Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

Basic monetary theory says that if you give young adults making a comfortable living (say $100k to $125k) additional disposable income, there will be a mild inflationary effect.

I think everyone is grossly overestimating the earning power of these new to the workforce. I would venture to say the staring salaries in flyover country is 40-60 K.

[y66]

From A Democratic Economist’s Case Against Biden’s Student-Loan Plan by Annie Lowrey at The Atlantic:

 

One of the most prominent voices criticizing the move is Jason Furman, a Harvard economist who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers during President Barack Obama’s second term. Furman argues that Biden’s plan will lavish relief on individuals with high incomes or the prospect of high incomes, encouraging universities and colleges to jack up tuition rates and burdening future students with heavier loan burdens. He also worries about people who did not take out student loans—meaning most Americans—ultimately paying for the plan. I spoke with him by phone this week, and our conversation has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

 

Annie Lowrey: Joe Biden has just erased the student-loan debt of roughly 20 million people, and decreased monthly payments by an average of $250 for borrowers who will still have a balance on their loans. You’ve criticized the move, but can you give me your best case for it?

 

Jason Furman: The college-financing system has a lot of problems. We need to make a lot of reforms to it. Could I see a case for some form of debt relief for lower-income people? Maybe, but with a much lower income limit than the Biden administration has chosen.

 

Lowrey: With that, let’s hear the case against it.

 

Furman: With any public policy, you need to analyze the trade-offs. You can’t just say, “This person gets this, and therefore it’s good.” It’s always better for someone to get something rather than nothing. But that’s not how it works.

 

If you’re giving $500 billion to one group, where’s that money coming from? One possibility is that the economy grows much more quickly, and so spending that money doesn’t hurt anyone. I think that’s extremely unlikely, given the highly constrained state we are in. And so I think most of that $500 billion that one group is getting is coming at the expense of everyone else.

 

That doesn’t make it a bad idea. If we were covering a Medicaid-coverage gap, I’d say, “You know what? If everyone has to pay $50 more and poor people get health insurance and the inflation rate is a tenth of a percentage point higher, I’m all for that.” But we’re giving couples making up to $250,000, which is a lot of money, up to $40,000.

 

Lowrey: So one concern is that this is not targeted toward people who really need help.

 

Furman: Then, there’s the expectation that debt relief will happen again. That will lead to shifts in the college-financing system, toward loans and away from grants. It will also raise college tuition, as colleges move to capture some of this spending. Our goal should be getting more people into college. It is not obvious that Biden’s plan helps with that goal. It might even hurt that goal.

 

Finally, I’m uncomfortable with this level of presidential power. You know, President Trump was being pushed by some of his advisers to index capital-gains tax rates to inflation, and do it by executive order. He ultimately resisted. I think the indexation of capital gains is a much worse policy than this one. And it’s possible the legal grounds were weaker. But he actually said, No. I’m not going to just change tax law by myself without checking with Congress. I think that’s a good rule to live by, and one we’ve mostly had up until now.

 

Lowrey: This is the Biden administration forgiving debt by keystroke, without raising taxes. So how is the burden of that falling on everyone but the borrowers? Why is that problematic?

 

Furman: One group is getting $500 billion. And they’re going to spend more. They’re going to buy more housing. They’re going to be better off. The problem is that the economy is already producing the most it possibly can. If anything, the Fed wants it to produce less, not more. What will happen is that they will spend more and it will drive up the price of houses and everything else. Due to that inflation, every household will end up spending $200 more a year on what they need.

 

There isn’t free money out there. There are consequences. Once you frame it as 320 million people paying for a benefit for 30 million people, it makes you think a lot harder. You’re giving a benefit to someone making $200,000 a year. How important is it to give them relief?

 

Lowrey: You said one of your concerns is that universities will increase tuition, with the expectation that there’ll be more debt forgiveness in the future. But there’s an argument that this might actually create more pressure to fix the underlying system of financing.

