Mediaboss Marketing

When it comes to assessing scientific evidence, conservatives place more value on personal anecdotes, while liberals put more stock into what the experts are saying. Those are among the recent findings by Eureka College's Alexander Swan and his colleagues.

Tim Shelley spoke with him about these studies, and what they could mean as the country battles the COVID-19 pandemic.

TS: Recently, you did a bit of research on the differences between how liberals and conservatives perceive or assess evidence. If you could just talk a little bit about how that worked.

AS: Yes. So over the past two or three years, my collaborator Randy Stein and Michelle Sarraf asked two groups of people to identify their political leanings. And then we asked them to determine the credibility in a scenario.

So for example, we asked participants to read a blurb about the existence of the "hot hand" in gambling or other games of chance. And they read a [fake] excerpt from a researcher saying that the existence of "hot hands" is is disputed, and it doesn't exist.

And that was immediately followed up by a person, in Study One, with relevant experience. So in this case, maybe a casino manager who's directly refuted the researcher's claim. And so we had four scenarios like that.

And then in Study Two, it wasn't a person that had direct relevance of experience to that claim. It was just some commentator or commenter that we said was a previous respondent in the study.

So in Study One, it was a person with relevant experience. And in Study Two, it was just a random person that didn't have any relevant experience. And we asked participants to rate the credibility of each of the statements.

And what we found was that, among liberals and conservatives, liberals tended to put more credibility and more weight into what the researcher had to say about these four scenarios. And conservatives tended to allow the experiential evidence from this other commenter, or this relevant professional. They gave that more credibility and more weight.

And you can see that across both studies, the effect is stronger among conservatives in Study One with the relevant professional, because I assume it has to do with their taking in the relevant professional experience of this other person. And less so in Study Two, because it's just seems like a random person from their perspective. But in both cases, conservatives tended to give more latitude to the non-scientific perspective.

TS: Let's talk about the reasons behind that. Why would somebody who maybe leans more left place more trust in that researcher, while the conservative might place more trust in the other perspective, the anecdotal perspective?

AS: Right, yeah, that's a very good question. So the idea that we we worked with in this paper and in the piece in the conversation was that this effect seems to be somewhat mediated by conservatives' desire to give more weight to intuition, so intuition as their personal truth.

So if somebody expresses an experiential conclusion, they tend to give more weight to that because it's aligning with their trust and faith in their own intuitions -- and intuitions could be antithetical to what the scientists in any given science topic are saying. We don't we don't really see that trust, massive reliance on intuition in the liberal part of the sample, the people who lean more left in the sample.

TS: If we want to take another example, this I know was in the piece in The Conversation, you mentioned how this same dynamic might be playing out in how the perception of COVID-19 if you could just talk a little bit about that.

AS: Since the beginning of the pandemic, I think it's been pretty clear that there have been two competing narratives going on: one from the scientific community, which is 'this is a pretty terrible pandemic. And it's killing a lot of people. And we should take it seriously.'

And then on the other side, the other narrative, it is, you know, 'COVID, not a big deal. It's just like the flu. You know, we shouldn't shut down the economy or do any of these kinds of things.'

And at the very heart of it was President Trump, getting COVID, stating that, and getting the best health care that this country has to offer, and then coming out and stating that it wasn't that big of a deal, it wasn't a big problem.

And I think that feeds into the narrative of the latter side that I mentioned, where people are going to trust his detailing of it because he's the leader. And they're also going to then use that to fuel their own intuitions about their own fears and their own anxieties, and essentially, shove them away while the scientific community is saying, 'No, no, no, no, you need to wear your masks. You need to remain socially distant with among each other, and not have big gatherings for Thanksgiving and Christmas. I know how much that sucks.'

And you have these two competing narratives. And I think that feeds into which narrative you play into. And it's just tragic, that from my personal perspective, it's tragic that we have a situation where we need to trust the science now. And we need to trust what the scientists are saying, not personal experiences or anecdotes.

TS: To lead off of that, my question would be, if I am a scientist or researcher, is there a way I can tailor my message perhaps to appeal more to people who might who might trust these anecdotal messages, moreso than something straight from a scientist's mouth?

That's a good question. I don't know if I have a really good answer for that one. Because the point is not to say that your science is always right. The point is to say that if there is consensus, and we've agreed upon facts that anecdotes and personal experiences do not constitute the enormous amount of data that's being collected in any given topic.

