Mediaboss Marketing

Todays Democrats fancy themselves as the party that trusts the evidence wherever it might lead. This is why they invest heavily in science and technology and set up arms of government to translate that knowledge into action. But despite claiming to prioritize new ways of improving our society, Democrats dont always act in ways that are rooted in research.

In fact, sometimes they actively resist doing what the evidence says especially when it comes to implementing policies that give financial benefits to people low on Americas societal totem pole. Its not always said out loud, but the reality is that some Democrats, and American voters in general, do not think very highly of poor people or people of color there are countless examples of how society is quick to dehumanize them and how politicians struggle to address their needs in a meaningful way. These patterns of thinking and misleading portrayals of marginalized people too often mean that the policies that could help them most are opposed time and time again.

That opposition is, of course, rarely framed in terms of antipathy or animus toward a particular group. Instead, it is often framed as rationality, like adherence to fiscal conservatism, especially among members of the GOP, who have long abided by small-government views. But some Democrats are really no different. Consider President Bidens reluctance to cancel student loan debt, or the federal governments hesitancy to provide free community college, or West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchins recent opposition to including the child tax credit in the Build Back Better plan, reportedly on the grounds that low-income people would use the money on drugs. Indeed, politicians across the political spectrum have found a number of scapegoats to use while arguing against expanding the social safety net, including playing to Americans fears about rising inflation rates. As a result, various programs that would help people namely the poor and people of color have become taboo.

Whats striking, though, is that if you actually look at most social science research, investing in the social safety net is fiscally responsible it pays large dividends for both individuals and our collective society. Economists have studied this for decades, finding that anti-poverty and cash-assistance programs executed both in and outside of the U.S. are linked to increased labor participation in the workforce, while investing in childcare benefits not only children, but the broader economy and society they are raised in. Moreover, newer initiatives like canceling student debt could add up to 1.5 million jobs and lift over 5 million Americans out of poverty in addition to freeing many Americans of the debt trap that is contributing to a lagging housing market and widening racial wealth gap. Other research suggests that those saddled with student loan debt would be more likely to get married or have children if their dues were forgiven.

That is the evidence. Yet, rather than acting on it, there has been a tendency to highlight stories and tropes about people who might waste the resources invested in them. And thats oftentimes enough to undermine public and political support for these policies. So what were seeing from some moderate Democrats today is likely born out of an inherent distrust of what might happen if you just give people money or help them through an expanded social safety net.

But if we look in the not-too-distant past less than a hundred years ago, in fact we quickly see that Democrats didnt always oppose distributing money to support Americans well-being. In fact, former Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt rolled out safety-net programs like Oprah would give away her favorite things. In response to the Great Depression, Roosevelt oversaw a massive expansion of the social safety net during the 1930s and 40s, which included giving grants to states that implemented unemployment compensation, aid to dependent children and funding to business and agriculture communities. Recognizing the importance of a safety net to protect people from the uncertainties brought on by unemployment, illness, disability, death and old age, the federal government also created Social Security, which it deemed vital at the time for economic security. And in the 1960s, long after the Great Depression was over, the government created the Medicare program for similar reasons under former President Lyndon B. Johnson, another Democrat.

What is clear from these examples is that the federal government once understood the importance of a robust safety net for the health, well-being and the broader functioning of our society. The caveat, however, is that this general understanding does not extend to our thinking about all Americans; the government was supportive of these policies when most beneficiaries were white. But when people of color started actively utilizing and benefitting from these same programs, they became harder to attain and, in some cases, overtly racialized.

That was particularly true in the 1970s and 80s when conservative and right-wing political candidates vilified Americans on welfare. During his initial presidential run, Ronald Reagan would tell stories and give numerous stump speeches centered on Linda Taylor, a Black Chicago-area welfare recipient, dubbed a welfare queen. To gin up anti-government and anti-poor resentment among his base, the then-future Republican president villainized Taylor, repeating claims that she had used 80 names, 30 addresses, 15 telephone numbers to collect food stamps, Social Security, veterans benefits for four nonexistent deceased veteran husbands, as well as welfare as a way to signal that certain Americans namely those of color were gaming the system in order to attain certain benefits from the federal government. Reagan wasnt alone, however. In fact, his tough stance on alleged welfare fraud and government spending on social programs encapsulated the conservative critique of big-government liberalism at the time.