 

Furman: We don’t control what universities do. They make their own choices, subject to incentives. The incentive of a diploma mill is to tell people, “Hey, you know what, it’s going to cost $10,000—but don’t worry, Biden’s going to do it again next year.”

 

Lowrey: Let’s go back to the distributional consequences. Surely most people who finish college or a two-year degree set themselves on a higher-earnings trajectory. But a lot of people aren’t finding themselves on an upward trajectory, given the pressure on wages in the past decade. And a lot of young people have concerns about taking on debt, given the rising cost pressures everywhere else in the economy.

 

Furman: I’d go back to the income limits here. If you’re a 24-year-old who makes $125,000 a year, you’re probably going to be okay in life. Even if what you just said was true, that’s an argument for a different plan, not for this plan. Make the limit $62,500 for a single person and $125,000 for a married couple.

 

I do think there’s evidence the college premium stopped rising. I haven’t seen any evidence that it has fallen. For the median person who goes to college, they are getting an incredible return on their debt. They’re borrowing $30,000. But their lifetime earnings go up $500,000. You just don’t need to do something for them to get relief to people for whom debt is a problem.

 

Lowrey: What about the Black–white wealth and income dynamics? As you know, Black students are more likely to have loans, and their loans tend to be larger. And Black students are much, much less likely to come from family wealth.

 

Furman: You also need to understand what this does to the wealth of the people who are ending up paying for it. They are disproportionately going to be Black, because a higher fraction of them have not attended college.

 

Lowrey: Would something based on the familial wealth of a higher-ed student be better? It would be very hard to do. But you could imagine steering relief toward the kids who did not have parents who could help them with school.

 

Furman: I’m not sure I agree with that. If somebody at age 30 is graduating from law school and is making $125,000 a year in their first job out there—even if they originally went to college on a Pell Grant—that’s someone who’s in a good position to pay their debt back. I’m worried about the 20 percent of students who are in a bad position. I don’t think you have to worry about the 80 percent.

 

Lowrey: How worried are you about the inflationary consequences? We’ve had a pause on student-loan repayments. So is this really going to stoke a lot of new inflation?

 

Furman: The plan is a $500 billion plan. I think the multiplier on it is less than 0.1—so for every dollar you spend, you are getting a dime in economic activity or less. People aren’t going to go out and spend $500 billion immediately. But even with that small multiplier, if you apply it to this huge initiative, you get about 0.2 or 0.3 percentage points of inflation. Some people could say that’s a small number. A rounding error. But for a typical family, you’re going to pay an additional $100 or $200 a year for everything you buy.

 

Lowrey: We haven’t talked about the emotional part of this, the human-welfare part. People hate having student loans. They hate having to pay a second mortgage, even if they know it might be working out for them on paper.

 

Furman: People hate college debt more than they hate other types of debt. It’s not 100 percent obvious to me why. We’re not talking about forgiving car debt or mortgage debt. I do think shifting to a world with more grants, or an Australian-type system—where they collect the [student-loan payment] on your tax return, and if your income is too low, they just don’t collect it—would be better. You barely have to think about it. That would be a really good system, and it would be great to do something like that.

 

I will say, of all the policy issues I’ve ever discussed, the level of vitriol directed against anyone who disagrees [with the debt-relief plan] is incredibly high. There is something that is so emotive for people. It has made it harder for analytic people to enter the conversation. And I think the odds of bad unintended consequences, imposed on people paying for the policy now or imposed on students in the future, have gone up a lot.

[kenberg]

I think everyone is grossly overestimating the earning power of these new to the workforce. I would venture to say the starting salaries in flyover country is 40-60 K.

 

Sure, there are many more 40-60s than there are 90-110s. Now to two of the points that I made;

 

1. I was speaking of how voters would see this. They will see that the 100K guys, however numerous, are getting 10K and ask why.