So with the coronavirus pandemic, there's a ton of data, and personal experiences and anecdotes shouldn't be held on equal footing to that massive amounts of data. So I don't know if I have a message to convey to people other than, "Please trust the data on this."

But scientists are biased just like any other human are, which is the main facet of my research, is humans are inherently biased. And it's very difficult to break some of those biases in persuasion. And so I think my thing here is, let's just trust the scientists in this particular one, because time is of the essence. And lives are of the essence.

TS: You've been conducting this research with your colleagues for the last couple years. What other avenues of research does this open up? Where can you branch off from here to explore this?

AS: My collaborator, Randy Stein, and I are going to be talking about follow-ups . One of the things that we're exploring is following this "feelings are truth scale" that we introduce into literature with this paper.

Following that up, finding more avenues where that actually is the case -- that people tend to rely on their intuitions and replace scientific truth with anecdotal or experiential truth, intuitive truth.

And a few colleagues have raised really important questions, which not every single papers going to get at, especially ours. We can't explore every single facet.

One of the interesting questions that I just came across was a scientific literacy plan So our our sample was from across the United States -- and it was only Americans that were allowed to participate here. And we did not asktheir level of scientific knowledge or their level of scientific engagement, and I think that is an important mediator as well, that we might include in future studies.

TS: Alex, was there anything else you wanted to add or that you would like people to know or take away from your work?

AS: Yeah, I we're not trying to we're not trying to vilify conservatives and in any way with this data.

There's no subscription fee to listen or read our stories. Everyone can access this essential public service thanks to community support. Donate now, and help fund your public media.

Go here to read the rest:
Study: Conservatives And Liberals Assess Scientific Evidence Differently. Here's Why That Matters - Peoria Public Radio

Did you hear the one about the Chabad rabbi, the settler leader and the Arab sheikh who walked into a kosher steakhouse in Dubai?

Its not the opening of a bizarre joke, but reality in the Persian Gulf today. A delegation of settlers spent the week in the United Arab Emirates, meeting with local businesspeople to explore the possibility of joint ventures. As for Chabad, the most reactionary Jewish sect, its been there for a while, taking control of the local synagogues and kashrut certification.

Haaretz podcast: Trump-loving Israelis brace for a Biden bombshellHaaretz

If anyone had predicted a few months ago that settlers and Trump-supporting Chabadniks would be the vanguard of Israeli peacemaking in the Middle East, you would have said that was too far even for the year of madness that is 2020. But now it all makes a kind of warped sense.

Israel is establishing diplomatic ties with the UAE and Bahrain, and its a right-wing enterprise. Those of us who dreamed of a time when Israelis could freely roam distant corners of the Arab world are bitter about it, because now that the dream is coming true its been tainted for us by the two men who made it happen: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and soon-to-be-former U.S. President Donald Trump.

Thats why weve been so busy poking holes in the Abraham Accords. Its easy, since, as Ehud Barak once said about a different peace agreement, its as full of holes as a Swiss cheese.

For a start, how can you can call something a peace agreement if Israel and the Gulf states were never at war to begin with? And anyway, this isnt really a peace deal, its an arms deal, in which the Emiratis get to buy billions of dollars worth of advanced U.S. military hardware.

Of course, this isnt real peace with nations, just with the elite dictators of oil-rich kleptocracies. (To make this claim, you need of course to ignore the fact that all of Israels peace deals, with Egypt, Jordan and the PLO, were hardly signed with model democracies.)

And Israels real challenge is making peace with the millions of Palestinians it occupies, by allowing them to build their state. The agreements with the UAE and Bahrain push the Palestinians to the furthest margins.

So theres plenty for those who hoped for a Mideast peace predicted on the resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians to be bitter about. And at the same time, its no coincidence that settlers are welcome in Dubai.

This is a peace after their own hearts. For decades, the left told Israelis they would get to fly off to Arab capitals, do business and vacation there only if they first ended the occupation and signed up to the two-state solution. The bitterest medicine to swallow is reality. And dont expect the UAE to suddenly shut the gates just because Trump lost.

We've got more newsletters we think you'll find interesting.

Please try again later.

The email address you have provided is already registered.

Can the Israel-UAE, Israel-Bahrain and whatever other normalizations follow be detoxified and should they?