Democrats, however, werent that different either. Former Democratic President Bill Clintons promise to end welfare as we know it in the 1990s included stipulations like requiring a certain percentage of welfare recipients to be working or participate in job training. This helped foster, in turn, a belief that there were people who played by the rules and those who didnt (namely Black Americans). And once politicians started worrying about (Black) people taking advantage of the system, the requirements needed to acquire certain societal and financial benefits became even harder to obtain.

But all of this implicit rhetoric about reducing government waste by cracking down on marginalized people does not hold up to scrutiny when examining the evidence. The reality is that fraud among social safety net beneficiaries is extremely rare, and much less costly to society than, say, tax evasion among the richest 1 percent. Yet we spend an incredible amount of money trying to catch and penalize the poor instead of helping them.

Moreover, polls show that Americans particularly Democrats overwhelmingly want to expand the social safety net. According to a 2019 survey from the Pew Research Center, a majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaners (59 percent) and 17 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners said that the government should provide more assistance to people in need. Even this October, around the time when Democrats were negotiating the size of the omnibus Build Back Better Act, a CNN/SSRS poll found that 75 percent of the partys voters (and 6 percent of Republicans) preferred that Congress pass a bill that expanded the social safety net and enacted climate-change policies.

However, despite many Americans wanting an expansion of the social safety net, it is still often hard to sell voters on these programs especially if theyre wrapped up in large policy packages (i.e. Obamacare) or associated with someone voters dislike (i.e. former Democratic President Barack Obama). Consider that a Politico/Morning Consult survey from late last year found that only 39 percent of Americans who received the child tax credit said it had a major impact on their lives. Moreover, only 38 percent of respondents credited Biden for the implementation of the program.

The fact that many expansions of the social safety net arent initially popular makes it all the easier for Democrats to fall back on the stories people tell themselves about different groups of people and whether they deserve help. And sometimes, those portrayals affect the concerns we have about members of those groups and the explanations we generate for why they experience the outcomes they do in life. As earlier expansions of the social safety net show, the U.S. hasnt always been allergic to giving people money, but there now seems to be this unspoken idea that poor people and people of color cant be trusted to spend free money or government assistance well.

This thinking, though, poses a problem for Democrats because, for years, theyve branded themselves as the party that promotes general welfare by advancing racial, economic and social justice. At the same time, they continue to fall short on campaign promises to expand the social safety net despite many poor people, and people of color, having fought long and hard to put them in office. The fact that so many of todays Democrats are still prisoners to antiquated tropes about who gets or is deserving of government benefits is a dangerous one, because it causes people to push members of those groups outside of their moral circles the circle of people that they think they have a moral obligation to help.

Of course, breaking this chain of thought wont be easy because it would require Democrats to break the long-standing mindset that poor people are in their current situation because of a series of unfortunate choices. It would also probably require them to stop worrying about how Republicans might falsely reframe social safety net programs as dangerous, especially given ongoing concerns regarding inflation and the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic. But at the end of the day, that shouldnt matter: While the politics might not be immediately convenient and the effects of these programs not immediately seen, that is not necessarily a reason to defer implementing them. Focusing solely on the short-term effects is not only short-sighted, but dangerous. And Democrats stand to lose more than the support of their base if they refuse to act.

Continued here:
Democrats Helped Build The Social Safety Net. Why Are Many Now Against Expanding It? - FiveThirtyEight

Redistricting is pitting a number of Democratic incumbents against one another in what will likely be a handful of competitive and grueling House primaries.

The decennial process isnt complete yet some states havent finalized their congressional maps or are caught in litigation over the new lines but lawmakers in at least three states have already started the awkward process of battling a colleague.

Here are the districts where Democrats are battling in a primary:

Georgias 7th Congressional District

Democratic Reps. Lucy McBathLucia (Lucy) Kay McBathThe Hill's Morning Report - World poised for war House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another On The Money Economy had post-recession growth in 2021 MORE and Carolyn BourdeauxCarolyn BourdeauxThe Hill's Morning Report - World poised for war House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another Rouda passes on bid for redrawn California seat, avoiding intraparty battle with Porter MORE are gearing up for a fierce primary battle with hopes of representing Georgias newly drawn 7th Congressional District.