 

2. I was speaking of inflation. Very possibly the 100K guys say thanks and move on, there was nothing that they really need. The 40-60 guys might have a number of things that they need or at least strongly desire. If their debt goes from 10K to 0 they can easily spend, and if it goes from 30K to 20K they can maybe spend. And if they had a Pell, the debt might go from 20K to 0.

 

So the 10K debt reduction to the 100K guys might animate voters and the 10K, or 20K, debt reduction to the 50K guys might well increase spending. All pretty natural and predictable. We shall see.

[Winstonm]

Sure, there are many more 40-60s than there are 90-110s. Now to two of the points that I made;

 

1. I was speaking of how voters would see this. They will see that the 100K guys, however numerous, are getting 10K and ask why.

 

2. I was speaking of inflation. Very possibly the 100K guys say thanks and move on, there was nothing that they really need. The 40-60 guys might have a number of things that they need or at least strongly desire. If their debt goes from 10K to 0 they can easily spend, and if it goes from 30K to 20K they can maybe spend. And if they had a Pell, the debt might go from 20K to 0.

 

So the 10K debt reduction to the 100K guys might animate voters and the 10K, or 20K, debt reduction to the 50K guys might well increase spending. All pretty natural and predictable. We shall see.

The 2006 bailout dwarfed this and the same cries were heard. We shall indeed see.

[kenberg]

I guess I will not think well of how he went at it no matter what comes of it. The approach seems clumsy.

 

Back in the 2006-2008 days you mention, I recall listening to the radio as I drove and NPR was interviewing some guy, a truck driver I think, who had bought maybe a five bedroom house on multiple acres with a mortgage with varying rates and he was in deep financial trouble. I thought "If I were he, I would not have made that purchase. If I were the bank loan manager, I would not have approved the loan. If I were setting the rules, I would not set them as they were set. The guy is having trouble? This is a surprise to someone?" That's pretty much the way I feel about the way the student loan program was set up and handled so far, and I don't feel all that much better about the way Biden is addressing the issue.

 

Also, I am not all that happy about Biden just being able to do it. If he can do it, others can do similar things. At least I voted for Biden and I approve of his general intentions. That will not always be the case.

 

So I am not so happy. So new?

[Winstonm]

I guess I will not think well of how he went at it no matter what comes of it. The approach seems clumsy.

 

Back in the 2006-2008 days you mention, I recall listening to the radio as I drove and NPR was interviewing some guy, a truck driver I think, who had bought maybe a five bedroom house on multiple acres with a mortgage with varying rates and he was in deep financial trouble. I thought "If I were he, I would not have made that purchase. If I were the bank loan manager, I would not have approved the loan. If I were setting the rules, I would not set them as they were set. The guy is having trouble? This is a surprise to someone?" That's pretty much the way I feel about the way the student loan program was set up and handled so far, and I don't feel all that much better about the way Biden is addressing the issue.

 

Also, I am not all that happy about Biden just being able to do it. If he can do it, others can do similar things. At least I voted for Biden and I approve of his general intentions. That will not always be the case.

 

So I am not so happy. So new?

 

People are gullible-and this comes as a shock to you? Trump University? No doc loans? Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker?

[y66]

Megan Coyne 1

Fascist and semi-fascist assholes 0

 

Story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/26/white-house-twitter-megan-coyne/

[kenberg]

People are gullible-and this comes as a shock to you? Trump University? No doc loans? Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker?

 

That was my point, from the beginning of my discussion of this. The student loan program was an open invitation to take advantage of the gullible and the invitation was eagerly accepted by con artists and the gullible, thus making the rest of us gullible as well. If it takes a quarter or half a trillion to partially temporarily solve some of its problems, it has been a very successful con job on us.

 

Here are the fundamentals. If we financially support people's educational efforts without expecting repayment, we feel entitled to watch to see that our financial support is well used. If, instead, we lend people money then we are much more inclined to mind our own business. They will be paying it back so why butt in? Ok, so the program was constructed as a loan program to lessen supervision, then, after the deficit became mammoth, the push was to cancel the debt and turn it into a support without repayment program, dodging the supervision that a support without repayment program would receive is it were originally announced as such.