There are three answers to this. The first is that Israel is and always will be part of the Middle East, and not every engagement between Israel and Arab countries should be hostage to changing political parameters and the conflict with the Palestinians.

The second is that while the Emiratis, in the short term at least, obviously have little interest in the Palestinians and whether they reach an agreement with Israel, improved relations between Israel and other Arab states will increase Israels stake in creating a different environment in the Middle East.

The Palestinians could be part of this or they could be cast aside, relegated indefinitely to the bottom of the regional agenda. It depends on who will be building these intra-Mideast relationships.

The third answer is less comfortable for liberals, but unavoidable.

This part of the Middle East was headed in this direction anyway, even without the encouragement of the Trump team. Israels not-so-secret alliance with the Gulf states has been in the making for at least two decades. If anything, President Barack Obamas decision to engage with the Iranian leadership and sign the nuclear agreement with them helped bring together Irans enemies in the region.

Those who supported a Palestinians-first diplomacy will find little comfort in the morality and expedience of this approach, and no reassurance in current reality. The transition to a Biden presidency in Washington isnt going to change the strategic decisions made by the rulers of the UAE or of Bahrain. But with Trump and his henchmen soon gone, there will be a vacuum to be filled, and not only by professional diplomats.

There are currently two types of parties involved in Israels burgeoning ties with the Gulf: those aligned with the right wing in Israel and the United States, and businesspeople who are in it for the money. What will this key relationship look like once Team Trump, backed by its Israeli cheerleaders,is no longer in power?

That depends on whether there are other players prepared to move in, from other parts of the political and cultural spectrum.

The same question applies to the broader issue of relations between Israel and Americas Jewish community, the largest in the world, now that people like Jared Kushner and the Adelsons are no longer the most influential Jews in America.

Do liberal American Jews have the energy and the passion to rebuild that connection? After four years of selfish men and their political bases narrowing the bridge between the largest groups in the Jewish people, can it be done?

The past four years were not simply an aberration. The inauguration of President Joe Biden will not be enough in itself to turn back the clock. The landscape has changed, and not just in the Gulf.

According to polls, two-thirds of Israelis wanted Trump to win the election and not because they all support Netanyahu, or are even right-wingers themselves. Even centrist and left-leaning Israelis preferred an administration that seemed to be on their side, and they didnt care that for the overwhelming majority of American Jews four more years of Trump was the darkest of nightmares.

Trumps defeat doesnt mean Israelis are going to suddenly acknowledge the fears and relief of liberal U.S. Jews, and they wont take kindly to even gentle criticism from them.

Normalization with the UAE and Bahrain wasnt just Trumps parting gesture to Netanyahu, the last in a long series of gifts, it was a challenge to the liberal diplomatic paradigm that in the past had transcended the terms of presidents and administrations.

It was the latest piece of proof that perhaps Israelis no longer need their kind American cousins, their philanthropy, lobbying and certainly not their advice. It meant that however American Jews choose to engage with Israel now, in the post-Trump era, it will have to be radically different from anything that went before.

Here is the original post:
Get over your liberal guilt about Israels peace with the Gulf - Haaretz.com

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., downplayed Houses losses in this year's elections, pointing out that Democrats made historic gains in 2018. J. Scott Applewhite/AP hide caption

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., downplayed Houses losses in this year's elections, pointing out that Democrats made historic gains in 2018.

Updated at 10 a.m. ET

House Democrats started this month hoping, and preparing, to gain seats in the election. Instead, their once-robust majority in the House has dwindled, and Democrats are on track to begin next year with the slimmest majority in decades.

Now members on the progressive left and Democratic Party moderates are again at odds over whose policies won in 2020 and how they should govern as a party.

Some Democrats are frustrated that the debate is happening at all. Joe Biden won the presidential election, and Democrats will hold their majority in the House. While control of the Senate is still to be decided, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., returned to Washington, D.C., after the election to celebrate the wins that have already materialized.

"We'll be able to do great things for the American people," Pelosi told reporters at a news conference. "We've lost some battles, but we won the war. We have the gavel."

But Democrats lost a lot of battles. House Republicans have gained a net seven seats and have advantages in several races that have yet to be called, despite going into the election with the expectation that Democrats could win as many at 15 seats.

Polling on both sides of the aisle showed Democrats with advantages in key districts in states like Texas and Indiana, where they hoped to gain new seats. Tight races in places like Iowa and New York broke in favor of Republicans when the votes were tallied.

