washingtonmonthly--2020-05-20--Why Biden Should Pick Michelle Obama as VP

Last month , Joe Biden sparked renewed interest in putting two familiar names on a Democratic presidential ticket when he said off-hand that he would pick Michelle Obama “ in a heartbeat ” if she would agree to be his running mate .
He should take the prospect more seriously .
If Biden really wants to lead the most progressive administration in U.S. history , he is going to need a partner who can galvanize support among the Democratic base .
As we saw in the 2016 election , a mere endorsement from both Obamas does not generate the turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ticket .
In addition to greatly boosting his chances of winning in November , Michelle Obama would help sustain progressive enthusiasm and engagement should he win , which in turn will enable the Democrats to accomplish major legislative victories once in office .
Sure , Michelle Obama has stated unequivocally that there is “ zero chance ” she would run for president .
Given the brutal reality of life in the political spotlight , it is entirely understandable that she would not want to subject her family to a second round @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s one thing for her to choose not to run .
It ’ s another if her party ’ s presidential nominee implores her to help him defeat Donald Trump , given how high the stakes are .
That ’ s why Joe Biden should call upon Michelle Obama to serve the nation in a way that only she can .
As vice president , Michelle Obama would build upon her vast experience working on behalf of the American people—before , during , and after her time as first lady .
That experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crucial moment when the country is desperate for intelligent , empathetic , and eloquent leadership .
In her long and varied career before entering public service , she was a big-firm lawyer , an entrepreneurial nonprofit leader , and a public health executive at a nonprofit hospital .
More than that , though , Michelle Obama would provide the Democratic ticket with a critical missing link : a powerful and compelling voice as one of America ’ s leading storytellers .
She actually won this year ’ s Grammy Award for Best Spoken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her autobiography .
And Higher Ground , the film production company she runs with her husband , shared in the Oscar for Best Documentary for American Factory .
Recently , in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic , parents and their children are tuning into “ Mondays with Michelle Obama , ” a collaboration with PBS Kids on Facebook and YouTube , to hear the former First Lady read classics such as “ The Gruffalo ” and “ The Very Hungry Caterpillar.
” In short , she has that unique gift of being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability to communicate and resonate with the American people is paramount to winning the White House in our current era .
History makes that clear .
In 1980 , the year CNN was launched as the first full-time cable news channel , Ronald Reagan , a vintage voice from Hollywood , prevailed over technocrat Jimmy Carter .
In 1984 , Reagan crushed the earnest civil servant , Walter Mondale .
Folksy George W. Bush managed to aw-shucks his way past two lifelong public servants in Al Gore and John Kerry , neither of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right way of reaching the American people .
Among Democrats , only Bill Clinton and Barack Obama connected with the electorate through their powerful stories of hope .
Clinton came from “ a town called Hope ” and Obama laid out his remarkable political vision in his pre-election book The Audacity of Hope , which was both the title of his best-seller and the 2004 Democratic National Convention speech that launched his national political career .
Anyone who has read Michelle Obama ’ s Becoming—or heard the audiobook in her own warm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hard work , perseverance , and personal triumph over adversity and sorrow , is a quintessentially American tale .
Whereas most book tours are conducted in libraries and bookstores , Michelle Obama filled sports arenas last year , proving that the country can not get enough of her .
For those who missed her epic book tour , a new documentary on it , eponymously titled Becoming , premiered on Netflix this month .
The other prospective vice-presidential candidates all have appealing attributes , but none come close to Michelle Obama ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs .
His media appeal is anemic , with just over 50,000 subscribers to his YouTube channel .
By contrast , Michelle Obama has 38 million followers on Instagram .
Michelle Obama is far more popular than other prospective vice-presidential candidates and much more popular than Biden himself .
According to favorability ratings released by YouGov , Michelle Obama is viewed favorably by 57 percent of Americans , with only 30 percent holding a negative view of her .
By contrast , Elizabeth Warren has a much narrower 39 to 34 percent favorability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 33 to 33 percent on Kamala Harris .
Over the next several months , the presidential campaign will be waged in an unprecedented fashion , relying largely on digital media to connect with voters while traditional political practices , such as big rallies and door knocking , are curtailed .
In the 2016 election , Donald Trump realized that commercial television executives would carry his vaudevillian political rallies , filled with rage and bombast , knowing they would bring great ratings .
Because he was garish and outlandish , an expert in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump was able to dominate the media and dictate the terms of debate .
During the pandemic , he has once again shown that he can command the network cameras to hang on his every word , not because they are newsworthy or true , but because they are ratings gold .
If Democrats want to compete on the national stage with Trump , especially in an unprecedented election in which reaching voters digitally will be even more important , they need to field a ticket that will deliver a blockbuster audience .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ American politics who can command that attention .
She would be able to greatly amplify the Democratic message and would drive voter participation through the roof .
Even beyond her unrivaled ability to command the spotlight , Michelle Obama ’ s substantive experience in and out of public office makes her uniquely qualified to help lead the nation at this dark moment .
As first lady , she led two signature initiatives that have direct relevance to the challenges ahead : Let ’ s Move , a nationwide public health effort to reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nonprofit to assist military families through innovative interventions , such as helping military spouses obtain professional credentials when moving to new postings .
As we work to rebuild a healthy nation in the aftermath of COVID-19 , America will need a voice in leadership that can offer clear guidance on healthy lifestyle practices .
Michelle Obama ’ s great success with the Let ’ s Move campaign makes her well equipped to meet that challenge .
And millions of medical workers will need an advocacy effort like Joining Forces , which will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-being in the wake of the crisis .
And before she resigned to devote herself fully to her husband ’ s presidential campaign , Michelle Obama was vice president for community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospital , giving her a special perspective on the needs of patients , hospitals , and the health care system that few other politicians can claim .
Finally , in her current role as a private citizen , one of Michelle Obama ’ s major initiatives has been When We All Vote , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter suppression nationwide .
These efforts will need to be central to the Democratic platform for the party to succeed in November and beyond .
There ’ s an old adage : In a democracy , people get the leaders they deserve .
While we may not deserve Michelle Obama , we do need her .
And so does Joe Biden .

Last month, Joe Biden sparked renewed interest in putting two familiar names on a Democratic presidential ticket when he said off-hand that he would pick Michelle Obama “in a heartbeat” if she would agree to be his running mate. He should take the prospect more seriously.
If Biden really wants to lead the most progressive administration in U.S. history, he is going to need a partner who can galvanize support among the Democratic base. As we saw in the 2016 election, a mere endorsement from both Obamas does not generate the turnout that comes with actually having an Obama on the ticket.
In addition to greatly boosting his chances of winning in November, Michelle Obama would help sustain progressive enthusiasm and engagement should he win, which in turn will enable the Democrats to accomplish major legislative victories once in office.
Sure, Michelle Obama has stated unequivocally that there is “zero chance” she would run for president. Given the brutal reality of life in the political spotlight, it is entirely understandable that she would not want to subject her family to a second round in the ring. But it’s one thing for her to choose not to run. It’s another if her party’s presidential nominee implores her to help him defeat Donald Trump, given how high the stakes are.
That’s why Joe Biden should call upon Michelle Obama to serve the nation in a way that only she can.
As vice president, Michelle Obama would build upon her vast experience working on behalf of the American people—before, during, and after her time as first lady. That experience would prepare her to serve at a crucial moment when the country is desperate for intelligent, empathetic, and eloquent leadership. In her long and varied career before entering public service, she was a big-firm lawyer, an entrepreneurial nonprofit leader, and a public health executive at a nonprofit hospital.
More than that, though, Michelle Obama would provide the Democratic ticket with a critical missing link: a powerful and compelling voice as one of America’s leading storytellers. She actually won this year’s Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Recording for the audiobook version of her autobiography. And Higher Ground, the film production company she runs with her husband, shared in the Oscar for Best Documentary for American Factory.
Recently, in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, parents and their children are tuning into “Mondays with Michelle Obama,” a collaboration with PBS Kids on Facebook and YouTube, to hear the former First Lady read classics such as “The Gruffalo” and “The Very Hungry Caterpillar.” In short, she has that unique gift of being able to connect with audiences.
The ability to communicate and resonate with the American people is paramount to winning the White House in our current era. History makes that clear. In 1980, the year CNN was launched as the first full-time cable news channel, Ronald Reagan, a vintage voice from Hollywood, prevailed over technocrat Jimmy Carter. In 1984, Reagan crushed the earnest civil servant, Walter Mondale. Folksy George W. Bush managed to aw-shucks his way past two lifelong public servants in Al Gore and John Kerry, neither of whom could find the right words or the right way of reaching the American people.
Among Democrats, only Bill Clinton and Barack Obama connected with the electorate through their powerful stories of hope. Clinton came from “a town called Hope” and Obama laid out his remarkable political vision in his pre-election book The Audacity of Hope, which was both the title of his best-seller and the 2004 Democratic National Convention speech that launched his national political career.
Anyone who has read Michelle Obama’s Becoming—or heard the audiobook in her own warm, clear voice—knows that her personal story of hard work, perseverance, and personal triumph over adversity and sorrow, is a quintessentially American tale. Whereas most book tours are conducted in libraries and bookstores, Michelle Obama filled sports arenas last year, proving that the country cannot get enough of her. For those who missed her epic book tour, a new documentary on it, eponymously titled Becoming, premiered on Netflix this month.
The other prospective vice-presidential candidates all have appealing attributes, but none come close to Michelle Obama’s raw star power—something Joe Biden desperately needs. His media appeal is anemic, with just over 50,000 subscribers to his YouTube channel. By contrast, Michelle Obama has 38 million followers on Instagram.
Michelle Obama is far more popular than other prospective vice-presidential candidates and much more popular than Biden himself. According to favorability ratings released by YouGov, Michelle Obama is viewed favorably by 57 percent of Americans, with only 30 percent holding a negative view of her. By contrast, Elizabeth Warren has a much narrower 39 to 34 percent favorability rating, whereas opinion is split evenly 33 to 33 percent on Kamala Harris.
Over the next several months, the presidential campaign will be waged in an unprecedented fashion, relying largely on digital media to connect with voters while traditional political practices, such as big rallies and door knocking, are curtailed.
In the 2016 election, Donald Trump realized that commercial television executives would carry his vaudevillian political rallies, filled with rage and bombast, knowing they would bring great ratings. Because he was garish and outlandish, an expert in the language and cadence of reality TV, Trump was able to dominate the media and dictate the terms of debate. During the pandemic, he has once again shown that he can command the network cameras to hang on his every word, not because they are newsworthy or true, but because they are ratings gold.
If Democrats want to compete on the national stage with Trump, especially in an unprecedented election in which reaching voters digitally will be even more important, they need to field a ticket that will deliver a blockbuster audience. Michelle Obama is the only figure in American politics who can command that attention. She would be able to greatly amplify the Democratic message and would drive voter participation through the roof.
Even beyond her unrivaled ability to command the spotlight, Michelle Obama’s substantive experience in and out of public office makes her uniquely qualified to help lead the nation at this dark moment.
As first lady, she led two signature initiatives that have direct relevance to the challenges ahead: Let’s Move, a nationwide public health effort to reduce childhood obesity, and Joining Forces, a nonprofit to assist military families through innovative interventions, such as helping military spouses obtain professional credentials when moving to new postings.
As we work to rebuild a healthy nation in the aftermath of COVID-19, America will need a voice in leadership that can offer clear guidance on healthy lifestyle practices. Michelle Obama’s great success with the Let’s Move campaign makes her well equipped to meet that challenge. And millions of medical workers will need an advocacy effort like Joining Forces, which will help them address their own health and well-being in the wake of the crisis.
And before she resigned to devote herself fully to her husband’s presidential campaign, Michelle Obama was vice president for community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospital, giving her a special perspective on the needs of patients, hospitals, and the health care system that few other politicians can claim.
Finally, in her current role as a private citizen, one of Michelle Obama’s major initiatives has been When We All Vote, a campaign to promote voter registration and fight voter suppression nationwide. These efforts will need to be central to the Democratic platform for the party to succeed in November and beyond.
There’s an old adage: In a democracy, people get the leaders they deserve. While we may not deserve Michelle Obama, we do need her. And so does Joe Biden.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-20--Trump Doesn’t Want to Be President. He Just Wants to Win.

