The Biden Presidency - 2020

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So under this theory, there is absolutely nothing a Democrat can do to win votes. Their votes are entirely dependant on if they're up against a bad candidate who screws up?

I’m not a big fan of absolutes or saying anything is “entirely dependent” on any one thing in situations where there are many moving parts. Black and white or all-or-nothing type thinking is a thought trap that is not useful in understanding how complex issues or problems work. That is especially true when it comes to internet discussions.

I listed four or five things that I believe shifted the GA special election in the Democrats’ favor and you simplified it down to “a bad candidate that screws up” is the only way a Democrat can win votes? That is not at all what I said.

Now, to respond to your question, in certain environments or political climates, I believe there are situations that are dependent on the Democrat or Republican needing to be near perfect and/or their opponent needing to be bad and screw up in order for them to win. That is how we end up with things like Senator Doug Jones (D-AL) or Senator Scott Brown (R-MA).

If I’m understanding you correctly, I don’t think our beliefs are very different. I think our views on where the electorate currently sits on the political spectrum and how to shift it towards the left are. And, I think there’s a big risk of the Democrats losing the next few cycles if spending bills like BBB end up appearing like they are too much/big, too quickly right now. I’d rather have a skinny BBB than nothing.

[RainMaker]

I don't think policy is that important today. But I do think Biden threaded the needle pretty well by appealing to both moderates and progressives.

Also, I thought the lure of a $2000 check was a pretty big deal in that Georgia runoff. Both Democratic candidates used that a lot and I feel giving people money is a pretty good motivator (just like how tax cuts are usually popular).

I guess I feel like people play both sides of it. If there is a policy Democrats pass on that appeals to progressives, you hear people scream about how they couldn't piss off moderates and cost them elections. When there is a policy that appeals to moderates and the Democrats pass on it, we're told policy doesn't really matter and it's not a big deal. I just want to know if moderates care about policy or not.

[Edward64]

Nice article on the crux of the issue with Manchin.

I'm not sure I understand his issue though. The bill is for +1 year extension through 2022 and he says he wants to know the true cost of 10 years because odds are that it'll be renewed after 2022.

Great that you brought out this awareness to the general public, play hardball a little longer, have MSM talk about the pros and cons, what the est. $ is etc. But ultimately, state that you will reluctantly vote for BBB with this in it with the understanding that you are unlikely to vote for future extension. Because neither will the GOP when they (likely) win back one or both houses in 2022 ... and you'll still be a key vote.

So wonder if there is something he is really, really negotiating for?

BTW, I would like to know how much this would cost over 10 years. I've seen ranges from $500B to $1.5T+.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/15/polit...ter/index.html

On Wednesday evening, Manchin provided his most detailed rationale yet as to why he's still at odds with Biden over the Build Back Better plan, telling CNN that his demand is that the bill must not exceed $1.75 trillion.

The West Virginia Democrat said that he's objecting to a one-year extension of the child tax credit because he believes it hides the true cost of a program that will likely be extended year after year. He said if Democrats want to extend it, there should be a 10-year extension in order to be transparent to the public.

Manchin's concerns about leaving the child tax credit in the Build Back Better bill have to do with how it impacts the overall cost of the legislation, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Manchin isn't explicitly telling Biden to remove any specific policy, according to the source, but he has made clear that these expensive provisions are not going to fit to keep the bill at $1.75 trillion.

The President's framework would extend the credit for one year, affecting more than 35 million Americans for households earning up to $35,000 per year.
But Manchin has said that temporary programs do not reflect the true cost to taxpayers.

Asked why not just vote against future extensions of the child tax credit and agree to a one-year extension now, Manchin said: "I want to make sure that we're upfront, transparent with the public. That's all."

But extending the tax credit for the next decade would blow up the price tag and require wholesale changes to a bill that has been negotiated for months. Manchin indicated that if it increases the price tag and they want to keep the child tax credit, Democrats should drop other programs to make it all fit under $1.75 trillion.