Debate about messaging

Democrats' losses have been heavily concentrated in the "majority-maker" districts areas where Democrats defeated Republicans in 2018. Some progressive members, such as Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., say that isn't a surprise.

"I think people are mourning the loss of some colleagues that wasn't as expected as it should have been," Jayapal said in an interview with NPR. "I think we just have to be real about what happened here. And we should focus on our long-term organizing strategy, because I think that is what is ultimately going to help us."

For progressives such as Jayapal, that long-term organizing strategy involves bringing out young, diverse new voters who are energized by progressive policies like "Medicare for All," a $15 minimum wage and an aggressive approach to curbing climate change.

Jayapal points to enormous turnout in cities such as Atlanta as an example of what an energized coalition can do. Those voters have boosted Biden's numbers in Georgia, putting him ahead and on the verge of winning that state for Democrats after decades of Republican wins.

She and other progressives say that they helped drive the party's national platform to the left on major social issues and that this, in turn, motivated voters to the polls. She says progressives also worked as emissaries for the party in communities that voted in huge numbers this year.

"[Progressives] helped Joe Biden deliver a very progressive agenda," Jayapal said. "That led to this huge turnout of young people, Black and brown and immigrant voters that delivered us victories in these key states."

Moderates say big progressive turnout in cities and suburbs may drive up Democrats' numbers in statewide and presidential races, but in their closely divided districts, they argue, some progressive messages can turn toxic.

Rep. Abigail Spanberger was narrowly reelected in a Virginia district that went for Republicans from 1971 until she won in 2018. She says Democrats need to focus more on proactive messages and passing bills that speak to people, like funding for education and expanded rural broadband. She told NPR the party needs to be communicating to all voters, not just a progressive base, about how those policies impact them.

"I think it's important that we recognize that, you know, while importantly and wonderfully Joe Biden is our president-elect, the man he ran against, our current president, got 70 million Americans to vote for him," Spanberger said in an interview. "We are asking for people to give us the responsibility of legislating. And we have to be clear on what we intend to do with that responsibility."

"Defund the police" cited as main impediment with swing voters

Moderates say they've been hamstrung by political slogans that don't actually reflect the policies Democrats have passed like "defund the police."

House Democrats passed a sweeping police reform package this year called the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. That bill outlaws chokeholds, gives the Justice Department greater power to intervene in use-of-force cases, creates a national registry for police conduct complaints and restructures the pipeline of military equipment to local police departments. It does not defund the police.

"People know what the term 'defund' means," Spanberger said. "I have had people just across the spectrum say they don't want to see police departments defunded."

But "defund the police" was an effective attack line for Republicans in tight races where Democrats lost. One example is Rep. Max Rose, D-N.Y., who lost in a district that was blanketed with an ad of retired New York City police officers talking about how Rose betrayed them.

"He promised us that he was going to support the police, and then he marches with people looking to defund the police," recounts an officer in the ad.

This division isn't new for Democrats. Pelosi often says the diversity of her caucus extends to some parts of their ideology. That is something Democrats often publicly celebrate, but the divisions become more critical as they look ahead to legislate with President-elect Biden.

Both sides of the party are looking for someone to blame as the losses sink in. Some blame the polls. Some blame internal calculations at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The finger-pointing boiled over in a party conference call recently, and DCCC Chairwoman Cheri Bustos, D-Ill., announced a few days later that she would not seek reelection to that leadership job.

Pelosi and her top leadership team are expected to be easily reelected to their posts, but the race for who will succeed Bustos has intensified.

Rep. Tony Cardenas of California, who is running to lead the DCCC, says it's wrong to argue that the party must choose between either retaining disaffected Republicans and moderates or winning over progressives.

"I think the emphasis of trying to hold on to a certain type of voter is the wrong place to start," Cardenas said in an interview with NPR.

Cardenas said Democrats can win by connecting with diverse voters and winning their trust. But, he said, the party also must do the basic job of passing bills and getting legislation done.

"Unfortunately, we have a lot of good candidates who their message gets overshadowed by millions of dollars of the Republican message that just literally doesn't even use their own words," Cardenas said. "And those are the kinds of tactics that we're having to combat."

That's something most Democrats agree on. They say the next election won't be centered on Democrats running against President Trump. They'll be running on a record they plan to build with Biden.