What usually happens during a presidential election is that the candidates articulate their vision for the country and back that up with a series of proposals outlining what they would do if elected .
On the Democratic side , that is exactly what Joe Biden has done .
You can go to his website and see the list of issues he wants to address and how he proposes to do so .
Donald Trump has no such list .
His campaign website is nothing more than a place to buy merchandise and contribute money .
Other than slogans like “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ items for sale , it says nothing about what the president wants to accomplish during a second term .
To demonstrate what Trump is focused on these days , Gabriel Sherman reports that the president isn ’ t happy with his campaign team .
During a week when America ’ s COVID-19 death toll approached 90,000 , Trump allies floated smears that Biden was a tool of China , an invalid eating from a spoon , and even a pedophile , none of which caused damage .
Sources close to Trump said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of focused firepower coming out of the campaign .
“ There is deep frustration that there is no overarching message , ” an unofficial campaign adviser told me… According to sources , Trump believes the answer to the message weakness is to declare all-out war on Biden ’ s former boss : Barack Obama .
Apparently Trump is so determined to “ declare all-out war ” on Obama that he is thinking about breaking up with loyalist Senator Lindsey Graham .
Trump has been leaning on powerful Republicans to join his war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Last Thursday , Trump tweeted at Senate Judiciary chair Lindsey Graham , saying that Graham needed to call Obama to testify at hearings on Michael Flynn ’ s unmasking and the origin of the Russia probe .
Graham rejected the request .
“ Trump thinks Lindsey isn ’ t doing anything on Flynn , ” a former White House official said .
According to the former official , Trump recently asked prominent allies to tweet negative things about Graham , and he has been complaining that Graham is a hanger-on .
“ Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] McCain died , Lindsey follows me around and shows up to play golf and I don ’ t even invite him , ’ ” according to the source briefed on the conversation .
It is becoming clear that Trump and his campaign can ’ t agree on who to attack—the Democratic nominee or the president ’ s predecessor .
But beyond that , what all of this signifies is that the president doesn ’ t have a platform of issues that he wants to run on .
His plan for re-election is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacking his enemies .
The deeper issue at play here is that Donald Trump doesn ’ t really want to be president .
For quite a while now we ’ ve known that he spends very little of his time addressing the issues we face as Americans .
Instead , he devotes most of his day to watching Fox News and rage-tweeting .
When it comes to the election in November , Tony Schwartz captured the one thing that drives everything Trump does .
To survive , I concluded from our conversations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the world .
It was a binary , zero-sum choice for him : You either dominated or you submitted .
You either created and exploited fear , or you succumbed to it… Trump grew up fighting for his life and taking no prisoners .
In countless conversations , he made clear to me that he treated every encounter as a contest he had to win , because the only other option from his perspective was to lose , and that was the equivalent of obliteration .
The president is petrified of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s why Trump has no plan for what he would do if re-elected .
He doesn ’ t really want to be president—he simply wants to win .

What usually happens during a presidential election is that the candidates articulate their vision for the country and back that up with a series of proposals outlining what they would do if elected. On the Democratic side, that is exactly what Joe Biden has done. You can go to his website and see the list of issues he wants to address and how he proposes to do so.
Donald Trump has no such list. His campaign website is nothing more than a place to buy merchandise and contribute money. Other than slogans like “Keep America Great” printed on the items for sale, it says nothing about what the president wants to accomplish during a second term.
To demonstrate what Trump is focused on these days, Gabriel Sherman reports that the president isn’t happy with his campaign team.
During a week when America’s COVID-19 death toll approached 90,000, Trump allies floated smears that Biden was a tool of China, an invalid eating from a spoon, and even a pedophile, none of which caused damage. Sources close to Trump said the president has vented to friends about the lack of focused firepower coming out of the campaign. “There is deep frustration that there is no overarching message,” an unofficial campaign adviser told me… According to sources, Trump believes the answer to the message weakness is to declare all-out war on Biden’s former boss: Barack Obama.
Apparently Trump is so determined to “declare all-out war” on Obama that he is thinking about breaking up with loyalist Senator Lindsey Graham.
Trump has been leaning on powerful Republicans to join his war on Obama, sources told me. Last Thursday, Trump tweeted at Senate Judiciary chair Lindsey Graham, saying that Graham needed to call Obama to testify at hearings on Michael Flynn’s unmasking and the origin of the Russia probe. Graham rejected the request. “Trump thinks Lindsey isn’t doing anything on Flynn,” a former White House official said. According to the former official, Trump recently asked prominent allies to tweet negative things about Graham, and he has been complaining that Graham is a hanger-on. “Trump has said, ‘Since [John] McCain died, Lindsey follows me around and shows up to play golf and I don’t even invite him,’” according to the source briefed on the conversation.
It is becoming clear that Trump and his campaign can’t agree on who to attack—the Democratic nominee or the president’s predecessor. But beyond that, what all of this signifies is that the president doesn’t have a platform of issues that he wants to run on. His plan for re-election is focused entirely on motivating his base by attacking his enemies.
The deeper issue at play here is that Donald Trump doesn’t really want to be president. For quite a while now we’ve known that he spends very little of his time addressing the issues we face as Americans. Instead, he devotes most of his day to watching Fox News and rage-tweeting.
When it comes to the election in November, Tony Schwartz captured the one thing that drives everything Trump does.
To survive, I concluded from our conversations, Trump felt compelled to go to war with the world. It was a binary, zero-sum choice for him: You either dominated or you submitted. You either created and exploited fear, or you succumbed to it… Trump grew up fighting for his life and taking no prisoners. In countless conversations, he made clear to me that he treated every encounter as a contest he had to win, because the only other option from his perspective was to lose, and that was the equivalent of obliteration.
The president is petrified of the obliteration he associates with losing. That’s why Trump has no plan for what he would do if re-elected. He doesn’t really want to be president—he simply wants to win.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-20--How Is the Democrats’ Race to Take Back the Senate Looking?

