According to a new NBC News poll, Democrats’ support among Latino voters is slipping ahead of November’s midterm elections, down 26 points from this last time last year. NBC News’ Mark Murray explains why Democrats could be losing support among the Latino community and how Republicans are addressing certain key issues Latino voters are concerned about.
Looking at the national polling, it seems possible that Democrats might not be able to count on nearly as much support from Black voters as they have in previous elections.
An average of the final five live interview polls of the 2020 election showed Biden with an 84% to 9% lead over then-President Donald Trump among Black voters – a big 75-point advantage. But this year, an average of the last five live interview polls I could find gives Democrats a 74% to 12% advantage among Black voters – a 62-point edge – on the generic congressional ballot, which usually asks respondents some form of the following question: “If the elections for Congress were held today, would you vote for the Democratic or Republican party?”
This represents a larger swing toward Republicans by Black voters than the swing we have seen among all voters from the 2020 baseline.
Notably, the final five live interview polls I could get from the 2018 midterms showed Democrats with an 85% to 9% lead on the generic ballot with Black voters. Again, what we’re seeing this year is clearly different.
This shift among Black voters isn’t something new. Back in April, I pointed out that Democrats had a 73% to 11% advantage among this demographic on the generic ballot. To me, this consistency indicates that it isn’t statistical noise we’re witnessing. It’s something more concrete than that.
As the sample size of Black respondents in any of these polls tends to hover around 100, it’s difficult to say why Black voters seem less pro-Democratic than they were in 2020 or 2018.
The simplest explanation is the same one I had back in April: Biden’s standing. His average approval rating among Black adults in these polls is 64%. In a compilation of Gallup polls I looked at earlier this year, it was 67%. Biden had an approval rating among Black Americans in the high 80s at the beginning of his term.
Biden’s positive standing with Black voters is still significantly higher than his average approval rating with all adults (in the low 40s). But it’s also lower than the lowest rating of the last Democratic president (Barack Obama) with this group.
The question going forward is how Democrats’ lower standing with Black voters on the generic ballot translates into midterm election results. About 14% of Black voters are, on average, undecided or leaning toward backing a third-party candidate. Many of them could end up either voting Democratic or staying home.
But if Democratic House candidates’ current margin among Black voters on the generic ballot – 62 points – holds, it would be the smallest margin they’ve won this group by since 1990.
Sometimes you see a polling result that jumps out from the page. That was the case when I saw a recently released Gallup poll on who Americans think can better handle the issue that is most important to them.
Put in a historical context, this poll potentially portends very good things for Republicans come November.
We’re all used to polls that ask voters which issue is most important to them. Gallup puts the question to Americans open-ended, meaning a respondent can say anything from the mundane (e.g. inflation) to the inane (e.g. clowns).
Gallup, unlike other pollsters, has another twist on that question. They follow it up by pressing respondents to answer which party they think can better handle the issue that they just named as the most important.
Gallup’s latest data shows that 48% of Americans believe the Republican Party is best equipped, while 37% believe it is the Democratic Party.
This 11-point Republican edge is one of the best they have ever had. Looking at 20 midterm elections since 1946 when this question was asked, only once has the Republican Party had a larger advantage on this question. That was in 1946 when Republicans had a 17 point lead on the Democrats.
Republicans had a net gain of 55 House seats in the 1946 election. And while the correlation is far from perfect (+0.7 on a scale of -1 to 1) between House seats won by the Republican Party and how they stood against the Democrats on the most important issue question, it is very much existent.
Take a look at all elections since 1946 in which there was a Democratic president. Republicans ended up with 230 seats on average in the five elections when they led on the question of who Americans trusted more on the issue most important to them. This included 1946 when they won 246 seats.
In the four elections when Republicans trailed on this question, they won an average of just 189 seats. This included both 1962 and 1998, which are the two elections in the polling era with a Democratic president when Republicans had a net gain of less than five seats. Democrats need to keep Republicans to a net gain of less than five seats to maintain control of the House after November’s elections.
The large Republican lead this year may be a bit of a surprise given what seems to be the electoral landscape. Democrats and Republicans are basically tied on the generic congressional ballot at this point. Democrats have done well in special elections aided by the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Indeed, it is certainly plausible that Democrats outperform the historical baseline the Gallup question suggests.
But it’s also possible that abortion is fading as an issue. It ranked seventh when compared to other issues when Americans were asked to name issues that were extremely or very important to them in a recent Monmouth University poll.