The Peach States new congressional map, which was signed into law by Gov. Brian KempBrian KempRepublicans spurned by Trump in primaries still embrace him Raffensperger calls for extra security at Georgia polling sites No 'mass exodus,' but GOP sees Trump grip loosening MORE (R) in December, flipped McBaths 6thCongressional District seat red, handing Republicans a likely victory in Novembers midterm elections and prompting McBath to run in the neighboring district represented by Bourdeaux, which moved even further left.

McBath currently represents 12.1 percent of the new district, while Bourdeaux represents 57 percent in the current 7thdistrict, according toFiveThirtyEight.

Both lawmakers have solid credentials heading into the May primary race. McBath has strong name recognition and a captivating story of how she journeyed to Congress the breast cancer survivor entered the political arena after her 17-year-old son was shot and killed.

Bourdeaux, on the other hand, is in her first term but was the only Democrat to flip a GOP-held seat blue in 2020. She also may receive a boost because she currently represents a larger part of the new district.

The primary in the Atlanta suburbs between the two rising stars is expected to be expensive.

Illinoiss 6th Congressional District

Rep. Marie Newman (D) is taking on Rep. Sean CastenSean CastenThe Hill's Morning Report - World poised for war House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another Sen. Capito tests positive for COVID-19 MORE (D) in Illinoiss 6th Congressional District after the redistricting process moved her hometown into Rep. Jess Garcias (D) 4th Congressional District. She chose to take on Casten rather than Garcia, who is the second Hispanic lawmaker Illinois residents have sent to Congress.

Newman, however, currently represents a larger swath of the new district than Casten, 41.3 percent to 23.4 percent, respectively, according to FiveThirtyEight.

The primary race, set for the end of June, is shaping up to be a faceoff between the progressive and centrist wings of the Democratic Party. Newman is an outspoken progressive who bested incumbent Rep. Daniel LipinskiDaniel William LipinskiHouse races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another House votes to condemn alleged hysterectomies on migrant women Five things we learned from this year's primaries MORE (D) in the districts 2020 primary race. Lipinski labeled himself a pro-life Democrat because of his opposition to abortion.

Casten, on the other hand, is more in tune with moderates in the party. He flipped the seat blue in 2018 by ousting Rep. Peter Roskam Peter James RoskamHouse races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another Bottom line Postcards become unlikely tool in effort to oust Trump MORE (R-Ill.).

Michigans 11th Congressional District

Democratic Reps. Andy LevinAndrew (Andy) LevinThe Hill's Morning Report - World poised for war House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another Questions loom over how to form congressional staff union MORE and Haley StevensHaley Maria StevensThe Hill's Morning Report - World poised for war House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another Overnight Energy & Environment Biden tries to reverse Trump on power plants MORE are set to face off in a primary battle to represent Michigans 11th Congressional District in the U.S. House.

The states new congressional map, drawn by an independent commission and hailed as a win against partisan gerrymandering, wrapped Levin and Stevens into the same district, pitting the two incumbents against one another in a solid Democrat territory.

Levin, who currently sits in the 9th Congressional District, represents 24.8 percent of the district, while Stevens has 45.1 percent of the terrain, according to FiveThirtyEight. Stevens is currently the representative for the11th Congressional District.

Both lawmakers were sent to Congress in 2018 and secured reelection two years later.

Visit link:
House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another | TheHill - The Hill

I believe that voting Democrat can be an addiction. Democrats continue to vote Democrat for decades while their cities disintegrate into cesspools of drugs, slums, crime, disease and suffocating taxes. For some of them, when they finally cant stand it any longer, they move and vote Democrat in their new location. They are Demoholics!

Todays Democratic Party has been hijacked by the Marxist, socialist, progressive, woke movement. It has proclaimed and is implementing its evil and diabolical agenda to fundamentally transform our country.

I believe that todays Democratic Party has shown its agenda be: the banishing of God, Judeo-Christian values, natural law and patriotism; the atrocity of abortion; the destruction of the nuclear family; BLM and antifa and the burning, looting and destroying of historic statues; the shattering of MLKs dream of a colorblind society by fomenting racial tension; teachers unions indoctrinating and poisoning the minds of our children; the hate-mongering and dividing of us into factions by race, party, and financial and vaccination status, and a house divided cannot stand.