There hasn ’ t been much polling out of Colorado recently , but a Democrat-sponsored survey at the beginning of May found Biden leading Trump there by 20 points , and John Hickenlooper ahead of incumbent Republican Senator Cory Gardner by a 54-36 margin .
For context , Hillary Clinton won Colorado by five points and Obama carried it by nine in 2008 .
In Montana , an April poll found Biden trailing by six , but incumbent Republican Senator Steve Daines trailing Governor Steve Bullock by seven .
In 2016 , Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Montana by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arizona has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1948 was in 1996 .
A poll out today , however , has Biden leading there by seven points and Democrat Mark Kelly ahead by 11 against appointed-incumbent Senator Martha McSally .
These aren ’ t normal numbers , and if they hold it will mean three Democratic pickups in the U.S. Senate .
The last five polls out of Florida have show Biden ahead , although there is no Senate race there in 2020 .
More relevant , a Civiqs survey out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being slaughtered by 13 points against Raphael Warnock , 12 points against Matt Lieberman and 11 points against Ed Tarver .
That ’ s polling for the special election , but incumbent Sen. David Purdue is trailing Jon Ossoff by three points in that regularly scheduled election .
Should those polls also hold up , it would mean five Democratic pickups in the U.S. Senate .
One poll out this week shows Biden trailing in Georgia by two points and another shows him leading by one .
Here ’ s some more food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found incumbent Republican Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa in a dead heat against businessman Eddie Mauro , and a separate survey found her leading Theresa Greenfield by a single point .
The latest presidential poll has Trump up there by two , but of course he won Iowa in 2016 by almost 10 points — a bigger margin than he enjoyed in Texas .
There ’ s been scant polling in Maine this year , but incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins has been narrowly trailing in both surveys that have been released .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential Democratic pickup of seven U.S. Senate seats .
May polls out of North Carolina all concur that incumbent Democratic Gov .
Roy Cooper is cruising to reelection , but they disagree about whether Biden or Trump is leaning there .
Two polls show Democratic challenger Cal Cunningham leading incumbent Republican Senator Thom Tillis by nine points .
One recent survey has Tillis up by two .
The last poll out of Kansas showed the Democrats winning that seat as well , should Kris Kobach be the Republican nominee .
With these last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pickup of U.S. Senate seats is up to nine .
Then there is Senator Lindsey Graham in South Carolina .
A late-March survey of the Palmetto State had him leading Jaime Harrison by a narrow 47-43 margin .
I ’ m hesitant to include this race in the list of potential pickups because my intuition says it ’ s a bridge too far , but it has to be considered within the realm of possibility .
Before I finish the potential upside of a blue wave , I ’ d be remiss if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn ’ s races .
The last polls of Kentucky were in January , but one showed Amy McGrath tied with McConnell , and the other showed her trailing by a mere three points .
In my book , that ’ s a potential pickup .
Matchups for Cornyn were polled in early May and showed him leading two challengers by 11 and 13 points , but also failing to top 40 percent .
The presidential numbers are probably more instructive .
One May poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another had him down by only four .
For now , Cornyn doesn ’ t look too vulnerable , but the high level of undecided voters should concern him .
It looks to me like the Democrats have a legitimate shot at winning 10 Senate seats in 2020 , with the potential for that to grow to twelve .
But , of course , some of their own incumbent senators could lose .
Doug Jones of Alabama , for example , has an uphill climb with a February survey showing him down big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a 20 point lead there .
Senator Jones may be the only truly vulnerable Democratic incumbent up for reelection , however , since Gary Peters of Michigan and Tina Smith of Minnesota have shown a strong lead in all surveys .
To win control of the U.S. Senate , the Democrats only need to net three seats if Biden wins and four if he loses .
If I had to bet today , I ’ d put my money on them getting that done .
Trump is looking very weak , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party ’ s Senate candidates .
This is exacerbated by their refusal to break with him .
A lot can change between now and November , but I don ’ t think we ’ ll see much change on the Republicans ’ part .
Most likely , things will only get worse for them .

There hasn’t been much polling out of Colorado recently, but a Democrat-sponsored survey at the beginning of May found Biden leading Trump there by 20 points, and John Hickenlooper ahead of incumbent Republican Senator Cory Gardner by a 54-36 margin. For context, Hillary Clinton won Colorado by five points and Obama carried it by nine in 2008. In Montana, an April poll found Biden trailing by six, but incumbent Republican Senator Steve Daines trailing Governor Steve Bullock by seven. In 2016, Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Montana by over 20 points. The only time Arizona has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1948 was in 1996. A poll out today, however, has Biden leading there by seven points and Democrat Mark Kelly ahead by 11 against appointed-incumbent Senator Martha McSally. These aren’t normal numbers, and if they hold it will mean three Democratic pickups in the U.S. Senate.
The last five polls out of Florida have show Biden ahead, although there is no Senate race there in 2020. More relevant, a Civiqs survey out of Georgia released Tuesday shows appointed-incumbent Kelly Loeffler being slaughtered by 13 points against Raphael Warnock, 12 points against Matt Lieberman and 11 points against Ed Tarver. That’s polling for the special election, but incumbent Sen. David Purdue is trailing Jon Ossoff by three points in that regularly scheduled election. Should those polls also hold up, it would mean five Democratic pickups in the U.S. Senate. One poll out this week shows Biden trailing in Georgia by two points and another shows him leading by one.
Here’s some more food for thought. An early May poll found incumbent Republican Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa in a dead heat against businessman Eddie Mauro, and a separate survey found her leading Theresa Greenfield by a single point. The latest presidential poll has Trump up there by two, but of course he won Iowa in 2016 by almost 10 points — a bigger margin than he enjoyed in Texas.
There’s been scant polling in Maine this year, but incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins has been narrowly trailing in both surveys that have been released. We’re now up to a potential Democratic pickup of seven U.S. Senate seats.
May polls out of North Carolina all concur that incumbent Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper is cruising to reelection, but they disagree about whether Biden or Trump is leaning there. Two polls show Democratic challenger Cal Cunningham leading incumbent Republican Senator Thom Tillis by nine points. One recent survey has Tillis up by two.
The last poll out of Kansas showed the Democrats winning that seat as well, should Kris Kobach be the Republican nominee. With these last two races looking competitive, the potential pickup of U.S. Senate seats is up to nine.
Then there is Senator Lindsey Graham in South Carolina. A late-March survey of the Palmetto State had him leading Jaime Harrison by a narrow 47-43 margin. I’m hesitant to include this race in the list of potential pickups because my intuition says it’s a bridge too far, but it has to be considered within the realm of possibility.
Before I finish the potential upside of a blue wave, I’d be remiss if I didn’t discuss Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn’s races. The last polls of Kentucky were in January, but one showed Amy McGrath tied with McConnell, and the other showed her trailing by a mere three points. In my book, that’s a potential pickup. Matchups for Cornyn were polled in early May and showed him leading two challengers by 11 and 13 points, but also failing to top 40 percent. The presidential numbers are probably more instructive. One May poll had Biden even with Trump, and another had him down by only four. For now, Cornyn doesn’t look too vulnerable, but the high level of undecided voters should concern him.
It looks to me like the Democrats have a legitimate shot at winning 10 Senate seats in 2020, with the potential for that to grow to twelve. But, of course, some of their own incumbent senators could lose. Doug Jones of Alabama, for example, has an uphill climb with a February survey showing him down big to all comers and Trump projected to have a 20 point lead there. Senator Jones may be the only truly vulnerable Democratic incumbent up for reelection, however, since Gary Peters of Michigan and Tina Smith of Minnesota have shown a strong lead in all surveys.
To win control of the U.S. Senate, the Democrats only need to net three seats if Biden wins and four if he loses. If I had to bet today, I’d put my money on them getting that done. Trump is looking very weak, and the same can be said for his party’s Senate candidates. This is exacerbated by their refusal to break with him. A lot can change between now and November, but I don’t think we’ll see much change on the Republicans’ part. Most likely, things will only get worse for them.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-21--Are Kentuckians Watching McConnell’s Pathetic Pandemic Response?

You have to wonder if the people of Kentucky are paying attention .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) said Monday that he ’ s in “ constant communication ” with the White House about the federal government ’ s response to the coronavirus pandemic but that there isn ’ t yet a need for Congress to pass additional legislation… “ I don ’ t think we have yet felt the urgency of acting immediately .
That time could develop , but I don ’ t think it has yet , ” McConnell added .
I have no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to feel a sense of urgency , but on a national level , the U.S. is fast approaching the marker of 100,000 people dead from COVID-19 , with over 30 million people unemployed .
Closer to McConnell ’ s home , a recent White House report named Central City , KY as one of the nation ’ s new hot spots , with a 650 percent increase in the number of coronavirus cases .
If McConnell thinks that the economy will simply surge back once states ease their restrictions on businesses , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chair Jerome H. Powell gave a dire warning Wednesday that the U.S. economy could become stuck in a painful multiyear recession if Congress and the White House do not authorize more aid to address the coronavirus pandemic ’ s economic fallout .
“ Additional fiscal support could be costly but worth it if it helps avoid long-term economic damage and leaves us with a stronger recovery , ” Powell said in a videoconference with the Peterson Institute for International Economics .
Still , none of that creates a sense of urgency for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take up the bill passed by the House that , among other things , would authorize another stimulus check for workers and extend the expanded unemployment insurance .
McConnell dismissed provisions like that as nothing more than a grab bag of “ pet priorities.
” Apparently the only thing McConnell views as urgent is his desire to grant immunity protections to businesses that are reopening .
Here is how one Democratic Senator responded .
As you know , McConnell will be on the ballot this November .
Public Policy Polling just found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains under water—41 percent approve and 48 percent disapprove of the job he is doing .
But even more significantly , the majority leader only has a three point advantage in a head-to-head match-up with a generic Democrat .
That ’ s in a state Trump won with a 30-point margin over Clinton in 2016 .
The primary to chose which Democrat will run against McConnell is scheduled for June 23rd .
The person most likely to win is Amy McGrath , who is taking a pretty different approach to dealing with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strike a blow against the way that McConnell has undermined our democracy , all the people of Kentucky have to do is vote for the person who supports them during this time of crisis .
That would be a win-win for all of us .

