Latest news with #TheRebuild
Vox
02-08-2025
- Politics
- Vox
5 reasons Democrats are in good shape
The Democratic Party's approval rating is at its lowest point in at least 35 years, according to a Wall Street Journal poll released last week. In that survey, 63 percent of voters expressed an unfavorable view of the Democrats, while just 33 percent voiced a positive one. By contrast, voters disapproved of Congressional Republicans by only 11 points. These dismal figures are broadly consistent with other recent polling: In RealClearPolitics's average of recent surveys, voters disapprove of the Democratic Party by a 59.3 to 36.3 margin. What's more, Democrats don't just have a lower favorability rating than Republicans, but also command less trust on the public's top issues. In the Journal's poll, voters disapproved of Trump's management of the economy, tariffs, inflation, foreign policy, and immigrant deportations. And yet, they said that they trusted Republicans to handle all of those matters better than Democrats would. Of the 10 issues raised in the survey, voters favored Democrats on only two — health care and vaccine policy. These grim data points have spurred some handwringing in blue America. But just how dire is the Democrats' predicament? Is the party temporarily tainted with the stink of last year's defeat — and poised to rally back into power, just as it did after losing in 2004 and 2016? Or is the better precedent for the party's current position 1981, when the party began a 12-year struggle to escape the shadow of a failed presidency? Only prophets can answer such questions with certainty. In my own view, though, two things are true: • The Democrats' putrid approval numbers paint a misleadingly bleak picture of their current standing. • The party is in much worse shape than it was eight years ago, and will likely struggle to secure full control of the federal government any time soon. Below, I'll detail five reasons for believing that first point, and two for accepting the second one. This story was first featured in The Rebuild. Sign up here for more stories on the lessons liberals should take away from their election defeat — and a closer look at where they should go next. From senior correspondent Eric Levitz. Why Democrats might not be in disarray 1. Disaffected, but loyal, Democrats are driving down their party's approval rating In the Journal's poll, the GOP's net-favorability rating is 19 points higher than the Democratic Party's. And yet, in that same survey, voters say that they would prefer a Democratic Congress to a Republican one by a 3-point margin. This seems odd. Voters disapprove of Democrats by a much larger margin than they disapprove of Republicans. Yet a plurality nonetheless say they would vote for the former party over the latter one. As polling analysts G. Elliott Morris and Mary Radcliffe observe, there is only one explanation for this: Unhappy — but loyal — Democratic voters are driving down their party's favorability rating. This interpretation is consistent with polling from YouGov and The Economist, which finds that only 74 percent of Democratic voters approve of congressional Democrats, while 22.6 percent disapprove. By contrast, 88.9 percent of Republican voters approve of their party's congressional causes, while just 8.3 percent disapprove. Partisans often disapprove of their own parties when they suffer defeat. Republicans had abysmal approval numbers in 2009, yet stomped to a historic midterm victory the following year. And that turnaround was not an aberration: According to Morris and Radcliffe, historically, there is no correlation between how well a party performs in favorability polls taken this far from Election Day and how well they ultimately do at the ballot box. It's unlikely that the Democrats' plummeting popularity is entirely attributable to the disaffection of its own base. The GOP's trust advantage on various issues suggests a broader problem. Nonetheless, the Democratic Party is (almost certainly) in better shape than its approval rating would suggest. 2. Trump is more unpopular than Biden was at this point in his presidency The president's approval rating is among the best predictors of an opposition party's midterm success. And Donald Trump has rapidly squandered the American public's goodwill. When Trump came into office, voters approved of him by an 11.6 margin, according to Nate Silver's polling average. Now, they disapprove of the president by 8.8 points. For context, at this point in Joe Biden's presidency, the public still approved of the Democrat by more than 7 points. And although Trump's approval is unlikely to collapse to the extraordinary degree that Biden's did, there's reason for thinking it will follow the same trajectory. Namely: 3. Americans will likely feel the full impact of Trump's tariffs next year Thus far, the economic impacts of Trump's tariffs have been fairly modest. Those duties have pushed up consumer prices and likely slowed economic growth. But they haven't triggered inflation akin to that which America witnessed in 2022, let alone a stagflationary crisis. This is partly because Trump walked back his most radical tariff proposals. Yet the president's trade restrictions remain extraordinarily expansive, outstripping what many deemed the worst-case scenario during campaign season. According to Yale's Budget Lab, America's average effective tariff rate sits at 20.2 percent, its highest level since 1911. And Trump's current tariffs are poised to cost US households an average of $2,700 in annual income. Americans are not yet paying the full price of Trump's trade policy. The US government has yet to begin collecting tariffs on many foreign countries. And American retailers loaded up on foreign goods earlier this year to get ahead of the president's trade duties. But as America ramps up its tariff collection regime — and companies draw down their inventories — consumer prices will rise. Preston Caldwell, chief US economist for Morningstar, recently told Vox that he expects inflation to peak in 2026, when voters will be heading to the polls. 4. Democrats dominated the most recent high-profile, swing-state election Since Trump's conquest of the GOP in 2016, Democrats have gained ground with highly politically engaged voters, and lost support among less-engaged ones. This trade didn't work out very well in the high-turnout environment of 2024. But the fact that Democratic voters are now disproportionately 'reliable' — which is to say, disproportionately likely to cast a ballot in every election — may help them in the 2026 midterms, when overall turnout is sure to be lower. And the results of this year's Supreme Court election in Wisconsin lend credence to this view. That contest was the one 2025 race that 1) pit a Democrat against a Republican, 2) took place in a swing state, and 3) galvanized national attention. And the Democrat won 10 points, outperforming her standing in the polls. 