Those who hate this country are living a dream. Those of us who love it are living a nightmare. Traditional Democrats are facing a dilemma: vote to save the country as founded or vote Democrat. Many will try to appease their conscience by defending and justifying what their party has become. But, alas, in the end, like an alcoholic who cant pass by a liquor store without stopping in, far too many Democrats will continue to vote Democrat no matter what. They are hopelessly addicted Demoholics!

Bob McBride

West Deer

More:
Letter to the editor: Voting Democrat an addiction - TribLIVE

WASHINGTON, DC The Democrats are in the doldrums.

Thats how it can feel, anyway. Bidens ambitious Build Back Better legislation is stalled in the Senate. Voting rights legislation is stuck there, too.

I understand the frustration, acknowledged Ro Khanna, a Democratic congressman from California and member of, among others, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, to me over Zoom. But I would say, lets look at the whole record. He goes through the list of Biden-Democrat achievements. They passed the American Recovery Plan, providing relief to families during the pandemic. They passed the infrastructure legislation, which is going to finally provide affordable broadband to every American in this country. That is going to start the process of removing lead pipes. Thats going to start the investment in electric vehicles. Im not saying that this is in any way sufficient, but it is a strong start.

Now, he said, elected officials need to get the climate provisions of the Build Back Better Act passed, and pass voting rights legislation.

Politics is about priority, he said. Protecting voting rights is about the very sanctity of American democracy. And, as no one knows the outcome of this falls midterm elections, the next few months may be the last chance that Democrats have for years to pass legislation that will address the climate crisis.

Khanna was co-chair of Bernie Sanderss 2020 presidential campaign. Hes been a leading voice on rethinking American foreign policy, pushing in particular to end US support for the Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen. But he has also repeatedly spoken out in support of President Joe Biden and his administration, offering public assurances that many progressives will support Biden in a 2024 run. I asked him what message progressives should pass on to their more moderate Democrat colleagues.

From progressives to moderates, it should be two things. One, the climate cant wait: this is our moment. We have to act, or we will be judged by history, harshly. And two, we have to deliver for working families.

And from moderates to progressives? Lets take what we can get instead of getting nothing. And lets be pragmatic. We may share your aspirations, but this is whats going to get 51 votes [in the US Senate]. Get on board.

There was, recently, some good news for liberals: the Supreme Court justice, Stephen Breyer, is retiring while Democrats still control the Senate, which means Biden will actually get to pick his replacement, and has said he will nominate a black woman. As a member of the House, Khanna will not take part in the process of voting for the nominee. Still, he offered, I am very excited that President Biden is going to nominate an African-American woman. What a moment of history: [its] unbelievable that an African-American woman hasnt been on the court yet, and theres so many extraordinary candidates.

[See also: Stephen Breyers retirement from the Supreme Court gives hope to liberals]

This week, Khanna published a new book: Dignity in a Digital Age (Simon & Schuster). Why, I asked him, did he choose that as his subject?

I represent a place where theres so much optimism about America, young kids are optimistic and we have over $11trn of market cap, said Khanna, who represents the heart of Silicon Valley in Congress. And I say, how is it that you can have that in my district, and yet across America and communities youve seen deindustrialisation? How do we get more communities a chance for participating in the modern economy?

But the tech sector is also the site of inequality and inequity, I noted, thinking of tech oligarchs and billionaires who have become even more obscenely rich over the course of the pandemic. How can we pass around the optimism and opportunity that tech has to offer while curbing inequality?

I think there are two things that have to happen, he said. First, we have to tax the billionaires. We have to tax corporations. Theres a frustration that some of these corporations just arent paying enough tax and that the billionaires arent paying enough tax, but thats not sufficient What people want is an opportunity to participate, to create value, to contribute. And thats what I talked about. How do we decentralise the innovation economy? How do we democratise it?

Outside of the book and back in Congress, Khanna has introduced the Endless Frontier Act. Its about creating new technology hubs with manufacturing jobs, construction jobs, innovation jobs in communities across this country, he said, adding, Im very optimistic that it will pass.

Before we hung up, I asked him if there was anything he felt he hadnt had the chance to say.

And he ended where he started.

I understand the anxiety and frustration that people feel around the country, he said. Weve had two years of a pandemic We have had hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people die. Weve had an insurrection attempt on 6 January when we were supposed to have a peaceful transfer of power.