Gallup polling showed 8% of Americans named abortion as the nation’s most important problem in July. That was the highest since Gallup began tracking abortion as an important problem in 1984. In their most recent poll, only 4% said abortion was the most important problem. Additionally, the percentage of Americans who listed the judicial system/courts/laws as the most important problem dropped from 5% in July to 2% now.
We see this in Google searches as well. The number of Google searches for abortion in September was basically tied with the number of searches in April, before the May leak of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe. Searches in September were one-third of the level they were in May. They’re one-fifth of the level they were in June, when Roe was overturned. They’re less than half what they were in July.
This could be very bad news for Democrats. Polls show Democrats are more trusted than Republicans on abortion by double-digits. Republicans are more trusted by double-digits on the issues of inflation and the economy, which Americans were far more likely to say was important to them in the Monmouth poll.
Another issue that ranked high in the Monmouth poll was crime. An issue Republicans have been running on. Polling indicates a double-digit advantage of them on crime.
Notably, abortion searches outnumbered crime searches on Google in May, June and July. Today, crime searches outnumber abortion by greater than two-to-one.
If that holds come November, Republicans may have no problem reaching that 230 House seat average they have when they hold the advantage on who Americans think can better handle the issue that is most important to them.
Exactly how many sets of standards do leftists have? Years to get to this point... yet there still isn't mention of failure to register as a foriegn agent, the 10% to the "big guy", selling access to the VP... etc. If this were Trump and his children heads would've rolled long ago and each of you would be celebrating. Not to mention all of the leaks surrounding Republicans straight from the DOJ, FBI, CIA, MSM... etc. What ever happened to the SCOTUS decision that was leaked? It's ok because it was a leftist? Just admit it... you are not principled citizens/people. Any means justify leftist ends?
Federal Investigators Confident They Have Enough Evidence To Charge Hunter Biden: Reports
Federal investigators are confident they have enough evidence to bring criminal charges against Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son, according to multiple reports.
Chris Clark, an attorney representing Hunter Biden, told the Post that the sources it cited discussing potential charges had committed a felony.
“We expect the Department of Justice will diligently investigate and prosecute such bad actors,” Clark added.
Federal investigators are confident they have enough evidence to bring criminal charges against Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son, according to multiple reports.
Chris Clark, an attorney representing Hunter Biden, told the Post that the sources it cited discussing potential charges had committed a felony.
“We expect the Department of Justice will diligently investigate and prosecute such bad actors,” Clark added.
Good. Charge him and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
See how that works?
I didn’t think so.
Floridatexan, Telstar and zsomething like this post
Federal investigators are confident they have enough evidence to bring criminal charges against Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son, according to multiple reports.
Chris Clark, an attorney representing Hunter Biden, told the Post that the sources it cited discussing potential charges had committed a felony.
“We expect the Department of Justice will diligently investigate and prosecute such bad actors,” Clark added.
Good. Charge him and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
See how that works?
I didn’t think so.
I've said the same exact thing in the reversed circumstance. But I know that you're not sincere. First... it's unlikely that he'll be prosecuted. Second... a full investigation hasn't even been tabled. These charges are cursory at best. Unless they follow the money from the Ukraine and China (and Russia to a smaller degree) to the Biden family... then these charges are simply an appeasement.
Would you also support a complete forensic investigation of the money and connections?
Hunter Biden begged his sister-in-law-turned-lover Hallie Biden for cash to check himself into rehab just six weeks before purchasing a handgun — and attesting on federal forms that he had never used or been addicted to drugs.
A shocking, 4-minute, 30-second recording was discovered by The Post on a copy of the infamous hard drive Hunter Biden abandoned at a Delaware computer repair shop, and emerges the same week federal agents said they believe they have enough evidence to charge him for making false statements in order to buy the .38-caliber pistol.
Do you know what would be great? If Republicans actually voted for a bill they know is beneficial to their constituents without calling it "socialist". Lying hypocrites:
Republicans called Biden’s infrastructure program ‘socialism.’ Then they asked for money.
By Edward-Isaac Dovere and Sarah Fortinsky, CNN Updated 8:06 AM EDT, Fri October 7, 2022
CNN — Last November, GOP Rep. Tom Emmer of Minnesota released a statement slamming the passage of the freshly approved infrastructure law he referred to as “President Biden’s multi-trillion dollar socialist wish list.”
Then in June, Emmer – the House Republican campaign chairman leading attacks on Democrats for supporting the law – quietly submitted a wish of his own.