 

Very clever, and it appears to be partially working.

 

oh. I am not necessarily claiming that those who created the Student loan Program planned for it to evolve this way. I think they were just stupid.

[Gilithin]

Given the cost and the current circumstances, there has to be a very strong case for giving a set sum to every American adult on lower wages irrespective of their debt situation as a small assistance in coping with rising energy costs and inflation. Something like every household earning less than $60k per year with tapered relief up to $100, or put in whatever numbers float your boat here if those are too high. It seems to me that this would be easier to sell to the public and be considerably more effective than having the cash targeted specifically at students.

[Winstonm]

That was my point, from the beginning of my discussion of this. The student loan program was an open invitation to take advantage of the gullible and the invitation was eagerly accepted by con artists and the gullible, thus making the rest of us gullible as well. If it takes a quarter or half a trillion to partially temporarily solve some of its problems, it has been a very successful con job on us.

 

Here are the fundamentals. If we financially support people's educational efforts without expecting repayment, we feel entitled to watch to see that our financial support is well used. If, instead, we lend people money then we are much more inclined to mind our own business. They will be paying it back so why butt in? Ok, so the program was constructed as a loan program to lessen supervision, then, after the deficit became mammoth, the push was to cancel the debt and turn it into a support without repayment program, dodging the supervision that a support without repayment program would receive is it were originally announced as such.

 

Very clever, and it appears to be partially working.

 

oh. I am not necessarily claiming that those who created the Student loan Program planned for it to evolve this way. I think they were just stupid.

 

My experience comes from the for-profit schools. They existed to grift from government largesse. If there is blame, it falls squarely on the free-marketeers who allowed grifters to grift and the gullible to be gulled.

[Gilithin]

My experience comes from the for-profit schools. They existed to grift from government largesse. If there is blame, it falls squarely on the free-marketeers who allowed grifters to grift and the gullible to be gulled.

Not legislators and regulators for not putting in place rules allowing the prospective students to make a properly informed decision? You should not be able to prominently display in a large font that the "mark"'s money will be used for X and then hide in small print somewhere else that it will in fact be used for Y. It does not really matter whether we are talking about university fees, political donations or just retail advertising - it should all be legislated as criminally misleading and prosecuted accordingly.

[Chas_P]

LZ Granderson writing for the LA Times makes the argument that people in Arizona should be responsible to help people in Kentucky recover from devastating flooding. I agree with him. The people in Kentucky had no choice about being flooded. He then goes on to ask, "But what of the effect of having 45 million borrowers grappling with $1.6 trillion in student loan debt? What of the societal and fiscal cost of those millions of Americans stymied in their futures?" The difference, in my mind, is that those 45 million borrowers had a choice, unlike the people in Kentucky who had no choice about getting flooded. The 45 million chose to take out a loan and "loan" means "loan"; I "lend" you some money, I expect you to pay me back....with interest. I, like Ken, am a great believer in higher education. But what about the guy or gal who went to trade school and learned to be an electrician, carpenter, plumber, hospice nurse, is now earning an honest living but is now expected to pay for those who got a college degree in liberal arts and is now an intern at the White House? And what about those who took out college loans and actually repaid them? The whole scheme reeks of politics (vote-buying) in my opinion. And it sets an awful precedent. What's next? You take out a home mortgage or automobile loan that you can't repay and the government says, "Don't worry about it; you made a bad decision, but we've got your back."? I think it stinks.

