This is all really well put, I'm honestly alarmed at how confident I am in Biden's chances right now.
I would say DeSantis is at most very slightly ahead, not anywhere near being the presumptive nominee. He's doing well enough that a lot of Republicans who never liked Trump that much to begin with are crawling out of the woodwork to tentatively support him. Trump is already calling him a pedophile, but he has to pull his punches against Trump. Nobody has any idea what is going to happen in this primary.
Re Desantis, I feel like this is an illustration of how rw media types have convinced themselves he’s a superstar within their bubble. What is their track record for identifying electorally strong candidates? They think he can pull the wool over Trump voters eyes and implement a national review agenda. That’s what they thought about Rubio. The conversation around him disregards the liabilities discussed here and the ones that’ll be exposed in a primary.
I don’t think it’s a conservative bubble. He won a legitimately impressive reelection in a swing state and for some reason has the NY Times obsessed with every penny ante culture war provocation he makes.
His Congressional record could be a general election liability, as Josh and others have noted, but a) it’s not clear how effectively any primary opponent would attack him on that and b) its genuinely uncertain what position he will hold on those issues as a Presidential candidate. If he wants to tack towards the center on federal spending I think he will be able to do so given his right wing culture war bona fides.
He really knows media well. He acknowledged climate change from day 1 as governor and I remember his pre-Covid media coverage as being mostly positive, which isn’t easy for a GOP governor in a major swing state. He was also very good (unironically) on Covid through the early days of vaccine distribution, shutting down bars in FL during a surge while leaving beaches open, which was both the right thing to do and a good way to attract dumb criticisms from Apoorva and friends in the media’s lockdowns-forever caucus.
I would just say that Florida isn’t a swing state anymore. It’s solidly red. Not as red as other conservative states, but it’s red (as an aside, I live there). DeSantis was impressive, but Florida’s lackluster Democratic Party and the state’s demographic changes helped him significantly. He would have won either way, but not by 20 points.
I'd love to see some deep dive data research on this, but my hypothesis would be it's much more about right leaning retirees move to FL (in regards to the rightward shift of the state the past 4 years).
If you're subscribing to this substack I'm guessing you're very aware of the puzzle that is the unemployment rate given the big increase in interest rates. And the best theory I've seen is that pandemic helped push a whole of lot of people between ages of 60 and 65 to retire early. In the same way COVID accelerated forward trends regarding work from home, it accelerated forward a whole lot of retirements. And as we all know, the most popular retirement destination is Florida.
It's also why FL may actually be more in play in 2024 if Josh is right and Biden can successfully paint RDS as the guy who wants to take away your Medicare.
I definitely think it is a mix of both and I would love to see some deep dive research on it too. My point was mostly that it’s not 100% demographics as I suspect persuasion is part of Florida’s rightward movement too.
True. I think there is some pretty solid evidence in 2020 that a sizable portion of the Cuban community shifted their vote to Trump due to the Trump campaign successfully painting a picture of Biden (and Democrats) as Socialists.
I would, too. I think that’s a plausible theory. People disillusioned from blue-state pandemic policy also contributed. If I could give Democrats advice to shore up what I see as their weakest stance to win elections, it would be this: Moderate on social issues. Stand up to the radical left on gender ideology (particularly when it comes to children) and abortion (pro-choice with limits that have broad support--allowing abortion up to twelve weeks or so with limits thereafter, much like Europe). It’s not hard. I think Democrats have winning issues across the board except for their social stances. They need to constantly remind themselves that the electorate, even the Democratic electorate, isn’t Twitter.
I'm really hoping for a return to 90s Democratic politics around increasing funding and support for policing, with a couple exceptions based on what probably made the 90s consensus unsustainable. First we need more reasonable criminal sentencing, because I think that the "send everyone to jail" mentality made policing unpopular in the very neighborhoods where it's most important. And second, police accountability needs to exist in some form, because police play a respected role in society and need to be held to standards in order to earn that respect (as a physician, I'd argue the same of physicians - a reason I always hated surprise billing and choose to work in an academic environment where that BS is minimized).
Absolutely. Very well said. Return to the past on what worked, tweak it, make it better. I’m telling you, just meet the median voter where he/she is on issues. And if you’re gonna stray from that based on principle, do it wisely and make sure you know the political cost of doing so.
This is why I love Josh so much. He gets it. If I were a politician, I’d be vying hardcore to have him or someone like him and my main political advisor.
The rightward shift of some demographics (Puerto Rican voters and secular working class whites for example) has to help the GOP too, I would not be surprised if it’s more than just a changing voter pool
1) No Rubio fan here but the man knows how to win elections in Florida. It helps to be a Cuban Republican with a base in the strongest Dem area of the state but his win was impressive too, no doubt.
2) I do like Demings but the idea she is a stronger candidate than Crist doesn’t seem well grounded in reality. Crist is a former governor and last time he tried to reclaim the job against an incumbent (Rick Scott) he lost by 1 point. Against DeSantis he lost by 19.4.
3) DeSantis outperformed Rubio’s margin by several points.
The point is judging purely from electoral performance the two should be considered equally impressive, the reason Republican elites are obsessed with only one is purely up to his “own the libs” baiting and conservative media narratives. Which has a terrible track record of identifying strong candidates.
Well Republicans used to be obsessed with Rubio but he already tried to run for President and fell flat.
DeSantis may yet do the same but we don’t have that datapoint on him. Popular governors of large states tend to be very formidable presidential candidates!
There’s a lot of denial around here about the fact that DeSantis won by 20 points in a state Obama carried twice and Trump won by 1 and 3 points. That’s not the product of a conservative media echo chamber!