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, who is competing against Cardenas to run the campaign committee, agreed. Maloney said Democrats in the House will be working on a Biden agenda and will have all of the power and support that being of the party with a president in the White House affords.

"Joe Biden is the perfect president for the moment," Maloney said. "He will help us turn the corner on the pandemic, get our businesses going again, open the economy responsibly and heal the wounds and repair some of the damage from the Trump years."

But Maloney added that Democrats will also benefit from time.

"I also believe we'll be entering the cycle next time with the pandemic, God willing, in the rearview mirror and an economy that's in full rebound," he said.

Deciding which elements of the Biden agenda to enact first will be part of the challenge. Progressives want to see health care reforms and elements of the Green New Deal at the top of the list.

Biden himself has signaled plans to focus heavily on making the fight against COVID-19 his No. 1 priority.

Many Democrats say a tightly tailored focus on the virus, the economy and kitchen-table issues could unite them. Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., said Democrats need to keep that in mind as they define their agenda.

"We're going to have to do core agenda items like trade deals that level the playing field broadband, so that as we're dealing with a pandemic, that urban schools and rural schools have the same access and equal opportunity so that everybody's got an education," Dingell said. "The most important, valuable thing to have, we need to make sure that every young person can afford a college education and not graduate with staggering student debt talking about just these issues that matter every day."

Dingell says that the political environment has strayed far from that basic political work in the Trump years and that Democrats have a chance to win over a wider range of voters by renewing that focus.

"There's more agreement on that," she said. "There's more agreement than disagreement."

Read this article:
House Democrats At Odds After 2020 Election Losses - NPR

Joe Biden is the president-elect of the United States. Here's a look at America's next first family. USA TODAY

WASHINGTON Several electionsacross the country still hadnt been decided when the blame game started.

House Democrats were stunned by their lossesafter weeks of forecasting had predicteda big win on Election Day.Whispers of leadership change swirled, and Houselawmakers soon moved from privately bashing one anotherto a public airing of grievanceson social media and in the media.

It's not a new fight, the battle waged between progressives and moderates over the vision of the Democratic Party. But this time around, moderatesare emboldened.After spending the past few years working in the background as progressives became a leading voicein the party, moderates came out swinging after Election Day losses.

Moderates,who helped Democrats take the House in 2018and saw their colleagues ousted in key districts this year, not only demanded changes within the party apparatusbutloudly issued warnings that Democrats will lose power in the 2022 midterm elections should they not make changes. Progressivesfiercely dismissthat notion.

"For any organization, any team to have been successful, you have to have unity," said Rep. CindyAxne, the only Democrat to win a federal race in Iowa so far this year. (One race is yet to be called). "The No. 1 thing is you all have to be focused on the mission, and the way that you're going to go about getting there ishaving the same strategy to get there. When you don't have that, unity is gone and it makes it a lot more difficult. So I do have concerns."

The bickering over incremental progress versus bold changes has takennew form.Democrats find themselves not only quarreling about the disappointing results of the election, but they already are butting heads on the path forward, leaving in the crossfire both the legislative agenda inthe Biden administration and changes needed to make Democratic gains in the next election.

USA TODAY interviewed key Democratic lawmakersfrom different factions ofthe partyabout the path forward,what needs to change to win areas President Donald Trump turned redand the legislation that could muster support from both sides of the aisle.

Intraparty disputes have become almost routine, often sprungfrom two important developments for Democrats in the past five years: Sen.Bernie Sanders' popular presidential runs, that inspired a new generation of progressive activists,and the arrival of new progressives, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.,afterthe2018midterms.

Moderates, many from swing districts or states, often focuson local issues that don't always draw the spotlightand boast of working across the aisle to enact more incremental changes in larger policy. Progressives, on the other hand, have advocated more sweeping change, calling for Democrats to be bold on urgent issues affecting their constituents, such as climate change, access to health careand criminal justice reform.

But unlike past fights over the direction of the party, thenextyear marks a new moment for Democrats as they take control of the White House, forcing Biden to navigate through deeply rooted beliefs in both branches of the party.

'IT WAS A FAILURE': Furious House Democrats unload as leadership promises answers after election losses

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Moderate Democratswho have seen their colleagues ousted by Republicanswere quick topoint fingers.They argued that Republican attacks linking members to socialism and the "defund the police" movementwere a death knell, and they blamedsomeprogressive members forloudly backing those ideas.