But, he said, he was still hopeful: when he looks at the long trajectory of America, when I look at my own life story. He was born in Philadelphia, the son of immigrants and the grandson of someone who was imprisoned with Indias independence leader, Mahatma Gandhi, and now represents a multiracial, multi-ethnic district.

He hoped others can find a way, too. It wasnt losing that he was afraid of, he said, but apathy and disengagement.

That is the real danger for our society.

[See also: Joe Bidens failure on voting rights could cost the Democrats the White House]

Sign up for The New Statesmans newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Morning Call Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. World Review The New Statesmans global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The New Statesman Daily The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. Green Times The New Statesmans weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. This Week in Business A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. The Culture Edit Our weekly culture newsletter from books and art to pop culture and memes sent every Friday. Weekly Highlights A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. Ideas and Letters A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Events and Offers Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

Continued here:
"We have to tax the billionaires": California Democrat Ro Khanna on seizing the moment for change - The New Statesman

Welcome to FiveThirtyEights politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarah (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): President Biden has had a couple of rough months, but on Wednesday, he was thrown a lifeline with the news that Justice Stephen Breyer plans to retire from the Supreme Court at the end of its current term.

Getting to nominate a Supreme Court justice is a big deal for Democrats, too, as liberal justices havent always left the bench at an opportune time (the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg is just the most recent example). Itll be a history-making appointment, too, because Biden is expected to honor his campaign promise of appointing a Black woman to the court.

So lets discuss the effects we expect Democrats Supreme Court nomination to have:

Lets start with that first question. Democrats can get their Supreme Court nominee through right?

ameliatd (Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, senior writer): If the Democrats cant get this nominee through, they should just pack up and go home.

sarah:

ameliatd: Im serious! Theyve got the votes, theyve got time, theyve been holding together on other judicial nominees. If they cant make this happen, then thats a sign of much bigger dysfunction than what were seeing currently on legislation.

Who knows when theyll be able to get another Democratic nominee onto the court?

alex (Alex Samuels, politics reporter): Well, the good news for Democrats is that Republicans cant block a Supreme Court nomination in the judiciary committee or on the floor as long as all 50 Senate Democrats Im looking at you, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema! hold their ground and back Bidens nominee. Based on Nathaniels recent story, that seems likely, but you really never know.

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, senior elections analyst): Yeah, despite Manchins and Sinemas high-profile defections from the party on major votes lately, I found somewhat surprisingly that no Senate Democrat has ever voted against any of Bidens federal-court nominees so far.

The caucus has been remarkably cohesive and unified on the issue of judges:

How often each senator has voted for and against President Bidens district-court and appeals-court nominees, as of Jan. 26, 2022

Excludes votes a senator skipped.

Source: U.S. Senate

alex: Manchin also said last week that hed support a justice who is more liberal than he is which is a good sign that Democrats will be able to get this through. And its also not completely out of the question that a handful of Senate Republicans back Bidens nominee!

I was pretty shocked at House Majority Whip James Clyburns claim that the two Republican senators from South Carolina Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott would potentially back Democrats if Biden tapped J. Michelle Childs for the role.

ameliatd: You found that a couple Republicans might cross the aisle, right, Nathaniel? At least based on how judicial votes have been going so far?

nrakich: Right, Amelia. Sen. Susan Collins has voted for Bidens judicial nominees 86 percent of the time, Sen. Lisa Murkowski has voted for them 85 percent of the time and Graham who is kind of old-fashioned in that he still defers to the president on his nominees, the way senators used to do 30 years ago has voted for them 84 percent of the time.

sarah: But do we think that analysis of federal judicial nominees will be applicable to the Supreme Court? Asking as maybe the biggest thing working against Democrats is that the nomination process for a Supreme Court justice has become increasingly rancorous, meaning they cant really count on any GOP support, right?

ameliatd: Appeals court nominations are also getting more rancorous, though, Sarah. Judicial nominations in general are just getting more acrimonious but this is so high-stakes that it seems unlikely to me that Democrats would fall apart here.

nrakich: I think thats right, Sarah for instance, I doubt Murkowski, who is up for reelection this year, will want to anger the Republican base by casting such a high-profile vote in Bidens favor.

