Happy New Year - Mailbag Part II
Hi Hackaroos!
We hope everyone had a Merry Christmas and happy holiday. We’re back with one more Mailbag edition for the year. Thanks again for all those who sent in questions. We hope you enjoy our answers!
We also want to make this more than just a holiday tradition so please continue to leave your questions in the comments section and we’ll share answers in the newsletter throughout the new year!
Let’s begin…
Credit: Antenna
Brian Roberts: BBB is done. Too bad, but too hard in this climate. Instead why don't Dems take each piece one at a time. Make Repubs say no to common sense social programs the people actually like.
GIBBS: I don’t think Build Back Better (BBB) as a concept is done even if the most current iteration can’t get through Congress at this moment. The Dem leadership will have a chance to put together something else, likely a little smaller and a bill that does fewer policies longer, as we have discussed here. And Brian, your strategy is one Murphy too has suggested – getting the GOP (and even some moderate Dems) on the record about many of the facets in the BBB plan. Schumer hinted as well at this idea in his letter to the Dems in the Senate after Manchin’s appearance on FOX. If Dems are going to have a chance at holding Congress, they’re going to have to set the message up with some votes that get Republicans on the record about popular policies. This is one prominent way to do so.
MURPHY: I think it is time for Biden to end the Lucy and Football stuff with Congress. He looks weak and it’s killing him politically. I’d tell Biden to cut the bill down in size a bunch, pick a few things that can pass, lump them together in a small bill that Manchin can support and pass it fast. Ignore Progressive howls from the House and move forward. If the Progs threaten to kill the Bill on final passage, call their bluff and have Nancy force a vote. Then break off the other stuff and let the GOP block it in the Senate; have a good old-fashioned election year fight over each. The big move strategy died in 2021. Time for the D’s to change up the plan, and fast.
Christopher Michael Bodewell: Mr. Murphy, you consistently state Lt. Gov. John Fetterman is not the best candidate for the PA Senate race. While I’m definitely more in the Rep. Conor Lamb camp, I’m curious why a winning statewide candidate is not the strongest candidate against a Congressman. I thought it was better to win statewide and that makes Fetterman a better candidate. What works against the Lt. Gov and better for the rep?
MURPHY: A few factors in the mix here. One, how weak will the GOP candidate be? Unclear yet, but Dr. Oz is looking a bit shaky coming out of the box. Second, you have to make a bet on how Fetterman might play as a general election candidate for the D’s. Theory one – the traditional view – is he is too lefty to play well in a PA general election, particularly if the POTUS and D’s are on the ropes. Theory two – Fetterman is a shrewd and talented communicator and his oddball vibe and look make him the perfect “uncola” to run against the establishment, as well as attract the white blue-collar voters the Democrats have gift for scaring away. We’ll have to watch the primary boil for a while to see which theory to bet your nickel on. Finally, Fetterman and Lamb are not the only candidates in the race, albeit the two frontrunners. Val Arkoosh, a doctor from the Philly suburbs who is chair of the (key swing) Montgomery County Commission looks on paper to be formidable in a general election… if she can break through in the D primary.
GIBBS: Christopher asks a great question here. Fetterman has raised a TON of money, has won statewide as Lt. Governor and has the potential to put together an interesting coalition of younger voters, Progressives and some blue collar votes given his background and policy positions. He’s clearly the favorite on the Dem side. Now, whether he’s the better statewide candidate in THIS race, I don’t think we know enough yet to make that case or not. He certainly could be. Congressman Conor Lamb also could be the better candidate, able to use his credentials as a moderate to better put together a winning coalition in 2022. In this race, the campaigns of each will matter a lot as will the dynamic of what votes the other candidates take both geographically and ideologically. We haven’t, as yet, seen a lot of polling in this race, likely because it’s early, but we know a state that went Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020 is going to be VERY competitive. The other huge wild card is who the GOP will nominate. Will they go for a moderate business type or are they going to nominate someone more in the Trump mold? Together, you have two very fascinating primary races. Watch the end of year campaign finance reports here to see what bets donors are making with their wallets.
Sharon Pugh: It is really frightening that Covid and inflation may cause us to lose our democracy. Democrats don't seem to be listening to their constituents, nor are they messaging ANYTHING that drowns out the media focus on Democrats in disarray. Who is responsible for sending positive messages?
GIBBS: The messaging for Dems right now is set by the White House. As you mention, the extended back and forth over BBB negotiations has not helped. In many ways, it has created a narrative that is focused on Washington and not on the rest of America. Additionally, the Administration has faced a lot of tests, from COVID resurgence to rising inflation and just over the horizon are challenges with Russia, China, Iran and others. Having been in the White House in the first two years of a tumultuous Presidential term in 2009 and 2010, I know it’s incredibly hard to maintain a consistent message that truly breaks through in this country. Media fragmentation make it tough. The continual popping up of this crisis or that make it tough, too. And what you had in the campaign, namely a billion dollars of ads communicating directly to voters and shaping the positive and highlighting the negative contrast with the other side are long gone. As I said in our last mailbag edition, I think Biden has got to be more present in the daily scrum of messaging (even though this isn’t his strong suit) and the message has to be broadened out to be more contrasting with where the other side is politically. You’ll start to see more of that this year as we get closer to the election, but I’m not sure this White House in this environment can afford to wait that long.