>There’s a lot of denial around here about the fact that DeSantis won by 20 points in a state Obama carried twice and Trump won by 1 and 3 points. That’s not the product of a conservative media echo chamber!
You're in denial that Marco Rubio did extremely well in the exact same circumstances! He won 58-41, while Desantis won 59-40.
Either people are underrating Rubio (a real case here TBH, the GOP primary field was volatile in 2016 and he was kneecapped by Christie at just the wrong time in 2016). Or they're overrating DeSantis.
I'd argue that the NY Times' obsession with DeSantis is just a replacement for an obsession covering Trump.
The danger there is that they end up finding another target and DeSantis no longer benefits from that spotlight.
Much as I agree that DeSantis is putting himself in a good position, it's worth wondering if he's just benefiting from particular circumstances and peaking too early.
I think going from winning less than 1% to almost 20 is impressive. I deplore his culture war tactics and am not a fan. But his political demagoguery worked, and he has good political instincts and knows how to pivot to the center to win independents. He’ll be Biden’s biggest threat if he wins the nomination. I’m just acknowledging his strengths, but I didn’t vote for him.
Is it his political demagoguery that worked? Certainly it's one of the things that's gotten him a lot of attention from national conservatives (setting himself apart on COVID policy, for good and ill, is the other).
It's not at all clear to me that the hot-button culture war issues (library books, etc) were an important factor either way in the election in FL. My sense is that his light touch on pandemic policy was popular in FL -- that the "open for business" narrative has been effective -- that the nuts and bolts of state government are working fairly well there, and that he spent a lot of money on broadly popular initiatives like teacher pay increases, climate resiliency, toll suspensions, etc.
What's your sense from the ground -- is there a reason to think "Don't Say Gay," fights with Disney, etc actually won over swing voters for him?
I think, more than anything, it was his pandemic policy that won swing voters over. As you know, Covid took a toll on a lot of people's livelihoods, and he was able to capitalize on that really well in the campaign (one memorable line from his debate with Crist was something along the lines of, "I took the arrows from the left-wing CDC and federal government so you wouldn't have to."). That said, I doubt the majority of his demagoguery worked with swing voters, but I bet some of it did. As an example, regarding the "Don't Say Gay" bill, he was able to convince my wife, who I'd consider a centrist who is fairly liberal on LGBT policy, to still vote for him simply because she thinks gender ideology shouldn't be taught to kids in elementary school (and because of the broadly popular initiatives he did, as you mentioned). I pushed back because a), the issue needs to be handled with care and not demagogued and b) there isn't widespread (if any) gender ideology being taught in Florida schools. As I understand it, it's a regional thing and is mainly confined to the most progressive cities in America. Her obvious retort was, "Well, it's only a matter of time. Just look at how much has changed with the Left in the last five years." It was divisive and unnecessary, but I think voters who don't pay attention to the everyday happenings of politics saw an issue like that and were persuaded. Another example is his banning of trans females from playing in female sports (on the first day of Pride Month, no less...). It's an issue the NCAA can handle, but I think it's one voters grasped intuitively as an issue of fairness, so they probably sided with him on that, too.
A lot of what he does is pure jackassery, but he's really savvy, data-driven, and looks to stay on offense. As you noted in a previous post, he didn't move to the right on abortion when he could have, and I'm not sure he will unless he feels forced to. It totally took the wind out of Crist's sails when he was trying to attack him on it. I doubt Trump will either, so DeSantis may not need to if he can beat him without doing so.
Question for you: Do you think Trump will run a spoiler Independent candidacy if DeSantis beats him?
Lastly, if you want to follow someone on Twitter who has excellent commentary on DeSantis, it's Scott Maxwell of the Orlando Sentinel. He's a lot like you--very sharp, independent-minded, and provides fact-based commentary on a lot of the absurdity that comes out of Tallahassee these days.
This is strange analysis. After 4 years of living under DeSantis, Floridians re-elected him with a 19 point higher margin than in his first election. After 4 years living under Jeb his margin improved 2 points. Jeb (who ran three times) never got more than 56% of the vote. DeSantis got over 59%. And Jebs primary flameout was over a dozen years after his last election run.
None of this is to say DeSantis will win! But to deny his re-election was an impressive result is deluding yourself.
I don’t think DeSantis’s strength is that he’s a good candidate, but that he is an opportunist who can pick the right enemies for his limited talents. I like Biden but he’s not the natural politician who can overcome a bad political environment, so he’s vulnerable if the economy takes a bad turn. And there are no other viable Trump opponents in the GOP so it just sort of has to be him even if he kind of sucks. Maybe a good comp is Nixon? He seems like a bad retail politician too and is similarly likable
The core underlying factor is that the rest of the GOP bench is and has been *so* weak. Please clap. Sorry, the alternative to DJT in 2016 was the execrable Ted Cruz? In 2012, some pizza guy like Herman Cain, whose name I literally had to recover by googling "2012 Republican pizza"?
Neither party has a particularly strong bench, and hasn’t since about 2008. It’s why we wound up with Hillary vs. Trump, Trump vs. Biden, and why we stand a good chance of a Trump Biden rematch in 2024.
I’m usually not a fan of the SOTU, but last night was the best presidential performance since Bill Clinton, who was a master of SOTU speeches. And I totally agree that focusing on Medicare and Social Security is a winning formula for the Democrats. It has always worked in the past. The majority of voters could care less about the Republican culture wars, but they care greatly about being able to receive Medicare and SS benefits when their time comes. It’s amazing to me that Republicans just can’t help touching that third rail over and over through the years, even though it always ends badly for them.
