SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
arab american institute
Election 2024 Won’t Be a Trump/Biden Rematch; What’s Next?
The stakes are still as high as they were since the campaigns kicked off more than a year ago.
Jul 23, 2024
Even before U.S. President Joe Biden dropped out of the race on Sunday, November’s presidential election had become a dizzying roller-coaster ride.
In the run-up to this election, the Democratic Party failed to consider the impact a weakened Biden would have on the electorate, and it assumed that fear of former president Donald Trump would be enough to win.
In just the past few weeks, however, two new factors emerged, wreaking additional havoc on the foundation of these two assumptions: the horrifying mass shooting at a Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and the growing chorus of prominent Democrats urging Biden to step down as their party’s presidential nominee.
This is truly, as my brother John would say, “an Armageddon election.”
Even before last week’s Republican National Convention, polls were showing Trump commanding the support of his party’s faithful. In the aftermath of the shooting, the embrace intensified, with some seeing his escape as a sign of divine intervention.
This deification of Trump and the wild enthusiasm seen at the Republican convention made Democrats more concerned about their electoral prospects and more troubled by Biden’s all-too-apparent weaknesses.
His frailty was already an issue, having come into sharp focus during the June 27 debate. With polls showing almost two thirds of Democrats displeased with Biden, senior party elected officials had publicly urged the president to pass the torch to a younger candidate.
Now that Biden has withdrawn his candidacy and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to be his party’s nominee, the election is once again wide open. Harris isn’t the nominee just yet, with various factions in the Democratic Party possibly jockeying for power, but she will be the hot favorite ahead of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago next month.
It is fair to say, then, that the current election cycle has been topsy-turvy, particularly over the past week. And yet it’s worth pointing out that within the larger American political context, it is still business as usual.
For starters, the stakes are still as high as they were since the campaigns kicked off more than a year ago.
This is truly, as my brother John would say, “an Armageddon election.” No matter who emerges as the Democratic nominee, this will be a contest between two fundamentally different visions of America. Despite Trump’s statement that it was time to unify the country, his convention, choice of a running mate, and the rhetoric used by many of the Republican convention’s speakers made it clear that the leopard hasn’t changed its spots.
The Trump-led GOP continues to prey on the fears and anger of the white working class, using the same exploitation of social and cultural issues and racist and Christian nationalist xenophobia and resentment of “elites” that they have been cultivating for years. This will distract attention from their policies favoring the wealthiest and most entitled at the expense of the safety, security, and prosperity of the middle class and those seeking to become middle class.
Trump will continue to project his frightening dystopian vision of American life, targeting his favorite line-up of evildoers—federal law enforcement, media elites, immigrants. His use of ridicule and hostile language will continue to inflame passions and incite violence.
Democrats, meanwhile, will continue to call for greater economic, social, and political equity. Biden had previously called out the widening income gap between the richest Americans and those struggling to make ends meet. Democrats will call for a fairer tax system, a raised minimum wage, and protection of unions and labor rights.
Despite their crackdown to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, they’ll call for a humane approach to those fleeing persecution. They will call for expanded healthcare, lower drug prices, support of women’s rights to make their own healthcare decisions, and continued progress towards racial justice.
And finally, Democrats will continue to focus this election on the need to protect democracy and the rule of law, warning about the threat posed by Trump supporters’ plans to reject the outcome of this election by using administrative tactics and even violence as they did in 2020 to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.
One additional factor that will remain the same is the threat posed by gun violence and the failure of the GOP to support even modest gun control reforms—despite the attempt on Trump’s life.
America now has more than one mass shooting each day, with tens of thousands needlessly losing their lives in these and other shootings. It still hasn’t addressed its diseased obsession with weapons. Nor has it faced up to the fact that political violence is not an aberration, when in fact it is who we are as Americans.
When The New York Times writes as editorial titled “The Attack on Trump is Antithetical to America,” or when Biden asserts that political violence isn’t who we are or that it’s an aberration, they are ignoring the reality that political violence is “as American as cherry pie.”
Living in denial is not only ignoring the dozens of attempted assassinations that have defined American history, but also means that the country isn’t ready to learn lessons and take much needed remedial steps to end this plague.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bowman’s Loss Reveals the Dangers of Unregulated ‘Dark Money’ Funds in Primaries
If left unchecked, America’s democracy, already distorted by big money, will be swamped and destroyed by billionaires who will make elections their game in which to manipulate voters at will.
Jul 02, 2024
Last week, New York Democratic Representative Jamaal Bowman was defeated in his bid for a third term in Congress. In describing the outcome, newspaper headlines and media analysts only scratched the surface of why and how this happened and the consequences this contest would have on future elections.