But I also think theres less incentive for Republicans to block this nominee than usual. Control of the court isnt at stake, since this would be going from a liberal judge to a liberal judge, and conservatives majority is pretty secure now at 6-3.

geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): Yeah, this might be the last time Democrats have control of the Senate when a Supreme Court vacancy occurs for some time, so this is a pretty pivotal appointment for them to not screw up. And as Nathaniels analysis found, theres probably a good chance they remain united.

Still, if a Democrat or two breaks from the party line, counting on Republican support could be dicey. If we look back at recent confirmation votes, theyve become increasingly close because fewer and fewer senators cross the aisle to back the other partys nominee.

ameliatd: If Democrats cant get this nomination through and they lose the Senate in November, Breyer doesnt have to leave. He conditioned his retirement on his successor being nominated and confirmed. But hes retiring now for a reason hes in his 80s and who knows when the Democrats will control the White House and the Senate again. Its possible that if Breyer cant retire now, a Republican president will end up replacing him.

Ill never say never politics now is too weird for me to bet the farm on anything. But this really is Democrats seat to lose, and they have to know that.

sarah: OK, weve talked about how important every vote is in the nomination process, but what are some of the other stakes of this process, especially considering Biden has said he plans to uphold his promise to appoint a Black woman to the Supreme Court?

alex: Theres probably a strategic reason behind the White House wasting no time confirming that Biden would follow through on his campaign promise to nominate a Black woman. I wouldnt be surprised if they view this as a motivator for Black voters who are souring on Bidens presidency.

geoffrey.skelley: Black women are the most reliable voting bloc for Democrats, and such an appointment would make history. So politically, on top of Bidens previous campaign promise, this makes a lot of sense.

There have been a lot of ridiculous takes on the right about the nature of this appointment being promised to a Black woman, but that ignores the fact that presidents have historically considered identity when making appointments. President Ronald Reagan promised to appoint a woman, for instance, and chose Sandra Day OConnor; George H.W. Bush appointed Clarence Thomas to succeed another Black man, Thurgood Marshall.

alex: To your point, Geoff, the racial breakdown of Supreme Court members over time is pretty striking: Of the 115 justices who have served, all but seven (Thomas, Marshall, Sonia Sotomayor, OConnor, Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett) have been white men.

ameliatd: A handful of Black women are being floated as possible replacements for Breyer, and three of them Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, whos currently an appeals court judge on the D.C. Circuit; Justice Leondra Kruger, whos a justice on the California Supreme Court; and Judge J. Michelle Childs, whos a district court judge in South Carolina appear to be the top contenders.

But if I had to pick, I would bet on Jackson being the nominee. She has all the right credentials two degrees from Harvard, extensive judicial experience, even a clerkship with Breyer himself! And Biden appeared to be teeing her up for this spot by nominating her to the D.C. Circuit last year its often a feeder to the Supreme Court. (Justices Thomas, John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh all served on the D.C. Circuit before the Supreme Court.)

sarah: Geoffrey raises an interesting point: How much is this appointment meant to play to Democrats base?

As Alex pointed out, Biden and Democrats have taken a hit recently with Black voters. Thinking ahead to the 2022 midterms the timing of when the nomination vote will actually happen is still unclear, but assuming it will be relatively close to the midterms how much does a partys base care about Supreme Court nominations?

I also think one thing thats particularly complicated about this nomination process is that this term has already had a number of high-profile, contentious cases. Will those cases weigh more in voters minds?

alex: Some polling taken over the last few years suggests that the Supreme Court has never been a top priority for either Republican or Democratic voters. In 2020, for instance, shortly after former President Donald Trump released a short list of potential Supreme Court nominees, Morning Consult/Politico found that only 48 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of Republicans said the Supreme Court was very important in deciding their vote that year. I realize 48 percent and 50 percent arent nothing, but at the time, it ranked below issues like the economy, health care, national security, taxes and COVID-19 for members of both parties.

ameliatd: Supreme Court nominations have traditionally been an issue thats mattered more to Republicans. But theres evidence that Democrats are tuning more into the importance of the court, too.

And if the court overturns Roe v. Wade or expands gun rights this term, that will definitely focus negative attention on the justices as both would be out of step with public opinion. Overturning Roe in particular would be highly unpopular. There arent many issues that could plausibly cause a backlash against the court, just because so much of what they do is technical and under-the-radar, but thats one of the big ones.

geoffrey.skelley: I think where the Supreme Court pick matters when looking ahead to the midterms is that its a chance for Biden to make history and receive some positive coverage in the process.