Down with gerontocracy. Don't just cut Medicare and Social Security. Annihilate them. Old people are the wealthiest and least vulnerable group in America. Why should the money of struggling (or so they constantly tell us) Millennials and Gen Z go to subsidize the idleness of millions of perfectly fit people? People who have put off buying houses and having families are having their pockets picked by greedy old farts. And these people vote for Democrats!
My grandmother recently passed away. She acted like the poorest person you could imagine. She hoarded plastic bags, saying they were "like gold." She died with $200,000 in cash, and a $1.3 million home that was built in the 60s and had never been meaningfully renovated.
Beware old men. They won't live in the world they're creating.
Wauw, big think. I love the quality of your contribution. Go back to being the teacher's pet in second grade. Mrs. Anderson needs more apples.
I don't know if DeSantis will be the nominee, or whether if, as the nominee, he'll defeat Biden. But I do know that this whole article and this comments section reads like the most intense cope I've ever encountered. That's not to say that the right-wing infatuation with DeSantis isn't also cope, but that doesn't make this garbage less rancid.
What a bunch of unserious shits. Medicare, Medicaid and SSI made up 49% of the federal budget in 2019. Debt interest payments are 8% of the budget. We’re basically at a debt to GDP of 100% and running a 27% deficit in 2022.
You can’t fix this crap without cutting entitlements along with defense spending and other discretionary spending. Raise taxes across the board to the steady-state revenue maximizing revenue. I don’t care if it’s unpopular, people need to start acting like adults and realize there are no fun solutions when we’ve been throwing an unfunded federal spending party for the last 20 years. To hell with Democrats, Republicans, and voters alike.
But exactly what needs to be fixed? There's no need to balance the federal budget and no current indication lenders will require meaningfully higher real interest rates to finance the spending. And to the extent there is an issue, there's no reason a marginal change to benefits and taxes couldn't address the problem over time. There just is no *crisis* here.
We are from my perspective rapidly approaching the point where this can be fixed. Businesses go bankrupt slowly and then quickly. The point of active crisis is a point where the problem is beyond fixing. Since 1930, Federal receipts have never gone above 20.5% of GDP. We are coming on successive years of government spending at 31%, 29% and 24% of GDP. Modest changes to the tax structure isn’t going to cut it.
We were able to grow our way out of our WWII debt to GDP because the rest of the First World was reduced to ruble. We aren’t going to have that same kind of growth opportunity going forward.
The number of old age entitlement recipients is increasing as a share of the population. We need additional workers in the economy to make up for that reduction in productive workers (which will need to be done through immigration). We are currently looking at a 23% cut to social security recipients in benefits in 10 years. I think that constitutes something that most people would think requires more than modest changes to the program.
Agree with your comment below, perhaps to be precise: "when and under what circumstances is it important for policymakers to reduce the US's national debt and annual deficit?"
But honestly this is kinda tired topic, I think his views on this have been stated repeatedly. When it becomes expensive to borrow, it becomes necessary to adjust the forward-looking budgetary track to bring down the gap and therefore reduce interest rates. Think the budget deals of the 1990s, where higher rates were materially hurting the government and citizens.
And to your substantive point above, the government isn't a business and cannot go bankrupt in the same manner as a business (the example of Japan is illustrative here).
To the extend entitlements are liabilities, they are ones the government can control (increase or decrease with benefit changes) and are denominated in US dollars that are issued by the US government. The lending that funds those liabilities is also principally from US citizens, too.
While the number of entitlement recipients is increasing due to the aging of the population, this is something that happens slowly (people age at the rate of one year per year) and also reverses itself as the elderly....uh....age out of receiving entitlements. Generational adjustments take generations. So we're not looking at a 23% cut to social security beneficiaries in 10 years and I'd wager on that. At very minimum, we have a full decade to decide on what course to take!
Sure, there's a limit on how much you can borrow: that limit is determined by the market for government debt which sets forth the interest rate necessary to issue new debt. I'm not sure there's an exact number that becomes "unsustainable" per se, but if you're looking at a single metric, that's the one to use.
Josh, I think this would be a good Mayo Clinic topic. Putting what makes good politics aside, do you think the national debt is an issue that needs to be addressed in the near term and how would you do it?
I cannot validate that number. 2021 net interest paid is 352 billion. 1984 it was 111 billion. If you control for it as a percentage of GDP, that’s 2021 at 1.6% vs. 2.8% for 1984. That’s higher, but it’s not a third. I would also point out that by 2027 we are projected to more than double based on the current budgeted spending to a net interest of 729 billion.
That's odd... my stock portfolio is up 7% over the last year and to say that his policies have decimated everyone's retirement accounts is just false. The market is cyclical, it goes up and down but over time trends positive.
If you don't like Biden that is fine. But to make it seem like inflation wasn't on it's way up as a result of some Trump policies is naïve at best, the Trump era tax cuts supercharged the stock market a bit, and a lot of companies had great earnings the past 2 years. All your comment tells me is you don't know how the stock market works. Finally, Biden is many things, but vicious is not one of them, MTG and some other GOP members on the other hand...
1) It was someone else using this strategy, rather than a 2024-hopeful Biden
2) That both parties would come to terms that entitlement reform has GOT to happen at some point (so says...math), and the only way the American voters don't penalize either party for saying so is for BOTH to say so.
I'm thinking one of the above is more likely than the other...
Several people here have already made the point, but it deserves more emphasis--whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent, the plain fact is that the entitlement programs will not survive without being modified in some way. We've done it before, changing the Social Security age, and increasing taxable liability for those retirees with higher income levels. More changes of this type are absolutely going to be required unless we just throw up our hands and resign ourselves to cutting benefits drastically for all. Republicans (some of them, not all) are idiots for floating ideas like Scott's and Johnson's. Democrats (unfortunately pretty much all of them) are idiots for refusing to admit that something needs to be done besides sticking their collective heads in the sand.
