It’s been clear for some time that Joe Manchin is a one-man wrecking crew. With help from Kyrsten Sinema, for the past seven months, he has essentially stopped all major legislation that the Biden Administration and Congressional leadership have wanted passed. He has played right into the hands that Donald Trump and his legion of sycophants have wanted – making Biden appear weak and ineffectual.

Progressive Democrats can be praised for their strategy that has kept alive the possibility of a significant “soft infrastructure” bill with a price tag of $2.5 trillion or more. But without demonstrative help from Manchin and Sinema, each day is another one in which nothing happens, and Biden appears incapable of enacting his agenda.

With the exception of the Trumpsters, Biden is personally liked by most American voters. But his affability is not enough to keep his popularity above water – above 50%. That is the minimum level for it to be for Democrats to have a chance to hold on the Senate and the House in the 2022 mid-term elections.

When Biden took office in January of this year, his ratings were in the mid to high 50s. Now, he has slipped to 43%, far too low to help keep his party in power following next year’s elections, particularly since 2022 will reflect a new landscape with further Republican gerrymandering and undermining of our electoral systems at the state levels.

As reported in Gabe Fleisher’s Wake Up to Politics, one Quinnipiac poll released last week showed that Biden’s approval rating was recorded as low as 38%; among independents, his approval rating sank to 32% while his disapproval rating swelled to 60%.

It would seem logical to cast blame on Biden himself, but he has skillfully and patiently worked with all segments of his party as well as some Republicans to advance the legislation that is fundamental to his programs to improve the economic, social, and human rights qualities of life in America.

The central problem is with the way in which the Democratic Party is stuck in stagnation. While there are now hundreds of outstanding Democratic legislators in Congress, they each have particular elements of a people-centric agenda that they want to advance. The problem is that at this point, virtually nothing is advancing.

In the current political quagmire, we have heard the often-used term, “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” If that were ever true, now would be the time. President Biden, the fifty Democrats in the U.S. Senate and the 220 Democrats in the House are spinning their wheels, each trying to get a little more of what is best for them and their constituents.

Now is the time for President Biden and Congressional leaders to pull together and determine what their “lowest common legislation denominator” is. What legislation would be in a package that they could agree upon NOW.

It might not be much, but at least it would get things moving. Voters would see new construction projects with those wonderful signs adorning them, “Your tax dollars at work.”

Get the low-hanging-fruit, and then work to pull together winning alliances for the remaining parts of the Democratic legislative agenda. If something is not going to pass, put it near the top of campaign planks for 2022 and 2024. But keep going back to passing what you can. There is enough that Manchin and Sinema want to keep the bucket of legislative accomplishments in motion. Democrats should keep in mind that virtually all of their proposed policies are overwhelmingly favored by the American people. As Republicans get more and more absurd in their priorities, Democrats stand to gain further strength with the American people.

Right now, the most effective thing that Democrats can do to optimize passage of the legislative priorities is to make Joe Biden look good. He is doing his part. Others need to rally around him. Let’s put some of these disagreements into the ‘W’ column for the Democratic Party and then further build off that momentum.

The post Democrats need to rally behind Biden appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Once again, I have allowed myself to be interviewed for a political poll—on Right to Work: a very pushy push poll, to say the least. The polling company is American Viewpoint.  The client list posted on the company’s website includes many right-wing Congressional Republicans, corporate lobbies, and other conservative organizations. So, I wasn’t surprised to learn that the topic of this evening’s lengthy interrogation was the Right To Work [for less, of course] ballot initiative that Missourians will vote on in the state primary on  August 7.

I felt bad for the young woman tasked with getting people to stay on the line for the nearly 30 minutes it takes to get through all of the questions.  I hope she isn’t getting paid per completed survey, because I have a hard time imagining  that a lot of people  would be willing to get all the way through this tedious, repetitive exercise.

Here’s how this poll went: [As usual, I scrambled for pen and paper, and took rushed notes.]

First, the preliminaries: I’m not active in a current campaign. I’m absolutely certain that I’m going to vote in the August primary–not just somewhat certain. I’ll vote in the Democratic primary–not probably, but definitely. On an enthusiasm scale of 1 to 10 for voting in the August 7 primary, I’m a 9 [very enthusiastic]. I strongly–not somewhat–believe that Missouri is going in the wrong direction.