That could help shore up his base, which has been flagging, as Alex mentioned earlier. (Maybe it even helps Biden regain some support among independents, where hes really lost support.) Im not sure its the sort of thing that can dramatically change the trajectory of his approval rating, but it could tick up slightly afterward.

nrakich: I agree with that, Geoffrey. A successful confirmation would also be a concrete win for Biden that could change this narrative of incompetence and failure hes been stuck in.

I dont really think this nomination fight will affect the midterms much, though. If anything, it makes the Supreme Court less relevant for the midterms. As long as Breyer was still on the court, Democrats had an argument for saying, You have to keep us in control of the Senate so we can appoint a liberal justice to replace Breyer! Now, they cant make that argument.

ameliatd: My feeling is that the bigger question here is what the courts conservatives do. If the term ends up to be less headline-making than court watchers are expecting, Im not sure how much people will care. After all, this isnt a liberal replacing a conservative most people dont even know who Breyer is.

sarah: Yeah, thats a good point, Amelia. But if the court is as conservative as court watchers expect, the timing could be an important factor here, too. We did find, after all, that Kavanaughs nomination to the Supreme Court affected the 2018 midterms, especially in Senate races.

alex: We cant rule out the possibility, either, that this motivates Republicans more than Democrats.

The fact that the White House made it clear early on that Biden intended to stick to his word and nominate a Black woman already has some Republicans up in arms, and I think that, especially after the racial reckoning of 2020, there are a lot of white voters who are angry about their perceived loss of power and status. Replacing a white man with a Black woman even if they are similar ideologically could stir up angst among conservatives who already believed they were losing political clout to Black voters. As Geoff mentioned earlier, there have already been a number of racist takes from GOP pundits that Im going to refrain from linking to, but I can only imagine how bad things will get from here

If its not about race (which I doubt), Id expect the GOP to simply attack Bidens appointee as too liberal. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley already tweeted that Biden faces a choice of nominating either someone who loves America and believes in the Constitution or a woke activist.

ameliatd: Yeah, Alex, I think this is going to be a nasty confirmation hearing. There are already people attacking Biden for appointing a less qualified person before hes even named his nominee!

And even though we found that Biden is actually nominating more Ivy League and top law-school grads than previous presidents, this is a familiar trope for women of color in lots of professions, not just law. You have to be the best of the best to make it to the top and people still question your credentials.

alex: Exactly. And Republicans are also already reminding voters that the court should be a factor for voters this fall. Just look at Grahams tweet thread on this from a few days ago.

Id expect that Republicans double down on this argument, particularly in competitive states where Democratic senators are defending their seats.

ameliatd: I guess the flip side of what youre saying, though, Alex, is that a confirmation hearing where the first Black woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court is subjected to a bunch of racist questioning about her qualifications could make Democratic voters pretty angry, too.

geoffrey.skelley: Definitely a potential boost for the GOP, although I wonder how much more energized can Republicans get? Theyre already more likely to turn out in a midterm with a Democrat in the White House, and if the 2021 gubernatorial elections were any indication, turnout will likely be very high again for a midterm this November.

ameliatd: This is a bit of a nerdy point, but Ill be interested to see how the hearings go. Traditionally, nominees studiously avoid saying what they think about any high-profile issue or precedent that comes before the court. And that makes the hearings pretty snoozy for the most part. But in a moment when precedents like Roe v. Wade are actively threatened does that change?

Probably not, but itll be more complex for the nominee to navigate.

geoffrey.skelley: Fair question, Amelia. If the nominee were to make more assertive comments on a topic like Roe, I could imagine that getting a lot of play on the news. Im not sure whether thats good or bad for one party or the other, though maybe it reminds some Democratic voters of the stakes for the court, but it could also, to Alexs point, further energize social conservatives to show up in the midterms.

sarah: On that point, lets talk a little bit more about the overall importance of whomever Biden nominates to the court. As Amelia flagged, the court is currently in the throes of a 6-3 conservative revolution. That isnt going to change with whomever Biden nominates liberal justices will still be in the minority but this justice, whoever she might be, will still play an important role in shaping the court. Lets talk about that a little more and what the consequences of that are.

ameliatd: Breyer was very much an old-school Supreme Court justice. He staked out a place on the courts center-left and tried to compromise with the conservatives on some big issues, like religious liberty. He basically spent the last year trying to convince Americans that the court is nonpartisan. Of course, thats a line weve heard from other justices recently too. But it felt with Breyer that he was trying to operate on a court that no longer existed.