For their part, pro-Israel groups, while acknowledging that they spent a combined $25 million dollars to defeat Bowman, tried to play it two ways. On the one hand, they gloated that their involvement was decisive proof that “being pro-Israel was good policy and good politics.” Like gangsters of old they wanted to send a message of fear to other candidates that “if you cross us, we’ll get you too.” On the other hand, they attempted to downplay their role suggesting that Bowman’s loss was due to his “radicalism,” with voters demonstrating their preference for the more “centrist” candidate, negatively comparing Bowman’s passion with the staider demeanor of his opponent, County Executive George Latimer.
The lessons the media deduced from all of this were that pro-Israel groups indeed won, progressives lost, and that supporting Palestinian rights was an electorally dangerous proposition. This, however, ignored the deeper story that played out in this election.
If the party doesn’t address this issue, they may lose a sufficient number of their base who are resentful of the party establishment’s failure to both stop the genocide in Gaza and to defend progressive champions like Jamaal Bowman.
First and foremost, it was about the huge amounts of money spent, why and how it was used, and the impact it had on the contest. The $25 million pro-Israel groups spent to defeat Bowman was by far the most ever expended in a congressional primary, used mainly for negative advertising and direct mail attacks smearing Bowman’s character and criticizing his style. Virtually no mention of Israel was made in these ads.
During some points in the campaign, voters were nightly subjected to more than a half-dozen of these attack ads. The impression created was that Bowman was a flawed individual and an unworthy candidate. One observer told me that “if Jamaal’s mother had stayed at home watching this negative onslaught, she wouldn’t have voted for her son either.” That’s the role of negative ads: to damage the candidates being attacked so that they are defined as so flawed that their supporters are discouraged from voting on Election Day. This tactic is simply an expensive form of voter suppression.
In reality, Latimer outpaced Bowman in “radicalism” by making outrageous, racially tinged comments that could have been used against him. But Bowman didn’t have $25 million to define and destroy Latimer’s character. And so, the impression was created that Bowman was a loose cannon and Latimer was the responsible candidate. To be sure, racism played a role in all of this as the contest became “the angry, frightening young black man versus the calm, thoughtful older white guy.”
How the money was used is one thing, but why it was raised is something else to consider. Pro-Israel groups are running scared. They are losing the public debate over policy—especially among Democrats. Most Democrats are deeply opposed to Israeli policies in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian lands. Majorities want a cease-fire and an end to settlements. And they want to stop further arms shipments to Israel.
Knowing this, pro-Israel groups never make their campaigns a referendum on Israel. Instead, they focus their attention on the character of their opponents. When they win, they claim that it was a victory for Israel and support for its policies, when it most decidedly isn’t and never was.
There was another factor in this contest that was largely ignored by commentators. Bowman’s congressional district had been redistricted last year (by a statewide committee that included Latimer). The new district removed many of the areas that had been more favorable to Bowman and included new areas that were more favorable to Latimer. This made Bowman vulnerable, providing pro-Israel groups with the opportunity to play in this race and make it look like they won on the merits.
Historically this is how they’ve done their work—only going after vulnerable candidates. It’s why they left alone other equally strong pro-Palestinian, but less vulnerable, members of Congress. It’s a cowardly approach, to be sure, but it gives them bragging rights they can use to cower others into thinking they are invincible.
Examining who the donors to these pro-Israel campaigns were, we find that while they are largely supporters of Israel, many of the very large contributors are billionaire Republicans who take great pleasure in meddling in a Democratic primary helping to defeat progressive candidates. The use of unregulated “dark money” that is increasingly playing a role in primaries ought to set off alarms. Twice I tried and failed to get the Democratic Party to ban such “dark money” funds. My warning then was that if this tactic can be used by pro-Israel groups now, why won’t other powerful lobbies make use of this approach in the future. If left unchecked, America’s democracy, already distorted by big money, will be swamped and destroyed by billionaires who will make elections their game in which to manipulate voters at will.
One final observation for Democrats: While Bowman was defeated, support for Palestinian rights continues to grow. And the resentment of voters who favored Bowman and other targeted members of Congress will also continue to grow. These are Democratic voters that U.S. President Joseph Biden will need to win in November. If the party doesn’t address this issue, they may lose a sufficient number of their base who are resentful of the party establishment’s failure to both stop the genocide in Gaza and to defend progressive champions like Jamaal Bowman. Seen in this light, “Israel’s win” in the Bowman contest may negatively impact Democrats’ chances for victory in November.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Poll of Arab American Voters’ Message for Biden? Reverse Course on Gaza
An Arab American Institute poll shows that if the president, even at this late date, were to dramatically change policy on Israel and Gaza, he could potentially win back much of the support he has lost.