[thepossum]

It is possible that all attempts at social engineering no matter how well intentioned can lead to possible fascism or something else bad

 

Maybe a nice simple modelling exercise. Basic model Economy going well -> encourage people to go to school with loans -> great things going well for a while -> economic shock -> people can keep borrowing to replace lack of opportunity -> and so it goes

 

I forgot other important parts of the loop which Chas touched upon. Price of essential services is rocketing. Why

 

I have a vague recollection of a quote. Something like - God may be dead but try getting a plumber on a Sunday

 

Not sure why Trollope also came to mind. From Wikipedia

"Nevertheless a certain class of dishonesty, dishonesty magnificent in its proportions, and climbing into high places, has become at the same time so rampant and so splendid that there seems to be reason for fearing that men and women will be taught to feel that dishonesty, if it can become splendid, will cease to be abominable. If dishonesty can live in a gorgeous palace with pictures on all its walls, and gems in all its cupboards, with marble and ivory in all its corners, and can give Apician dinners, and get into Parliament, and deal in millions, then dishonesty is not disgraceful, and the man dishonest after such a fashion is not a low scoundrel. Instigated, I say, by some such reflections as these, I sat down in my new house to write The Way We Live Now"

 

Regarding the other weird thing discussed above - our ex-PM's secret ministries I have tried to put an understanding take on it - we were under defence command during the pandemic etc. Who knows why it happened. The last thing you would need under a crisis would be media/public asking difficult questions

[hrothgar]

LZ Granderson writing for the LA Times makes the argument that people in Arizona should be responsible to help people in Kentucky recover from devastating flooding. I agree with him. The people in Kentucky had no choice about being flooded. He then goes on to ask, "But what of the effect of having 45 million borrowers grappling with $1.6 trillion in student loan debt? What of the societal and fiscal cost of those millions of Americans stymied in their futures?" The difference, in my mind, is that those 45 million borrowers had a choice, unlike the people in Kentucky who had no choice about getting flooded. The 45 million chose to take out a loan and "loan" means "loan"; I "lend" you some money, I expect you to pay me back....with interest. I, like Ken, am a great believer in higher education. But what about the guy or gal who went to trade school and learned to be an electrician, carpenter, plumber, hospice nurse, is now earning an honest living but is now expected to pay for those who got a college degree in liberal arts and is now an intern at the White House? And what about those who took out college loans and actually repaid them? The whole scheme reeks of politics (vote-buying) in my opinion. And it sets an awful precedent. What's next? You take out a home mortgage or automobile loan that you can't repay and the government says, "Don't worry about it; you made a bad decision, but we've got your back."? I think it stinks.

 

You do understand that a whole bunch of folks who owe college debt went to trade schools right?

 

And a whole bunch of those trade schools - places like DeVry "University" engaged in outright predatory behavior?

They saddled their students with enormous amounts of debt, less than a third of their students ended with degrees, and those degrees are pretty much worthless.

 

I readily agree that the higher education system in the US needs enormous reform. And a very big part of this is helping people make better decisions about whether or not to take on large amounts of debt. (I was lucky growing up. I had a strong family with two college educated parents who were able to help me through this process)

 

I see nothing wrong with providing relief to those in very real need.

 

Can I nit pick about some elements of the plan?

Sure

 

Are there ways in which there might have been more selective targeting?

Yeap.

 

Am I going to get aggrieved because things are a bit rough around the edges?

Nope

[hrothgar]

Price of essential services is rocketing. Why

 

 

Because we spent decades optimizing out supply chain to make it as efficient as possible.

As a result, it wasn't particularly resilient to supply shocks

 

Right now, between

 

1. COVID

2. Climate change

3. The war in Europe

 

We're seeing a series of massive supply shocks and its driving up prices

 

There is a very real chance that Germany is going to see electricity prices increasing by an order or magnitude due to a combination of

 

1. Russian gas pipelines being cut off

2. Massive droughts lowering the water levels in major rivers which is impacting the ability to move coal / natural gas and cool power plants

 

And, oh yeah, those same droughts are having an enormous impact on Scandinavian hydro power...

[kenberg]

Society often gets things screwed up. My favorite example from my youth is that we guys were all supposed to have vast sexual experience and the young women were all supposed to remain virgins. Ok, forget that example, it was just for amusement, back to the topic at hand.