In a letter to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Emmer expressed his hearty support for a multimillion dollar grant to improve part of Highway 65 in his district. The work was critical, Emmer argued, not just for his constituents, but for people all over Minnesota. Crashes were leading to fatalities. Congestion was leading to huge delays. Plus, Emmer added, “this grant also strives to serve as a social justice measure.”
Emmer’s plea is one of dozens obtained by CNN in response to a public records request, full of instances like Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville modulating his tone from accusing the law of “using fuzzy math and IOU’s to hide the real cost,” to appealing to Buttigieg because “as a former mayor, you understand better than anyone the time and money that goes into applying for highly competitive grants.
The letter writers include high profile attackers of government spending, as well as several in tight reelection races, such as Florida Rep. María Elvira Salazar and California Rep. David Valadao, who like Emmer, slammed the Biden law in public and then behind the scenes asked for money from it.
Most members have not publicly mentioned the letters they sent petitioning for money from the bill they derided. Many, when contacted by CNN about their requests, either ignored questions or insisted that they were being consistent with their criticisms of the law with the requests they made.
A passage from a letter from Rep. Tom Emmer from June to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.
That was the logic Emmer used in a statement provided by his office, criticizing the infrastructure bill for not including a greater proportion of its cost to roads and bridges, but adding, “We’ll always answer the call to advocate for real infrastructure improvements in the Sixth District as a part of smart spending practices.” (It was not among the round of such grants announced last month.)
While some Republican members who opposed the law have already been criticized for praising projects made possible by it, these letters went a step further, going out of their way to argue for even more spending back home.
All typed out on the standard blue and white letterhead for the House and Senate, the letters are full of the graciousness and politesse of official government correspondence, and make no mention of their votes against the infrastructure law.
None cite “socialism” or “radical spending.” No one included a paragraph about House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy calling the law “rushed and irresponsible,” or Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene calling the Republicans who voted for it “traitors.” Often, the letters signed by members of the House and Senate appeal using the same terms that they derided Democrats for using, from “economic growth” to “sustainability” benefits.
Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar, a leading Biden critic who explained his vote against what he called a “phony” infrastructure bill by issuing a statement that “this bill only serves to advance the America Last’s socialist agenda, while completely lacking fiscal responsibility,” wrote three separate letters between March and July advocating for projects in his district. They’d enhance quality of life, Gosar wrote. They’d ease congestion and boost the economy. They’d alleviate bottlenecks and improve rural living conditions.
A passage from a letter from Sen. Tommy Tuberville from April to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.
Gosar’s spokesperson said the congressman was “not obligated to vote for a bill of which he supports 80% of the funding if 20% is horrifically absurd,” but that “once appropriated and authorized, Congressman Gosar is free, and quite willing, to fight for the funding authorized to benefit good projects.”
Kentucky Rep. Andy Barr called the bill a “big government socialist agenda.” He later wrote three letters of his own on behalf of three different projects, also citing their importance for safety and job growth. Barr’s spokesperson said that the congressman couldn’t vote for the full bill because of its overall cost and money he called “giveaways to the green energy industry,” and that all the grants he supported were for traditional transportation funding programs. Those programs, though, would not have been funded if the infrastructure bill hadn’t passed.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said he voted against the bill because it typified “wasteful spending,” which would deepen the national debt. Paul wrote 10 different letters petitioning for more of that money coming into Kentucky, including for a community development organization working to expand a riverwalk, improve three stretches of roads, to strengthen a dam, support the revitalization of an old Internal Revenue Service facility in Covington, improve streets in Lexington and modernizing a bridge between northern Kentucky and Cincinnati, Ohio which he argued would “promote continued economic development, ease congestion, improve air quality, and support job growth throughout the region” for what would be “profound national and regional significance.”
“Opposition to a spending bill does not always mean opposition to the goal of that spending; opposition to a spending bill can mean opposition to spending that adds to the deficit and is not offset with spending cuts elsewhere,” argued a Paul spokesperson.
A passage from a letter from Sen. Rand Paul from May to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.
None of the projects that Gosar, Barr or Paul wrote on behalf of have so far been awarded grants, according to the announcements made by the Transportation Department. But of the nine projects Sen. Marsha Blackburn, who last year said the infrastructure bill was full of “frivolous left-wing programs that add to our nation’s debt,” wrote in support of, three were awarded so far, for a total of over $60 million.
The Transportation Department has left open the possibility that the applications will still be awarded through future grant programs.
In an interview with CNN, Buttigieg said “it’s hard not to chuckle” when seeing the letters from members who voted against the infrastructure law, or by seeing some of these members brag back home about the letters they’ve written – including Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert, who called the bill “garbage” but then touted advocating for $33 million for a new bridge.