Just days after the election, HouseDemocrats huddled on a phone callthat featured yelling and tears.Rep. AbigailSpanberger, a moderate Democrat fromVirginiawho eked out a victory, told the rest of her conference that Democrats needed to learn a lesson from the lossesor "we will be f---ingtorn apart in 2022."

In the days that followed, theargumentmoved to the pages of The New York Times, whereRep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democratic socialist,argued that poor outreach and digital campaigning sunk moderatesin swing districts. In turn, Rep.ConorLamb, a Pennsylvania moderate who fended off a Republican challenger,responded that unpopular progressive messaging, such as defunding the police and talk of socialism,lost Democrats seats and could lose the House majority in the future.

MORE ON DEM LOSSES: House Democrats didn't see 'blue wave' to expand majority. Here's what we know.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is urging Republicans to stop the "charade" of President Donald Trump's reelection, as the coronavirus sweeps through the United States. Pelosi says without leadership, the COVID crisis will further "spiral." (Nov. 13) AP Domestic

Progressives have bristled at the blame laid at their feet.

We have to be very, very careful in pointing those fingers, and we need to just look at the data as it comes in, said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Many of the accusations hurled at progressives were not supported by evidence, she argued, pointing out that incumbent Democrats who ran in swing districts and supported "Medicare for All" ended up winning their reelection bids.

Moderates have similarly taken issue with assessments by progressives over the losses, notablyafter Ocasio-Cortez said some swing-district Democrats were "sitting ducks" because of poor voter outreach and digital campaigning.

They argued that progressives in very liberal districts are out of touch with voters in their areas who don't support many progressive policiesbut rather want a Washington that works togetherto enact change.

Obviously, we all need to sit down and have a big family meeting to get a better understanding of what these districts are like,"said Axne, D-Iowa. "A lot of people make assumptions about who can win where when they have absolutely no clue what it's like here on the ground.

Sen. Joe Manchin,one of the few remaining red-state Democrats who has been a vocal opponent of many progressivepolicies, said the fighting wasashame because there's enough room to have every good idea put on the table.

But, he said, proposals such as defunding the police are sofar out of the mainstream policies he and other Democrats could never support. Thats when I saidDefund my butt!,a reference to a tweet that drew the ire of Ocasio-Cortez.

Manchin echoed his fellow Democrats, saying the election displayed clear issues the party needs to address.

When you have someone with the flaws that President Trump had, after four years of us seeing those flaws, and they walk into the voting boothand they say, Well, that's better than the other side, so I'll go for him anyway, something's wrong," Manchin said. "It should not have been a close election in any way, shape or form.

At the top of his list for change wasDemocratsmaking a stronger case onthe economy.

When you don't have a message on the economy, (voters)believe that that (Democratic)brand basically is more concerned and interested in people that don't work or won't work, more so than the people that do work and will work," he said."There's a problem.

More: A record number of Republican women will serve in the House after the GOP ate into Democratic majority

More: Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell are friends who have brokered deals in the Senate: Can they still work together?

Across the board, moderates stressed that the best path forward was helping Biden get a legislative agenda through Congress and compromising with Republicans. Many stressed the needfor progressives to tone down their rhetoric and for swing-district Democratsto better connect with voters back home in hopes that GOP attacks aiming to tie them to far-left policy wouldnt stick.

Congresswoman-elect Carolyn Bourdeaux of Georgia, one of the only Democratsto flip a district this year,saidRepublican attackstying her to Medicare for Alland defunding the policedid not work because she was clear on where my feet are planted.She doesn't support either and stressed the need for Democrats to take adistrict-by-district approach.

Axnecredited her win in Iowa to the connections she built in her district. She stressed that Democrats needed to examine voting trends amongrural residents and examine why Democrats lost so many over the years.

We continue to ignore them. I didn't ignore them. And that's why I'm sitting here, because their voices are valuable. They deserve to be heard and they're important for this country'ssuccess,Axnesaid.

STIMULUS BEFORE BIDEN TAKES OFFICE?: Coronavirus stimulus negotiations in a 'lame duck' session likely to face more deadlock

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez quickly emerged as one of the leading progressive voices in the Democratic Party.(Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

Progressiveshave offeredtheir ownremedies.Ocasio-Cortezargued in The Times that Democratsas a wholeneedto understand that weare not the enemy. And that their base is not the enemy.