On the political awareness questions: I’m aware of Donald Trump and have a very [not somewhat] unfavorable view of him; I’m aware of Hillary Clinton and have a favorable [not somewhat] view of her; I’m aware of right-wing bugaboo Nancy Pelosi [a dead giveaway, right there, that this is a poll from the right]; and I’m aware of Eric Greitens and have a very unfavorable view of him. [The pollster was a day late on this one–Greitens announced his resignation as MO Governor two day ago.]

I already know, from these questions, that my opinions are not where this poll’s sponsors want them to be. I’m, essentially, a lost cause. And yet, she persisted.

Now, we get to the meat of the poll: Am I aware of the Right to Work referendum that is on the August 7 ballot? Oh, yeah. The pollster describes the referendum as [paraphrasing from my notes] “Senate Bill 19, passed by the Missouri legislature, that prohibits forced membership in labor unions, which does not apply to current union members, and which the legislature has determined has no associated costs or savings.” How do I intend to vote on this referendum?  I’m voting No.

“What is your main hesitation?” asks the pollster.  “It’s bad for workers,” I reply.

Now comes a follow-up question:  “Do you favor or oppose a law that prohibits employees from being forced to join a union?” Now we are into push-poll territory for sure. I have to think about that question, because it is a double negative. And, by the way, I have just told her–in response to the previous question–that I’m voting no. But I understand the logic behind this question: They’re trying to get beyond the blanket slogan “No on A” by stating the content of the proposal, rather than just its name. [An approach akin to asking people who hate “Obamacare” whether they’d support a law that made sure that everyone could get health insurance–to which many Obamacare opponents said, “Yes.”]

I get it. But I’m still voting no.

Now, the pollster presents a list of arguments against the referendum, and asks me how convincing each statement is: “Right to Work offers no protections for workers.” [Very convincing–not somewhat]. “Right to Work drives down wages–in Right to Work states, workers earn an average of $1,000 less per year than in non-Right-to-Work states.” [Somewhat convincing.] “Right to Work will make income inequality worse.” [I tend to believe that.] By the way, every time a rate a statement, the pollster asks me to reconfirm my answer or rating. I’m getting impatient quickly.

And now, for the push question: “Knowing what you now know, [from her statements], how would you vote on Right to Work if the election were held today?”  “No.” “Is that a definite ‘no’?”  “Yes.”

Next, the [much longer] list of arguments in favor of the referendum. I couldn’t quite keep up with this portion, but I certainly learned a lot about the pro-Right-to-Work talking points. Here’s what I was able to get into my notes:

• “Special interest union bosses who oppose Right to Work are supporting criminal immigrants taking away jobs from American workers.”
• “Special interest union bosses are dining on fine wine in expensive restaurants while middle-class workers struggle.”
• “Right to Work will create more jobs and opportunities for workers.”
• “Right to Work will give Missouri a competitive advantage over neighboring Illinois, which does not have Right to Work laws.”
• “Union dues are used as political slush funds to promote liberal candidates, like Nancy Pelosi.”
• “Right to Work will prevent jobs from moving to other states where Right to Work has already been enacted.”

Of course, I rate all of those talking points as “not at all convincing.”  So,” asks the pollster, once again re-confirming the pushiness of this push poll, “Knowing what you now know, how would you vote on Right to Work if the election were held today?”

Geez, I’ve already told you multiple times, in multiple ways, that I’m voting no. Of course, that really doesn’t matter. The poll did its job of pushing out the talking points. And I managed to waste another pollster’s time giving answers the sponsors don’t want to hear. [Of course, she managed to soak up a half-hour of my life that I’ll never get back.]

But, I’ll continue to answer these calls, because they give me an inside look into how polls actually work, and that insight helps me evaluate the meaningfulness of poll results when they are published. [Often, not very meaningful. It often depends on how the questions are phrased, as well as how the polling company jiggers its sample.]

And, I figure, if I take the call, you might not have to.

