US voters are up for grabs; this new approach could change that — Fareed's Take

[0:00] The image we have of America these days is of a country deeply divided, separated by education, [0:06] class, and culture into two warring camps that can't stand each other. When you watch Donald [0:12] Trump on the campaign trail or dip into social media, that picture of America is constantly [0:18] reinforced. But the polling as we approach the midterms suggests that we might have missed [0:24] something very important about America today. It is a country in flux, with large sections [0:31] uneasy about the future and uncertain about any political loyalties. In other words, the country [0:38] is politically up for grabs. Look at the shifts from just two years ago. In 2024, Trump won 44% [0:48] of the Hispanic vote, according to the New York Times. In a recent Times poll, only 31% of Hispanics [0:55] said they planned to vote for the Republican for Congress in the midterms. Trump closed [1:00] the massive Republican gap among young voters to within 10 points two years ago. Today, [1:07] just two years later, that gap is more than in Obama's election in 2008, at 44 points in [1:14] favor of Democrats in the congressional ballot. These are seismic shifts that rarely take place [1:20] in as short a span as two years. But time has accelerated, and movement that took years [1:25] can now happen in months, even weeks. In Brazil, President Lula came second in the first round [1:32] of that country's presidential election, trailing Flavio Bolsonaro by more than two million votes. [1:39] In three weeks, he managed to convince 10 million more voters to support him, winning the final [1:45] round handily. Never before in Brazilian presidential elections had the candidate who came second in [1:51] the first round been able to change enough minds to win in the final round. We're living in an age of [1:58] anxiety, and that means people are unsure about their political allegiances. Throughout Europe, [2:04] they've abandoned mainstream parties for new, often more extreme ones on the right, but also on the left. [2:11] Some of this is a reaction to the fact that the centrist parties, both right and left, failed to tackle some [2:17] big issues like illegal immigration and the breakdown of the asylum system. They were perceived as unwilling [2:23] to advocate assimilation into the mainstream culture, and they were seen as simply tinkering with a [2:29] welfare state that had become dysfunctional and worn out. But when the result is left-wing anger that [2:36] turns into riots in the street, that has historically benefited the right. And it appears that this pattern will [2:43] play out in France as it approaches its presidential elections next year. The truth is more people than ever [2:50] have weak political allegiances. A recent Pew poll found that a quarter of 2024 Trump voters now view the [2:58] Republican Party unfavorably. Of these, only half say they will support their Republican congressional candidate [3:05] in the midterms. Almost half of America identifies as independent these days. And the ones who lean toward a [3:12] party don't necessarily do so out of deep devotion to it. A Pew poll found that 64 percent of Democratic [3:19] leaning independents cited the harm done by Republican policies as a major reason for their preference, [3:26] while just 27 percent cited the good done by Democratic policies. Republican leaning independents [3:33] displayed a similar pattern. According to a recent Wall Street Journal poll, 52 percent of Democrats want [3:39] their party to moderate or stay the same, while only 37 percent want it to be more liberal. [3:46] The Republican troubles are in some large part self-inflicted. Voters look at Trump's tariffs and the [3:53] Iran war and tie them directly to rising prices and the crisis of affordability. Others applauded closing [4:00] down the border, but not the intrusive and cruel ICE raids against suspected undocumented immigrants. [4:07] For others, the open and blatant nature of corruption in the second Trump term has been just too much to take. [4:15] But none of this suggests that they have turned their back on the key tenants of the MAGA agenda. [4:21] A MAGA candidate who adhered more consistently to its ideology and wasn't narcissistic and corrupt [4:28] might win back those disillusioned Republicans. And fast. There is an opportunity here for the political center. [4:36] But it won't be realized by simply saying that the adults are back and will hold Trump accountable and [4:41] fix what he broke. They need a positive agenda that can allay some of the fears about the future. [4:49] The best one would draw from the left and right. Keep the border closed and revamp the asylum system [4:55] so millions cannot use loopholes to enter the country. Tackle health care costs by using new technologies, [5:03] but also by using the power of the government to keep down costs and expand access, which can go [5:09] together because the more healthy people in the pool, the more viable the system. Transform education, [5:16] using the power of AI to give everyone a personal