Why people like Josh aren't being hired by Democratic candidates to write their ads or messaging for them is beyond me. Same with the guys from The Liberal Patriot.
Social Security is insolvent. Everybody knows that it needs to be reformed, but now that it's the next "abortion", in terms of political football issues, the Dems will play it like a flute. Since we actually do need Social Security reform, what is the best bipartisan way to not run it dry. There has to be a decent political strategy to bring needed changes. "Joe wants to drive your mom off a cliff" is basically what he's saying when he says he's not going to "touch" Social Security. It's one of those 'no decision is a decision' situations. A bipartisan committee to reform SSI so it's solvent would be nice.
Republicans really have no idea how healthcare spending works. Medicare reimburses less than private insurance, but a lot of Medicare patients would just be uninsured without Medicare, and EMTALA means hospitals have to take those patients anyway so Medicare is basically a financial lifeline and without it a lot of older patients would just never pay for their care. Private dermatology clinics and the like would survive if Medicare became optional, but I’m honestly not sure that hospitals could unless we shoveled subsidies at them (including restarting the pre-ACA charity care subsidies, which were much more opaque than Medicare)
Honestly working in medicine has taught me that modern conservatism shares a lot with Liz Warrenism in that it might work on paper but doesn’t work in the real world.
I think more than anything, swing voters and voters in general rewarded him for his pandemic policy. As you know, the pandemic took a big toll on peoples' livelihoods, and he was able to capitalize really effectively on that in the campaign (in his debate with Crist, a memorable line he said was along the lines of, "I took the arrows from the left-wing CDC and federal government so you wouldn't have to.").
That said, I doubt the majority of his demagoguery works with swing voters, but some of it does. I think the "Don't Say Gay" bill, for example, resonated with people who were probably like, "Yeah, we probably shouldn't be teaching gender ideology to elementary kids," you know what I mean? My wife, who is fairly liberal on social issues, voted for him in part because he stands up to the Left on their overreach. Now, I pushed back and continue to do so because a), it's a topic that needs to be handled with care and not demagogued, and b) the radical gender ideology being taught in schools seems to be regional and primarily in the most progressive cities in America (certainly not in Florida). The obvious retort to that is, "Well, just give it time. Look how much has changed in the last five years." But again, as of right now in Florida, it's not an issue, and I think it was totally unnecessary and mean-spirited, as is much of what he does. Nevertheless, he convinced my wife to vote for him who I would consider a swing voter, so I'm sure it was that way for other swing voters. It's a similar situation with his banning of trans females playing in female sports--on the first day of Pride Month, no less. Voters probably intuitively saw an issue of unfairness in competition, and the fact it was on the first day of Pride Month probably didn't bother them as much as it does Democrats and liberals. I just hope if he gets the nomination, America will see these moves and others as the jackassery that it is and take them into consideration. Although, he may moderate his culture war brazenness in a general election (hopefully), as the electorate of America isn't Florida's electorate.
To sum up, DeSantis knows how to pivot where he needs to, and I think he is very analytical and data-driven. I mean, look at the migrants-to-Martha's Vineyard stunt--polls in Florida showed a majority support, even among the Latino(a) community! And as you've noted in other posts, the fact he didn't move farther to the right on abortion took the wind out of Crist's sails as trying to paint him as an extremist on the issue. I do think his congressional record will haunt him to some degree, and if he moves to the right on abortion to get ahead in the primaries, that will cost him, too. I'm sure he knows that, so I imagine he is biding his time and waiting to see if he needs to or not.
Do you think Trump runs as a spoiler Independent if DeSantis beats him?
(Side note: If you want excellent commentary on DeSantis' policies and theatrics, follow Scott Maxwell on Twitter (he works for the Orlando Sentinel). He is a lot like you--very sharp, independent-minded, and reminds voters with fact-based analysis of a lot of the absurdity that comes out of Tallahassee these days).
Great read today Mr.Barro, while this was one of Biden's better speeches and I hope that Democrats continue to target Republicans on budget items and legislative matters like this, I still hope that Biden doesn't run for re-election. I'm still waiting on McCarthy to actually provide an example of the budget cuts that he wants, not just saying that he wants to "strengthen" Medicare & Social Security by increasing the age of eligibility to 70. The Republicans seem to be very performative right now and I doubt even Trump wants to run on cutting benefits for older Americans. It seems like a losing proposition.
One of the best I've read here; happy paying subscriber.
This is all really well put, I'm honestly alarmed at how confident I am in Biden's chances right now.
I would say DeSantis is at most very slightly ahead, not anywhere near being the presumptive nominee. He's doing well enough that a lot of Republicans who never liked Trump that much to begin with are crawling out of the woodwork to tentatively support him. Trump is already calling him a pedophile, but he has to pull his punches against Trump. Nobody has any idea what is going to happen in this primary.
Re Desantis, I feel like this is an illustration of how rw media types have convinced themselves he’s a superstar within their bubble. What is their track record for identifying electorally strong candidates? They think he can pull the wool over Trump voters eyes and implement a national review agenda. That’s what they thought about Rubio. The conversation around him disregards the liabilities discussed here and the ones that’ll be exposed in a primary.
I don’t think it’s a conservative bubble. He won a legitimately impressive reelection in a swing state and for some reason has the NY Times obsessed with every penny ante culture war provocation he makes.