You have to wonder if the people of Kentucky are paying attention.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Monday that he’s in “constant communication” with the White House about the federal government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic but that there isn’t yet a need for Congress to pass additional legislation… “I don’t think we have yet felt the urgency of acting immediately. That time could develop, but I don’t think it has yet,” McConnell added.
I have no idea what it would take for McConnell to feel a sense of urgency, but on a national level, the U.S. is fast approaching the marker of 100,000 people dead from COVID-19, with over 30 million people unemployed. Closer to McConnell’s home, a recent White House report named Central City, KY as one of the nation’s new hot spots, with a 650 percent increase in the number of coronavirus cases.
If McConnell thinks that the economy will simply surge back once states ease their restrictions on businesses, he’s probably wrong.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell gave a dire warning Wednesday that the U.S. economy could become stuck in a painful multiyear recession if Congress and the White House do not authorize more aid to address the coronavirus pandemic’s economic fallout. “Additional fiscal support could be costly but worth it if it helps avoid long-term economic damage and leaves us with a stronger recovery,” Powell said in a videoconference with the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Still, none of that creates a sense of urgency for the Senate Majority Leader. He refuses to take up the bill passed by the House that, among other things, would authorize another stimulus check for workers and extend the expanded unemployment insurance. McConnell dismissed provisions like that as nothing more than a grab bag of “pet priorities.” Apparently the only thing McConnell views as urgent is his desire to grant immunity protections to businesses that are reopening.
Here is how one Democratic Senator responded.
As you know, McConnell will be on the ballot this November. Public Policy Polling just found that his approval rating in his home state remains under water—41 percent approve and 48 percent disapprove of the job he is doing. But even more significantly, the majority leader only has a three point advantage in a head-to-head match-up with a generic Democrat. That’s in a state Trump won with a 30-point margin over Clinton in 2016.
The primary to chose which Democrat will run against McConnell is scheduled for June 23rd. The person most likely to win is Amy McGrath, who is taking a pretty different approach to dealing with the current crisis.
For the nation to strike a blow against the way that McConnell has undermined our democracy, all the people of Kentucky have to do is vote for the person who supports them during this time of crisis. That would be a win-win for all of us.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-21--Can COVID-19 Get Congress to Finally Strengthen U.S. Antitrust Law?

If it wasn ’ t clear that corporate consolidation was a problem before the COVID-19 pandemic , there should be absolutely no doubt now .
Mergers have severely subverted the U.S. economy ’ s resilience and undercut the national response to the coronavirus outbreak .
Mergers contributed to the loss of 600,000 hospital beds between 1975 and 2017 ( from 1.5 million to around 900,000 beds nationwide ) and likely deprived the government of an emergency stockpile of ventilators .
And now , with millions of businesses on the ropes due to the crisis but with many of the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wave of mergers and acquisitions may be imminent .
Facebook has purchased GIF-creating site Giphy .
Amazon and Uber are reported to be near acquiring the movie theater chain AMC and food delivery service GrubHub , respectively .
To stem this tide , New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren have proposed the Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act , which would halt mergers and acquisitions by large corporations and private equity funds for the duration of the COVID-19 crisis and its aftermath .
Other Congressional progressives , including Washington Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have called on House leadership to include a merger moratorium in the next rescue package .
The sponsors understand that the principal lifeline for distressed small and medium-sized businesses and workers should be federal aid , not acquisitions by large corporations and powerful financiers .
The merger moratorium represents a major rethinking of federal merger policy .
Although Congress enacted a strong anti-merger law .
in 1950 , the Department of Justice ( DOJ ) and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) have maintained a lax posture toward consolidation since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all mergers to proceed and blocked them under only extremely limited circumstances .
For instance , out of the 78 mergers proposed between 2015 and 2019 that involved two firms worth more than $ 10 billion each , the DOJ and the FTC successfully stopped only three of them .
The result of permissive merger policy has been a dramatic increase in concentration across industries and markets .
This tolerant attitude toward consolidation is built on a series of myths and has been deeply damaging to the public .
Mergers are often justified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improving the productive efficiency of firms .
In their 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines , the DOJ and the FTC said “ a primary benefit of mergers to the economy is their potential to generate significant efficiencies.
” This story rests on false assumptions and little or no evidence .
In fact , by eliminating redundancy in the name of efficiency , mergers can leave the economic and social system unprepared for natural disasters , pandemics , and other systemic shocks .
The current crisis has shown how health care mergers have eliminated essential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not limited to this moment in time .
Consolidation in the seed industry has left the United States and the world more vulnerable to the ongoing crisis of climate change .
As Monsanto ( now part of Bayer ) rolled up the industry , it focused on selling the most profitable seeds and discontinuedmany less popular seed lines—food sources that may be essential as farmers try to adapt to climate change .
Equally disconcerting , corporations themselves do not become more productive following mergers .
A reputable body of findings shows that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ productivity .
As then-Judge Richard Posner said in a 2015 interview : “ I wish someone would give me some examples of mergers that have improved efficiency .
There must be some.
” The DOJ and the FTC state that protecting consumers is the principal purpose of merger enforcement .
Former FTC commissioner Joshua Wright asserted that mergers “ often generate significant benefits for consumers—lower prices and higher quality ” and that the two agencies successfully identify and address the small fraction that would hurt consumers .
A closer look at the record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the DOJ and the FTC ’ s efforts against mergers .
The best study on the effect of mergers on consumer prices is Professor John Kwoka ’ s meta-analysis of post-merger evaluation studies .
He evaluated the impact on prices from mergers that were not successfully challenged .
Of the 42 mergers subject to credible post-merger evaluation , thirty-four resulted in price increases .
His review also found that there were adverse quality effects from many of the mergers .
Kwoka ’ s research is consistent with what other scholars have concluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consistently led to higher prices and been a key driver of rising health care costs .
Even on the rare occasion that the DOJ and FTC do “ challenge ” mergers through legal action , they generally settle the matter and do not stop the consolidation outright .
To address the loss of head-to-head rivalry , as well as other antitrust concerns , the agencies often agree to resolve the lawsuit on the condition that the merging corporations sell a line of business or other business assets to a third party or observe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predict these remedies will “ preserve competition.
” In reality , these attempts to “ remedy ” illegal mergers have a poor track record .
The FTC itself has recognized that its remedies too often fail , and Professor Kwoka has found they typically lead to significantly higher prices .
One of the most spectacular remedy failures involves the 2015 merger between the grocery chains Albertsons and Safeway .
In exchange for not suing to block the merger , the FTC required the two corporations to sell stores in more than 100 local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a small regional chain Haggen , which became nine times larger due to the acquisition .
Haggen experienced major operational problems following this huge overnight expansion and soon went bankrupt .
In the bankruptcy process , Safeway/Albertsons reacquired many of the stores it had sold to Haggen .
Myth 4 : The Current Merger Review System Offers Transparency and Guidance to Businesses and the Public DOJ antitrust chief Makan Delrahim and FTC commissioner Christine Wilson have stressed that they aspire for transparency and predictability in their decision-making .
But the current merger review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subjectivity .
One leading antitrust attorney said “ there are few government functions outside the CIA that are so secretive as the merger review process.
” The agencies rely on an “ effects based ” approach in which they attempt to predict how a proposed merger likely will affect consumers going forward .
This open-ended , speculative exercise invites aggressive lobbying from corporations and encourages them to assemble an army of economists and lawyers to make the case for their mergers behind closed doors , as ProPublica reported in a 2016 story .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ antitrust enforcer , Delrahim used this system of secrecy to help shepherd T-Mobile ’ s acquisition of Sprint through to completion in April .
Behind the scenes , he effectively served as federal matchmaker for the two wireless carriers and Dish , which purchased some assets from the merging parties with the aim of becoming a telecom company .
The 2013 merger between American Airlines and US Airways painfully illustrates this system in action .
The DOJ initially sued to stop this merger that would reduce the number of national airlines from five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lobbying activity by the two airlines and their political allies , the DOJ abruptly permitted the merger in exchange for the two airlines selling landing and takeoff rights at seven major airports .
This remedy , however , failed to address the colossal harms from losing national airline , as laid out in the original DOJ complaint .
The merger , which the DOJ earlier said would result in “ presumptively illegal ” levels of concentration on more than a thousand routes , was allowed to go through and subsequently led to higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largest—are often justified on the basis that they permit corporations to expand their operations and enter new markets .
Antitrust enforcers and scholars assert that mergers are a critical way for businesses to grow .
Yet mergers are not the only , nor even the best , way for corporations to grow .
Instead , they could hire more workers and invest in plant and equipment and new technologies .
Unlike buying and swapping existing business assets , investing in new facilities expands the capital stock of the economy and creates new jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy game of buying existing firms actually spurs businesses to strategize toward consolidation and awayfrom investments in production capacity and the latest technology .
A good case in point came after the Obama administration forced AT & T to abandon its takeover of T-Mobile in 2011 .
Neither wireless carrier stagnated .
As a matter of fact , both firms improved their service and invested in their networks , and an independent T-Mobile instigated vigorous competition among the four national carriers .
All of this is important because the federal antitrust agencies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too long not enforced anti-merger law .
Their tolerance of consolidation has produced an economy that is fragile and now struggling to respond effectively to the current crisis .
The merger moratorium proposed by the progressive powerhouse of Ocasio-Cortez and Warren , alongside other Congressional Democrats , is a chance to change the existing pro-merger policy regime and abandon the associated fictions .
It is high time Congress restores a strong anti-consolidation norm in federal antitrust law .
The Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act is the perfect place to start .