5. Democrats' best issue is gaining salience, while their worst issue is losing it Finally, the American electorate's top concerns have been shifting, in ways that are potentially beneficial for Democrats. For years, Republicans have enjoyed an advantage over Democrats on immigration. And the Journal's poll shows that voters still trust the GOP to better manage illegal immigration by a margin of 17 points. But Americans are also much less worried about that issue than they were a year ago. In Gallup's polling, the share of voters who say they worry 'a great deal' about illegal immigration has fallen from 48 percent in 2024 to 40 percent this April. A more recent Gallup survey showed that the percentage of Americans who want immigration reduced has fallen from 55 percent last year to 30 percent today. Meanwhile, the share of Americans who worry 'a great deal' about health care — perennially, one of the Democratic Party's strongest issues — rose from 51 percent to 59 percent in April. And that was before the GOP enacted sweeping cuts to Medicaid funding. 1. Democrats are in much worse shape than they were in 2017. All this said, there's still reason to fear for the Democrats' future. For one thing, the party is much weaker than it was at this point in Trump's first term. Eight years ago, voters said they favored a Democratic Congress over a Republican one by roughly 8 points (compared to just 3 points today). Since 2018, the share of Americans who identify with the Democratic Party has also fallen sharply. Seven years ago, 50 percent of Americans said they supported (or leaned toward) the Democrats, while 42 percent said the same of Republicans, in Pew Research's polling. Today, 46 percent support the GOP while 45 percent back the Democrats. Opposition parties almost always gain House seats in midterm elections. And since the Republican House majority is small, Democrats are heavily favored to retake the chamber next year. But current polling suggests that the party's gains will be meager. And in 2028, for the first time in more than a decade, the Republican Party will not be led by Donald Trump. If the GOP retains its advantage on the economy — while shedding its exceptionally undisciplined and scandal-plagued standard-bearer — the party could become even more formidable. This is a very speculative concern, to be sure. But it's worth entertaining the possibility that Democrats' current position is more analogous to its predicament in 1981 — when Jimmy Carter's defeat was followed by 12 years of Republican presidential rule — than in 2017. The previous two times that Democrats lost control of the White House — in 2000 and 2016 — the party's outgoing president had been reasonably well-liked. Bill Clinton had earned a reputation for skillful economic management, thanks to the late 1990s economic expansion. Barack Obama was a singularly magnetic figure, and the US enjoyed relatively low unemployment and inflation in 2016. Both Clinton and Obama's successors won the popular vote in their respective elections, despite the fact that they each were conspicuously uncharismatic. Their losses could therefore be fairly easily dismissed as the consequence of easily reversible tactical errors. By contrast, presiding over post-COVID inflation rendered Biden historically unpopular while devastating the Democrats' credibility on economic management. 2. The party has long odds of winning the Senate anytime soon The Democrats' biggest political problem, however, lies in the Senate. The party's prospects for securing control of Congress's upper chamber — either next year, or in 2028 — look poor. Democrats need to gain four seats to win a Senate majority in 2026. Yet next year's map features no easy targets. The party's best pickup opportunity lies in Maine, a state that Kamala Harris won comfortably in 2024. But that state's incumbent Republican senator, Susan Collins, won reelection by 8.6 points in 2020, even as the national political environment leaned towards Democrats. Her defeat next year is far from assured. After defeating Collins, Democrats' next-best hope for growing their Senate caucus is winning the open seat in North Carolina, a state that backed Donald Trump all three times he was on the ballot, most recently by 3 points. If the party manages to beat Collins and win over the Tarheel State, they would still need to win races in Ohio and Iowa — or else, in places that are even more Republican — to eke out a bare majority in the Senate. Even winning control of the Senate by 2029 would require extraordinary electoral feats. The most plausible path here would involve Democrats beating Collins, winning a race in North Carolina, flipping a Wisconsin Senate seat in 2028, and taking back the presidency that same year (since the vice president breaks all ties in the Senate, Democrats would only need to flip three seats to boast a working majority in 2029, provided that they control the White House). And yet, this path only works if Democratic Senate incumbents also win reelection in every swing state race between now and 2029: Specifically, Democrats would need to win two races in Georgia, one in Pennsylvania, one in Michigan, and one in Arizona. This is conceivable. But it is not especially likely. The fundamental problem facing Democrats is that only 19 states voted for their party in each of the last three federal elections, while 25 US states backed Trump all three times. Put differently, the median US state is more right-wing than America as a whole. In practice, this means that — to win a Senate majority — Democrats don't merely need to beat Republicans nationally, but to do so by a hefty margin. For context, in 2018, Democrats won the House popular vote by 8.6 points and still lost Senate seats. In the US, midterms usually witness backlashes against the president's party. But Democrats need more than an ordinary midterm backlash to put themselves on pace to win the Senate by 2029. And without a Senate majority, Democrats that year would be unable to pass partisan legislation or appoint liberal Supreme Court justices, even if they did manage to win the presidency. Democrats might not need to become drastically more popular to win back the House. But to actually run the federal government, they likely need to make their party more broadly appealing than it was eight years ago. This makes their historically low approval rating more than a little alarming.
Montreal Gazette
22-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Montreal Gazette
Second season of The Rebuild: Inside the Montreal Canadiens premieres Aug. 21
Montreal Canadiens Montreal Canadiens fans won't have to wait until training camp to get their Habs fix on television: Season 2 of The Rebuild: Inside the Montreal Canadiens premieres Aug. 21 on Crave in Canada. The streaming service made the announcement Tuesday on their Instagram page. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Crave en français (@cravecanadafr) 'Witness the evolution of a team undergoing a major transformation towards a promising future. Follow the coach and players from a new angle, from training camp to the playoffs,' the post said. Season 1 was considered a success for Bell Media's streaming service. At the time the second season was announced, Crave said Season 1 of The Rebuild was one of the most-viewed French titles on Crave. It was also the most-watched Crave Original factual series since Crave became a bilingual TV and streaming service in 2020. Season 1 featured eight episodes in English and French. The docuseries takes fans behind the scenes of the team's rebuilding process. The first season was shot during the 2023-24 NHL season, while the latest season will cover 2024-25. The show is once again being produced by Groupe Fair-Play.