“Obviously, it’s good for their districts, which is why it’s probably good for America,” Buttigieg argued.
Republicans in tight reelection races push for infrastructure money Salazar joined several of her Democratic colleagues from the Miami area in signing two letters looking for more money to improve the city’s ports. Both letters were also signed by Republican Rep. Carlos Giménez, who like Salazar, voted against the infrastructure bill.
Valadao wrote in support of grants for five different projects, which he said would provide more economic stability and reduce dangerous emissions. Both voted against the infrastructure law. Both are facing strong Democratic challengers in November.
Valadao declined an interview request, but a spokesperson said there was no conflict between opposing the infrastructure bill and asking for money from the bill for his district, arguing that he was “not trying to get attention for this,” but simply trying to help constituent groups.
“The money is there. That’s the world we’re living in,” the spokesperson, who asked not to be named, told CNN, attributing his vote against the bill to inflation and Democrats who unsuccessfully tried to link the infrastructure bill to President Joe Biden’s broader Build Back Better spending bill (some provisions of which were later included in the Inflation Reduction Act passed in August). “Was it all bad? No. But those were the circumstances at the time.”
Some of the money Salazar pushed for has been awarded. None of the grants Valadao wrote on behalf of have been awarded so far.
Iowa Rep. Ashley Hinson, who has already been pilloried by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for touting the $829 million, which went to locks and dams along the Upper Mississippi after saying the infrastructure law was a “socialist spending spree,” has been even more active in pushing for other money. Hinson wrote seven letters to the Department of Transportation for grants which in many cases she called “vital” and “essential” and “have an impact on the day-to-day lives of every single resident in this community.”
A passage from a letter from Rep. Ashley Hinson in April to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.
A spokesperson for Hinson who asked not to be named told CNN, “once funding from the infrastructure bill was already set to be spent, Rep. Hinson advocated for money on the table to come back to Iowa instead of allowing it to go to other states.” Of the grants she supported, only one was awarded, $2.28 million for a new pedestrian overpass in Dubuque.
Rep. Markwayne Mullin, now the GOP nominee for Senate in Oklahoma, said last year that he voted against the infrastructure bill because he thought 90% was wasteful and “I will not support funding for policies that drive our country into socialism.” In April, Mullin wrote to Buttigieg in support of a RAISE grant to improve a road in a rural area off of Highway 69, which he said would help introduce bicycle lanes, boost jobs and access to goods, and improve overall quality of life. “The RAISE grant funding,” he wrote in another nod to prioritizing climate change measures despite a voting record which has not, “would greatly improve sustainability by reducing emissions and redeveloping an existing infrastructure plan.”
Though the bill received GOP votes in the Senate and House, many Republicans have not wanted to give Biden credit – while many Democrats have been reluctant to call the bill “bipartisan,” given the intensity of the opposition they faced (Biden and his aides prefer to emphasize that the law was an across the aisle achievement). Republican officials outside of Congress, though, were for the most part incredibly enthusiastic about all the money coming out of Washington to invest in local projects, cheering it on individually or through statements of support via the bipartisan National Governors Association and US Conference of Mayors.
But after gushing about all the benefits of the bill at an event in Washington in January, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchison said he couldn’t explain why neither of his own home state senators or any of his state’s four members of the House voted against the bill.
“There’s always going to be something objectionable in the bill that maybe I could have written better,” said Hutchison, who was then serving as National Governors Association chair. “We’re going to put it to good use.”
Oregon Rep. Pete DeFazio, the chairman of the House Infrastructure Committee and one of the Democratic members deeply involved with the bill, said he wasn’t happy to hear about the request letters.
“They’re hanging on to our coattails while they’re opposing these things. And that should have consequences, in my opinion,” DeFazio told CNN outside the Capitol last month, comparing the letters to Republican members who touted the help small businesses got in their districts from the American Rescue Plan, which received no Republican votes. “But the administration is, unfortunately like the Obama administration, too evenhanded.”
Buttigieg confirmed that he and other officials were following the directives from the President that politics and votes not influence how the money is awarded.
“We’re not going to be trying to be jerks about it,” Buttigieg said. “We’re also not going to be shy about folks knowing who was with us and who was against us.”
A passage from a letter from Rep. Paul Gosar to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg from July.
But Buttigieg said that not being shy would be limited to appearing with elected officials who supported the infrastructure bill on his frequent touring around the country.
“We’re obviously not going to penalize anybody,” he said, “for the shortsightedness of their politicians.”