His Congressional record could be a general election liability, as Josh and others have noted, but a) it’s not clear how effectively any primary opponent would attack him on that and b) its genuinely uncertain what position he will hold on those issues as a Presidential candidate. If he wants to tack towards the center on federal spending I think he will be able to do so given his right wing culture war bona fides.
He really knows media well. He acknowledged climate change from day 1 as governor and I remember his pre-Covid media coverage as being mostly positive, which isn’t easy for a GOP governor in a major swing state. He was also very good (unironically) on Covid through the early days of vaccine distribution, shutting down bars in FL during a surge while leaving beaches open, which was both the right thing to do and a good way to attract dumb criticisms from Apoorva and friends in the media’s lockdowns-forever caucus.
I would just say that Florida isn’t a swing state anymore. It’s solidly red. Not as red as other conservative states, but it’s red (as an aside, I live there). DeSantis was impressive, but Florida’s lackluster Democratic Party and the state’s demographic changes helped him significantly. He would have won either way, but not by 20 points.
I'd love to see some deep dive data research on this, but my hypothesis would be it's much more about right leaning retirees move to FL (in regards to the rightward shift of the state the past 4 years).
If you're subscribing to this substack I'm guessing you're very aware of the puzzle that is the unemployment rate given the big increase in interest rates. And the best theory I've seen is that pandemic helped push a whole of lot of people between ages of 60 and 65 to retire early. In the same way COVID accelerated forward trends regarding work from home, it accelerated forward a whole lot of retirements. And as we all know, the most popular retirement destination is Florida.
It's also why FL may actually be more in play in 2024 if Josh is right and Biden can successfully paint RDS as the guy who wants to take away your Medicare.
I definitely think it is a mix of both and I would love to see some deep dive research on it too. My point was mostly that it’s not 100% demographics as I suspect persuasion is part of Florida’s rightward movement too.
True. I think there is some pretty solid evidence in 2020 that a sizable portion of the Cuban community shifted their vote to Trump due to the Trump campaign successfully painting a picture of Biden (and Democrats) as Socialists.
I would, too. I think that’s a plausible theory. People disillusioned from blue-state pandemic policy also contributed. If I could give Democrats advice to shore up what I see as their weakest stance to win elections, it would be this: Moderate on social issues. Stand up to the radical left on gender ideology (particularly when it comes to children) and abortion (pro-choice with limits that have broad support--allowing abortion up to twelve weeks or so with limits thereafter, much like Europe). It’s not hard. I think Democrats have winning issues across the board except for their social stances. They need to constantly remind themselves that the electorate, even the Democratic electorate, isn’t Twitter.
I'm really hoping for a return to 90s Democratic politics around increasing funding and support for policing, with a couple exceptions based on what probably made the 90s consensus unsustainable. First we need more reasonable criminal sentencing, because I think that the "send everyone to jail" mentality made policing unpopular in the very neighborhoods where it's most important. And second, police accountability needs to exist in some form, because police play a respected role in society and need to be held to standards in order to earn that respect (as a physician, I'd argue the same of physicians - a reason I always hated surprise billing and choose to work in an academic environment where that BS is minimized).
Absolutely. Very well said. Return to the past on what worked, tweak it, make it better. I’m telling you, just meet the median voter where he/she is on issues. And if you’re gonna stray from that based on principle, do it wisely and make sure you know the political cost of doing so.
This is why I love Josh so much. He gets it. If I were a politician, I’d be vying hardcore to have him or someone like him and my main political advisor.
The rightward shift of some demographics (Puerto Rican voters and secular working class whites for example) has to help the GOP too, I would not be surprised if it’s more than just a changing voter pool
I think that’s right. Hispanics moving to the GOP in Florida is representative of the trend writ large.
> He won a legitimately impressive reelection in a swing state
So did Marco Rubio! And Rubio ran against Val Demings, a much better candidate than Desantis' opponent Charlie Crist!
To the extent you think that's impressive, you should also think Marco Rubio is impressive.
1) No Rubio fan here but the man knows how to win elections in Florida. It helps to be a Cuban Republican with a base in the strongest Dem area of the state but his win was impressive too, no doubt.
2) I do like Demings but the idea she is a stronger candidate than Crist doesn’t seem well grounded in reality. Crist is a former governor and last time he tried to reclaim the job against an incumbent (Rick Scott) he lost by 1 point. Against DeSantis he lost by 19.4.
3) DeSantis outperformed Rubio’s margin by several points.
The point is judging purely from electoral performance the two should be considered equally impressive, the reason Republican elites are obsessed with only one is purely up to his “own the libs” baiting and conservative media narratives. Which has a terrible track record of identifying strong candidates.
Well Republicans used to be obsessed with Rubio but he already tried to run for President and fell flat.
DeSantis may yet do the same but we don’t have that datapoint on him. Popular governors of large states tend to be very formidable presidential candidates!
There’s a lot of denial around here about the fact that DeSantis won by 20 points in a state Obama carried twice and Trump won by 1 and 3 points. That’s not the product of a conservative media echo chamber!
>There’s a lot of denial around here about the fact that DeSantis won by 20 points in a state Obama carried twice and Trump won by 1 and 3 points. That’s not the product of a conservative media echo chamber!
You're in denial that Marco Rubio did extremely well in the exact same circumstances! He won 58-41, while Desantis won 59-40.
Either people are underrating Rubio (a real case here TBH, the GOP primary field was volatile in 2016 and he was kneecapped by Christie at just the wrong time in 2016). Or they're overrating DeSantis.
I'd argue that the NY Times' obsession with DeSantis is just a replacement for an obsession covering Trump.