Vox
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Vox
Trump's relationship with Epstein is indisputably scandalous
is a senior correspondent at Vox. He covers a wide range of political and policy issues with a special focus on questions that internally divide the American left and right. Before coming to Vox in 2024, he wrote a column on politics and economics for New York Magazine. A group of young protesters holds pictures of Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump outside federal court in New York City on July 8, 2019. Luiz C. Ribeiro/New York Daily News/Tribune News Service via Getty Images Democrats want you to know that President Donald Trump definitely might be protecting a cabal of child abusers. Or so the party's recent messaging suggests. For years, extremely online conservatives have been agitating for the release of the 'Epstein Files' — a hypothetical trove of confidential documents that reveal the powerful co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and accused sex trafficker who died in prison in 2019. When Fox News asked Trump last year whether he would release these files upon winning reelection, the Republican said, 'I guess I would.' Upon taking office, the Trump administration hyped the imminent disclosure of these documents. Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested in February that a list of famous people who had abused Epstein's trafficked girls was 'sitting on my desk right now to review.' Around the same time, Bondi and Trump's FBI released what it billed as the 'first phase of declassified Epstein files.' But these proved to be binders comprised largely of already public information. Then, earlier this month, the Justice Department declared that Epstein did not actually maintain a 'client list,' that he had died by suicide (contrary to the popular theory that he'd been murdered to prevent the exposure of his clients), and that no further files on his case would be made public. This incensed much of the online right. And Democrats have decided to echo its outrage. This story was first featured in The Rebuild. Sign up here for more stories on the lessons liberals should take away from their election defeat — and a closer look at where they should go next. From senior correspondent Eric Levitz. The party's decision to dedicate so much energy to promoting this controversy might seem dubious. For one thing, Democrats' ostensible outrage over the alleged suppression of the Epstein Files is obviously hypocritical. After all, he died six years ago. A Democratic administration was in power from January 2021 through January 20 of this year. If there are secret federal documents about this case that incriminate public figures, then Joe Biden had them at his disposal. Thus, by affirming the notion that incriminating 'Epstein Files' exist, Democrats risk perpetuating the idea that both parties are toxically corrupt — a form of cynicism that Trump has long exploited to excuse his shameless graft and malfeasance. Separately, Democrats have already spent much of the past decade trying to tar Trump's image by spotlighting his scandals. Yet the minority of Americans who are open to supporting Trump — but not dead set on doing so — haven't evinced much concern for his character. Generally, messaging that emphasizes how Trump's policies would materially hurt ordinary Americans has tested better than attacks on the demagogue's shady dealings or authoritarianism. Whatever one may say about the White House's handling of the Epstein case, it does not seem likely to increase Americans' cost of living. By focusing on Epstein, Democrats are thus arguably defraying attention from Trump's true vulnerabilities — such as the tariffs that are raising prices for consumers or Medicaid cuts that will take health insurance from lower-income people. But these worries are misguided. The Democrats' decision to lean into the Epstein controversy is a political no-brainer for several reasons. Trump's relationship with Epstein – and handling of his case – is genuinely eyebrow raising To a degree, the furor over Epstein is rooted in beliefs that are unproven, if not outright false. For instance, there is no public evidence that he kept a labeled list of fellow sexual abusers, much less that such a document is in the government's possession. But the Trump administration has genuine liabilities on this subject, which Democratic advocacy can direct public attention toward. First, the incontrovertible facts about Trump's relationship with Epstein are unflattering and eyebrow raising, even though they are not incriminating. In the 1990s, Trump and Epstein were repeatedly photographed and video taped beside each other at social events. This by itself isn't especially damning. There's no reason to presume that everyone who ever associated with Epstein participated in his sex crimes. Criminals do not generally socialize exclusively with their co-conspirators. But in 2017, Epstein told the journalist Michael Wolff that he had been Trump's 'closest friend for 10 years.' And in 2002, Trump told New York magazine, 'I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.' What's more, on Thursday night, the Wall Street Journal published the text of a letter that Trump sent to Epstein to celebrate the latter's 50th birthday. In that missive, Trump wrote his signature below the following lines of imaginary dialogue, which were typewritten: 'Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything,' the note began. Donald: Yes, there is, but I won't tell you what it is. Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is. Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey. Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it. Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that? Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you. Trump: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be anothedr wonderful secret. It's as though the administration cannot anticipate the most obvious consequences of its own actions, or think a single step ahead. It's possible that Trump did not realize quite how young Epstein's sexual targets were. And it's also conceivable that the playful references to 'age' and a 'secret' in Trump's letter reference something innocuous. Yet Trump is more liable to be tainted by these remarks and associations than the average politician, given that the president once boasted about nonconseusally grabbing women's genitals and was found civilly liable for sexual abuse. Making matters worse for him, his own claims about the Epstein controversy are wildly contradictory. In recent days, Trump has claimed that the government does possess secret files with explosive claims about Epstein, but that these documents were forged by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, ex-CIA Director John Brennan, and 'the Losers and Criminals of the Biden administration.' He has also insisted that this whole controversy is dull and deserves no public attention, telling reporters, 'I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody. It's pretty boring stuff. It's sordid, but it's boring.' As The Atlantic's Jonathan Chait notes, these two claims are a bit hard to square. On the one hand, Trump suggests that the FBI, CIA, State Department, and the Obama and Biden administrations all conspired to fabricate defamatory documents about an alleged child sex abuse conspiracy. On the other hand, he says that this is a really boring story that shouldn't interest anybody. But an elaborate conspiracy involving the highest levels of the US government — and seemingly aimed at politically damaging Trump — seems like something that would quite