Other senators who voted against the infrastructure bill but also wrote letters to the Department of Transportation in support of grants funded by it: South Dakota Sens. Mike Rounds and John Thune, Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, Mississippi Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey and Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe.
Other House members who also opposed the bill and wrote letters: Iowa Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Missouri Rep. Vicky Hartzler, Indiana Rep. Larry Bucshon, Alabama Rep. Jerry Carl, Kentucky Rep. Jim Comer, Florida Rep. John Rutherford, Nevada Rep. Mark Amodei, Rep. John Joyce of Pennsylvania, South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace, Washington state Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Fischbach, Mississippi Rep. Trent Kelly, Iowa Rep. Randy Feenstra, California Rep. Tom McClintock, Arizona Rep. Debbie Lesko, Louisiana Rep. Julia Letlow, and Illinois Rep. Darin LaHood.
Floridatexan wrote:Do you know what would be great? If Republicans actually voted for a bill they know is beneficial to their constituents without calling it "socialist". Lying hypocrites:
Of course pubs are going to throw pork in there. Nearly every dem did... particularly those behind or in close races. Gotta buy those votes... eh comrades?
A new tax on cryptocurrency
A pilot program for taxing Americans per mile traveled.
Seaoat's breathalyzers in new vehicles beginning in 2026.
Pelosi made clear that the House would not take up the infrastructure bill unless the $3.5 trillion reconciliation package containing the social safety net spending was attached.
That reconciliation package also contains amnesty measures for millions of illegal immigrants, granting them an expedited pathway to citizenship.
Sen. Raphael G. Warnock inserted earmarks worth roughly $95 million to fund pet projects in his home state of Georgia, including $1 million for a Georgia county to index land records for historical preservation.
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a Nevada Democrat who won her seat in 2016 by a slim 27,000 votes, inserted a total of 53 earmarks. That included $500,000 for horse management at the Nevada Department of Agriculture and $4.8 million for a fleet of zero-emission buses in the Las Vegas region.
$250 million for an invasive species elimination program that would target “at a minimum, cheatgrass, Ventenata dubia, medusahead, bulbous bluegrass, Japanese brome, rattail fescue, Japanese honeysuckle, phragmites, autumn olive,” etc., along states’ roads, highways, railroads, or “other surface transportation routes.”
$50 million to fund studies, or “pilot projects,” to “test the feasibility of a road usage fee,” also known as an additional per-mile tax.
$50 million for 10 “Centers of Excellence for Resilience and Adaptation” that will study how climate change and extreme weather affect infrastructure and how decisions about transportation affect “economically disadvantaged, rural, and predominantly minority communities.” an unspecified amount of funding to “explore every opportunity to encourage and support the pursuit and retention of” women in the trucking industry.
$2.5 billion for “alternative fueled vehicles” and other green energy “improvements” at public schools.
$5 billion for “alternative-fueled” school buses. the adoption of a Digital Equity Act that aims to provide “the activities that are necessary to ensure that all individuals in the U.S. have access to, and the use of, affordable information and communication technologies, such as “internet-enabled devices that meet the needs of the user,” “digital literacy training,” “quality technical support,” and “basic awareness of measures to ensure online privacy and cybersecurity.”
$50 million for the “Central Utah Project Completion Account” (just in case you were wondering why Sen. Mitt Romney continues to support this bill).
$1 billion for the “Appalachian Regional Commission,” which just so happens to be co-led by Sen. Joe Manchin’s wife, Gayle Conelly Manchin.
$75 million for the “Denali Commission” thanks to Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
The overall sum for House Democrats was smaller only because they were limited to 10 earmarks each.
In exchange for allowing speedy consideration of the bill, Republicans received votes on a series of amendments, including one by Sen. Mike Braun that would have gutted earmarks from the final bill.
The Biden administration has already used a handful of smaller measures to ease fuel prices, including lifting summertime restrictions on high ethanol blends of gasoline to boost volumes and easing some other regional environmental requirements to make it easier for refiners to supply the market.
Additional options include a federal gas tax holiday or gas cards that could provide rebates to consumers; possible relaxation of the Jones Act, a law requiring that domestic cargo be carried on American-made tankers using union labor, to expand seaborne deliveries; or lifting sanctions on oil-producing nations like Iran and Venezuela to help them boost output.
Each of these ideas is politically fraught, however, and may also have limited impact on prices.
Biden earlier this year proposed a three-month suspension of the federal gasoline tax, for example, to help consumers at the pumps but was turned down by lawmakers who believed it would have cost the government too much in lost revenue.
Home