She stressed the need for different factions of the party to work together and use the assets from everyone at the party.Specifically, Ocasio-Cortezhighlighted the need for Democrats to invest more online in digital advertising and outreach.

These folks are pointing toward Republican messaging that they feel killed them, right? But why were you so vulnerable to that attack? Ocasio-Cortez said in The Times. If youre not door-knocking, if youre not on the internet, if your main points of reliance are TV and mail, then youre not running a campaign on all cylinders. I just dont see how anyone could be making ideological claims when they didnt run a full-fledged campaign.

Progressives such as Jayapal and Rep. Mark Pocan, both of whom co-chair the progressive caucus,were more subdued about immediate changes in Democrats approach. Both said adeep diveinto voter data would display more about what went wrong this cycle and what changes were needed, something the House Democrats' campaign arm has already promised it would do.

Butboth agreed Trump is an outlier in politics that likely had a greater impact than polling could predictand his removal from the White House could change thingssignificantlyin the next cycle.

I do think we all do that the anomaly really is that Donald Trump has been historically odd to the political system, Pocan said.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Jayapal added that far-left ideas and organizing boosted voter turnout in critical swing states and in cities like Detroit, Philadelphiaand Atlanta that led to Biden's win.

Democrats losses this cycle were tough, she said, but she noted Republicans and Trump had been working every day since he came into office to organize on the ground, to invest in real infrastructure, different kinds of media that reach people. Democrats did not necessarily anticipate the kind of turnout Trump would drive, nor did they organize as consistently over the course of the year because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Biden ran as a moderate, someone known for making deals across the aisle. But since he left the Senateat the beginning of 2009,a lot has changed. Partisanship is deep-rooted, even in the Senate, whichhas historically beenknown for its members' abilityto strike a deal.The number of red-state Democratshas dwindled.Onlythree Democratic senatorsrepresent states won by Trump in 2020.

And while leaders on both sides of the aisle have said they hope to get bipartisan deals across the finish line, Biden could be the first president in more than 30 years to take office withoutcontrol over both chambers of Congress. Democrats still have a chance to take control of Congressif theywin both Senate seats in Georgia in a January runoff, though it will be a tough featina state turning purple with a history of backingRepublicans.

More: Joe Biden will walk into the Oval Office facing a litany of weighty issues. Here's what they are.

More: A fiercely contested presidential election reinforced the nation's divide. What's next?

Joe Biden has spent nearly 5 decades in politics, culminating in his candidacy for president in 2020. USA TODAY

"I think the country spoke pretty loudly in this last election that they want us to work together, said Rep. Josh Gottheimer, who co-chairs the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus. I believe there was a lot of ticket-splitting and a lot of voters whosaid wewant to turn the page on the White House, but we want acheck (on a purely Democratic agenda.)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi downplayed concerns that her smaller majority in the House and thelikelihood of the Senate remaining in Republican hands would mean a less aggressive legislative agenda.

We still have the power of the majority, but on top of that, our leverage and our powerisgreatly enhanced by having a Democratic president in the White House, Pelosi said Friday at a news conference.

There couldbe room for compromise.

Nearly every lawmaker who spoke to USA TODAYidentified a coronavirus stimulus package and infrastructure as key areas where Democrats could work with Republicans.Bidens platform called for a $2 trillion investment in infrastructure and clean energy during his first term.

More: For Biden, unwinding the Trump presidency could be a full-time job fraught with politics

More: Now, a fast start: Joe Biden's historic victory will be followed by big problems and hard choices

Besides Senate Republicans possibly standing in the way, Biden will have to navigate the demands of progressives, some knowntoreject proposals backed by party leadership over concerns they did not go far enough.The Progressive Caucus, which countedclose to 100 members in thelast Congress, will expand its numbersin the next Congress and could flex its muscleas one of the largest voting blocsin House.

Moderates expressed anxietythat the far-left flank of the party could make it difficult for them to get things done.

I am somebody who believes progress is better than purity, saidRep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla. "This whole idea that somehow focusing on what can be done is not bold is incorrect. In my opinion, bold is getting things done."

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Progressives say their goals have not changedand didnt deny there could be members who vote against legislation if it didnt go far enough.

Are we always going to try to move things to be bigger and bolder? Likely,Pocansaid, arguing not many bills were likely to move through Congress because of expected Republican control of the Senate. Instead, Pocan said, most changes would occur by executive action.Other progressives were confident they would be able to move forward on legislative priorities.

