declared itself as such, but where the enemy of the state has become the state.
If the USA allows democracy as an idea worth upholding to perish to where it is nothing but a vague label, then not only will you Americans have a job of work to re-establish it in the USA, we will all have a job of work to re-establish it across the globe.
Yes, I disagree: America's democracy is the world's democracy and, aside from Switzerland, virtually the first one ever to appear on the Earth's surface. Don't let it go from us.
If I were a Trumpster, I’d be ashamed to admit it too.
Pollster: Have you no sense of decency?
Trumpster: No. I don’t.
I was working as a market research interviewer and I only was assigned political jobs. I called NJ, NY, NH, VA, GA and MI. From my own personal experience, respondents readily admitted to being trumpers. I spoke to people who didn't complete high school to one who was a doctor. I was so dismayed at the strong support given to tRump and his chosen candidates. I would say on the average of 10 respondents, 8 were very strong tRump supporting R's. I wondered where all the Dems were. It kinda scared me.
That's what I see, too, among friends, bumper stickers, and yard signs. I see more yard signs now for MA GOP governor candidate Diehl, which is frightening. But I have a sliver of hope because even in this blue state, I wouldn't dare install a Democrat bumper sticker or yard sign. Every time I see a driver honk impatiently or cut someone off, they're driving a vehicle with Trump stickers, usually painted black, most often a pickup. Logically, I'm hoping the problem is rational fear, not apathy, but logic doesn't seem to be the driving factor in today's politics, so who knows. I'm surprised to read Professor Reich's poll-result comments, because all I see in the media are stories about Democrats being behind. No bias there, though (!) PS, webmaster: I still, often can't "heart" comments here.
Mo777Jet: The heart worked this time! I agree with you that yard signs can be an indicator. I am so happy to report that, hearing that Boebert-Frish polls are very close, I took notice of Boebert signs yesterday, and there are FAR FEWER than I have seen in the past. Still a lot of Trump. I am one of four families in our small town that always displays Dem signs. I am going be hopeful based on this unscientific data.
I'd like to add when has the fear of losing our democracy ever showed up in a poll? The media has done a lackluster job iof exploring its significance. But I find the historical nature of this fear a harbinger of what will shape the midterms besides the relegation of women to second class status. Fury hath no rival like a woman scorned.
This poll was shown repeatedly on CNN.
They talk about imperiled democracy constantly, from my perspective. Very inadequately do they address and explain the very serious and dire threat of climate change and the need to act now
That's very true.
I mentioned earlier I take online polls and have been given a lot of political polls lately. One question is always which issues are most important to you, and a long list including gas prices, inflation, abortion, seniors issues, education, etc. are given. Threat to Democracy is not listed, and I always add it when given the option.
No matter what the polls say, I'm going to vote. In a country where even the Supreme Court can be bought, I believe that some polls can be. There are established polls that I trust, but Dr. Reich's three points are more reasons to be careful of the weight to give polls. I am hopefully optimistic, because it's hard to believe that the majority of voters will vote so against their best interests.
A comment on how twisted thinking can be. I recently had a Trump supporter tell me that the Democrats are doing everything possible to destroy this country. Yikes!
I've heard that many times. Also a Republican objection to Democrats: "...but we're losing our freedoms."
It’s really weird how all the Republican talking points for years have been what would be true of Democrats to say but are the opposite of what Republicans actually do. Saying this, though, already makes me/us vulnerable to the same criticism we have of them—we are deluded and feeding on lies. They make this phenomenon happen so baldly it’s jaw-dropping. How is a free country with such diversity so susceptible to the echo chamber? But it is…I guess unacknowledged denial of motives like racism is what fuels the self-deception
Try getting confirmation on "this country"...
The U. S., Rishi. Sorry if it was confusing.
No, get confirmation from the person shouting (they are confused).