If it wasn’t clear that corporate consolidation was a problem before the COVID-19 pandemic, there should be absolutely no doubt now. Mergers have severely subverted the U.S. economy’s resilience and undercut the national response to the coronavirus outbreak.
Mergers contributed to the loss of 600,000 hospital beds between 1975 and 2017 (from 1.5 million to around 900,000 beds nationwide) and likely deprived the government of an emergency stockpile of ventilators. And now, with millions of businesses on the ropes due to the crisis but with many of the very largest corporations flush with cash, another wave of mergers and acquisitions may be imminent. Facebook has purchased GIF-creating site Giphy. Amazon and Uber are reported to be near acquiring the movie theater chain AMC and food delivery service GrubHub, respectively.
To stem this tide, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren have proposed the Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act, which would halt mergers and acquisitions by large corporations and private equity funds for the duration of the COVID-19 crisis and its aftermath. Other Congressional progressives, including Washington Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal and House Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline, have called on House leadership to include a merger moratorium in the next rescue package. The sponsors understand that the principal lifeline for distressed small and medium-sized businesses and workers should be federal aid, not acquisitions by large corporations and powerful financiers.
The merger moratorium represents a major rethinking of federal merger policy. Although Congress enacted a strong anti-merger law. in 1950, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have maintained a lax posture toward consolidation since the early 1980s. They have permitted nearly all mergers to proceed and blocked them under only extremely limited circumstances. For instance, out of the 78 mergers proposed between 2015 and 2019 that involved two firms worth more than $10 billion each, the DOJ and the FTC successfully stopped only three of them. The result of permissive merger policy has been a dramatic increase in concentration across industries and markets. This tolerant attitude toward consolidation is built on a series of myths and has been deeply damaging to the public.
Myth 1: Mergers Eliminate Wasteful Redundancies and Produce More Efficient Businesses
Mergers are often justified on the grounds of eliminating redundancies and improving the productive efficiency of firms. In their 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, the DOJ and the FTC said “a primary benefit of mergers to the economy is their potential to generate significant efficiencies.” This story rests on false assumptions and little or no evidence.
In fact, by eliminating redundancy in the name of efficiency, mergers can leave the economic and social system unprepared for natural disasters, pandemics, and other systemic shocks.
The current crisis has shown how health care mergers have eliminated essential excess capacity. But the problem overall is not limited to this moment in time. Consolidation in the seed industry has left the United States and the world more vulnerable to the ongoing crisis of climate change. As Monsanto (now part of Bayer) rolled up the industry, it focused on selling the most profitable seeds and discontinuedmany less popular seed lines—food sources that may be essential as farmers try to adapt to climate change.
Equally disconcerting, corporations themselves do not become more productive following mergers. A reputable body of findings shows that mergers often result in a loss in productivity. As then-Judge Richard Posner said in a 2015 interview: “I wish someone would give me some examples of mergers that have improved efficiency. There must be some.”
Myth 2: Current Merger Enforcement Protects Consumers
The DOJ and the FTC state that protecting consumers is the principal purpose of merger enforcement. Former FTC commissioner Joshua Wright asserted that mergers “often generate significant benefits for consumers—lower prices and higher quality” and that the two agencies successfully identify and address the small fraction that would hurt consumers.
A closer look at the record, however, does not warrant applause for the DOJ and the FTC’s efforts against mergers. The best study on the effect of mergers on consumer prices is Professor John Kwoka’s meta-analysis of post-merger evaluation studies. He evaluated the impact on prices from mergers that were not successfully challenged. Of the 42 mergers subject to credible post-merger evaluation, thirty-four resulted in price increases. His review also found that there were adverse quality effects from many of the mergers.
Kwoka’s research is consistent with what other scholars have concluded. For instance, hospital consolidation has consistently led to higher prices and been a key driver of rising health care costs.
Myth 3: Merger Remedies Preserve Competition
Even on the rare occasion that the DOJ and FTC do “challenge” mergers through legal action, they generally settle the matter and do not stop the consolidation outright. To address the loss of head-to-head rivalry, as well as other antitrust concerns, the agencies often agree to resolve the lawsuit on the condition that the merging corporations sell a line of business or other business assets to a third party or observe rules of fair dealing. They confidently predict these remedies will “preserve competition.”
In reality, these attempts to “remedy” illegal mergers have a poor track record. The FTC itself has recognized that its remedies too often fail, and Professor Kwoka has found they typically lead to significantly higher prices.
One of the most spectacular remedy failures involves the 2015 merger between the grocery chains Albertsons and Safeway. In exchange for not suing to block the merger, the FTC required the two corporations to sell stores in more than 100 local markets. These stores were sold to a small regional chain Haggen, which became nine times larger due to the acquisition. Haggen experienced major operational problems following this huge overnight expansion and soon went bankrupt. In the bankruptcy process, Safeway/Albertsons reacquired many of the stores it had sold to Haggen.
Myth 4: The Current Merger Review System Offers Transparency and Guidance to Businesses and the Public
DOJ antitrust chief Makan Delrahim and FTC commissioner Christine Wilson have stressed that they aspire for transparency and predictability in their decision-making.
But the current merger review system is a model of opacity and subjectivity. One leading antitrust attorney said “there are few government functions outside the CIA that are so secretive as the merger review process.”
The agencies rely on an “effects based”approach in which they attempt to predict how a proposed merger likely will affect consumers going forward. This open-ended, speculative exercise invites aggressive lobbying from corporations and encourages them to assemble an army of economists and lawyers to make the case for their mergers behind closed doors, as ProPublica reported in a 2016 story.
Despite being the nation’s top antitrust enforcer, Delrahim used this system of secrecy to help shepherd T-Mobile’s acquisition of Sprint through to completion in April. Behind the scenes, he effectively served as federal matchmaker for the two wireless carriers and Dish, which purchased some assets from the merging parties with the aim of becoming a telecom company.
The 2013 merger between American Airlines and US Airways painfully illustrates this system in action. The DOJ initially sued to stop this merger that would reduce the number of national airlines from five to four. After a flurry of lobbying activity by the two airlines and their political allies, the DOJ abruptly permitted the merger in exchange for the two airlines selling landing and takeoff rights at seven major airports.
This remedy, however, failed to address the colossal harms from losing national airline, as laid out in the original DOJ complaint. The merger, which the DOJ earlier said would result in “presumptively illegal” levels of concentration on more than a thousand routes, was allowed to go through and subsequently led to higher airfares and fees.
Myth 5: Corporations Need Mergers to Grow
Mergers—even the very largest—are often justified on the basis that they permit corporations to expand their operations and enter new markets. Antitrust enforcers and scholars assert that mergers are a critical way for businesses to grow.
Yet mergers are not the only, nor even the best, way for corporations to grow. Instead, they could hire more workers and invest in plant and equipment and new technologies. Unlike buying and swapping existing business assets, investing in new facilities expands the capital stock of the economy and creates new jobs. Allowing companies to grow through the easy game of buying existing firms actually spurs businesses to strategize toward consolidation and awayfrom investments in production capacity and the latest technology.
A good case in point came after the Obama administration forced AT&T to abandon its takeover of T-Mobile in 2011. Neither wireless carrier stagnated. As a matter of fact, both firms improved their service and invested in their networks, and an independent T-Mobile instigated vigorous competition among the four national carriers.
All of this is important because the federal antitrust agencies, relying on false assumptions, have for too long not enforced anti-merger law. Their tolerance of consolidation has produced an economy that is fragile and now struggling to respond effectively to the current crisis.
The merger moratorium proposed by the progressive powerhouse of Ocasio-Cortez and Warren, alongside other Congressional Democrats, is a chance to change the existing pro-merger policy regime and abandon the associated fictions. It is high time Congress restores a strong anti-consolidation norm in federal antitrust law. The Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act is the perfect place to start.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-21--Finally, Older Voters are Starting to Move Away from Trump

