Mediaboss Marketing

Not only does Biden need a Senate majority, the size of the majority will also be crucial.

If he only has a cushion of one or two votes, Gary Burtless, an economist at Brookings, argues,

it would greatly reduce the chances Democrats could enact sweeping political and regulatory reforms, including major climate change legislation and rationalization of the Affordable Care Act.

But, Burtless continued,

Even a bare majority would allow Democrats to enact sensible fiscal policies, provide adequate relief to the unemployed, confirm centrist and liberal federal judges, and give the Democratic President greater leeway to reverse Trump-era regulations/deregulations.

Jim Kessler, executive vice president of Third Way, a centrist Democratic organization, put it this way:

A Democratic majority in the Senate is crucial, because controlling the floor and setting the legislative calendar is a must. A larger majority is better for Biden, but the difference between 49 and 50 is night and day. The difference between 50 and 53 are shades of gray.

The fact that Biden, a Democratic moderate, is campaigning on what may well be the most liberal platform since Franklin Roosevelts New Deal may help him fend off challenges from his left.

The Biden agenda is very ambitious, Kessler noted in his email:

The center and mainstream left are not far apart on climate and infrastructure and I expect a major package will get done. Covid relief and an economic recovery package will get done. Medicare for All is off the table, so theres a good shot at some Obamacare expansions and of capping out-of-pocket health care costs. There will be tax reform.

La Raja, in turn, pointed out that

unlike Tea Party Republicans who wanted nothing to happen, people on the Democratic Left actually want some policies and will be willing to compromise even if these fall short of the ideal. There is room for leadership to negotiate and maneuver.

Despite this, La Raja warned,

the prospect of intraparty divisions is real, with a restive left-wing of the party and understandable calls for aggressive, even radical change.

What are the most likely sources of intraparty contention, I asked. La Raja replied:

Policies related to race will remain fraught, particularly if internal debates appear to focus on issues that do not poll well with the broader electorate, e.g., defunding the police.

Another source of internal party conflict, La Raja continued, would be an outcry from Democratic campaign contributors faced with the prospect of higher taxes to cover the costs of administration initiatives:

Then there is the Democratic donor class. The next few years will require significant sacrifices from the upper-fifth and especially the upper one percent to agree to policies that require massive investments, that address looming debt problems and create shared prosperity. These battles will be waged with the people who donate the vast majority of money to political campaigns and assess the viability of candidates. There will be major arguments over how to regulate Wall Street, Big Tech, and other industries, which are sources of great wealth for Democratic donors.

Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale, warned in an email that Biden will have to avoid stepping on any land mines:

The big issue here is staying away from raw nerves that could activate affluent localist resistance, which in turn could split the broad metro coalition that Democrats enjoy. Raising taxes on the superrich wont do that.

Hacker cautioned, however, against placing new burdens on the top 20 percent, among whom Democratic support is growing.

On race specifically, Hacker continued, Biden should pursue

what Theda Skocpol once called targeting within universalism broad policies that, by design and in effect, are most beneficial to disadvantaged minority Americans.

How about immigration?

Honestly, comprehensive immigration reform is likely quicksand. Biden should focus first on rolling back Trump policies, protecting Dreamers and setting up the next debate on the most favorable terms.

Can Biden, backed by a Democratic Senate, use the power of governing to strengthen and expand the Democratic coalition, to build an alliance of voters that improves the partys prospects in the future?

Frances Lee, a political scientist at Princeton, thinks not:

Presidents presiding over unified government typically face huge backlash at their midterm elections. This has been true regardless of how well they hold together on their partys priorities. Democrats lost their congressional majority in 1994 after they had failed spectacularly to deliver on health care reform with unified government under President Clinton. Democrats then lost their congressional majority again in 2010 after they succeeded in passing health care reform with unified government under President Obama. No matter whether they succeeded or failed on their major agenda priority, the midterm election result was the same.

The reality:

Neither party has been able to command enduring trust from American voters since 1980. In that sense, both parties are fundamentally minority parties. When given unified government, neither party has been able govern in such a way as to substantially expand its support and avoid the midterm backlash.

Go here to read the rest:
What if Beating Trump Is the Easy Part? - The New York Times