The danger there is that they end up finding another target and DeSantis no longer benefits from that spotlight.
Much as I agree that DeSantis is putting himself in a good position, it's worth wondering if he's just benefiting from particular circumstances and peaking too early.
It’s certainly possible and there’s many miles to go. My point though is he is not a “conservative bubble” creation a la Scott Walker.
Was it impressive?
In his two election campaigns, he won by a net 20 points.
In *his* two gubernatorial campaigns in Florida, Jeb Bush won by a net 24 points, and that was when Florida was a lot bluer.
Didn't help him much against Trump.
I think going from winning less than 1% to almost 20 is impressive. I deplore his culture war tactics and am not a fan. But his political demagoguery worked, and he has good political instincts and knows how to pivot to the center to win independents. He’ll be Biden’s biggest threat if he wins the nomination. I’m just acknowledging his strengths, but I didn’t vote for him.
Is it his political demagoguery that worked? Certainly it's one of the things that's gotten him a lot of attention from national conservatives (setting himself apart on COVID policy, for good and ill, is the other).
It's not at all clear to me that the hot-button culture war issues (library books, etc) were an important factor either way in the election in FL. My sense is that his light touch on pandemic policy was popular in FL -- that the "open for business" narrative has been effective -- that the nuts and bolts of state government are working fairly well there, and that he spent a lot of money on broadly popular initiatives like teacher pay increases, climate resiliency, toll suspensions, etc.
What's your sense from the ground -- is there a reason to think "Don't Say Gay," fights with Disney, etc actually won over swing voters for him?
I think, more than anything, it was his pandemic policy that won swing voters over. As you know, Covid took a toll on a lot of people's livelihoods, and he was able to capitalize on that really well in the campaign (one memorable line from his debate with Crist was something along the lines of, "I took the arrows from the left-wing CDC and federal government so you wouldn't have to."). That said, I doubt the majority of his demagoguery worked with swing voters, but I bet some of it did. As an example, regarding the "Don't Say Gay" bill, he was able to convince my wife, who I'd consider a centrist who is fairly liberal on LGBT policy, to still vote for him simply because she thinks gender ideology shouldn't be taught to kids in elementary school (and because of the broadly popular initiatives he did, as you mentioned). I pushed back because a), the issue needs to be handled with care and not demagogued and b) there isn't widespread (if any) gender ideology being taught in Florida schools. As I understand it, it's a regional thing and is mainly confined to the most progressive cities in America. Her obvious retort was, "Well, it's only a matter of time. Just look at how much has changed with the Left in the last five years." It was divisive and unnecessary, but I think voters who don't pay attention to the everyday happenings of politics saw an issue like that and were persuaded. Another example is his banning of trans females from playing in female sports (on the first day of Pride Month, no less...). It's an issue the NCAA can handle, but I think it's one voters grasped intuitively as an issue of fairness, so they probably sided with him on that, too.
A lot of what he does is pure jackassery, but he's really savvy, data-driven, and looks to stay on offense. As you noted in a previous post, he didn't move to the right on abortion when he could have, and I'm not sure he will unless he feels forced to. It totally took the wind out of Crist's sails when he was trying to attack him on it. I doubt Trump will either, so DeSantis may not need to if he can beat him without doing so.
Question for you: Do you think Trump will run a spoiler Independent candidacy if DeSantis beats him?
Lastly, if you want to follow someone on Twitter who has excellent commentary on DeSantis, it's Scott Maxwell of the Orlando Sentinel. He's a lot like you--very sharp, independent-minded, and provides fact-based commentary on a lot of the absurdity that comes out of Tallahassee these days.
Thanks for all your great work.
This is strange analysis. After 4 years of living under DeSantis, Floridians re-elected him with a 19 point higher margin than in his first election. After 4 years living under Jeb his margin improved 2 points. Jeb (who ran three times) never got more than 56% of the vote. DeSantis got over 59%. And Jebs primary flameout was over a dozen years after his last election run.
None of this is to say DeSantis will win! But to deny his re-election was an impressive result is deluding yourself.
Well, certainly as impressive as Mike DeWine's win. Less impressive than Chris Sununu's in a blue state
A tiny bit more impressive than Rubio.
DeSantis may do great against Trump. His point margin against Crist is certainly meaningless, imo.
I don’t think DeSantis’s strength is that he’s a good candidate, but that he is an opportunist who can pick the right enemies for his limited talents. I like Biden but he’s not the natural politician who can overcome a bad political environment, so he’s vulnerable if the economy takes a bad turn. And there are no other viable Trump opponents in the GOP so it just sort of has to be him even if he kind of sucks. Maybe a good comp is Nixon? He seems like a bad retail politician too and is similarly likable
The core underlying factor is that the rest of the GOP bench is and has been *so* weak. Please clap. Sorry, the alternative to DJT in 2016 was the execrable Ted Cruz? In 2012, some pizza guy like Herman Cain, whose name I literally had to recover by googling "2012 Republican pizza"?
Sad!!!!!!!!
(!)
Neither party has a particularly strong bench, and hasn’t since about 2008. It’s why we wound up with Hillary vs. Trump, Trump vs. Biden, and why we stand a good chance of a Trump Biden rematch in 2024.
9 9 9
Never forget
I’m usually not a fan of the SOTU, but last night was the best presidential performance since Bill Clinton, who was a master of SOTU speeches. And I totally agree that focusing on Medicare and Social Security is a winning formula for the Democrats. It has always worked in the past. The majority of voters could care less about the Republican culture wars, but they care greatly about being able to receive Medicare and SS benefits when their time comes. It’s amazing to me that Republicans just can’t help touching that third rail over and over through the years, even though it always ends badly for them.