Jun 10, 2024
More often than not, those in the media take a simplistic view of political polls. Especially in a presidential election year, attention tends to be singularly focused on who’s up and who’s down.
In reality, these “horse race” numbers, while important, are often the least consequential part of a poll. Looking at the rich data that makes up a poll can provide far more useful information, suggesting, for example, why candidate A or B is doing well or poorly. A deep dive into the data can also reveal the diversity of the population being surveyed and among which component groups of the electorate the candidates are doing better or worse. And finally, if prescriptive questions are asked, a poll can also provide a way for candidates to understand what they can do to improve their position.
Ignoring all of this nuance, journalists who make do with simply reporting the top-line results miss the more valuable findings of a poll. As a case in point, we can look at the May 2024 poll of a random sample of 900 Arab American registered voters in key states, representative of the demographics of the community. The poll was conducted for the Arab American Institute (AAI) by John Zogby Strategies.
The simple reason for Biden’s low numbers and ratings is, in a word, Gaza.
The AAI poll received good coverage, all of which noted that while in 2020 U.S. President Joe Biden bested former President Donald Trump by 59%-35% among Arab Americans, Biden is now losing to Trump by 32%-18%. This was true, but what was missed were the details that make this picture so much more revealing.
For example, while “not sure” and third-party candidates received less than 10% support in 2020, that goes up to 50% this year. The main reason for this is that 40% of Arab Americans say they are “not enthusiastic at all” about casting a vote in November, while another 21% are “not really enthusiastic”—increasing the percentage of those who aren’t sure for whom they’ll vote (or if they’ll vote at all) in November. Importantly, the lack of enthusiasm is most evident among Democratic voters, 50% of whom aren’t “enthusiastic at all.” That’s only the case for 11% of Republicans.
The AAI poll also shows that 79% of Arab Americans have an unfavorable view of President Biden, while 55% have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump. Biden’s negative ratings are largely driven by the 56% of Democrats who view him unfavorably. On the other hand, Trump’s numbers are higher because he retains the near total support of those who identify as Republicans.
Biden’s most significant losses among Arab Americans occurred among the two groups who have in recent decades heavily leaned toward the Democratic Party but who also have the most tenuous attachment with any party identity—young voters and immigrants. They are classic swing voters. In response to almost every question in this survey, the poll shows that these two groups are the most likely not only to reject Biden but also to distance themselves from the Democratic Party.
The simple reason for Biden’s low numbers and ratings is, in a word, Gaza. When given 10 issues and asked to select the three most important to them, 60% chose the war in Gaza. In addition, 57% say that Gaza will be “very important” in determining their vote in November.
After eight months of Israel’s relentless assault on Palestinians in Gaza, 88% of Arab Americans say they have a negative view of the way Biden has handled the war, with overwhelming majorities across all party identification—with 87% of both Republicans and Democrats, and almost 90% of Independents and those with no party, having a negative view. Like many other voters, Arab Americans have opposed Biden administration policies supporting Israel’s war in Gaza.
The AAI poll also shows that if the president, even at this late date, were to dramatically change policy on Israel and Gaza, he could potentially win back much of the support he has lost. In two separate questions, when asked if the president were to demand an immediate cease-fire and unimpeded humanitarian aid into Gaza or if he were to suspend diplomatic support and arms shipments to Israel until they implement a cease-fire and withdraw forces from Gaza, 60% of Arab Americans say they would be more likely to vote for Biden in November. If Biden were to dramatically change his approach, the poll shows that the Biden/Trump match-up numbers could change favorably for Biden, due to these results coupled with Trump’s declining numbers since our last poll.
Another observation can be culled from the polling data by comparing the percentages of the results in this AAI poll with the actual voter data in key states. For example, looking at Arab American voters in Michigan, when we compare this poll’s expected 2024 results (Trump 28%- Biden 15%) with the Arab American vote in 2020, we see a significant potential loss for President Biden of 91,000 in Michigan alone.
Polls provide snapshots of where voters are at any given moment. This poll confirms what we know—President Biden is hemorrhaging Arab American voters because of his policies on Palestine. It also shows that dramatically changing those policies can move some voters.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Democrats Need a Both/And Approach to Voter Outreach
Because the interests of white working-class voters are more aligned with the economic and governmental policies espoused by Democrats, the party never should have lost their support; but it did.
May 28, 2024
After Barack Obama’s decisive victory in 2008, Democratic Party strategists fell under the sway of the notion that the future of their party’s dominance was insured because, as they put it, “demographics are destiny.”