"We have $1.75 to work within," Manchin said. "So pick your priorities and let's do it."

Multiple sources say Manchin suggested to Biden moving the extension of the tax credit through a separate track -- something Democrats see as a nonstarter given that it would need at least 10 Republican votes to advance outside of the current budget process.

[JPhillips]

The idea that a one year window is a problem but a ten year window is fine is dumb.

The idea that costs should be factored into a bill for things the bill doesn't include is dumb.

The idea that Manchin is negotiating in good faith is dumb.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But, hey, don't worry - the Dems will get steamrolled for "not doing enough" and replaced by GOP reps who already have and will continue to crush access to the ballots, keep throwing people in for-profit prisons, and hand the rest of the middle class's money back to the wealthy while stripping away regulations. That'll show 'em!

Of course, many will continue to paint it as turd sandwich vs giant douche or whatever false equivalence choice. Never mind that one side is just (willfully?) incompetent while the other is actively trying to screw you. Definitely the same thing!

(EDIT: Or, hey, maybe I'm the idiot for thinking there's a difference. I guess, at least, the branding is different)

SI

There is a difference. But we've learned over and over that turnout matters a lot in elections. It's not that the left-leaning person will vote Republican, it's that they may not bother to vote. Especially if it now requires them to take a day long trip to the other side of the county to vote in the one polling place left.

[JPhillips]

Manchin went on Fox to kill the BBB.

This is a no on this legislation.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Manchin went on Fox to kill the BBB.

"Dems"

[RainMaker]

Imagine how inept you have to be to get played by Manchin. Anyone with a brain knew that he just wanted the government handouts for his coal business that he got in the "infrastructure" deal.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

"Dems"

I'm very much on team, "Manchin/Sinema, not Dems," But holy hell is this going to hurt next November. If all the Dems have is an infrastructure bill, that's going to kill turnout. Even moderates like Spanberger get how damaging this will be to them.

[RainMaker]

Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer gave up their leverage. A lot of people, even on the right, wanted the infrastructure bill since it was billions on handouts to their donors. Giving them that for nothing was a really dumb political move by the dumbest politicians we have seen.

Good luck in the next election Dems. Guessing people in the suburbs will be ecstatic about losing the child tax credit. Young people will flock to the polls after not receiving help on student loans. And seniors love seeing a massive premium hike.

You also spent the year letting the public know that 1/6 and other massive corruption was not really a big deal.

[PilotMan]

The way that Biden continues to fail, in the exact opposite way that trump was a failure doesn't make up for anything. Biden is sort of exactly who we thought he was. He's not a good president. Having said that, I'm not sure that Mancin isn't in the exact position that John McCain was in with trump, and playing a similar hand. All this certainly feels like fiddling while the sparks that eventually burn the county down are on the verge of catching fire.

[RainMaker]

I think the difference is that Manchin got what he wanted which was a handout to his coal company. Republicans didn't buy McCain support.

[Brian Swartz]

Even if Biden is a total failure, which he's not - he's done some good things - him being President isn't just good, it's fantastic compared to the alternative of more Trump.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

holy hell is this going to hurt next November. If all the Dems have is an infrastructure bill, that's going to kill turnout. Even moderates like Spanberger get how damaging this will be to them.

I don't think it'll matter much at all to the midterms.

[albionmoonlight]

Manchin still has the leverage of being able to switch to the GOP. The administration’s hand is incredibly weak. Now I still think they managed to play a weak hand badly. But this was never going to be an LBJ or FDR type situation.

[Swaggs]

I feel pretty certain this is Manchin’s last term as a senator. I still think it’s unlikely that he switches parties. He and his family have a pretty strong legacy in West Virginia. I can see him running for governor again in ‘24. If he does switch parties, I think he will wait to see what happens in the mid-terms. If he becomes the 51st Republican, he will lose the power he currently wields, and there is no way the state GOP doesn’t run someone far more conservative for senate in ‘24.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Manchin still has the leverage of being able to switch to the GOP. The administration’s hand is incredibly weak. Now I still think they managed to play a weak hand badly. But this was never going to be an LBJ or FDR type situation.