The post A very pushy push poll on Right to Work [for less] appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Missouri’s incumbent U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill faces a challenge in November from Republican Josh Hawley, and things are heating up, as I learned today in a phone call from a polling company. A nice young man [clearly needing a megadose of Dayquil], who identified himself as representing a polling outfit known as SSI Research, asked the questions. Curious, as always, I stayed on the phone, even though I had to say “Hello” three times before he picked up [a dead giveaway that it’s a boiler room call]. Still, I persisted. And I’m glad I did, because this “poll” was clearly about message-testing—and the messages they’re contemplating are nasty.

Here’s my walk-through of the survey, as accurately as I can recount it, based on the fast and furious notes I was trying to take. Don’t take the quotes literally, they’re transcribed as best as I could get them in the moment. [I had him repeat several of the questions so I could get them down.] The questions are in bold. My responses are in brackets, in case you care.

It started with the typical, “How likely are you to vote?” [Very likely]

“Which of these individuals are you aware of? And do you view them favorably or unfavorably?”

Donald Trump [Unfavorably. Very unfavorably]

Josh Hawley [Unfavorably. Don’t know quite enough to be “very unfavorable,” but somewhat unfave.]

Claire McCaskill [Very favorably. Well, I’m a bit less enthusiastic than that, but I’m not telling that to a Republican pollster.]

“In the U.S. Senate race, are you set on voting for Claire McCaskill, or is there still room for you to change your mind?”  [Definitely voting for Claire. Not changing my mind.]

Here’s where it got good. This is obviously the message-testing portion of the program. I’m sending this post to Claire McCaskill’s campaign, so in case they haven’t seen it yet, they can fact check it and be ready to counter the bullshit.

“Now I’m going to read you a list of statements about Claire McCaskill. Please rate them on a 100-point scale, with 100 meaning that this statement makes you very angry, upset or concerned. You can use any number from 0 to 100.”

“Claire McCaskill voted for an energy bill that would kill 76,000 jobs in Missouri.”  [I ranked that 0. Hope I did that right. I’m trying to send the message that I support what Claire does. I would have to give that statement itself a 100, because it makes me angry when polls use push questions, exaggerate, and distort the facts.]

“Claire McCaskill’s husband’s company invested in low-income housing that has received 100 million dollars in government funding. Receiving these taxpayer-funded handouts didn’t prevent the company from displacing thousands of disabled veterans.”  [I ranked that one a 0, too. Again, it’s a 100 for negative messaging. Fact-check, please.]

“Claire McCaskill voted against tax relief for middle-class Missourians, while personally taking advantage of complicated tax schemes to avoid paying her fair share of taxes.”  [0, for the same reasons as above.]

“Claire MCaskill has failed as a champion of veterans. She missed 50 percent of votes in the Senate Armed Services Committee.” [0]

“Claire McCaskill is out of touch with her Missouri constituents. She billed the government for use of private jets, and she said that ‘normal people’ can afford private jets.’ [0.]

Was my rating strategy correct? Was the rating system confusing? Did I overthink it and outgame myself? Maybe someone can help me figure that out. Whatever the case, Claire needs to prepare for some negative messaging—assuming, of course, that this was a Hawley-sponsored poll.

In the final portion of the survey, my sniffly pollster reads me a series of statements, to which I am asked to respond on a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 meaning I completely agree, and 1 meaning I do not at all agree. Here it is:

“We should prevent sanctuary cities from protecting illegal immigrants and defying immigration authorities.”  [1. I actually understand this rating scale.]

“Congress should include funding for more immigration enforcement and building a wall along the Mexico border.”  [1. Nope.]

“We should find a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers—immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents.”  [Trick question, to see if I’m paying attention? I’m paying attention: 9.]

“The United States should decrease immigration and prevent refugees from entering the country.” [Give me your tired, your poor… 1]

Mr. Sniffles told me that, had I answered that I was probably going to vote for Josh Hawley, I would have gotten a list of statements about him instead. In a way, I wish I had gone for Hawley, just to see what the questions would be. Silly me. I was honest.

The post McCaskill vs. Hawley: What the pollster asked appeared first on Occasional Planet.