MURPHY: It is scary Sharon. I wish the whole county was laser focused on Jan 6 and ready to punish those who are culpable. Alas, elections are more often about the price of cheese so to speak, so fear of inflation currently is and could become a strong weapon against the Democrats. Plus the lefty message their House caucus insists on sending is a gift to GOP. Watching the fumbles I often think the Democratic Party is too important to be left to the Democrats.
Ross Meister: I am a moderate independent voter from Illinois who generally votes Democrat nationally and votes Republican locally because I can’t get on board with Trump and his hold of the party and because the Democrats refuse to do anything to make changes necessary to create a fair pension system to taxpayers, employees and retirees in Illinois with $137 billion in unfunded pensions. That number would make Gina Raimondo cringe! I‘ve seen some Pew Research data about the size of the progressive voters relative to the elected members of congress and considered that compared to the size of the moderate wings from either side of the aisle. Was there ever a time in your careers where you thought or saw bipartisanship in terms of getting things done together at its best? Where do you all think the elected congress will be headed in the future, will there be more members like the ones in the center left wing of the Democratic Party and in the Problem Solvers caucus or will we see more from the progressive wing and freedom caucus wings of the respective parties?
GIBBS: In terms of bipartisanship, I don’t know that there’s exactly a golden era of it, but I have certainly seen throughout my time that pragmatism and bipartisanship can break out even in the midst of a normally hyper partisan time. At the end of the Congressional session in 2010, right after the “shellacking,” Congress approved the new START Treaty for weapons reductions with Russia, abolished “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and split the difference on the economy by extending tax rates at their current level while providing for some additional stimulus in the midst of a bad time economically. Not everyone was happy with some of the compromises (particularly in keeping the Bush tax cut rates), but economically it was the right thing to do at the time. The biggest challenge to extended bipartisanship is partly what you mention – Congress is comprised of more and more Members at each end of the ideological spectrum, rather than of swing seats, where getting something done carries the day politically. Redistricting is likely to only accelerate this trend in 2022. Members on each side of the aisle are far more likely to lose in a primary against a more liberal Dem or a more conservative Republican than be taken out by the opposing party in a general election given the partisan make up of Congressional districts. And for many, their actions demonstrate that reality.
Mitch Segal: I think a few weeks ago you commented that overturning Roe may not be a big energizer for dems in the midterms. Do you think that overturning Roe will have dampening effect on Republican turnout while they bask in their victory?
MURPHY: I think turnout, while important in midterms, is a bit overrated by the punditocracy. Roe will hurt the R’s in the suburbs. It’ll help raise millions more for the Democrats. Both useful. But in base GOP districts I doubt it’ll change much. In fact, the economy and views voters hold of Biden will be the biggest sole drivers of the election. My guess is turnout will be midterm normal, which is a good deal lower than a typical Presidential election. The big worry for Democrats is midterm turnout for younger voters and minority voters is always lower than in Presidential elections. I don’t think overturning Roe will be enough to radically change that, though as you suggest it may help somewhat.
GIBBS: Agree that it won’t matter much in base GOP districts, but I would look at the impact, obviously, in the suburbs. This issue may be a bigger turnout winner in statewide Senate races than narrower House races, based simply on the geography of the race. What we don’t yet know is how the build up to a ruling might happen in the media? How wall-to-wall might the coverage be in the days leading up to the ruling and the immediate days after? My hunch in the end is it will help a little at the margins with targeted turnout, but doubt it will fix in a big way the challenges Murphy mentions in the normal drop off of voter participation in off-year elections.
Eric Krug: Let's just say that hypothetically Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were off the table in 2024 - who do you think would be the right candidate for the Democrats in that election? Is there anybody that stands out at all who could unite the party and carry the torch?
I already know Murph's answer (we all do) so this is mainly for Gibbs.
MURPHY: Too Easy. The primary would be tough, but I’d run Raimondo and Booker. Gibbs?
GIBBS: Raimondo you say? Never saw that coming! Look Secretary Pete could be strong. I think Mitch Landrieu could be a strong candidate as well. So, too, would Stacey Abrams, depending somewhat on the outcome of her race in Georgia.
Seanne Heffernan: How much of the Biden team’s clumsiness in handling our relations with other countries is due to the gutting of our State Department staffs during the Trump years?
MURPHY: That has been a big problem Seanne, but these stumbles have been driven more by top staff than mid-level staff. I do give Biden credit for owning the French screw up and moving quickly and effectively to fix the relationship. Still, it was a huge blunder that should have been avoided.
GIBBS: The gutting of the State Department is a tragic thing and I believe it has likely contributed some to the problem. Some issues, like Murphy mentioned with France, weren’t a result of that gutting though. All in all, I think they’ve regained their footing with a lot of tough issues, as always, ready to greet them in the New Year.
It’s been fun getting to know many of you throughout the year. Thanks for subscribing and asking your friends to do the same.
We’ll be back in 2022 with many more newsletters. First up, our big predictions for the big midterm year ahead! See you then!
Murphy and Gibbs