Down with gerontocracy. Don't just cut Medicare and Social Security. Annihilate them. Old people are the wealthiest and least vulnerable group in America. Why should the money of struggling (or so they constantly tell us) Millennials and Gen Z go to subsidize the idleness of millions of perfectly fit people? People who have put off buying houses and having families are having their pockets picked by greedy old farts. And these people vote for Democrats!
My grandmother recently passed away. She acted like the poorest person you could imagine. She hoarded plastic bags, saying they were "like gold." She died with $200,000 in cash, and a $1.3 million home that was built in the 60s and had never been meaningfully renovated.
Beware old men. They won't live in the world they're creating.
Senator Scott, there is no need to comment here under a pseudonym
Wauw, big think. I love the quality of your contribution. Go back to being the teacher's pet in second grade. Mrs. Anderson needs more apples.
I don't know if DeSantis will be the nominee, or whether if, as the nominee, he'll defeat Biden. But I do know that this whole article and this comments section reads like the most intense cope I've ever encountered. That's not to say that the right-wing infatuation with DeSantis isn't also cope, but that doesn't make this garbage less rancid.
What a bunch of unserious shits. Medicare, Medicaid and SSI made up 49% of the federal budget in 2019. Debt interest payments are 8% of the budget. We’re basically at a debt to GDP of 100% and running a 27% deficit in 2022.
You can’t fix this crap without cutting entitlements along with defense spending and other discretionary spending. Raise taxes across the board to the steady-state revenue maximizing revenue. I don’t care if it’s unpopular, people need to start acting like adults and realize there are no fun solutions when we’ve been throwing an unfunded federal spending party for the last 20 years. To hell with Democrats, Republicans, and voters alike.
But exactly what needs to be fixed? There's no need to balance the federal budget and no current indication lenders will require meaningfully higher real interest rates to finance the spending. And to the extent there is an issue, there's no reason a marginal change to benefits and taxes couldn't address the problem over time. There just is no *crisis* here.
We are from my perspective rapidly approaching the point where this can be fixed. Businesses go bankrupt slowly and then quickly. The point of active crisis is a point where the problem is beyond fixing. Since 1930, Federal receipts have never gone above 20.5% of GDP. We are coming on successive years of government spending at 31%, 29% and 24% of GDP. Modest changes to the tax structure isn’t going to cut it.
We were able to grow our way out of our WWII debt to GDP because the rest of the First World was reduced to ruble. We aren’t going to have that same kind of growth opportunity going forward.
The number of old age entitlement recipients is increasing as a share of the population. We need additional workers in the economy to make up for that reduction in productive workers (which will need to be done through immigration). We are currently looking at a 23% cut to social security recipients in benefits in 10 years. I think that constitutes something that most people would think requires more than modest changes to the program.
Agree with your comment below, perhaps to be precise: "when and under what circumstances is it important for policymakers to reduce the US's national debt and annual deficit?"
But honestly this is kinda tired topic, I think his views on this have been stated repeatedly. When it becomes expensive to borrow, it becomes necessary to adjust the forward-looking budgetary track to bring down the gap and therefore reduce interest rates. Think the budget deals of the 1990s, where higher rates were materially hurting the government and citizens.
And to your substantive point above, the government isn't a business and cannot go bankrupt in the same manner as a business (the example of Japan is illustrative here).
To the extend entitlements are liabilities, they are ones the government can control (increase or decrease with benefit changes) and are denominated in US dollars that are issued by the US government. The lending that funds those liabilities is also principally from US citizens, too.
While the number of entitlement recipients is increasing due to the aging of the population, this is something that happens slowly (people age at the rate of one year per year) and also reverses itself as the elderly....uh....age out of receiving entitlements. Generational adjustments take generations. So we're not looking at a 23% cut to social security beneficiaries in 10 years and I'd wager on that. At very minimum, we have a full decade to decide on what course to take!
Sure, there's a limit on how much you can borrow: that limit is determined by the market for government debt which sets forth the interest rate necessary to issue new debt. I'm not sure there's an exact number that becomes "unsustainable" per se, but if you're looking at a single metric, that's the one to use.
Josh, I think this would be a good Mayo Clinic topic. Putting what makes good politics aside, do you think the national debt is an issue that needs to be addressed in the near term and how would you do it?
Interest payments on the debt are currently one third of what they were during Reagan's glorious Morning in America
We still have some room before disaster arrives.
I cannot validate that number. 2021 net interest paid is 352 billion. 1984 it was 111 billion. If you control for it as a percentage of GDP, that’s 2021 at 1.6% vs. 2.8% for 1984. That’s higher, but it’s not a third. I would also point out that by 2027 we are projected to more than double based on the current budgeted spending to a net interest of 729 billion.
I see a slightly different calc, but the visual tells the same story in an easier manner:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S
Point is - nothing about this screams imminent crisis.
As an retiree and a long time Biden watcher, I was discouraged to see him nominated but l hoped his presidency would lead to some kind of normalcy.
I couldn’t stand Trump but ffs are you kidding?
I guess l wasn’t watching the same speech. Bellowing, vicious Biden lying his ass off for 50 years.
He’s been a horrible president and his policies have led to ruinous inflation and the decimation of retirement accounts for young an old alike.
That's odd... my stock portfolio is up 7% over the last year and to say that his policies have decimated everyone's retirement accounts is just false. The market is cyclical, it goes up and down but over time trends positive.