As we all learned in 2016 , the popular vote in this country is not how we elect a president .
We do that via the Electoral College .
That is why I found this analysis from G. Elliot Morris to be very interesting .
To demonstrate how that is tilted against the incumbent , here is how his model translates into Electoral College votes .
What Morris didn ’ t mention is that , if Florida turns blue , Trump ’ s options for winning become practically nonexistent .
That is where the president ’ s handling of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters .
As that article points out , older voters could also be a factor in a state like Arizona , which is home to a lot of retirees .
But there is something else going on in Arizona that is worth noting .
Take a look at this chart of the median age in each state .
What is immediately clear is that the western states are generally younger than the eastern states .
That is surprisingly true of Arizona .
And in 2016 , voters in that state under the age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Add that to the erosion of support for Trump with older voters and it gives you a pretty good idea about why Arizona is trending in Biden ’ s direction .
What is equally interesting is that Texas has the third-youngest population , surpassed only by the sparsely populated states of Utah and Alaska .
In 2016 , Clinton won a six-point advantage with Texans under the age of 44 .
In Morris ’ s model , it is still barely red , but taking age into consideration gives us one more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to becoming a swing state .
When it comes to the impact of age on politics , the most enduring myth is captured by the quote , “ If you are not a liberal at 25 , you have no heart .
If you are not a conservative at 35 , you have no brain.
” The idea is that young people are more radical and mellow with age .
But Geoffrey Skelly documents the fallacy contained in that assumption .
The last Democratic nominee who won voters 65 and older was Al @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exit poll data .
But at the time , that was the trend .
Older Americans — those who came of age during the Great Depression and New Deal era , a period in which the Democratic Party was dominant — were disproportionately Democratic-leaning in the late 1990s and early 2000s .
And political science has found evidence that party loyalties developed at a young age can persist over the course of a person ’ s life .
Simon Rosenberg does a good job of summarizing the political environment that has shaped the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no wonder that if this is your lived experience , you would lean towards the Democrats today .
The two Democratic presidents in your lifetime produced long economic booms , vast improvements in healthcare , and global cooperation and respect , while the three Republican presidents brought recession , rising deficits , disastrous adventurism abroad , and well , Trump .
Furthermore , if you are under 45 , your life has been shaped by the rise of a truly global economy , an interconnected world enabled by the Internet , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and important steps towards greater equality for all .
This is the world you know — and it is almost as if Trump and the current GOP have risen to roll back and reject all that you understand America to be .
It has taken a lot for older voters to begin to trend away from Trump , but it looks like his mishandling of the coronavirus crisis might have finally done the trick .
But when it comes to younger voters , Republicans face an even more daunting challenge .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of generations of voters whose party loyalties will persist as they age .
We are currently in the midst of a major political realignment that is being fueled not only by race , but by age as well .
Donald Trump didn ’ t start that and he won ’ t be the end of the process .
But there is nothing on the horizon that looks good for the long-term future of the Republican Party .

As we all learned in 2016, the popular vote in this country is not how we elect a president. We do that via the Electoral College. That is why I found this analysis from G. Elliot Morris to be very interesting.
To demonstrate how that is tilted against the incumbent, here is how his model translates into Electoral College votes.
Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com
What Morris didn’t mention is that, if Florida turns blue, Trump’s options for winning become practically nonexistent. That is where the president’s handling of the coronavirus is hurting him badly—especially with older voters.
Any erosion of support among seniors could doom Trump if this November’s election is as close as four years ago…But as is often the case during close elections, it could all come down to Florida. Some recent polls from the state put Trump at a 10-point disadvantage – others put the race much narrower – to his presumptive challenger, Joe Biden, and Trump’s team is said to be keenly aware the deficit.
As that article points out, older voters could also be a factor in a state like Arizona, which is home to a lot of retirees. But there is something else going on in Arizona that is worth noting. Take a look at this chart of the median age in each state.
What is immediately clear is that the western states are generally younger than the eastern states. That is surprisingly true of Arizona. And in 2016, voters in that state under the age of 44 favored Clinton by 10 points. Add that to the erosion of support for Trump with older voters and it gives you a pretty good idea about why Arizona is trending in Biden’s direction.
What is equally interesting is that Texas has the third-youngest population, surpassed only by the sparsely populated states of Utah and Alaska. In 2016, Clinton won a six-point advantage with Texans under the age of 44. In Morris’s model, it is still barely red, but taking age into consideration gives us one more reason why Texas is on its way to becoming a swing state.
When it comes to the impact of age on politics, the most enduring myth is captured by the quote, “If you are not a liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 35, you have no brain.” The idea is that young people are more radical and mellow with age. But Geoffrey Skelly documents the fallacy contained in that assumption.
The last Democratic nominee who won voters 65 and older was Al Gore in 2000, according to national exit poll data. But at the time, that was the trend. Older Americans — those who came of age during the Great Depression and New Deal era, a period in which the Democratic Party was dominant — were disproportionately Democratic-leaning in the late 1990s and early 2000s. And political science has found evidence that party loyalties developed at a young age can persist over the course of a person’s life.
Simon Rosenberg does a good job of summarizing the political environment that has shaped the views of those under 45.
It is no wonder that if this is your lived experience, you would lean towards the Democrats today. The two Democratic presidents in your lifetime produced long economic booms, vast improvements in healthcare, and global cooperation and respect, while the three Republican presidents brought recession, rising deficits, disastrous adventurism abroad, and well, Trump. Furthermore, if you are under 45, your life has been shaped by the rise of a truly global economy, an interconnected world enabled by the Internet, a far more diverse population here at home, and important steps towards greater equality for all. This is the world you know — and it is almost as if Trump and the current GOP have risen to roll back and reject all that you understand America to be.
It has taken a lot for older voters to begin to trend away from Trump, but it looks like his mishandling of the coronavirus crisis might have finally done the trick. But when it comes to younger voters, Republicans face an even more daunting challenge. They are in the process of losing a couple of generations of voters whose party loyalties will persist as they age.
We are currently in the midst of a major political realignment that is being fueled not only by race, but by age as well. Donald Trump didn’t start that and he won’t be the end of the process. But there is nothing on the horizon that looks good for the long-term future of the Republican Party.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-21--Trump Can’t Blame Intelligence Briefings for His Coronavirus Response

For what seems like the umpteenth time , there ’ s an article out describing how difficult it is for intelligence officials to brief the current president of the United States .
The new one is authored by Julian Barnes and Adam Goldman of the New York Times , and it relies on “ interviews with 10 current and former intelligence officials familiar with his intelligence briefings.
” There ’ s not a whole lot of fresh information in the piece , so it mostly reads like something you already know .
Donald Trump is a colossal moron with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gnat who doesn ’ t read his intelligence reports , ignores the advice of experts , spouts conspiracy theories , grows impatient when his nonsense is contradicted , and is generally unpleasant to be around .
As a result , his briefers are always thrashing around trying to come up with ways to get Trump to actually pay attention , learn , remember and believe what he is being told .
I suppose the nation needs to be reminded of this dangerous state of affairs from time to time , but it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly for four years now .
The reason it is cropping up again now is that Trump did his Fox News interview at the Lincoln Memorial and used the occasion to blame his intelligence briefer for his slow response to the Covid-19 pandemic .
“ On Jan. 23 , I was told that there could be a virus coming in but it was of no real import , ” Mr. Trump said in a recent interview with Fox News at the Lincoln Memorial .
“ In other words , it wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got to do something , we ’ ve got to do something.
’ It was a brief conversation and it was only on Jan. 23.
” Trump didn ’ t name his briefer , but her name is Beth Sanner and she ’ s a 56-year-old senior analyst at the CIA .
Apparently , she made the mistake of explaining the virus by comparing it to the first SARS virus , which obviously wasn ’ t nearly as contagious as this second one , and was quickly contained .
So , now she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the article points out , Trump had plenty of other information flows and warnings available to him , including several that predated his intelligence briefing on January 23 , so this isn ’ t a viable excuse .
On Wednesday , the New York Times reported on a new study from disease modelers at Columbia University who estimate that Trump ’ s slow response cost at least 36,000 lives .
But in blaming Ms. Sanner , a C.I.A .
analyst with three decades of experience , Mr. Trump ignored a host of warnings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials , epidemiologists , scientists , biodefense officials , other national security aides and the news media about the virus ’ s growing threat .
Mr. Trump ’ s own health secretary had alerted him five days earlier to the potential seriousness of the virus .
By the time of the Jan. 23 intelligence briefing , many government officials were already alarmed by the signs of a crisis in China , where the virus first broke out , and of a world on the brink of disaster .
Within days , other national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrict travel from China .
But the United States lost its chance to more effectively mitigate the coronavirus in the following weeks when Mr. Trump balked at further measures that might have slowed its spread .
Obviously , it ’ s not just lives that were lost , but also money .
Almost 40 million new unemployment claims have been made since the pandemic arrived in America , which is why Oxford Economics now projects that Trump will lose in a landslide and get approximately 35 percent of the popular vote .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a margin of 328 to 210 , which seems far too good for Trump if he ’ s only pulling in the mid-thirties nationally .
Personally , I will be appalled if Trump tops 200 Electoral college votes .