naturally interest Americans in general, and Trump supporters in particular. What's more, even if we put Trump's conspiracizing to one side, his claim that he doesn't understand why the Epstein case interests people still seems disingenuous. After all Trump, accused former President Bill Clinton of visiting 'the famous island with Jeffrey Epstein' in 2015, and spread allegations that Clinton was behind Epstein's death four years later. Trump subsequently demanded 'a full investigation' into Epstein's death and crimes, telling reporters, 'You have to ask: Did Bill Clinton go to the island? That's the question. If you find that out, you're going to know a lot.' It seems clear then that Trump knows perfectly well why the Epstein case interests people. The fact that he now feels compelled to claim otherwise, while begging his supporters to stop talking about the controversy, seems rather odd — and also, like an indication that Democrats would be wise to keep attention focused on this matter. Meanwhile, it is clear that Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel deceived the public about the Epstein case — either when they suggested that the government had been suppressing documents about his co-conspirators, or when they later insisted that such documents did not exist. In 2023, Patel suggested that the Biden administration possessed Epstein's 'black book,' and insinuated that this document was not merely a catalog of the financier's contacts, but rather, a list explicitly identifying various famous people as 'pedophiles.' As noted above, Bondi told Fox News that an Epstein client list was sitting on her desk. Now, Patel and Bondi maintain that no such lists exist. This leaves two possibilities: Either America's two top law enforcement officers misled the public about the Epstein case in the past, or they are doing so today. Put more pointedly, Patel and Bondi either cynically promoted conspiracy theories about a Biden administration coverup, despite knowing they lacked evidence for their smears, or they suddenly decided to perpetrate such a coverup themselves. Neither interpretation recommends them for high office. And both readings of their actions make the Trump White House look grossly incompetent. If the administration knew that it had no compelling information about Epstein to unveil — or else, that it possessed explosive information that it didn't wish to make public — why did Bondi spend months hyping the release of the Epstein documents? It's as though the administration cannot anticipate the most obvious consequences of its own actions, or think a single step ahead (a suspicion also raised by Trump's trade strategy). Cuts to Medicaid provider taxes are never going to get more clicks than conspiracy theories about elite child sex abuse rings If the Democratic Party had the power to dictate which topics would trend on social media, then they would be well-advised to pick Trump's Medicaid cuts or tariffs. But they do not have such power. Every Democratic official in the country could spend all day every day talking about Trump's defunding of rural hospitals — posts and podcasts about Medicaid provider taxes still wouldn't outperform content about whether Epstein was a CIA asset. Millions of Americans may vote once every four years on the basis of mundane economic policy concerns. But they are not typically going to entertain themselves by viewing TikToks about the 'de minimis' exemption on a daily basis. Democrats can and should foreground their party's strongest policy arguments in paid media. With a TV or YouTube ad, you can force the public to think about the subject of your choice. But the range of topics that you can get people to post about for free is much narrower. And of all the stories that could plausibly drive weeks of public conversation, Trump purportedly suppressing information about Epstein — to the chagrin of his own allies — seems like one of the most favorable for Democrats. There's a major difference between this scandal and all Trump's prior ones Generally speaking, when you have an opportunity to increase the salience of an issue that divides your opposition, it's wise to do so. But Trump's base was behind him in all of those instances. Today, by contrast, major right-wing influencers are validating the Democratic Party's narrative that a Republican White House is hiding something. And Trump's attempts to shut down discussion of the Epstein case have gotten him 'ratioed' on his own social media platform. Generally speaking, when you have an opportunity to increase the salience of an issue that divides your opposition, it's wise to do so. This is especially true when that issue also pits your adversary against majority opinion. And in trying to persuade the broad electorate that the Trump administration is mishandling the Epstein case — possibly, for nefarious reasons — Democrats are pushing on an open door. A YouGov/Economist poll released this week found that nearly 80 percent of Americans want the government to 'release all the documents it has about the Jeffrey Epstein case,' while more than two-thirds — including half of Republicans — say that the government is 'covering up evidence it has about Epstein.' Internal Democratic polling tells a similar story. A recent survey from Blue Rose Research found that 70 percent of the public — including 61 percent of Trump voters — believes that law enforcement is 'withholding information about powerful people connected to Epstein.' And a majority of voters agreed with the statement, 'authorities are keeping secret' a list of Epstein's clients to 'protect powerful people like Donald Trump.' There's a broader narrative here about Trump betraying his campaign promises, in service of the powerful Finally, it isn't that hard to weave the Epstein controversy into a broader story that touches on voters' material concerns. And Democrats are already doing this. In the party's telling, Trump's refusal to release documents related to the case reflects a core truth about his presidency: his fundamental commitment is to protecting the powerful, even if doing so requires breaking campaign promises. Hence, Trump's willingness to slash Medicaid — after promising for years that he wouldn't — so as to finance tax cuts for the rich. As Pat Dennis, president of the Democratic super PAC American Bridge, told Politico, the Epstein controversy is 'an interesting foot in the door to the overall case' that Trump 'doesn't have your back on Medicare, on health care, on veterans.' Thus, the Epstein story is a clear boon for Democrats, who've been right to increase its salience. Still, Democrats still have a lot of work to do Even as the party savors Trump's squirming, however, it should not lose sight of its own lackluster political standing. As CNN's Harry Enten noted this week, Democrats' poll numbers are far worse today than at this point in the 2006 and 2018 midterm election cycles — years when the party enjoyed large congressional gains amid a Republican presidency. In the generic congressional ballot, Democrats lead Republicans by just 2 points today, compared to seven points in 2006 and 2018. All else equal, the Epstein scandal is a helpful development for Democrats. But its impact so far is miniscule. The online right's freakout notwithstanding, 90 percent of Republicans still approve of Trump in a recent Quinnipiac poll. By contrast, Democrats disapprove of their own congressional leadership by a 13-point margin. Democrats can and should continue cultivating distrust in Trump. But to increase faith in their own party, they will need to do more than affirm voters' conspiratorial suspicions about a long dead sex offender.
Vox
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Vox
Democrats are right to flirt with Trump-Epstein conspiracies
is a senior correspondent at Vox. He covers a wide range of political and policy issues with a special focus on questions that internally divide the American left and right. Before coming to Vox in 2024, he wrote a column on politics and economics for New York Magazine. A group of young protesters holds pictures of Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump outside federal court in New York City on July 8, 2019. Luiz C. Ribeiro/New York Daily News/Tribune News Service via Getty Images Democrats want you to know that President Donald Trump definitely might be protecting a cabal of child abusers. Or so the party's recent messaging suggests. For years, extremely online conservatives have been agitating for the release of the 'Epstein Files' — a hypothetical trove of confidential documents that reveal the powerful co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and accused sex trafficker who died in prison in 2019. When Fox News asked Trump last year whether he would release these files upon winning reelection, the Republican said, 'I guess I would.' Upon taking office, the Trump administration hyped the imminent disclosure of these documents. Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested in February that a list of famous people who had abused Epstein's trafficked girls was 'sitting on my desk right now to review.' Around the same time, Bondi and Trump's FBI released what it billed as the 'first phase of declassified Epstein files.' But these proved to be binders comprised largely of already public information. Then, earlier this month, the Justice Department declared that Epstein did not actually maintain a 'client list,' that he had died by suicide (contrary to the popular theory that he'd been murdered to prevent the exposure of his clients), and that no further files on his case would be made public. This incensed much of the online right. And Democrats have decided to echo its outrage. This story was first featured in The Rebuild. Sign up here for more stories on the lessons liberals should take away from their election defeat — and a closer look at where they should go next. From senior correspondent Eric Levitz. The party's decision to dedicate so much energy to promoting this controversy might seem dubious. For one thing, Democrats' ostensible outrage over the alleged suppression of the Epstein Files is obviously hypocritical. After all, he died six years ago. A Democratic administration was in power from January 2021 through January 20 of this year. If there are secret federal documents about this case that incriminate public figures, then Joe Biden had them at his disposal. Thus, by affirming the notion that incriminating 'Epstein Files' exist, Democrats risk perpetuating the idea that both parties are toxically corrupt — a form of cynicism that Trump has long exploited to excuse his shameless graft and malfeasance. Separately, Democrats have already spent much of the past decade trying to tar Trump's image by spotlighting his scandals. Yet the minority of Americans who are open to supporting Trump — but not dead set on doing so — haven't evinced much concern for his character. Generally, messaging that emphasizes how Trump's policies would materially hurt ordinary Americans has tested better than attacks on the demagogue's shady dealings or authoritarianism. Whatever one may say about the White House's handling of the Epstein case, it does not seem likely to increase Americans' cost of living. By focusing on Epstein, Democrats are thus arguably defraying attention from Trump's true vulnerabilities — such as the tariffs that are raising prices for consumers or Medicaid cuts that will take health insurance from lower-income people. But these worries are misguided. The Democrats' decision to lean into the Epstein controversy is a political no-brainer for several reasons. Trump's relationship with Epstein – and handling of his case – is genuinely eyebrow raising To a degree, the furor over Epstein is rooted in beliefs that are unproven, if not outright false. For instance, there is no public evidence that he kept a labeled list of fellow sexual abusers, much less that such a document is in the government's possession. But the Trump administration has genuine liabilities on this subject, which Democratic advocacy can direct public attention toward. First, the incontrovertible facts about Trump's relationship with Epstein are unflattering and eyebrow raising, even though they are not incriminating. In the 1990s, Trump and Epstein were repeatedly photographed and video taped beside each other at social events. This by itself isn't especially damning. There's no reason to presume that everyone who ever associated with Epstein participated in his sex crimes. Criminals do not generally socialize exclusively with their co-conspirators. But in 2017, Epstein told the journalist Michael Wolff that he had been Trump's 'closest friend for 10 years.' And in 2002, Trump told New York magazine, 'I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.' What's more, on Thursday night, the Wall Street Journal published the text of a letter that Trump sent to Epstein to celebrate the latter's 50th birthday. In that missive, Trump wrote his signature below the following lines of imaginary dialogue, which were typewritten: 'Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything,' the note began. Donald: Yes, there is, but I won't tell you what it is. Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is. Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey. Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it. Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that? Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you. Trump: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be anothedr wonderful secret. It's as though the administration cannot anticipate the most obvious consequences of its own actions, or think a single step ahead. It's possible that Trump did not realize quite how young Epstein's sexual targets were. And it's also conceivable that the playful references to 'age' and a 'secret' in Trump's letter reference something innocuous. But at the very least, these are extraordinarily inconvenient things to have said about — and to — a man who allegedly trafficked 14-year-old girls. To be clear, there is no evidence that Trump participated in Epstein's abuse of children. But his longtime friendship with the rapist, avowed knowledge of Epstein's taste for youth, and own record of alleged sexual misdeeds makes this a politically hazardous subject for Trump. Making matters worse for him, his own claims about the Epstein controversy are wildly contradictory. In recent days, Trump has claimed that the government does possess secret files with explosive claims about Epstein, but that these documents were forged by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, ex-CIA Director John Brennan, and 'the Losers and Criminals of the Biden administration.' He has also insisted that this whole controversy is dull and deserves no public attention, telling reporters, 'I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody. It's pretty boring stuff. It's sordid, but it's boring.' As The Atlantic's Jonathan Chait notes, these two claims are a bit hard to square. On the one hand, Trump suggests that the FBI, CIA, State Department, and the Obama and Biden administrations all conspired to fabricate defamatory documents about an alleged child sex abuse conspiracy. On the other hand, he says that this is a really boring story that shouldn't interest anybody. But an elaborate conspiracy involving the highest levels of the US government — and seemingly aimed at politically damaging Trump — seems like something that would quite naturally interest Americans in general, and Trump supporters in particular. What's more, even if we put Trump's conspiracizing to one side, his claim that he doesn't understand why the Epstein case interests people still seems disingenuous. After all Trump, accused former President Bill Clinton of visiting 'the famous island with Jeffrey Epstein' in 2015, and spread allegations that Clinton was behind Epstein's death four years later. Trump subsequently demanded 'a full investigation' into Epstein's death and crimes, telling reporters, 'You have to ask: Did Bill Clinton go to the island? That's the question. If you find that out, you're going to know a lot.' It seems clear then that Trump knows perfectly well why the Epstein case interests people. The fact that he now feels compelled to claim otherwise, while begging his supporters to stop talking about the controversy, seems rather odd — and also, like an indication that Democrats would be wise to keep attention focused on this matter. Meanwhile, it is clear that Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel deceived the public about the Epstein case — either when they suggested that the government had been suppressing documents about his co-conspirators, or when they later insisted that such documents did not exist. In 2023, Patel suggested that the Biden administration possessed Epstein's 'black book,' and insinuated that this document was not merely a catalog of the financier's contacts, but rather, a list explicitly identifying various famous people as 'pedophiles.' As noted above, Bondi told Fox News that an Epstein client list was sitting on her desk. Now, Patel and Bondi maintain that no such lists exist. This leaves two possibilities: Either America's two top law enforcement officers misled the public about the Epstein case in the past, or they are doing so today. Put more pointedly, Patel and Bondi either cynically promoted conspiracy theories about a Biden administration coverup, despite knowing they lacked evidence for their smears, or they suddenly decided to perpetrate such a coverup themselves. Neither interpretation recommends them for high office. And both readings of their actions make the Trump White House look grossly incompetent. If the administration knew that it had no compelling information about Epstein to unveil — or else, that it possessed explosive information that it didn't wish to make public — why did Bondi spend months hyping the release of the Epstein documents? It's as though the administration cannot anticipate the most obvious consequences of its own actions, or think a single step ahead (a suspicion also raised by Trump's trade strategy). Cuts to Medicaid provider taxes are never going to get more clicks than conspiracy theories about elite child sex abuse rings If the Democratic Party had the power to dictate which topics would trend on social media, then they would be well-advised to pick Trump's Medicaid cuts or tariffs. But they do not have such power. Every Democratic official in the country could spend all day every day talking about Trump's defunding of rural hospitals — posts and podcasts about Medicaid provider taxes still wouldn't outperform content about whether Epstein was a CIA asset. Millions of Americans may vote once every four years on the basis of mundane economic policy concerns. But they are not typically going to entertain themselves by viewing TikToks about the 'de minimis' exemption on a daily basis. Democrats can and should foreground their party's strongest policy arguments in paid media. With a TV or YouTube ad, you can force the public to think about the subject of your choice. But the range of topics that you can get people to post about for free is much narrower. And of all the stories that could plausibly drive weeks of public conversation, Trump purportedly suppressing information about Epstein — to the chagrin of his own allies — seems like one of the most favorable for Democrats. There's a major difference between this scandal and all Trump's prior ones Generally speaking, when you have an opportunity to increase the salience of an issue that divides your opposition, it's wise to do so. But Trump's base was behind him in all of those instances. Today, by contrast, major right-wing influencers are validating the Democratic Party's narrative that a Republican White House is hiding something. And Trump's attempts to shut down discussion of the Epstein case have gotten him 'ratioed' on his own social media platform. Generally speaking, when you have an opportunity to increase the salience of an issue that divides your opposition, it's wise to do so. This is especially true when that issue also pits your adversary against majority opinion. And in trying to persuade the broad electorate that the Trump administration is mishandling the Epstein case — possibly, for nefarious reasons — Democrats are pushing on an open door. A YouGov/Economist poll released this week found that nearly 80 percent of Americans want the government to 'release all the documents it has about the Jeffrey Epstein case,' while more than two-thirds — including half of Republicans — say that the government is 'covering up evidence it has about Epstein.' Internal Democratic polling tells a similar story. A recent survey from Blue Rose Research found that 70 percent of the public — including 61 percent of Trump voters — believes that law enforcement is 'withholding information about powerful people connected to Epstein.' And a majority of voters agreed with the statement, 'authorities are keeping secret' a list of Epstein's clients to 'protect powerful people like Donald Trump.' There's a broader narrative here about Trump betraying his campaign promises, in service of the powerful Finally, it isn't that hard to weave the Epstein controversy into a broader story that touches on voters' material concerns. And Democrats are already doing this. In the party's telling, Trump's refusal to release documents related to the case reflects a core truth about his presidency: his fundamental commitment is to protecting the powerful, even if doing so requires breaking campaign promises. Hence, Trump's willingness to slash Medicaid — after promising for years that he wouldn't — so as to finance tax cuts for the rich. As Pat Dennis, president of the Democratic super PAC American Bridge, told Politico, the Epstein controversy is 'an interesting foot in the door to the overall case' that Trump 'doesn't have your back on Medicare, on health care, on veterans.' Thus, the Epstein story is a clear boon for Democrats, who've been right to increase its salience. Still, Democrats still have a lot of work to do Even as the party savors Trump's squirming, however, it should not lose sight of its own lackluster political standing. As CNN's Harry Enten noted this week, Democrats' poll numbers are far worse today than at this point in the 2006 and 2018 midterm election cycles — years when the party enjoyed large congressional gains amid a Republican presidency. In the generic congressional ballot, Democrats lead Republicans by just 2 points today, compared to seven points in 2006 and 2018. All else equal, the Epstein scandal is a helpful development for Democrats. But its impact so far is miniscule. The online right's freakout notwithstanding, 90 percent of Republicans still approve of Trump in a recent Quinnipiac poll. By contrast, Democrats disapprove of their own congressional leadership by a 13-point margin. Democrats can and should continue cultivating distrust in Trump. But to increase faith in their own party, they will need to do more than affirm voters' conspiratorial suspicions about a long dead sex offender.
Vox
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Vox
The top priority of progressive politics may be slipping out of reach forever
is a senior correspondent at Vox. He covers a wide range of political and policy issues with a special focus on questions that internally divide the American left and right. Before coming to Vox in 2024, he wrote a column on politics and economics for New York Magazine. A protester wearing a Trump paper mâché head stands in front of a barricade and holds a sign that reads, 'Death and taxes' in New York in years ago, America was on the cusp of the largest expansion of its welfare state since the 1960s. Under Joe Biden in 2021, House Democrats passed legislation that would have established a monthly child allowance for most families, an expansion of Medicaid's elder care services, federal child care subsidies, universal prekindergarten, and a paid family leave program, among other new social benefits. But that bill failed — and then, so did Biden's presidency. Now, Republicans are on the brink of enacting the largest cut to public health insurance in American history. And the outlook for future expansions of the safety net looks dimmer than at any time in recent memory. There are two primary reasons why progressives' prospects for growing the welfare state have darkened. This story was first featured in The Rebuild. Sign up here for more stories on the lessons liberals should take away from their election defeat — and a closer look at where they should go next. From senior correspondent Eric Levitz. First (and most straightforwardly), the Democrats are not well-positioned to win full control of the federal government anytime soon. To win a Senate majority in 2026, the party would need to win multiple states that Trump carried by double digits last year. And the 2028 map isn't that much better. The basic problem is that Democrats have built a coalition that's heavily concentrated on the coasts and thus, systematically underrepresented in the Senate. To win the robust congressional majorities typically necessary for enacting large social programs, Democrats would likely need to transform their party's brand. Second, although Democrats developed grander ambitions for social spending over the past decade, they simultaneously grew more averse to raising taxes on anyone but the super-rich. In the 2010s, when inflation and interest rates were persistently low, the party could paper over this tension with deficit spending. But Biden-era inflation revealed the limits of this strategy. And if Congress passes President Donald Trump's tax cut plan, then interest rates and inflationary risk are likely to remain elevated for years, while the cost of servicing America's debts will soar. Add to this the impending exhaustion of Social Security's trust fund, and space for new welfare programs is likely to be scant, unless Democrats find a way to enact broad-based tax increases. Liberals could respond to all this by paring back their ambitions for the welfare state, while seeking to advance progressive goals through regulatory policy. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the two most prominent policy movements in Democratic circles today — the anti-monopoly and 'abundance' crusades — are both principally concerned with reforms that require no new tax revenue (antitrust enforcement in the former case, zoning liberalization in the latter). But expanding America's safety net remains a moral imperative. In the long-term, Democrats must therefore strive to build the electoral power and political will necessary for raising taxes on the middle-class (or at least, on its upper reaches). Related The US government has to start paying for things again Democrats like social welfare programs. But they like low taxes on the upper middle-class even more. Over the course of the 2010s, the Democratic leadership's appetite for new social spending grew. Bernie Sanders's insurgent campaigns in 2016 and 2020 put Medicare-for-All at the center of the party's discourse, and moved its consensus on the welfare state sharply leftward. In the latter primary, even the Democrats' most moderate contender — Joe Biden — vowed to establish a public option for health insurance and tuition-free community colleges, among other social programs. Biden's agenda only grew more ambitious upon taking office. No president since Lyndon B. Johnson had proposed a more sweeping expansion of social welfare than the Build Back Better Act. And yet, while Democrats' aspirations for social spending had become historically bold, the party's position on taxes had grown exceptionally timid. In 2016, Hillary Clinton had promised not to raise taxes on any American family earning less than $250,000. Four years later, Biden vowed to spare all households earning less than $400,000 – despite the fact that tax rates on upper middle-class families had fallen during Trump's first term. Meanwhile, the Democrats' congressional leadership was actually pushing to cut taxes on rich blue state homeowners by increasing the state and local income tax deduction. In other words: In 2021, Democrats were promising to establish an unprecedentedly large welfare state, while keeping taxes on 98 percent of households historically low. Officially, the party believed that it could square this circle by soaking the super-rich. After all, America's highest-earning 1 percent had commandeered more than 20 percent of the nation's annual income. The government could therefore extract a lot of revenue by merely shaking down the upper class. In reality, though, Biden's vision was also premised on the assumption that America could deficit-finance new spending with little risk of sparking inflation or high interest rates. The Build Back Better Act did not actually raise taxes on the rich by enough to offset its social spending. Instead, Democrats leaned on budget gimmicks to 'pay for' its agenda: Although the party intended the law's new programs to be permanent, it scheduled many of them to expire after just a few years, so as to make the policies look cheaper over a decade-long budget window. Absent these arbitrary expiration dates, the bill would have added $2.8 trillion to the deficit over a decade. Even as written, the law would have increased deficits by $749 billion in its first five years. More fundamentally, Biden's basic fiscal objective — to establish wide-ranging social benefits through taxes on the super rich alone — only made sense in a world of low inflation. Western Europe's robust welfare states are all funded through broad-based taxation. This is partly because administering a large safety net requires managing economic demand. When the government expands its provision of elder care, social housing, child care, and pre-K, it increases overall demand for workers and resources in the economy. And if the supply of labor and materials doesn't rise in line with this new demand, then inflation can ensue. Taxes effectively 'pay for' new spending by freeing up such resources. When households see their post-tax income decline, they're often forced to make fewer discretionary purchases. Raise taxes on an upper middle-class family and it might need to postpone its dreams of a lake house. That in turn frees up labor for public programs: The fewer construction workers needed to build vacation homes, the more that will be available to build affordable housing. But soaking the extremely rich does less to dampen demand than taxing the upper middle-class does. Even if you increase Elon Musk's tax rate by 50 percent, he won't actually need to reduce his consumption at all — the billionaire will still have more money than he can spend in a lifetime. The same general principle applies to multimillionaires, albeit to a lesser extent: Raise their taxes, and they're liable to save less money, but won't necessarily consume fewer resources. And if they do not curb their consumption in response to a tax hike, then that tax hike will not actually free up resources. In 2021, Democrats felt no obligation to sweat these details. For nearly a decade after the Great Recession, economic demand had been too low. Workers and materials had stood idle on the economy's sidelines, as there wasn't enough spending to catalyze their employment. In that context, unfunded welfare benefits can boost growth without generating inflation. But as Democrats moved Build Back Better through Congress, the macroeconomic terrain shifted beneath their feet. Biden likely would have struggled to get his social agenda through the Senate (where Democrats held only 50 votes) even in the absence of 2022's inflation. But that surge in prices all but guaranteed the legislation's defeat: Suddenly, it became clear that the government could not increase economic demand without pushing up inflation and interest rates. America had returned to a world of fiscal constraints. Unfortunately, those constraints could prove lasting, especially if Donald Trump's tax agenda makes it into law. Related The reconciliation bill is Republicans doing what they do best Building a comprehensive welfare state is about to get harder The most lamentable aspect of Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' are its cuts to healthcare and food assistance for the poor. Yet even as it takes health insurance from 10 million Americans and reduces food assistance to low-income families by about $100 a month, the legislation would add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the coming decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Yet the actual cost of the GOP's fiscal vision is even larger. To reduce their bill's price tag, Republicans' set some of their tax cuts to arbitrarily expire. Were these tax cuts made permanent, the bill would add roughly $5 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. This is likely to render the US economy more vulnerable to inflation and high interest rates in the future. Thus, the next Democratic government probably won't have much freedom to deficit spend without increasing Americans' borrowing costs or bills. Meanwhile, if that administration holds power after 2032, it will also need to find a ton of new revenue, just to maintain America's existing welfare state. Social Security currently pays out more in benefits than it takes in through payroll taxes. For now, the program's dedicated trust fund fills in the gap. But in 2033, that fund will likely be exhausted, according to government projections. At that point, the government will need to find upward of $414.5 billion in new revenue, each year, to maintain existing Social Security benefits without increasing the deficit. Given Democrats' current stance on taxes, the imperative to keep Social Security funded would likely crowd out the rest of the party's social welfare agenda. Indeed, merely sustaining Americans' existing retirement benefits would almost certainly require raising taxes on households earning less than $400,000. Maintaining such benefits while also creating new welfare programs — in a context of structurally high deficits and interest rates — would plausibly entail large, broad-based tax increases, the likes of which today's Democrats scarcely dare to contemplate. Granted, the robots could solve all this To be sure, it is possible that technological progress could render this entire analysis obsolete. Some analysts expect artificial intelligence to radically increase productivity over the next decade, while devaluing white-collar labor. This could slow the pace of wage and price growth, while turbo-charging income inequality. In a world where robots can instantly perform work that presently requires millions of humans, America could plausibly finance a vast social welfare state solely through taxes on capital. But until AI actually yields a discernible leap in productivity, I don't think it is safe to take an impending robo-utopia as a given. Democrats eventually need to sell Americans on higher taxes Democrats probably can't escape the tension between their commitments on taxation and social spending. But they can seek to mitigate it in a few different ways. One is to scale down the party's ambitions for the welfare state, while seeking to advance progressive economic goals through other means. Such a retreat would be understandable. The party's fear of raising taxes is not baseless. In a 2021 Gallup poll, only 19 percent of Americans said they would like to have more government services in exchange for higher taxes, while 50 percent said they'd prefer lower taxes in exchange for fewer services. Meanwhile, Democrats have grown increasingly reliant on the support of upper middle-class voters. In 2024, the highest-earning 5 percent of white voters were more than 10 percentage points more Democratic than America as a whole. The lowest earning two-thirds of whites, by contrast, were more Republican than the nation writ large. In this political environment, calling for large middle-class tax hikes could well ensure perpetual Republican rule. In the short term then, Democrats might therefore be wise to narrow their agenda for social welfare, focusing on modest programs that can be funded exclusively with taxes on the rich. At the same time, the party could seek to better working people's lot through regulatory policy. You don't need to raise middle-class taxes to expand collective bargaining rights, guarantee worker representation on corporate boards, or raise the minimum wage. And the same can be said of relaxing regulatory barriers to housing construction and energy infrastructure. (Of course, achieving any of these goals federally would require Democrats to win a robust Senate majority — one sufficiently large and progressive enough to abolish the legislative filibuster, which currently establishes a 60-vote threshold for enacting new, non-budgetary legislation.) In the long run though, Democrats must not forfeit the pursuit of a comprehensive welfare state. America lets more of its children suffer poverty — and more of its adults go without health insurance — than similarly rich countries. These deprivations are largely attributable to our nation's comparatively threadbare safety net. And they can only be fully eliminated through redistributive policy. A higher minimum wage will not ensure that children with unemployed parents never go hungry, or that every worker with cancer can afford treatment. Furthermore, as technological progress threatens to rapidly disemploy large segments of the public, robust unemployment insurance is as important as ever. And as the population ages, increasing investment in eldercare will be increasingly imperative. Democrats should seek to make incremental progress on all these fronts as soon as possible. Even if the party is only willing to tax the rich, it can still finance targeted anti-poverty spending. But absent an AI-induced productivity revolution, building a holistic welfare state will require persuading the middle-class to accept higher taxes. How this can be done is not clear. But part of the solution is surely to demonstrate that Democratic governments can spend taxpayer funds efficiently and effectively. So long as blue areas struggle to build a single public toilet for less than $1.7 million — or a high-speed rail line in less than 17 years — it will be hard to persuade ordinary Americans to forfeit a larger chunk of their paychecks to Uncle Sam. All this said, Democrats have plenty of time to debate the future of fiscal policy. In the immediate term, the party's task is plain: to do everything in its power to prevent Trump's cuts to Medicaid and food assistance from becoming law. The path to a comprehensive welfare state won't be easy to traverse. Better then not to begin the journey toward it by taking several steps backward.