What the hey! I don't think Democrats ever get overconfident what with how much is at stake. I know I never have. I only pay attention to polls to get a general idea of how elections are going. I would hope all my fellow Democrats would do the same. I've always viewed every election as a critical point in American politics, but the two upcoming elections have a seriously special importance with what uncle trump (sic) has done to this country. Who could have ever thought the Repubs could have scraped the sewer any lower than Nixon, Reagan or W.? But damn if they didn't by a long shot! Technically, trump isn't on the 2022 ballot, but his stench is always there and will be until he's finally lowered in the grave or securely locked up in the penitentiary. I have planned on voting by absentee here in Georgia. They have been jerking me around about my getting info on when and how to get my ballot. As of now, I still don't have it. This is concerning me much more than the inaccuracy of the polls. I'm afraid that older folks here could get discouraged and not vote. Not everyone is as determined as I am. The Repubs' plan was to do exactly that, and it might be working. We can't afford to lose any votes. By god, I will cast my vote. I just hope every other Democrat will follow suite. Let's send our people to Washington D.C., and in my state, Atlanta, GA, as well!
There's a parallel with the UK. Brexit voters and Conservatives vopters were underestimated in the polls because people might not want to admit having un-PC opinions. A rough estimate might be that 10% of voters don't admit their preference, and most of them are right wing. Here's an example: suppose of 100 voters 52 actually vote right and 48 vote left. But 10 voters haven't declared their intentions, and of these 8 vote right and 2 left. Then the polls show 44 right to 48 left, i.e 48% right, 52% left. In the Brexit vote the Brexiters won by a mergin of 52% to 48% whereas the EU poll of polls had it the other way round. Go figure.
Rob's strong warning in the final para is therefore absolutely right. No complacency! Activists be out there! I remember being a telephone activist for Tony Blair's Labour party in 1997 on election night. He was careful to discourage complacency.
That 4% Brexit difference isn't even over the 5% of error that's allowed for in polls, and I did wonder that what was effectively a constitutional change went through on 4%. For a company to change its constitution, its objects, you'll generally even need a 2/3 or 3/4 majority.
In the end, I ended up as the only person I knew of who disapproved of the result and yet supported leaving: because I wanted to stay, but recognise the value of honouring a democratic ballot. Except that the pass mark should have been set a tad higher.
When Sweden voted to stay driving on the left in 1966, the government switched to driving on the right all the same. I'm not entirely sure why they ignored the referendum result, but no one really cared that they did. I do wonder if no one would really have cared if Cameron had ignored the Brexit vote, but, then, no one really cared about Cameron.
Dems at 65% on 538 in the Senate. 538 takes countless phenomena into consideration and is almost surely correcting for the things Reich is mentioning. Our chances in the House are at 29% by their model’s Deluxe calculation.
I’m sick of everyone talking about how the economy is bad because of the Democrats and Biden. Just because there is inflation does not mean it was caused by them. But on the 538 podcast, they take it as basically a given that gas prices (and not unemployment figures, at an all-time low) going down substantially is doom for Dems. I agree with that, but isn’t the media partly responsible for this, as well as the Dems themselves? It just seems like it’s impossibly hard to get through to people about what’s really going on, and what’s at stake here. ARGH
I agree with you so much on this, Juliet. People have a very simplistic and misguided view of what is driving inflation, gas prices, etc. If Hannity says it's Biden, millions will believe it is Biden. It is VERY frustrating that there is no way to get across simple facts to the nation as a whole, and Trump crowd in particular.
I get things in my inbox that request how I intend to vote and am suspicious that it could be MAGAts wanting to know where I stand. I don't participate. Unless it is a known entity, I delete it.
Especially the ones that want your address & phone number! It could just as easily be that Nigerian prince, we've all complained about!
DZK; ; Nigerian prince?
Yeah! That email scam has gone on since at least the early '90s. Someone telling you they're a Nigerian prince having millions of dollars he needs to park in a bank account, and he'd like to park it in yours, for which you'll be paid handsomely, if you give him your account and routing numbers. One of 'em working that hustle was just recently busted: https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/info-2019/nigerian.html I was just citing that as an example in my comment.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53309873
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/alleged-nigerian-prince-email-scammer-caught-and-arrested/
I would never trust that, and it is sad that anyone could today. There are many warnings now not to give out personal data and account information. Sad that so many are not informed.
Tell them you're Donald Trump and give his Mar-a-Lago address.
HaHaHa!
LOL!
Hahaha!
They already know where you stand