Part One:
Our guest is Lou Jacobson, senior correspondent with Politifact and senior author of The Almanac of American Politics 2020.
We consider whether virtual presidential conventions will change the campaigns for president. It’s hard to guess the answer because this is the first year the US has had to forego the usual raucous in-person political conventions.
Which candidate will benefit from a virtual election campaign will probably come down to who uses the best theatrics, their visual tools, how they are able to impact the voters’ perceptions of what kind of person they are. It will be all about their narratives and how they tell their stories.
In an ordinary press-the-flesh campaign, Trump’s skill set might work quite well to win the election. He is a well-practiced sales personality, even though his salesmanship may be of the “used car” variety: pushy, braggadocio, and not necessarily very honest. But this year, will Trump suffer from being a fish out of water, an unhappy campaigner without an audience of swooning admirers who feed his ego and build up his strength?
Although this novel virtual campaign might have some effect on the candidates’ success, the way in which the new absentee balloting takes place will probably have an even larger impact.
Moreover, the out-of-power candidate (in this case Biden) usually operates at a disadvantage. But perhaps Biden’s “invisible” campaign from his basement is benefitting him: First, the only show in town — the only thing the public is now watching – is Trump’s own self-destructive misstatements and random inappropriate actions. Second, his campaign is left flailing because its opponent is not a fixed target to attack. When Trump punches the “ghost” of Biden, he just gets frustrated and pitches a fit.
Part Two:
We speak with David Salkever, formerly a researcher for the NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research), and professor at Johns Hopkins University, about his research into whether the Republicans are wrong – that is, whether the country would be better off if Congress and the president were to extend the $600 federal supplement to state unemployment benefits.
It is true that some people are making more money from unemployment benefits (including the federal supplement) than they had previously earned at work. But the pandemic has made it impossible for many such folks to go back to work at their previous jobs, nor are many new jobs opening up. (That’s without even considering the health risks that workers would have to take – including risks to their families and loved ones) if they gathered in crowded workplaces.
Salkever has examined a broad range of data, including recently released census data. He has, like other economists, concluded that Congress and the president should not allow the supplemental federal unemployment benefits to expire. All participants in the US economy will be better off if the government continues to offer the extra $600 per week of benefits to out-of-work Americans.
Of course, the range of state unemployment benefits that people receive varies a lot depending on their home state. The highest benefit of any state is $850/wk in Massachusetts. New Hampshire’s benefits are $420/week, which is less than half what they pay in Mass. Other states pay even less.
Salkever’s research also undercut the myth that Republicans in Congress bandy about. Most of the people who are currently unemployed due to the pandemic would rather work full-time than face the uncertainty and instability that people feel when we’re unemployed. It is very traumatic always to have to wonder whether you’ll have to cut back on your medication next week because you have to feed your kids, or to buy them clothes or pay the utility bill.
Meanwhile, the country’s few billionaires have made a fortune during the pandemic. Warren Buffett’s net worth rose by 86%. Jeff Bezos made $6 billion from March to July.
But the average American family does not have billions of dollars. If they lose the $600 federal unemployment supplement, they may not be able to pay their next month’s rent – or their mortgage – so they have realistic fears of becoming homeless, or unable to pay their utility bills or to refill their prescriptions.
People get a false sense that the economy is doing well because they hear every day about the ever-increasing stock market. We know, of course, that the government has given hundreds of millions of dollars worth of loans to large corporations. But even for them, when US consumption dries up, the economy (GDP) will plummet.
We wonder why all the well-connected Republican supporters aren’t champing at the bit to urge Congress and the president to reinstate the $600 unemployment supplement. They certainly know that, without the $600 unemployment supplement, the economy will not rebound. Who knows when American prosperity might return? Not only big business, but small businesses too will continue to suffer if their customer base lacks the discretionary spending to purchase their goods and services. Why don’t they take action to protect their own self-interest? (Even Trump and the Republicans in Congress know a lot more than they’re telling the public.) must know that their best chance of winning re-election requires the real-world economy to get back to what American voters need in order to survive.