Someone like Jackson, on the other hand, is presumably well aware of the political moment. She was the judge in a case that came out of Democrats investigation into special counsel Robert Muellers report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. (Remember that thing that feels like it happened 75 years ago?) So youd imagine her potentially staking out a position more like Sotomayor, who has been calling out the conservative justices right and left this term.

Theres evidence, too, that diversity makes a difference in cases on issues like affirmative action at least on lower courts. And the court just so happens to have taken an affirmative action case for what will likely be next term. Do I really think that will change the outcome on this Supreme Court? Probably not. The conservative justices have been gunning for affirmative action for years. But having another nonwhite justice could affect how they handle the case.

nrakich: One thing that I always thought was interesting about the Supreme Court is that, historically, whether a justice was appointed by a Republican or Democratic president wasnt super predictive of where theyd end up ideologically. Im curious, Amelia: Do you think that era is over?

In other words, is there any chance for one of the conservative justices to get more liberal over their tenure, or vice versa?

ameliatd: That era is definitely over, Nathaniel. It ended along with the era of unanimous votes for Supreme Court nominees.

Some people say Roberts is getting more liberal. I am not in that camp. I think whats happening is that he cares about institutional credibility, and as the court gets more conservative, its getting increasingly out of step with public opinion. Thats where his breaks with the conservatives (which are few and far between) come from.

nrakich: It does kind of feel like Roberts is standing still and its the other conservative justices who are moving to the right.

ameliatd: The conservative legal movement has spent the past 40 years working to get justices on the court who wont get more liberal. It seems like theyve been extraordinarily successful.

sarah: Yeah, Amelia, its hard to see outcomes on the Supreme Court changing anytime soon. Itll be interesting, though, to see what this means for the three liberal justices and most likely three liberal female justices to be in the minority for years to come.

ameliatd: What it means for the liberals, Sarah, is that they have to figure out how to make being in the minority work for them. Breyers approach (and also Kagans) was to try to stanch the bleeding keep the court from moving to the right too quickly and compromise with conservatives to get not-terrible outcomes.

But that approach actually resulted in some pretty big concessions for the liberal justices, including last terms religious-liberty case. And I dont see a lot of evidence that the conservative justices with the exception of Roberts are interested in compromising with the liberal justices on anything at this point.

So I would suspect were going to see a lot more of dissents like the one we just got from Sotomayor, who said that the courts decision to let Texass highly restrictive abortion law stay in effect was a disaster.

nrakich: Its interesting to me that were seeing basically the same institutional dynamics play out on the Supreme Court that weve seen in Congress over the past decade: the rise of a conservative wing that is totally uninterested in compromise (the Freedom Caucus), and now a more assertive progressive wing, too.

ameliatd: Yeah, Nathaniel, I also wonder if it will lead to a growing perception among Americans that the court is political. I think thats an increasingly unavoidable conclusion. But if Americans start to think that way how does it change their perception of unelected justices who serve for life and rule on some of the countrys most important issues?

alex: Dont Americans already think that, Amelia?

ameliatd: Well, look at Congresss approval rating, though! The Supreme Court is still doing a lot better, relatively speaking.

But it is relevant that more Americans are seeing the court as too conservative. That being said, Gallup found that only 37 percent of Americans have that view.

nrakich: Interestingly, that Gallup poll didnt find a huge partisan split on approval of the Supreme Court; as of September 2021, 45 percent of Republicans approved of the court, while 36 percent of Democrats did. I feel like that is the next frontier for public opinion. Especially if the court overturns Roe v. Wade and delivers other conservative victories this term, I bet youll see its approval skyrocket among Republicans and plummet among Democrats.

ameliatd: The fact that most of the Supreme Courts cases even important ones are highly technical works in their favor here. Its easy for them to do radical things, like diminish the power of federal agencies, without anyone really understanding what theyre doing.

But I think some of that is already happening, Nathaniel. The question for me is whether the court does something so obviously political that public opinion really starts to mirror the polarized nature of the court.

Read this article:
What Will Bidens Supreme Court Nominee Mean For Democrats And The Midterms? - FiveThirtyEight