For what seems like the umpteenth time, there’s an article out describing how difficult it is for intelligence officials to brief the current president of the United States. The new one is authored by Julian Barnes and Adam Goldman of the New York Times, and it relies on “interviews with 10 current and former intelligence officials familiar with his intelligence briefings.”
There’s not a whole lot of fresh information in the piece, so it mostly reads like something you already know. Donald Trump is a colossal moron with the attention span and memory capacity of a gnat who doesn’t read his intelligence reports, ignores the advice of experts, spouts conspiracy theories, grows impatient when his nonsense is contradicted, and is generally unpleasant to be around. As a result, his briefers are always thrashing around trying to come up with ways to get Trump to actually pay attention, learn, remember and believe what he is being told.
I suppose the nation needs to be reminded of this dangerous state of affairs from time to time, but it’s something we’ve been told repeatedly for four years now. The reason it is cropping up again now is that Trump did his Fox News interview at the Lincoln Memorial and used the occasion to blame his intelligence briefer for his slow response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
“On Jan. 23, I was told that there could be a virus coming in but it was of no real import,” Mr. Trump said in a recent interview with Fox News at the Lincoln Memorial. “In other words, it wasn’t, ‘Oh, we’ve got to do something, we’ve got to do something.’ It was a brief conversation and it was only on Jan. 23.”
Trump didn’t name his briefer, but her name is Beth Sanner and she’s a 56-year-old senior analyst at the CIA. Apparently, she made the mistake of explaining the virus by comparing it to the first SARS virus, which obviously wasn’t nearly as contagious as this second one, and was quickly contained. So, now she’s the fall gal.
As the article points out, Trump had plenty of other information flows and warnings available to him, including several that predated his intelligence briefing on January 23, so this isn’t a viable excuse. On Wednesday, the New York Times reported on a new study from disease modelers at Columbia University who estimate that Trump’s slow response cost at least 36,000 lives.
But in blaming Ms. Sanner, a C.I.A. analyst with three decades of experience, Mr. Trump ignored a host of warnings he received around that time from higher-ranking officials, epidemiologists, scientists, biodefense officials, other national security aides and the news media about the virus’s growing threat. Mr. Trump’s own health secretary had alerted him five days earlier to the potential seriousness of the virus. By the time of the Jan. 23 intelligence briefing, many government officials were already alarmed by the signs of a crisis in China, where the virus first broke out, and of a world on the brink of disaster. Within days, other national security warnings prompted the Trump administration to restrict travel from China. But the United States lost its chance to more effectively mitigate the coronavirus in the following weeks when Mr. Trump balked at further measures that might have slowed its spread.
Obviously, it’s not just lives that were lost, but also money. Almost 40 million new unemployment claims have been made since the pandemic arrived in America, which is why Oxford Economics now projects that Trump will lose in a landslide and get approximately 35 percent of the popular vote. They see Biden winning the Electoral college by a margin of 328 to 210, which seems far too good for Trump if he’s only pulling in the mid-thirties nationally. Personally, I will be appalled if Trump tops 200 Electoral college votes.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-22--Why GOP Senators Are Held Hostage to Mitch McConnell

As the Democratic presidential primary was heating up a few months ago , there was some chatter about things like Beto O ’ Rourke raising money from people who worked in the oil and gas industry as well as articles about how Joe Biden was raising a lot of money from big donors .
What was left out of those stories was that the donors in question were limited to contributing $ 2,800 .
While it might sound like a lot of money to those of us who don ’ t have access to that kind of disposable income , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contribution of $ 2,800 would influence the agenda of a politician who will be required to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in order to be competitive in a presidential race .
For an example of how big money actually works in politics , we can look at Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R-GA ) .
As you might recall , she unloaded millions of dollars in stock in the wake of a closed-door Senate briefing on coronavirus .
About a month after the accusations of insider trading surfaced , Loeffler ’ s husband @ @ @ @ @ @ @ super PAC , America First Action .
Now that ’ s what you call a “ big donor.
” There is a reason why Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has fought against any attempt to pass campaign finance reform and heralded the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United .
I recently suggested that one of the ways he kept his troops in line to implement his strategy of total obstruction is the money he invested in the campaigns of Republican senators from his own coffers .
Here is how that works .
The Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , is reserving $ 67.1 million in TV ads across six Senate states — including McConnell ’ s home state of Kentucky —starting the day after Labor Day and running through Election Day… The ads were booked to run in Arizona , Colorado , Iowa , Kentucky , Maine and North Carolina , all states with Republican incumbents that are considered critical to the Senate majority .
The top 15 donors to McConnell ’ s Senate Leadership Fund gave between $ 1 and $ 10 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only got the chance to influence his agenda , they ensured that vulnerable Republican senators will be beholden to their leader .
That explains why McConnell feels no sense of urgency to provide assistance to workers affected by the coronavirus crisis , but is determined to provide immunity protections for businesses that reopen .
We can wring our hands about other aspects of campaign finance that are in need of reform .
But everything else pales in comparison when it comes to the floodgates of unlimited contributions that were made possible by Citizens @ @

As the Democratic presidential primary was heating up a few months ago, there was some chatter about things like Beto O’Rourke raising money from people who worked in the oil and gas industry as well as articles about how Joe Biden was raising a lot of money from big donors.
What was left out of those stories was that the donors in question were limited to contributing $2,800. While it might sound like a lot of money to those of us who don’t have access to that kind of disposable income, it is absurd to think that a contribution of $2,800 would influence the agenda of a politician who will be required to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in order to be competitive in a presidential race.
For an example of how big money actually works in politics, we can look at Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA). As you might recall, she unloaded millions of dollars in stock in the wake of a closed-door Senate briefing on coronavirus. About a month after the accusations of insider trading surfaced, Loeffler’s husband donated $1 million to a pro-Trump super PAC, America First Action. Now that’s what you call a “big donor.”
There is a reason why Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has fought against any attempt to pass campaign finance reform and heralded the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. I recently suggested that one of the ways he kept his troops in line to implement his strategy of total obstruction is the money he invested in the campaigns of Republican senators from his own coffers. Here is how that works.
The Senate Leadership Fund, which is run by allies of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, is reserving $67.1 million in TV ads across six Senate states — including McConnell’s home state of Kentucky —starting the day after Labor Day and running through Election Day… The ads were booked to run in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine and North Carolina, all states with Republican incumbents that are considered critical to the Senate majority.
The top 15 donors to McConnell’s Senate Leadership Fund gave between $1 and $10 million each. With that, they not only got the chance to influence his agenda, they ensured that vulnerable Republican senators will be beholden to their leader. That explains why McConnell feels no sense of urgency to provide assistance to workers affected by the coronavirus crisis, but is determined to provide immunity protections for businesses that reopen.
We can wring our hands about other aspects of campaign finance that are in need of reform. But everything else pales in comparison when it comes to the floodgates of unlimited contributions that were made possible by Citizens United.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-22--How Immigrants Are Being Kept Out of the Coronavirus Recovery