All Manchin cared about was getting millions for his coal business. It is why smart people tied the infrastructure bill to BBB. Once you gave Manchin his handout, you lost all leverage.

Manchin was never going to flip parties while his personal fortune was on the line.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Even if Biden is a total failure, which he's not - he's done some good things - him being President isn't just good, it's fantastic compared to the alternative of more Trump.

I don't think it'll matter much at all to the midterms.

His presidency will be a failure. Only accomplishment was a short term relief bill. He either bailed out or botched most of his campaign promises.

He's got one year to actually accomplish something with no leverage and an approval rating in the toilet. Good luck!

[bhlloy]

As politics become more and more polarized anyone like Biden who tacks to the center and tries to build bridges across partisan lines is screwed. He has been a very weak president but with the starting hand he was dealt I’m equally not sure who would be any better.

I honestly don’t know how a Dem can be successful in todays political climate. They have been playing checkers for too long while the GOP has been playing power chess.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

His presidency will be a failure. Only accomplishment was a short term relief bill. He either bailed out or botched most of his campaign promises.

Things like BBB not being passed are not primarily Biden's fault. Similarly, the relief bill shouldn't primarily be credited to him either. Both of those require Congress.

I consider Biden a moderate success because to me the relevant comparison is what has he done compared to the alternative. The alternative is Trump. I'd prefer he were more successful and effective, but there's a limit to how much you can do that with a divided Congress and a mostly stonewalling opposition party.

There's often a lot to be said for not getting much done. Sometimes people who get a lot done, get a lot done in the direction of making the situation a lot worse.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Things like BBB not being passed are not primarily Biden's fault. Similarly, the relief bill shouldn't primarily be credited to him either. Both of those require Congress.

I consider Biden a moderate success because to me the relevant comparison is what has he done compared to the alternative. The alternative is Trump. I'd prefer he were more successful and effective, but there's a limit to how much you can do that with a divided Congress and a mostly stonewalling opposition party.

There's often a lot to be said for not getting much done. Sometimes people who get a lot done, get a lot done in the direction of making the situation a lot worse.

BBB is partially his fault. He held the leverage over some Senators and gave it up. Just a terrible political move.

We'll see what the public things of him in a year. Have a feeling we'll be laughing at someone's takes.

[Brian Swartz]

Why would we be laughing at anyone's takes? I've said multiple times that I think Democrats won't do well in the midterms. That would generally be the case even if the public likes a President, but I also don't think it will move a great deal based on what Biden does or doesn't get done. It will be mostly current events in the months leading up to election + a bias in favor of the out of power party that determines it, as is the historical pattern.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Why would we be laughing at anyone's takes? I've said multiple times that I think Democrats won't do well in the midterms. That would generally be the case even if the public likes a President, but I also don't think it will move a great deal based on what Biden does or doesn't get done. It will be mostly current events in the months leading up to election + a bias in favor of the out of power party that determines it, as is the historical pattern.

The historical pattern is that the President's popularity and accomplishments play a role in midterms. Most of our recent Presidents have been ineffective early in their first term (Reagan, Obama, Clinton, Trump) and saw their approval ratings in the toilet. Bush was incredibly popular going into the 2002 midterms and subsequently won seats.

The notion that nothing you do as President matters is probably why the Democrats keep getting squashed in politics.

[Brian Swartz]

It's not that nothing Presidents do matter. It does matter, but they're often given credit for the economy, for what Congress did, for things that they have no control over in some cases and not much control over in others.

As to the historical pattern, Bush Sr. had better approval than Bush Jr., whose approval didn't have a whole lot to do with his achievements and had more to do with the rally-round the flag after 9-11 (and declined afterwards in almost uninterrupted fashion until after the midterms). Bush Sr. still lost seats in the midterm. Not as many as usual.

Presidential approval does matter, absolutely. But presidential approval is often not tied to what the president actually does. It largely tied to factors beyond their control, and likability generally matters more than actual accomplishments IMO. Obama's popularity was nearly break-even at midterms, yet they got clobbered much worse than presidents whose popularity was lower.

[miked]

Not to mention the Rs were on Fox News saying they would not confirm any judges once they take control of the senate.

[RainMaker]

Just seems like a catch-22. If they do nothing it is fine because they would lose anyway. If they do something, they might upset voters and lose. Heads you win, tails I lose.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miked

Not to mention the Rs were on Fox News saying they would not confirm any judges once they take control of the senate.

You'll get to see that scenario play out in a year. But take solace in the fact that the sanctity of the filibuster remains until 2025 when Republicans remove it to pass a bill they want.

[Brian Swartz]

I would still advise them to do everything they can to further their agenda, don't get me wrong. Governing out of fear is a bad idea, and I think turnout is the best weapon. Do your best to keep your base excited about voting for you, and then run on those actions in the next opportunity; i.e. '24 even if you know you're likely to lose the midterms no matter what. It's a bad hand regardless but I'd rather campaign on 'we brought these issues but the other party voted us down, put more of us in office so they can't block it next time' than I would on 'we knew we couldn't do what we promised so we didn't even try'.

[Edward64]

BBB will be a big loss and will come up in mid-terms. I do agree that Dems were looking at losing in the mid-terms even before and its arguable if this will really make it that worse.

The near term economy (by mid-terms) and how well we are doing on Covid will be primary (short of another big conflict somewhere like a Taiwan) evaluations for Biden and Dems. BBB plays into it but although it would have been great for regular people, unsure if it would have really helped or hurt the economy in the near term.

So if I was Biden, definitely try a revisit with Manchin to see if it will change his mind. I like to think Manchin is calling the Progressives' bluff on the Child Tax Credit. If stripping it out will satisfy Manchin, then Biden should do it. The Progressives will cry about it but they'll get (swag) 90% of $1.75T and they'll begrudgingly concede.

But in parallel, plan on smaller things and coordinate with Fed policy on inflation etc. Much of today's inflation is because of supply chain issues as a result of the pandemic. Unemployment rate is going down but its still a tight labor market. Inflation is no longer a transitory BS and will still be noticeable by mid-terms.

Covid response is all Biden now, he owns it. No more blaming Trump for the poor response. I do think he is doing okay but he is not doing enough effectively (ramp up a better campaign).

I think his foreign policy is doing well but domestic policy is obviously center stage. I'd toss in immigration reform as another low hanging fruit to get a nice win. It won't contain the make-all-the-illegals-legal but a nice guest worker program and increased legal immigration would be great.

Bottom-line. Biden is in a world of hurt. His report card is around a C+ or B- right now, which means I would seriously consider someone else in 3 years.

[Edward64]

I read somewhere there were more Covid deaths under Biden than Trump. Bottom line, not yet.

Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

In the grid, I did monthly. If you add up from Jan 2021 to now = 415,816 deaths out of 801,243. But of course, not all of Jan is on Biden.

From Jan = 415,816
From Feb = 310,412
From April = 238,775

Personally, Biden starts owning it in April. Politically and messaging for elections, it'll be Feb. Not quite half but we have another year to go and Biden could exceed more deaths than Trump.

[Lathum]

Yet roughly 80% of those deaths are republicans. Dying to own the libs.

[whomario]

What exactly were Bidens option to influence Governors who did not want to cooperate with anything ? What were Bidens options to prevent Delta from coming along ?

This isn't a sporting event

(Plus, IF one wanted to do such a, to me quite silly, comparison, purely 'mathematically' one would have to discount Jan/Feb '20 and then do a "deaths per month/day in office" rather than take 10 months of Trump vs whatever many months of Biden)

[RainMaker]

You can put blame on him for not sending more vaccines out globally to poorer countries or helping with the patent stuff that is stifling vaccine production in those countries as well. Omicron is perhaps a result of that incompetence. But many other countries did the same thing and it requires a global effort.

Still not sure you can really put much blame on him for Covid situation here. If 30% of your country is pro-Covid and actively wants to increase cases, your options are pretty limited in a free country.

[PilotMan]

Omicron was inevitable. It's a virus. It mutates. It wasn't going to be kept from evolving. It's Evolution Baby.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You can put blame on him for not sending more vaccines out globally to poorer countries or helping with the patent stuff that is stifling vaccine production in those countries as well. Omicron is perhaps a result of that incompetence. But many other countries did the same thing and it requires a global effort.

Still not sure you can really put much blame on him for Covid situation here. If 30% of your country is pro-Covid and actively wants to increase cases, your options are pretty limited in a free country.

Those are entirely different things than doing some death-count-evaluation. Quite honestly i have little idea what Biden actually did or didn't do, could or couldn't do (as said i barely am able to follow the basic stuff as reported in Germany, obviously the finer points of US Covid policy aren't really featured, it's just not really as relevant, not even a good indicator. So yeah, Governors holding many of of the cards as to what they do or don't is about the extent of my possible contribution

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by whomario

What exactly were Bidens option to influence Governors who did not want to cooperate with anything ? What were Bidens options to prevent Delta from coming along ?

This isn't a sporting event

Biden doesn't need to influence "governors" so unsure what that comment is? And its not Biden preventing Delta (thought to originate from India) or Omicron (thought to originate from South Africa - tbc). It's how to get more US vaccinated.

When there is change (vaccinations, new normal etc.) there is a need for strategy and change/communications campaigns to gain acceptance of that change (get vaccinated, wear masks etc.) with the people impacted (regular people).

There are many ways a campaign can happen - come up with options on what could work, come up with strategy, execute on the strategy, measure how successful it is etc. If acceptance is not as high as expected after a period of time, then finetune your campaign and do other things.

One of my biggest beefs is I do not see much evidence of a campaign other than primarily Biden-CDC-NIH talking about it. This may have worked and gotten the easy ones already, but we are talking about remaining 30-38%. In other post, I said what I saw was

I've watched enough Youtube TV and football games enough now to say Government "change management" approach is pretty sad. A proper campaign including reinforcement messages on TV and big events should have been launched.

All we get now are the same tired refrain (which is okay) from the same tired people (that is a problem) with the same tired delivery approach (speeches and periodic briefings). It's time to evolve the communications strategy.

I see more erectile dysfunction medication ads and Verizon commercials than I see "get vaccinated" ads/commercials.

So yeah, whoever Biden has hired to advise him on change/communication strategy sucks. He should get other people and try different ways. One of the obvious options is to flood the market with contemporary influencers (Taylor Swift? Dolly Parton? NASCAR or NFL players? etc.). A modernize version of "here's your brains on drugs" This Is Your Brain...This Is Your Brain On Drugs - 80s Partnership For A Drug Free America - YouTube. Whatever ... anything is better than Fauci telling us something he has told us zillions of times. He was effective at one time, but not so much now.

So yeah, figure out some new champions, new change agents, new approach. We have approx 62% vaccinated twice, about 73% vaccinated once. Work on the 11% that were vaccinated once and figure out what it takes to get them vaccinated a second time.

[RainMaker]

These people have been indoctrinated into a cult for years and are comfortably situated in a feedback loop that tells them what they want to hear. Many have been willing to toss family and friends aside to maintain their fealty to one man. Nearly a million dead in this country, likely some they know, and they haven't wavered.

A fancy TV commercial isn't doing shit. Neither are any of the other ideas you or anyone else can come up with. They have different goals.

[sterlingice]

When there is change (vaccinations, new normal etc.) there is a need for strategy and change/communications campaigns to gain acceptance of that change (get vaccinated, wear masks etc.) with the people impacted (regular people).

There are many ways a campaign can happen - come up with options on what could work, come up with strategy, execute on the strategy, measure how successful it is etc. If acceptance is not as high as expected after a period of time, then finetune your campaign and do other things.

One of my biggest beefs is I do not see much evidence of a campaign other than primarily Biden-CDC-NIH talking about it. This may have worked and gotten the easy ones already, but we are talking about remaining 30-38%. In other post, I said what I saw was

I see more erectile dysfunction medication ads and Verizon commercials than I see "get vaccinated" ads/commercials.

So yeah, whoever Biden has hired to advise him on change/communication strategy sucks. He should get other people and try different ways. One of the obvious options is to flood the market with contemporary influencers (Taylor Swift? Dolly Parton? NASCAR or NFL players? etc.). A modernize version of "here's your brains on drugs" This Is Your Brain...This Is Your Brain On Drugs - 80s Partnership For A Drug Free America - YouTube. Whatever ... anything is better than Fauci telling us something he has told us zillions of times. He was effective at one time, but not so much now.

So yeah, figure out some new champions, new change agents, new approach. We have approx 62% vaccinated twice, about 73% vaccinated once. Work on the 11% that were vaccinated once and figure out what it takes to get them vaccinated a second time.

I think that might move the needle a little, but to the tune of a couple of percentage points, at most, and that's probably optimistic. And, honestly, that's probably with a micro-targeted campaign at a couple of smaller populations with hesitancy, though availability and accessibility in those communities would probably do the same thing.

But there's no "this is your brain on drugs" for 30 seconds or even dozens of times for 30s that's overriding from hours of Joe Rogan, months of Facebook, and a lifetime's full of confirmation bias for huge swaths of the population.

One of my best friends in college went full anti-vax and a couple of us close friends from college have spent hours on the phone (we all live in different parts of the country now) trying every avenue we can think of to try and change his mind. A lot of this has been sympathetically listening to his discussions with an open mind: he's not some luddite dullard - he has some valid concerns but his judgement of the odds and risks of the options is ludicrously bad and fueled by his huge mistrust of authority so he puts way too much weight in bad sources. Some of it has been trying to explain the science or put good information in front of him. None of it has worked and is likely not going to work. I mean, hell, when two very common refrains from the families of COVID deaths are "tell me what my family member is really dying from" and "the hospital killed my family member" - I don't know what changes that. If hours of talking to people won't, I don't think a targeted ad from someone less personal will.

I've also spent time talking to coworkers, again, who were open-mindedly asking concerns. I spent over an hour in the parking lot of a Home Depot one day when we were passing off the team on-call phone discussing this with one of my vaccine-hesistant coworkers. He was acting genuinely curious and I was trying to answer questions the best I could and pointing him in the direction of sources I couldn't answer. Being combative rarely changes people's minds. I think he talked to me because I'm viewed as reasonably sharp and a good place to get a second opinion on the team so I didn't want to betray that trust. I know another of my coworkers, who is a close personal friend of his, has also talked to him about it and tried to get him onboard.

You know what got some of my coworkers and neighbors to finally get the shot in the last 2 months? When CMS or OSHA threatened their job. That was it. That was about the only thing that was going to get them onboard. One of my family members works at a hospital - they have about 20K employees and 5K were still unvaccinated before the mandate (SSS of 1 hospital but 20K employees seems like a decent sample here). The month before the mandate, 1K got vaccinated or provided proof of insurance. So, even with the threat of losing a well-paying job, a population that should be pre-disposed to get the shot to begin with, and vaccines given /at the place of employment/ (or could get them elsewhere if proof was provided) - that only moved 5% of the population. Another 20% of the population were willing to risk it all for an 11th hour stay that they magically got.

Trump's already said it a couple of times, but it's always in his Trumpian divisive and dismissive way that's always to play for boos so I'm not sure how much stock I put in it. The long and short is that I just don't think there's a message that's getting to these people. And it's not for a lack of trying or variety of messages.

SI

[RainMaker]

The people eating horse dewormer will be easy to convince using facts and logic.

[Swaggs]

If Covid lasts much longer, I would like to see insurance companies implement larger premiums for people that refuse vaccinations (or if that is a penalty, "discounts" for people that receive vaccinations). One of my biggest concerns continues to be the strain that this puts on health care workers and facilities and these people that refuse to be vaccinated are driving up premium prices for all of us and occupying beds that could otherwise be used for illnesses, diseases, and injuries that there are not simple vaccines available to take. I have a family member that is a hospitalist (internal medicine) and he sent a group text over the weekend telling us all not to get sick or injured over the next 6-8 weeks because there are not going to be beds available.

[cuervo72]

I don't get why people are taking family members to the hospital if they just think that the hospital kills them. I mean...fine! Stay the fuck at home. Die on your own terms and ease up a little on the burden on the health care workers/system.

[Thomkal]

Bidens welcome a new German Shepherd puppy, Commander, to the White House.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I think that might move the needle a little, but to the tune of a couple of percentage points, at most, and that's probably optimistic. And, honestly, that's probably with a micro-targeted campaign at a couple of smaller populations with hesitancy, though availability and accessibility in those communities would probably do the same thing.

But there's no "this is your brain on drugs" for 30 seconds or even dozens of times for 30s that's overriding from hours of Joe Rogan, months of Facebook, and a lifetime's full of confirmation bias for huge swaths of the population.

I don't disagree in general. However, the 11% of 1 shotters have at least shown they are willing to listen "some". Get a consulting firm that is knowledgeable about moving the dial with them. Who are the most influential tik-tokers, who are the contemporary version GOP stars that have gotten vaccinated etc. I can tell you it ain't Fauci or others from CDC-NIH.

You know what got some of my coworkers and neighbors to finally get the shot in the last 2 months? When CMS or OSHA threatened their job. That was it. That was about the only thing that was going to get them onboard. One of my family members works at a hospital - they have about 20K employees and 5K were still unvaccinated before the mandate (SSS of 1 hospital but 20K employees seems like a decent sample here). The month before the mandate, 1K got vaccinated or provided proof of insurance. So, even with the threat of losing a well-paying job, a population that should be pre-disposed to get the shot to begin with, and vaccines given /at the place of employment/ (or could get them elsewhere if proof was provided) - that only moved 5% of the population. Another 20% of the population were willing to risk it all for an 11th hour stay that they magically got.

I agree that risking one's job is a driver. I do wish Biden had mandated vaccinations for military earlier, it was sending mixed messages.

Trump's already said it a couple of times, but it's always in his Trumpian divisive and dismissive way that's always to play for boos so I'm not sure how much stock I put in it. The long and short is that I just don't think there's a message that's getting to these people. And it's not for a lack of trying or variety of messages.

There is no doubt there are those that will never get shots. China is 75% vaccinated and +10% with 1-shot (as of Nov 19). Heck, if the authoritarian government of China can't get to close 100%, it tells you its beyond just "Trumpism". My guess is overall "distrust". Singapore is at 87%. Don't think you can say those 2 countries had vaccine access issues.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccinations - Statistics and Research - Our World in Data

Vaccine access in the US was a problem early on, not any more. Trumpers continue to be an issue for sure. But it's more than that simplistic argument. Why are black vaccination rates at 51%? (Again, my guess is overall "distrust"). Figure that out and move the dial some more.

Latest Data on COVID-19 Vaccinations by Race/Ethnicity | KFF

Racial disparities in vaccination rates have narrowed over time and have nearly closed for Hispanic people. Between November 29 and December 13, vaccination rates increased by 1.0 percentage points for Black people (from 50.3% to 51.3%), by 1.1 percentage points for Hispanic people (from 55.3% to 56.4%), and by 1.2 percentage points for Asian people (from 75.3% to 76.5%). In contrast, they remained roughly stable for White people (at 58%). Over the course of the vaccination rollout, differences between vaccination rates for Black, Hispanic, and White people have narrowed, and the gap between rates for White and Hispanic people has nearly closed. Between late April 2021, when most adults became eligible for vaccines across states, and December 13, 2021, the gap in vaccination rates between White and Black people fell from 14 percentage points (38% vs. 24%) to 7 percentage points (58% vs. 51%) while the difference between White and Hispanic vaccination rates decreased from 13 percentage points (38% vs. 25%) to two percentage points (58% vs. 56%).

Bottom line to me. If it's not working, strategize and try something else. Let's try influencers in social media, TV etc. as ubiquitous as ED and Verizon commercials (e.g. I would love to see Jay-Z and Beyonce do a vaccination ad like what they've done for Tiffanys). Let's have all insurers, in no uncertain terms, tell people their premiums will go up (e.g. like smokers), let's try different consulting companies with different ideas etc. Do a focus group etc.

[Edward64]

Not sure how real this is but a little hope for something.

Manchin to Dems: Redo the whole thing, maybe I'll vote for it - POLITICO

One day after sinking President Joe Biden’s signature social and climate spending legislation, Manchin (D-W.Va.) laid out a path forward that could take months and still fail. He wants the legislation to go through Senate committees and focus on rolling back the 2017 Trump tax cuts. He also wants Democrats to stop trying to force him into compliance.

Manchin advised Democrats to put legislation through committee to have any chance of success, saying party leaders spurned his requests to do so on the $1.9 trillion coronavirus aid bill. That bill passed on a party-line vote via budget reconciliation, but Manchin said that’s not going to happen again without the committee process.

[RainMaker]

He changes his stance no matter what they do. At this point, maybe he should be the one who puts a bill forth that he would vote for. Having him move the goalposts every other week till he can run out the clock till midterms hasn't been working.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, you can't trust anything he says. He certainly hasn't previously said he won't vote for anything unless it went through committees. If he had said that this would have all been over in June.

Getting judges through and holding committee chairs means they have to keep him, but he's as thin-skinned as he is egotistical. I expect if he runs again he'll get killed by the GOP candidate on his statements about WV's poor using government money for drugs and hunting trips.

[bronconick]

They might have better odds seeing if they could peel Murkowski off, tbh.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Bottom line to me. If it's not working, strategize and try something else. Let's try influencers in social media, TV etc. as ubiquitous as ED and Verizon commercials (e.g. I would love to see Jay-Z and Beyonce do a vaccination ad like what they've done for Tiffanys). Let's have all insurers, in no uncertain terms, tell people their premiums will go up (e.g. like smokers), let's try different consulting companies with different ideas etc. Do a focus group etc.

I can't tell if you're joking anymore.

[RainMaker]

It's too late now but the easiest way to do it would have been to offer a $5000 stimulus check to everyone who gets vaccinated.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I can't tell if you're joking anymore.

You shouldn't even try. We live in 2 different worlds and we were ignoring each other (unless we want to entertain FOFC when it inevitably gets into personal insults).

[albionmoonlight]

Manchin’s new statements about now wanting this to spend months in committee shows what he really wants. He wants to keep being the center of attention. Hey he Dems want this passed and behind them. They want to do something other than kiss his ring every morning. He, of course, does not want that. That—more than the substance of the bill-seems to be the real hold up. That means even the Dems were to say “You know what? We just can’t/won’t pass anything,” that still wouldn’t satisfy him. There is no endgame b/c one of the players won’t let anyone stop playing.

tl;dr The most powerful man in Congress is an attention whore.