 

I have made (at least) my share of mistakes during my life and I accept responsibility for them. But that's not the whole story. In 1956 I was 17 and finishing high school. I was lucky. I enjoyed something that I was reasonably good at and that I could make a decent living at. I could afford to go to the University of Minnesota as long as I continued to live at home (I had wanted to move out since I was 14 but I had a stronger wish to go to college so, yep, I lived at home). My high school math teacher got me a scholarship that my Spanish teacher thought I didn't deserve. The U of M had a three or four day orientation session in the summer before classes, and it included a strong pitch by ROTC to join. I thought it over, seriously considered it, and declined. Why on Earth would I consider it? Well, this was 1956 and I expected that even if I got a student deferment I would still be required to put in a couple of years in the Armed Forces after graduation. It seemed normal at the time. Anyway, it all worked out. Lucky me.

 

Now take some of my sixth-grade friends c. 1950. Gene, Fred, Denny, Dick (also JoAnn and DeeDee but I will concentrate on the guys). I believe I am the only one who went to college. Fred is the only one of them I was still friends with by 1956. He became a plumber, but I fully believe the others went on to successful lives as well. No reason that they shouldn't have done so.

 

 

Today, they would be told they should go to college and hey, just borrow some money, no problem. Sure, maybe they should tell such advisers to buzz off, but they are seventeen. In the spring of 1954, I was 15, my high school adviser told me I should take metal shop in my upcoming junior year. This turned out to be good advice, I enjoyed it and got to know some students who were not in my math or my physics class, but it was one class, not a big deal. Telling Fred he should borrow money and go to college would have been a serious disaster if he had taken that advice.

 

So yes, people are responsible for their own choices but if we set up government-sponsored programs that lead them astray, we should not be surprised to see that some go astray. Yes, I am saying that going off to college is a way of going astray for some, or at least it is a bad choice, just as joining ROTC would have been a bad choice for me. A good choice for some, a bad choice for me.

[mycroft]

I've said it before, and many have said it now.

 

I'm young for this crowd, and when I went to university, I took an expensive program (because Engineers were expected to get good paying jobs). My last year, tuition was CAD350/semester, and the books were similar.

 

Sure, wages were lower, too, but I think min wage was CAD7.50/hour? Maybe CAD7.00?

 

Where did the rest of the money for my education come from? Interesting. And we're complaining that the government is now going to "pay for" that education they way they paid for mine, just retroactively? Sounds good to me.

 

And most of the people here - and I bet absolutely Chas_P - had (the option of, many went to Ivy League or other private institutions) even cheaper university than I did. Subsidised by the government. Just as the current (and former) students are being subsidised now.

[kenberg]

I've said it before, and many have said it now.

 

I'm young for this crowd, and when I went to university, I took an expensive program (because Engineers were expected to get good paying jobs). My last year, tuition was CAD350/semester, and the books were similar.

 

Sure, wages were lower, too, but I think min wage was CAD7.50/hour? Maybe CAD7.00?

 

Where did the rest of the money for my education come from? Interesting. And we're complaining that the government is now going to "pay for" that education they way they paid for mine, just retroactively? Sounds good to me.

 

And most of the people here - and I bet absolutely Chas_P - had (the option of, many went to Ivy League or other private institutions) even cheaper university than I did. Subsidised by the government. Just as the current (and former) students are being subsidised now.

 

Like you, I have already said a lot of this. I think there is pretty broad agreement that education should be strongly supported. There are good ways, not such good ways, and hopelessly klutzy ways to do this. I think we have opted for hopelessly klutzy. Hopelessly klutzy often leads to bad side effects. I'll leave it at that since yep, I am repeating myself.

[cherdano]

Well, just once I doubt Ken is telling the truth:

I'll leave it at that

(But we wouldn't want it any other way!)

[Chas_P]

 

And most of the people here - and I bet absolutely Chas_P - had (the option of, many went to Ivy League or other private institutions) even cheaper university than I did. Subsidised by the government. Just as the current (and former) students are being subsidised now.