Congressman-electMondaireJonessaidprogressives could be patient, calling progressivism " long-suffering work."

But another progressive freshman from New York, Congressman-elect Jamaal Bowman, said progressive priorities like COVID-19 relief, Medicare for All,public housing investmentand the Green New Deal were demands of the American people that Biden needs to respond to.

Democrats moderates and progressives alike need to be ready to hold him accountable, he said.

Biden, for his part, has struck anambitioustone.He saidTuesday that he wanted to work with Congressto dramatically ramp up health care protections, get America to universal coverage, and lower health care costs as soon as humanly possible.

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/15/joe-biden-take-presidency-democrats-battle-over-future-party/6278276002/

See the original post here:
Democratic Party waging a war over its future just as Joe Biden takes helm - USA TODAY

Sign up for the Guardians First Thing newsletter

In separate interviews on Sunday, the two Democratic candidates for US Senate in Georgia said their runoff elections in January would be decisive for Americas future.

If Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock beat their Republican incumbent opponents, Democrats will regain control of the Senate, Kamala Harris serving as a tie-breaking vice-president in a chamber split 50-50. Though precarious, that would give Joe Biden greater hope of implementing his legislative agenda.

Democrats hold the US House but fear a Republican-controlled Senate would hamper everything from a nationwide Covid-19 response to economic stimulus initiatives. Republicans fear losing a vital foothold on Capitol Hill. As a result, tens of millions of dollars are flowing into Georgia, where Ossoff will face David Perdue and Warnock will face Kelly Loeffler in the 5 January runoffs, necessitated by no candidate receiving more than 50% of the vote this month.

What were feeling for the first time in four years is hope

Trump is leaving, whether he knows it or not, Ossoff told ABCs This Week, referring to the presidents refusal to concede defeat by Biden. And the question now is how were going to contain this pandemic which is raging out of control, which is spreading at an accelerating rate.

Ossoff won 48% of the vote to Perdues 49.7%. The remainder went to a Libertarian who is now out of the race.

There are hundreds of thousands of lives hanging in the balance, there are millions of jobs and homes and livelihoods hanging in the balance, Ossoff said. And thats why its so important to win these two Senate races so that the incoming presidential administration can govern, can lead, can enact the solutions necessary to contain this virus and invest in economic recovery.

Georgia went to Biden in the presidential election, a recount unlikely to change the result. Crediting former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams organizing efforts for shifting Georgias vote no Democratic presidential candidate had won the state since 1996 Ossoff said: What were feeling for the first time in four years is hope.

With Trump departing, we have the opportunity to define the next chapter in American history, to lead out of this crisis. But only by winning these Senate seats.

The GOP at the national level has no leader, has no message and has no vision other than stopping Joe Biden. But we are in a crisis, we need leadership, we need to make sure that Joe Biden can govern and this administration is successful.

This is a Georgia race. And Im Georgia

Warnock, a pastor, won 33% of the vote over Loefflers 26%, with the rest going to other candidates including Doug Collins, a Republican US representative. In total, Democratic candidates polled 35.7% and Republicans 45.8%. Warnock told CNNs State of the Union that did not worry him.

I finished first, handily, far ahead of a candidate whos the wealthiest member of Congress, who poured millions of dollars into this race, he said.

And we finished in a strong position. Theres no question in my mind that as Georgians hear about my commitment to access to affordable healthcare, the dignity of work, the work Ive been doing for years standing up for ordinary people, we will prevail come 5 January.

The CNN host Jake Tapper pointed out that Republicans have tried to link Warnock to Democrats in Washington, to cast him as a dangerous radical.

Listen, Warnock said. This is a Georgia race. And Im Georgia. I grew up in Savannah, Georgia, my church is in Atlanta. Im pastor of the spiritual home of Martin Luther King Jr.

I grew up in public housing, one of 12 children in my family. Im number 11. And the first graduate of a four-year college in my family. I know personally the importance of good federal policy, combined with personal responsibility, work, grit and determination. Thats the reason Im able to run for the United States Senate. I am an iteration of the American dream.

Im running for the Senate because that promise is slipping away from far too many people. Thats what this race is about and thats what I can take, I will continue to lift up. Even as I move across the great state of Georgia, people are responding to that message.

See the article here:
Democratic candidates say Georgia Senate elections will be decisive for US - The Guardian