tutor, encouraged and organized by public schools. [5:23] Build housing, lots of it, everywhere. Tax capital more and wages and labor less. Give Americans an agenda that [5:33] they find compelling. That gives them a sense that the future can be navigated and that they will [5:39] have a place in it. That could win not just their vote next week, but their loyalty for years. [5:46] Many are predicting a blue wave in Tuesday's U.S. midterm elections as polling shows that the Democrats [5:52] are likely to take the House and may even flip the Senate, something that was hard to imagine even earlier [5:59] this year. Joining me now is Frances E. Lee. She is a professor of politics and public affairs at [6:04] Princeton University. Professor Lee, welcome. So something I wanted to ask you, which is to step [6:10] back for a moment and say if this swing takes place, what's striking to me is the degree of this back and [6:18] forth over the last, you know, 25 years. I mean, I think about presidential elections, right? And since 2000, [6:27] I think it's fair to say that there has not been a single election other than Obama's 08 election in [6:33] the wake of the global financial crisis that could qualify as a kind of thumping victory, [6:40] let alone a landslide. Everything has been very close. The two parties go back and forth. [6:47] First, do you agree? And what is the consequence, you think, of this kind of constantly going back and [6:53] forth? Well, this constant back and forth, the seesaw pattern in national politics makes it very [7:00] difficult for the parties to negotiate to agreement on large issues in American politics. The challenge [7:08] is that the disadvantaged party at any given point in time can easily anticipate being back in power [7:15] soon. So why cut a deal on some large important pressing issue now when you'd be in a better [7:23] position in a short period of time after the next set of elections? So this creates kind of a policy [7:29] stalemate around large issues as the party with less power calculates future advantage. This pattern tends [7:38] to drive a preoccupation with politics between elections. The permanent campaign is how that's often [7:47] referenced, that both parties are looking to the next elections with anxiety. The party in power knows [7:55] that that power is held tenuously. The party out of power expects to be able to get back in. And so they [8:02] work very hard to try to drive favorable narratives in the media for their party. [8:07] That means denouncing the other party vociferously. That contributes to the toxic partisanship that's [8:13] characteristic of our era. And this is unusual, right? Because there's always been this, [8:18] what is it, Samuel Lubell, the sun and moon theory of American political parties, that there's always been [8:26] one party that's been dominant, the sun, and the other one that's been less dominant, the moon. And as a [8:32] result, there was a stable relationship and you could negotiate public policy. I mean, you think about [8:39] the period when the Democrats were dominant after Franklin Roosevelt for many, many decades. Before [8:45] that, the Republican Party was dominant for many, many decades, you know, from the 1880s to the 1932 [8:51] election. So we haven't seen a lot of American history where you have this constant, as you put it, a [9:01] permanent campaign because everyone thinks they can win the next time. Do you see any signs that we're [9:09] moving out of this kind of period? [9:11] I see no such signs that we're breaking out of this protracted stalemate between the parties. [9:18] It is historically unusual. As you look back across American political history, you know, [9:23] we haven't seen a period where the two parties have been this evenly matched for this long. [9:28] Even if there is a wave election this year, we need to see the Democrats retain power, you know, [9:36] we, you know, after the next set of elections before you'd be able to begin to pronounce a new [9:42] era in American politics. [9:43] So if the election goes as predicted, do you imagine that there could be some [9:50] bipartisanship or the Democrats could find some Republican support on measures to in some way [9:59] curtail the prosecution of the Iran war? This is a very unpopular war. It's the most unpopular war [10:05] in American history. Republicans are paying the price for it. So if Democrats were to say, [10:11] you know, pass a resolution in the House saying no more funds for the war, do you think Republicans [10:17] would go along because you'd need a veto proof majority since Trump would obviously veto it? [10:22] Well, the funds are being drawn down already. One thing that's quite notable about the Iran war thus [10:30] far is that no war supplemental has yet cleared the Congress despite Republican control of the House [10:38] and Senate at present. So the administration requested a supplemental, but Congress has not [10:45] produced one. So if funds don't get authorized after the elections during the lame duck period, [10:54] the administration will have to be going to a Democratic controlled Congress.