In the United States , small businesses account for half of all jobs , including the handful created last year by Hatib Joof .
In January 2019 , Joof , a Gambian immigrant , tapped his modest bank account to pursue his dream of opening an African restaurant .
He hired a couple of waiters , a dishwasher , some cooks , and opened Mansa Kunda in Takoma Park , Maryland , an airy space where diners loved to linger .
On a typical Friday night , patrons clustered at the bar , seated on chairs fashioned from djembe drums @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tables of burnished wood , savoring grilled fish , goat meat , and variety of Gambian specialties seasoned with tamarind and lime .
But that was before the coronavirus pandemic .
These days , his restaurant , like so many others , has had to pivot to a carry-out-and-delivery model because of public health measures to stop the spread of COVID-19 .
Joof ’ s restaurant now only brings in a small fraction of what it did before the outbreak .
He has sought federal funds that would have helped him continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small business owners , his application for an SBA loan under the Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) went unanswered .
In March , Congress allotted nearly $ 350 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses under the Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security Act .
A second round of funding , totaling $ 310 billion , was allotted in April .
Unfortunately , Joof ’ s experience is not an anomaly .
Federal COVID-19 relief legislation has done appallingly little to help small business owners like himself , who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Data released last week by the U.S. Census Bureau found that 74.9 percent of small business owners sought relief under the PPP program , but just 38.1 percent received any .
As a consequence , business owners are left with little-to-no support to make it through the coronavirus crisis .
That has a deep effect on the immigrant community .
Research shows that immigrants are twice as likely to form a business compared to U.S.-born entrepreneurs .
In fact , immigrants account for almost 30 percent of all new entrepreneurs in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the millions of workers they employ .
Joof , 50 , said that furloughing his workers has been the hardest part of the pandemic .
“ I kept them around , paying them out of my own pocket until I couldn ’ t do it anymore , ” he told me .
“ I haven ’ t gotten a penny from the government .
I don ’ t know anyone who has.
” He has recently reapplied , now that new funds have been approved .
“ If it comes , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expecting it.
” He can be forgiven for being pessimistic .
So far , federal coronavirus rescue efforts have barely helped immigrants—and some provisions in the enacted federal relief measures even seem to go out of their way to exclude them .
For instance , coronavirus relief money can only go to individuals with a social security number .
Immigrants have therefore been locked out of receiving stimulus checks intended to soften the economic blow suffered by those who have lost jobs .
That has not only hurt the immigrants themselves .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many of which are now losing their favorite restaurants .
A disproportionate share of small businesses are minority and women-owned .
So when the SBA failed to administer needed assistance as widely as promised , people of color , women , and immigrants were largely among those on the outside looking in when it came to the first tranches of federal aid .
A national survey of small businesses released this week by two non-profit groups , Color of Change and UnidosUS , found that 51 percent of black and Latino small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 20,000 or less , but just 12 percent of business owners said they received the support they asked for .
Nearly half said they feared they might have to close down for good in the next six months if relief doesn ’ t come soon .
“ This ground-breaking poll shows that African American and Latino small businesses—the economic engines of many cities , small towns and communities across America—are suffering greatly but are being left out of relief efforts , ” said Janet Murguía , President and CEO of UnidosUS .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ must have targeted help to minority-owned businesses and nonprofits so we can save these vital enterprises.
” Such disparities have seemed inevitable in an administration whose singular legislative achievement in the months after taking office was to provide massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans .
Looking after the needs of average working people has never been high on this administration ’ s list of priorities .
That ’ s why the Center for American Progress called last month for Congress to consider allocating $ 100 billion or more for very small businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the PPP program for them to pay cash advances to their sidelined workers .
It also urged lawmakers to provide dramatically expanded funding for community development financial institutions ( CDFIs ) and minority depository institutions—which are in the best position to get funds to needed recipients quickly .
Like most states , Maryland , home to Joof ’ s restaurant , is in the process of slowly re-opening , but restaurants —given their confined quarters with patrons sometimes seated mere inches apart—will likely be among the last establishments allowed to welcome back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s far from certain that they will be able to survive under social distancing guidelines that will drastically reduce the number of patrons permitted to enter the premises .
The return of customers , of course , hinges on the public ’ s faith in the safety to eat in restaurants .
“ I ’ m nervous , honestly speaking , ” Joof said .
“ I ’ m not quite sure exactly how confident people will be to sit and dine in a restaurant like they used to .
And whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be profitable , ” he says .
That underscores just how misguided it is to promote a public narrative—like we ’ re seeing out of the White House—that equates promoting public health with opening up the economy .
It ’ s simply not a decision that business owners can make .
Efforts to rescue the economy will be futile if they don ’ t include even more specified and targeted help for small businesses , many of which are immigrant and minority owned .
And there has to be measures in place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Joof , who is also black , obtained his U.S. citizenship two decades ago , after coming to this country as a young adult to study .
A lifetime of work in the food industry , most recently as a restaurant manager , helped prepare him to set up his own shop .
His restaurant Mansa Kunda thrived in its first year , which is often said to be the most challenging for a new business .
It earned rave reviews and quickly became a favorite neighborhood hangout .
Residents of Takoma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course , its delicious food .
“ A business like mine , selling food from West Africa , it is not something that ’ s mainstream , ” he said .
“ It ’ s not like sushi or Indian food .
We ’ re trying to get people to understand and accept our cuisine , like everyone else ’ s .
We finally began gaining traction , then this thing happens.
” Joof invested his life savings in his business—meaning he can ’ t afford to fail .
But as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncertainty with a radically altered landscape for restaurants : Paper menus instead of laminated in the post-shutdown era ; huge spaces between customers instead of the barely separated tables that had made the restaurant so convivial .
Until then , he ’ s waiting in agony over whether any government support will come fast enough to help him stay afloat .
“ I ’ m hoping that this time around , things will happen , ” he said .
“ Anything would help at this point .
Anything .
”

In the United States, small businesses account for half of all jobs, including the handful created last year by Hatib Joof. In January 2019, Joof, a Gambian immigrant, tapped his modest bank account to pursue his dream of opening an African restaurant. He hired a couple of waiters, a dishwasher, some cooks, and opened Mansa Kunda in Takoma Park, Maryland, an airy space where diners loved to linger. On a typical Friday night, patrons clustered at the bar, seated on chairs fashioned from djembe drums. Others chatted amiably at the spacious tables of burnished wood, savoring grilled fish, goat meat, and variety of Gambian specialties seasoned with tamarind and lime.
But that was before the coronavirus pandemic. These days, his restaurant, like so many others, has had to pivot to a carry-out-and-delivery model because of public health measures to stop the spread of COVID-19. Joof’s restaurant now only brings in a small fraction of what it did before the outbreak.
He has sought federal funds that would have helped him continue to pay his staff, but like many small business owners, his application for an SBA loan under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) went unanswered. In March, Congress allotted nearly $350 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. A second round of funding, totaling $310 billion, was allotted in April.
Unfortunately, Joof’s experience is not an anomaly. Federal COVID-19 relief legislation has done appallingly little to help small business owners like himself, who are the backbone of the U.S. economy. Data released last week by the U.S. Census Bureau found that 74.9 percent of small business owners sought relief under the PPP program, but just 38.1 percent received any.
As a consequence, business owners are left with little-to-no support to make it through the coronavirus crisis. That has a deep effect on the immigrant community. Research shows that immigrants are twice as likely to form a business compared to U.S.-born entrepreneurs. In fact, immigrants account for almost 30 percent of all new entrepreneurs in the United States. They supply a needed lifeline to the millions of workers they employ.
Joof, 50, said that furloughing his workers has been the hardest part of the pandemic. “I kept them around, paying them out of my own pocket until I couldn’t do it anymore,” he told me. “I haven’t gotten a penny from the government. I don’t know anyone who has.” He has recently reapplied, now that new funds have been approved. “If it comes, it comes, but I’m not expecting it.”
He can be forgiven for being pessimistic. So far, federal coronavirus rescue efforts have barely helped immigrants—and some provisions in the enacted federal relief measures even seem to go out of their way to exclude them. For instance, coronavirus relief money can only go to individuals with a social security number. Immigrants have therefore been locked out of receiving stimulus checks intended to soften the economic blow suffered by those who have lost jobs. That has not only hurt the immigrants themselves. It has hurt communities all across the country, many of which are now losing their favorite restaurants.
A disproportionate share of small businesses are minority and women-owned. So when the SBA failed to administer needed assistance as widely as promised, people of color, women, and immigrants were largely among those on the outside looking in when it came to the first tranches of federal aid.
A national survey of small businesses released this week by two non-profit groups, Color of Change and UnidosUS, found that 51 percent of black and Latino small business owners applied for government-based loans of $20,000 or less, but just 12 percent of business owners said they received the support they asked for. Nearly half said they feared they might have to close down for good in the next six months if relief doesn’t come soon.
“This ground-breaking poll shows that African American and Latino small businesses—the economic engines of many cities, small towns and communities across America—are suffering greatly but are being left out of relief efforts,” said Janet Murguía, President and CEO of UnidosUS. “The next stimulus and relief package must have targeted help to minority-owned businesses and nonprofits so we can save these vital enterprises.”
Such disparities have seemed inevitable in an administration whose singular legislative achievement in the months after taking office was to provide massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Looking after the needs of average working people has never been high on this administration’s list of priorities. That’s why the Center for American Progress called last month for Congress to consider allocating $100 billion or more for very small businesses like Joof’s that seek funds from the PPP program for them to pay cash advances to their sidelined workers.
It also urged lawmakers to provide dramatically expanded funding for community development financial institutions (CDFIs) and minority depository institutions—which are in the best position to get funds to needed recipients quickly.
Like most states, Maryland, home to Joof’s restaurant, is in the process of slowly re-opening, but restaurants —given their confined quarters with patrons sometimes seated mere inches apart—will likely be among the last establishments allowed to welcome back customers.
When they do, it’s far from certain that they will be able to survive under social distancing guidelines that will drastically reduce the number of patrons permitted to enter the premises.
The return of customers, of course, hinges on the public’s faith in the safety to eat in restaurants. “I’m nervous, honestly speaking,” Joof said. “I’m not quite sure exactly how confident people will be to sit and dine in a restaurant like they used to. And whether we can fill our capacity in order to be profitable,” he says.
That underscores just how misguided it is to promote a public narrative—like we’re seeing out of the White House—that equates promoting public health with opening up the economy. It’s simply not a decision that business owners can make.
Efforts to rescue the economy will be futile if they don’t include even more specified and targeted help for small businesses, many of which are immigrant and minority owned. And there has to be measures in place to ensure effective implementation of the assistance.
Joof, who is also black, obtained his U.S. citizenship two decades ago, after coming to this country as a young adult to study. A lifetime of work in the food industry, most recently as a restaurant manager, helped prepare him to set up his own shop. His restaurant Mansa Kunda thrived in its first year, which is often said to be the most challenging for a new business. It earned rave reviews and quickly became a favorite neighborhood hangout. Residents of Takoma Park loved its injection of cultural diversity—and, of course, its delicious food.
“A business like mine, selling food from West Africa, it is not something that’s mainstream,” he said. “It’s not like sushi or Indian food. We’re trying to get people to understand and accept our cuisine, like everyone else’s. We finally began gaining traction, then this thing happens.”
Joof invested his life savings in his business—meaning he can’t afford to fail. But as he looks ahead, he faces more uncertainty with a radically altered landscape for restaurants: Paper menus instead of laminated in the post-shutdown era; huge spaces between customers instead of the barely separated tables that had made the restaurant so convivial.
Until then, he’s waiting in agony over whether any government support will come fast enough to help him stay afloat. “I’m hoping that this time around, things will happen,” he said. “Anything would help at this point. Anything.”