If you don't like Biden that is fine. But to make it seem like inflation wasn't on it's way up as a result of some Trump policies is naïve at best, the Trump era tax cuts supercharged the stock market a bit, and a lot of companies had great earnings the past 2 years. All your comment tells me is you don't know how the stock market works. Finally, Biden is many things, but vicious is not one of them, MTG and some other GOP members on the other hand...
Have some of column A, try all of column B
I'm in the mood to help you, dude
You ain't never had a friend like me
I wish two things:
1) It was someone else using this strategy, rather than a 2024-hopeful Biden
2) That both parties would come to terms that entitlement reform has GOT to happen at some point (so says...math), and the only way the American voters don't penalize either party for saying so is for BOTH to say so.
I'm thinking one of the above is more likely than the other...
Several people here have already made the point, but it deserves more emphasis--whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent, the plain fact is that the entitlement programs will not survive without being modified in some way. We've done it before, changing the Social Security age, and increasing taxable liability for those retirees with higher income levels. More changes of this type are absolutely going to be required unless we just throw up our hands and resign ourselves to cutting benefits drastically for all. Republicans (some of them, not all) are idiots for floating ideas like Scott's and Johnson's. Democrats (unfortunately pretty much all of them) are idiots for refusing to admit that something needs to be done besides sticking their collective heads in the sand.
My takeaway from this post: Rick Scott is a secret Democrat plant in the senate Republican caucus!
Why people like Josh aren't being hired by Democratic candidates to write their ads or messaging for them is beyond me. Same with the guys from The Liberal Patriot.
Social Security is insolvent. Everybody knows that it needs to be reformed, but now that it's the next "abortion", in terms of political football issues, the Dems will play it like a flute. Since we actually do need Social Security reform, what is the best bipartisan way to not run it dry. There has to be a decent political strategy to bring needed changes. "Joe wants to drive your mom off a cliff" is basically what he's saying when he says he's not going to "touch" Social Security. It's one of those 'no decision is a decision' situations. A bipartisan committee to reform SSI so it's solvent would be nice.
Republicans really have no idea how healthcare spending works. Medicare reimburses less than private insurance, but a lot of Medicare patients would just be uninsured without Medicare, and EMTALA means hospitals have to take those patients anyway so Medicare is basically a financial lifeline and without it a lot of older patients would just never pay for their care. Private dermatology clinics and the like would survive if Medicare became optional, but I’m honestly not sure that hospitals could unless we shoveled subsidies at them (including restarting the pre-ACA charity care subsidies, which were much more opaque than Medicare)
Honestly working in medicine has taught me that modern conservatism shares a lot with Liz Warrenism in that it might work on paper but doesn’t work in the real world.
I think more than anything, swing voters and voters in general rewarded him for his pandemic policy. As you know, the pandemic took a big toll on peoples' livelihoods, and he was able to capitalize really effectively on that in the campaign (in his debate with Crist, a memorable line he said was along the lines of, "I took the arrows from the left-wing CDC and federal government so you wouldn't have to.").
That said, I doubt the majority of his demagoguery works with swing voters, but some of it does. I think the "Don't Say Gay" bill, for example, resonated with people who were probably like, "Yeah, we probably shouldn't be teaching gender ideology to elementary kids," you know what I mean? My wife, who is fairly liberal on social issues, voted for him in part because he stands up to the Left on their overreach. Now, I pushed back and continue to do so because a), it's a topic that needs to be handled with care and not demagogued, and b) the radical gender ideology being taught in schools seems to be regional and primarily in the most progressive cities in America (certainly not in Florida). The obvious retort to that is, "Well, just give it time. Look how much has changed in the last five years." But again, as of right now in Florida, it's not an issue, and I think it was totally unnecessary and mean-spirited, as is much of what he does. Nevertheless, he convinced my wife to vote for him who I would consider a swing voter, so I'm sure it was that way for other swing voters. It's a similar situation with his banning of trans females playing in female sports--on the first day of Pride Month, no less. Voters probably intuitively saw an issue of unfairness in competition, and the fact it was on the first day of Pride Month probably didn't bother them as much as it does Democrats and liberals. I just hope if he gets the nomination, America will see these moves and others as the jackassery that it is and take them into consideration. Although, he may moderate his culture war brazenness in a general election (hopefully), as the electorate of America isn't Florida's electorate.
To sum up, DeSantis knows how to pivot where he needs to, and I think he is very analytical and data-driven. I mean, look at the migrants-to-Martha's Vineyard stunt--polls in Florida showed a majority support, even among the Latino(a) community! And as you've noted in other posts, the fact he didn't move farther to the right on abortion took the wind out of Crist's sails as trying to paint him as an extremist on the issue. I do think his congressional record will haunt him to some degree, and if he moves to the right on abortion to get ahead in the primaries, that will cost him, too. I'm sure he knows that, so I imagine he is biding his time and waiting to see if he needs to or not.
Do you think Trump runs as a spoiler Independent if DeSantis beats him?
(Side note: If you want excellent commentary on DeSantis' policies and theatrics, follow Scott Maxwell on Twitter (he works for the Orlando Sentinel). He is a lot like you--very sharp, independent-minded, and reminds voters with fact-based analysis of a lot of the absurdity that comes out of Tallahassee these days).
Are Medicare and Social Security really non-financial issues?
Great read today Mr.Barro, while this was one of Biden's better speeches and I hope that Democrats continue to target Republicans on budget items and legislative matters like this, I still hope that Biden doesn't run for re-election. I'm still waiting on McCarthy to actually provide an example of the budget cuts that he wants, not just saying that he wants to "strengthen" Medicare & Social Security by increasing the age of eligibility to 70. The Republicans seem to be very performative right now and I doubt even Trump wants to run on cutting benefits for older Americans. It seems like a losing proposition.