Obama had performed well among a wide range of groups, but what captured the strategists’ attention was that he had won decisively among young voters, Black, Latino, and Asian American voters, and college educated women. Because these groups were growing in their percentage of the overall electorate, the strategists decided that Democrats would continue to win elections well into the future if they focused on the issues they determined would most appeal to these voters. Hence the phrase “demographics are destiny.”
They referred to their winning cohort as “the Obama coalition,” and in the years that followed the issues they elevated and their extensive voter outreach efforts were directed largely at cultivating and keeping that coalition together. In the process, they appeared to abandon outreach to a substantial number of other constituencies, especially white working-class voters, leaving the field wide open to their Republican opponents.
By viewing Black, Latino, and Asian American voters as monoliths, Democrats may be ignoring the complex composition of these groups.
Back in 2008-2009, the U.S. was reeling from the trauma of the Great Recession. Republicans, in an effort to deflect from their responsibility for the economic collapse, sought instead to exploit white voters’ feelings of unease and abandonment. The GOP preyed on their resentment and fears using racism and xenophobia as their weapons of choice. This strategy was embodied in the “birther movement” (Obama’s not one of us) and the “Tea Party” (“Democrats’ ideas about government don’t work for you. They only benefit ‘them’”—meaning Blacks, the poor, and immigrants).
In the next three elections, Democrats, relying on their new strategy of mobilizing their “Obama coalition” base, lost over 1,400 state and federal seats, giving Republicans control of both houses of Congress and the majority of governorships and state legislatures. One might have thought that Democrats would have learned from this comeuppance. Sadly, they did not.
Shortly after the 2014 midterms, I was at a meeting of the Democratic Party’s executive committee when the party’s pollster gave an upbeat presentation of what had been a stunning number of nationwide defeats. He claimed that there was good news from 2014: Democrats had kept their coalition together, winning the youth, Black, Latino, Asian, and educated women’s votes. Adding that “we just didn’t win enough of them,” he recommended that the party commit more resources to getting more of these groups out to vote in future elections.
At one point, I objected saying that he was ignoring white ethnic voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. These working-class voters had always been Democrats and their rights, prosperity, and futures were being damaged by Republicans. Because Democrats had always had their interests at heart and they had been central to our victories. I argued that we needed to pay attention to their needs. His response startled me. “We’re not going to throw money away on people who are never going to vote for us.” I replied that it’s not “either/or.” We can be both attentive to the concerns of our new coalition, while also keeping in mind the needs of our old coalition partners. When that “both/and” approach was dismissed, I countered that if that was how we would operate we would never be a majoritarian party and we were going to be handing these voters to Republicans on a silver platter. Enter Donald Trump in 2016.
As a candidate, Joe Biden understood the idea of both/and, directing his efforts to winning back these voters. But the apparatus of the party and its paid consultants have not followed suit, with little or no resources being devoted to outreach to white working-class voters and even less to understanding their values and needs.
We have polled these communities and in 2001, my brother John and I published a book based on our findings, What Ethnic Americans Really Think. We found that white ethnic voters were largely progressive in their attitudes toward government and economic policy, but had more nuanced feelings about what are called social issues. They supported federal funding for education, healthcare, and job creation; these were their priority issues. And they were pro-union and for racial equality. They were, however, conflicted about abortion and gay rights. A generation earlier, then President Bill Clinton had captured the general values of these white working-class voters with his slogan “family, community, and opportunity.”
Because the interests of white working-class voters are more aligned with the economic and governmental policies espoused by Democrats, the party never should have lost their support. But it did. Democrats fell into the trap Republicans set for them by focusing their electioneering almost exclusively on combating the bigoted and intolerant Republican messages and ignoring the economic angst and feelings of abandonment of white voters. When Democrats should be attending to both.
Now polls are showing that Democrats may be at risk of losing even some components of the “Obama coalition.” By viewing Black, Latino, and Asian American voters as monoliths, Democrats may be ignoring the complex composition of these groups. For example, studies show that upwards of 15% of Black voters are African immigrants and a large number of Latino voters are more recent immigrants are as well. They are from Venezuela, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republican, Nigeria, or East Africa. Their attitudes and values are more in line with those of the ethnic immigrants who came from Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Democratic strategists need to adjust their focus or else risk losing their support.
One more thought: My generation grew up with a strong attachment to party ID. Political parties were organizations to which you belonged. Today, given the weaknesses of the party organizations, being a Democrat or a Republican means nothing more than being on an email or phone-banking list. And the only time one hears from either party is when they call or write for money or urge you to vote. As a result, party ID has suffered—and this is especially true for young voters and recent immigrants. That’s why the numbers of independents and swing voters have increased. It’s why Donald Trump found it so easy to topple the Republican Party leadership and why Democrats may have trouble winning elections holding onto their “demographics are destiny” mantra.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular