I

n January of 2021, Democrats 
rode into Washington and 
took control of the White 
House 
and 
both 
houses 
of 
Congress. President Joe Biden’s 
approval rating stood at over 53%, 
and the nation looked hopefully 
to a leader who promised to 
restore order and sensibility to 
American politics. As Biden took 
the Oath of Office, stocks soared 
to record highs, investors bullish 
on a president they believed 
would bring stability to markets 
in a post-COVID-19 era. The 
Republican Party appeared a 
disgraced 
organization, 
and 
with the events of January 6 top 
of mind, many contended the 
Republicans were facing a lost 
election cycle, as they did in the 
aftermath of Nixon’s resignation.
Almost 
two 
years 
later, 
America faces a very different 
political landscape. As stocks 
remain below where they were 
at 
Biden’s 
inauguration 
and 
economists 
see 
a 
recession 
as 
an 
increasingly 
likely 
scenario, economic sentiment 
has tanked. Biden’s approval 
rating has dropped more than 
10% since taking office and 
the Democrats face only a 19% 
chance of retaining both houses 
of Congress. All of this raises the 
question: what happened?
Perhaps the primary cause of 
the Democrats’ fall from grace 
has been the economy. While 
external factors, like the war 
in Ukraine, certainly impacted 
inflation, 
continued 
stimulus 
spending by Biden after the 
economy had already begun to 
recover 
further 
exacerbated 
it. While it’s impossible to pin 
the blame on any individual, 
Democrats soured their public 
image 
by 
denying 
federal 
spending’s 
role 
in 
boosting 
inflation, continuing to propose 
large spending packages even as 
CPI climbed rapidly.
When 
Democrats 
finally 
decided to act on the impending 
economic crisis, they passed the 
Inflation Reduction Act, which 
despite its name has dubious 
impacts on short-term inflation. 
Though the core components 
of the bill, such as prescription 
drug cost reductions and tax 
credits, 
are 
useful 
tools 
in 
fighting 
inflation, 
the 
$369 
billion in climate spending and 
$79 billion in funding for the 
IRS raised many eyebrows. The 
Congressional 
Budget 
Office 
(CBO) has projected that the 
Inflation Reduction Act will have 
a “negligible effect” on inflation 
in the coming months and 
years, calling into question its 
effectiveness as a policy measure.

Though the Federal Reserve is 
the entity primarily responsible 
for controlling inflation, the 
other 
parts 
of 
the 
federal 
government 
also 
have 
an 
obligation to take actions that aid 
the Fed’s objectives. Other than 
the flawed Inflation Reduction 
Act, however, the Democrats 
have continued to take reckless 
actions that compromise the 
fight against inflation. Most 
recently, 
the 
White 
House 
unveiled its plan for student loan 
relief, which the Congressional 
Budget Office assessed at a cost 
of $400 billion. 
While high student debt is 
certainly an issue, canceling 
$400 billion of debt in the 
midst of high inflation seems 
imprudent, as it would likely 
increase 
consumer 
spending, 
further 
worsening 
inflation. 
Moreover, doing so has been 
shown to be a regressive tax 
by 
income, 
education 
and 
wealth, meaning that the plan 
will 
further 
contribute 
to 
disparities in household wealth 
between 
college 
graduates, 
who 
typically 
earn 
higher 
salaries, and Americans without 
college degrees — enigmatic of 
Democrats’ priorities shifting 
from their blue collar roots to the 
more genteel interests of urban 
elites.
While there are many reasons 
for the Democratic Party’s fall 
in popularity, a large share of 
their troubles are rooted in their 
detachment from Main Street, 
pocketbook, kitchen table issues. 
Though the Democrats of the 
mid-to-late 20th century were 
perceived as a blue-collar party 
in support of working class 
voters, modern Democrats have 
struggled to escape their image 
as an elitist institution. 
While it may be easy to 
dismiss Trump voters as racist 
or uninformed, the populist 
movement 
he 
created 
was 
incredibly powerful. In flipping 
Blue Wall states like Michigan, 
Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in 
2016, he swayed traditionally 
Democratic 
voters 
who 
felt 

neglected by a party that had left 
them behind. Though Biden’s 
uniting message as a traditional 
blue-collar Democrat helped the 
party win back many states in 
2020, his rampant spending and 
perceived pandering to the left 
wing of his party has reverted 
the Democrats to the same elitist 
image he’d hoped to avoid.
In order to regain the image of 
competency and moderation that 
Biden embodied upon entering 
the White House, Democrats 
need 
to 
immediately 
pivot 
their strategies behind policy 
and messaging. The first step 
they must take is being honest 
about the state of our economic 
problems. By first presenting 
inflation as “transitory” then 
pinning it on Russian President 
Vladimir Putin and corporate 
greed, and now claiming inflation 
will worsen if Republicans take 
control of Congress, Biden has lost 
the trust of the American people 
and sabotaged opportunities for 
future bipartisan collaboration. 
As we likely head into a recession, 
Americans must be able to look 
to their president for support 
in bringing our nation back to 
a healthy economic state. By 
refusing to acknowledge his 
own party’s role in furthering 
inflation, however, Biden risks 
continued Democratic runaway 
spending stalling his ability to 
curtail inflation.
In addition, Biden needs to 
exert his authority within the 
party to rein in the left wing 
and unite leadership around 
core policies. As opposed to the 
GOP, which during the Trump 
administration voted famously 
monolithically, Democrats have 
struggled to keep their agenda 
reasonable due to the high levels 
of disagreement between the left 
and centrist sects of the party. 
While the Infrastructure Bill 
was a bipartisan victory, policies 
like student loan forgiveness 
have angered many middle-class 
voters and left the Democrats 
seeming out of touch.

I

f you see me walking around 
campus with my earbuds in, 
chances are I am listening 
to a podcast about politics. Post 
Reports, The Weeds, Political 
Gabfest, POLITICO Playbook 
Daily Briefing — you name it, I 
probably listen to it. Last month, 
I became a fan of the New York 
Times’s latest production, The 
Run-Up with Astead Herndon. 
Every 
Thursday 
morning, 
Herndon takes us through big 
moments in political history in 
an attempt to unpack the fate 
of our country and our growing 
frustrations 
with 
America’s 
political parties. In one of my 
favorite episodes of the season 
so far, Herndon explores “what 
Democrats and Republicans got 
wrong about voters” and their 
“flawed assumptions.”
After a losing political battle 
in 2012, when President Barack 
Obama successfully skirted into 
his second term, Republicans 
gathered for a wake-up call, 
otherwise known as the GOP 
Autopsy. This was an assessment 
that 
determined 
that 
the 
Republican 
Party’s 
platform 
and key values weren’t landing 
with the American people — 
mainly 
minority 
voters 
and 
young people. The report had a 
simple message: the GOP will 
have to make changes or else 

the party will face an existential 
threat. It highlighted key ways 
to build coalitions with Latino 
voters, namely by being more 
inclusive 
and 
comprehensive 
about immigration reform and 
fighting hard to regain the trust 
of voters of Color who have felt 
isolated from the party. 
The GOP had a solid reason 
to be so somber about its own 
future. When Obama landed 
in office, for the first and 
second time, his presidency 
was lauded as a transformative 
moment for the nation. That a 
bi-racial man born in Hawaii 
and raised as a global citizen 
could become president became 
a signal that America was also 
becoming more racially and 
culturally 
tolerant. 
Everyone 
from President Clinton to the 
New York Times Editorial Board 
said so. And, by the early 2000s 
the future of the country was 
already set in stone: in as early 
as 2005 it was projected that by 
the year 2050, people of Color 
would become the majority 
racial demographic in America.
In other words, with this set 
of factors, as Herndon discusses 
in the podcast, the GOP was 
operating 
under 
two 
main 
assumptions. 
The 
first 
was 
that under a majority-minority 
country, the Republican Party 
would be left with a smaller 
white base which could mean 
shrinking 
electoral 
power. 
The second assumption was 

that voters of Color would 
overwhelmingly 
support 
Democrats. After the election 
and reelection of President 
Obama, Democrats held their 
own assumptions about their 
confidence with minority voters 
through a popular “demography 
is 
destiny” 
doctrine: 
that 
as 
the 
country 
shifted 
in 
demographics, 
Democrats 
would be able to maintain their 
political dominance long-term.
In hindsight, it’s possible 
to see why Democrats were 
viewed as the more successful 
party with minority voters. In 
a 2012 Gallup poll, Republicans 
were 
overwhelmingly 
non-
Hispanic 
white, 
with 
only 
2% of Black voters and 6% of 
Hispanic 
voters 
identifying 
as such. The point being, both 
political parties have spent 
decades making assumptions 
about dependable voters and 
winnable candidates. But then, 
Trump became president in 
2016. Not only did he gain 
traction among minority voters, 
he 
openly 
campaigned 
on 
harmful racial rhetoric that 
sounded exclusive, instead of 
the inclusivity recommended by 
the GOP Autopsy. This political 
irony continued in 2020, where 
minority voter support for the 
GOP increased.
Simply 
put, 
the 
autopsy 
was wrong. In his podcast, 
Herndon speaks to Kellyanne 
Conway, former senior adviser 

to 
President 
Trump 
and 
the first woman to manage 
a 
successful 
presidential 
campaign. 
Whatever 
your 
opinion of her, she contends 
that Trump was successful 
because he actively pushed 
away from the assumptions that 
the Republican Party was on 
the decline, saying “we don’t 
tell voters what’s important to 
them, they tell us.” So, as we look 
ahead to the upcoming midterm 
elections, what can both parties 
learn when reaching out to 
voters, and how can they create 
more dynamic campaigns? 
Gerald Hills has had a wide-
ranging career in politics at 
the state and federal level, 
with leadership roles at the 
governor’s office, the attorney 
general’s 
office 
and 
the 
Michigan Republican Party. He 
notes that something politicians 
tend to forget is that “politics is 
dynamic — not static. California 
was the bedrock for Republican 
candidates at one point and now 
the state is reliably Democrat. 
Voters act the same way.” 
Over the past few weeks, 
we’ve been hit with an onslaught 
of 
stories 
detailing 
how 
Latino voters are increasingly 
switching to the Republican 
Party, not just to vote but to run 
as candidates. And while many 
on the Left see this as cause to 
sound the alarm, Hills isn’t too 
surprised. “We should never 
lose sight of the fact that people 

look at politics in terms of how it 
impacts them and their families 
individually. 
For 
example, 
people 
are 
paying 
more 
attention to the fact that they 
are paying more at the pump or 
at the grocery store, and they 
will bring that frustration with 
them at the ballot box.”
Because there are so many 
issues people care about, it’s 
difficult to pigeonhole voters. 
It sounds incredibly simple, and 
yet politicians continue to miss 
this. It is common for candidates 
to run on different messages 
depending on which voting 
group they are talking to. The 
problem is that concepts such as 
the “Latino Vote” or the “Black 
Vote” never tell the full story 
and are full of misconceptions. 
For 
example, 
despite 
the 
assumption 
that 
Latino 
voters are largely Democrats, 
Republicans have had a deep 
history among this fast-growing 
electorate. Although the Black 
electorate 
overwhelmingly 
votes Democratic in elections, 
70% of Black voters identify as 
moderate or conservative. 
Former 
Michigan 
gubernatorial candidate Abdul 
El-Sayed told me that this is 
especially 
where 
Democrats 
tend to fail: “We have a large 
coalition, but Democrats tend to 
campaign a different segment 
of their playbook to different 
groups of people instead of 
building 
a 
strong 
cohesive 

vision where everyone can see 
themselves.”
So how can a candidate be 
successful when reaching out 
to voters? Again, keep it simple: 
According to Hills, “Strength is 
a powerful motivator for a lot 
of people. This is why Trump 
stood out to so many people, 
especially those who didn’t vote 
before. It was Clinton who said 
‘strong and wrong beats weak 
and right.’” He also pointed to 
how Gov. Gretchen Whitmer 
is an example of a candidate 
who is framing her campaign 
around strength. She leans into 
her 
accomplishments, 
being 
in motion and getting things 
done. Hills also emphasized 
how important the tool of 
persuasion 
is: 
“In 
politics, 
perception is reality.” Building 
a coalition is messy work, but 
if you can convince a voter that 
you care about their interests, 
that you’ll go to D.C. and fight 
for them and that you’ll keep 
the promises you make, you end 
up being much more successful.
It’s important for politicians 
to realize that they have to 
work for every voter they want. 
Blindly assuming that a certain 
block of voters has an allegiance 
to you is not only dangerous, 
but insulting. The upcoming 
midterm elections will be the 
ultimate test for how both of 
America’s 
political 
parties 
decide to campaign and craft 
their messaging in the future.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
12 — Wednesday, November 2, 2022

Kellyanne Conway is right about your vote

 Read more at MichiganDaily.com

ELINA MORRISON
Opinion Columnist

Is the Democratic Party out of 
touch with Americans?

NIKHIL SHARMA
Opinion Columnist

Political debates are going out of 
style. That’s bad for voters.

C

ampaign 
season 
in 
battleground Arizona is in 
full swing. The midterms 
are 
in 
less 
than 
a 
month. 
Statewide races are polling within 
the margin of error, attack ads 
are plastered across the airwaves 
and millions of dollars are being 
thrown at campaigns. The horse 
race is on and everything seems 
to be chugging along as usual — 
except for one traditional factor. 
In the Arizona governor race, one 
of the most watched and critical 
races in the country, there have 
been zero debates between the 
two major party candidates, and 
none are planned for the future. 
The reason for this anomaly? 
Democrat Katie Hobbs is simply 
refusing to debate. The Hobbs 
campaign 
claims 
that 
the 
refusal to debate is based on 
prior, and expected, hijinks and 
conspiratorial nonsense from her 
challenger, Republican Kari Lake. 
Lake, a fringe right-wing figure 
associated closely with disgraced 
former President Donald Trump, 
did refuse to answer questions 
in her primary debate earlier 
this year, and given her track 
record of acting off the walls, 
a respectful debate on her end 
seems hard to imagine. There 
are a few problems with Hobbs’ 
line of reasoning, however. First, 
who cares? That Lake is scared to 
answer tough questions should 
be a perfect attack line for Hobbs 

during the debate. The stage 
would also give an opportunity 
for Hobbs to rightly call out Lake’s 
conspiracy theories in a way that 
can’t directly be done elsewhere. 
Secondly, and of concern, is 
that Hobbs’ explanation seems 
improbable. 
What seems more likely is that 
the Hobbs campaign sees a debate 
as a chance for Lake to succeed, 
given 
her 
extensive 
media 
experience and the fact that she 
is known to grab media attention. 
Though both explanations are not 
comforting, it is this possibility 
that is especially worrisome. 
The purpose of debates, at their 
heart, is not to be a platform for a 
candidate to gain or lose ground 
in an election. They are an avenue 
for the voters to watch candidates 
converse on issues, be given tough 
questions they otherwise could 
more easily avoid and inform 
voters about the issues that matter 
to them. 
Expanding on this, though 
we are not in the 1960s, when 
political debates might be one 
of the few times one could 
see a candidate on television, 
debates feature timeless benefits. 
First is the importance of the 
moderator. Moderators can ask 
tough questions, without the 
possibility of the candidate simply 
walking away, as they could with 
a reporter. If they dodge, their 
opponent is right there to jump on 
them for it. 
The second key benefit is that 
debates are one of the only, if not 
the only, time when candidates 

have a chance to directly debate 
each other on the issues. Thirdly, 
debates are an easy way for voters 
to get a general grasp of how a 
candidate behaves, what issues 
they are seeking to highlight 
and where they stand on various 
matters. While the advent of 
sites like Politico may serve to 
give those inside the beltway 
seemingly infinite material on 
candidates, many voters don’t 
have the interest nor the time 
to consume it. Most voters don’t 
tune into campaigns until late 
in the campaign anyway, so the 
timing works out great. 
And, while some may argue 
that the importance of debates 
has decreased, voter interest in 
them clearly has not. The Mike 
Pence-Kamala 
Harris 
debate 
was the second most watched 
vice presidential debate in the 
history of the country. Three of 
the four most-watched debates in 
American history have occurred 
in the last two elections. Debates 
are for the voters. If voters are 
finding them as compelling to 
watch as ever, it is an especially 
awful time for debates to decrease 
in frequency. 
Political 
debates 
have 
historically been an American 
campaign season staple. They 
are a showcase of democracy, 
free speech and the exchanging 
of ideas, and candidates have 
traditionally had enough respect 
for voters and norms that they 
would participate. 

DEVON HESANO
Opinion Columnist

Design by Tye Kalinovic

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