It's not really significant, but I went to Georgia Tech; graduated 11 June, 1960. My parents paid the tuition, dorm rent, fraternity dues, books, other supplies, etc. They are both long-since dead, so I don't expect them to ask for a refund. And I'm not unsympathetic to those who had to take out a college loan to go to Georgia Tech; it's a really good school. But I'll say again....in my view a "loan" is a "loan". If you borrow money, regardless of the purpose of the loan, it is still a loan and expected to be repaid.

[Chas_P]

My favorite example from my youth is that we guys were all supposed to have vast sexual experience and the young women were all supposed to remain virgins.

C'mon prof. Tell us how many gals you tried to talk into sump'n in the back seat of a '57 Chevrolet. We can compare success rates. :lol:

[pilowsky]

Marie Kondo lives rent-free in Chas_P's head.

A mind completely uncluttered by thoughts for others.

[y66]

From Republicans are in disarray by Blake Hounshell:

 

“I am not a member of any organized party,” the humorist Will Rogers famously once quipped. “I am a Democrat.”

 

Today, one might make the same joke about the Grand Old Party. Everywhere you look, Republicans seem to be squabbling with one another over the direction of the midterm elections.

 

One day, it might be Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate, complaining about the “quality” of his party’s candidates while his deputies point fingers at Senator Rick Scott of Florida, who runs the G.O.P.’s Senate campaign arm.

 

Another day, it might be Donald Trump calling for McConnell’s ouster and giving McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, bizarre nicknames like “Coco.”

 

On days that end in “y,” you might find Republicans on television complaining about Trump’s hold over the party, distancing themselves from his document-handling protocols and urging him to drop his obsession with the 2020 election, which establishment Republicans believe is unhelpful to their electoral chances at best and catastrophic to them at worst.

 

My colleague Luke Broadwater captured a litany of Republican complaints on the Sunday political shows, centering on He Whose Name Starts With T.

 

He noted: “Some are signaling concern that the referendum they anticipated on Mr. Biden — and the high inflation and gas prices that have bedeviled his administration — is being complicated by all-encompassing attention on the legal exposure of a different president: his predecessor, Donald J. Trump.”

 

What’s going on? It’s not so much that the underlying fundamentals of the midterm cycle have changed, although they have moved in Democrats’ favor somewhat. And it’s not so much that President Biden has suddenly grown popular, although his approval rating in public polls has ticked up a few notches in recent months. Nor is it that forecasters have begun downgrading Republicans’ chances of retaking the House — after all, The Cook Political Report still expects a G.O.P. majority next year.

 

Rather, what happened is what you might call a vibe shift among what the original insider tipsheet, The Note by ABC, used to call the “Gang of 500” — the motley collection of columnists, journalists and other political opinion-makers who haunt the green rooms in Washington and New York and collectively make up the “conventional wisdom.”

 

“We’ve gone from ‘Republicans will win every single election in the universe’ to ‘Republicans will not win a single election,’” said Corry Bliss, a Republican strategist. “The pundits’ narrative has shifted overnight.”

You hate to see it.

[Chas_P]

Marie Kondo lives rent-free in Chas_P's head.

A mind completely uncluttered by thoughts for others.

Thank you for your insight Obi-Wan Pilowsky.

[y66]

When Howard Rosenthal died last week, he left behind an important body of work that will live on well after he is forgotten.

 

Rosenthal, a political scientist with distinguished tenures at Carnegie Mellon University, Princeton University and New York University, was hardly a household name.

 

But as my colleague Sam Roberts pointed out in his obituary, Rosenthal was responsible for pioneering, data-driven scholarship on the growing polarization on Capitol Hill, and he provided key insights on what was driving those yawning partisan divisions.

 

https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?productCode=CN&te=1&nl=on-politics&emc=edit_cn_20220831&uri=nyt://newsletter/7711a4dd-2aaf-52a9-9bf0-67b6e9aacc20