derived in part from conversations with my beloved spouse Leaves on the Current who sees the glass getting emptied, or as I sometimes tell her, she “awfulizes” and tends to worry about the worst possible outcomes, particular since she thinks we are running out of time to save the planet and knows without serious political change in this country there may be no real future for billions of those who are significantly younger than are we (me at 72 she turning 62 in January).
I will not claim that the words/thoughts I offer here are profound. They are not. Nor will I base them on detailed analysis of current data, some of which (especially polling) I suspect may not have adapted to the changing political environment in which we find ourselves.
Those word/thoughts will not be as thoroughly grounded in various media reports/analyses as I might want. I am still at my advanced age a fulltime school teacher who spends between 8.5-10 hours a day at school with little time for political reading and cogitation, and around 2 hours daily commuting the roughly 28 miles between my home and my employment, only some of which is spent listening to things like MSNBC on my Sirius XM radio.
Thus what I offer will NOT be political predictions per se. They are instead personal reactions and thoughts to what I perceive around us.
Nor will this be a cogent essay. Rather, it will be a series of thoughts / observations that will be at best loosely connected by the fact that we have a high-stakes series of elections in just over 3 weeks.
My feelings will not be hurt if you decide to stop reading well before I finish.
I will be curious how my thoughts resonate or not with those who choose to read all or even part of what I offer.
So let me get to it.
Markos, the proprietor of this site, used to regular remind us that the endorsements of mayors and governors were far more important than those of Congressmen and Senators, since the former had both political machines that were in part built on direct delivery of government largess, through patronage to be sure, but also through contracts. In general I agree with that assessment, but think that is far more applicable in primaries than in general elections. What is true is that if a current mayor or governor is on the ballot, even for another office, those connections can well lead to a higher turnout than might otherwise be indicated by the polling data. This concerns me in Florida, where Rick Scott is generally given credit for his responses to hurricane disasters which although not as good as those of Jeb Bush far exceed those of Donald Trump, despite the fact of his apparent denial climate change, that idiocy not necessarily penetrating to the ordinary voter. This COULD really jeopardize the reelection of Bill Nelson and diminish the chances of Andrew Gillum, especially given the millions of his own money Scott is apparently spending to influence Floridians. But I wonder — if FEMA and the Feds are seen as laggardly in responding to the effects of Hurricane Michael, who is more likely to be blamed, Nelson as Senator or Scott as Governor? I think the latter. And while Gillum’s city suffered some damage, the impact on voter turnout among his base there is likely to be far less than among Panhandle voters who tilt Republican. I wonder if Gillum’s performance both in responding to what happened while all his opponent (not currently in a position of authority) offered was bloviations and advertising that turned many who saw it off might mean that response to Gillum (and against DeSantis both personally and as a proxy to Trump) might mean a sufficient boost not only to propel Gillum to the Governor’s mansion but also to sufficiently lift Nelson to reelection?
I have seen polling data bounce all over the place, for example in the Senate race in Texas. Some wonder whether Gov. Abbot’s strong lead is propelling margins for Cruz. Here since Abbot is not apparently in a strong contest, I wonder how much enthusiasm there will be for an apparently safe race among weaker voters. Further, I look at how many new registrations there have been in TX, and wonder whether such new voters and previously irregular voters are getting through the likely voter screens of the polling organizations. My own instincts have been that the polls have consistently understated likely support for O’Rourke. I suspect that such might be reflected in some recent contradictory behavior by Cruz, first pulling out of a CNN Town Hall and now apparently demanding that it be a debate. I also note the massive advantage O’Rourke has in fundraising in what are largely small donor contributions. Without looking, I would bet that far more of Cruz’s fund have come from large contributions. It is my experience that small donors are more likely to be persuasive of friends and family to turn out for a candidate. i am also very appreciative of when the ground game is largely built upon and staffed by the efforts of locals, which very much seems the model O’Rourke is following. In the past we have also seen that a lot of voters can disagree with a candidate on some key issues but respect the candidate for being forthright — think Ronald Reagan — and this is especially true if in any way they have a negative reaction to the opponent, as clearly many Texans do to Cruz. Lastly, Cruz now being in the camp of a man (Trump) who savaged both his wife and his father is not something that will necessarily motivated men who seem driven by their perception of what strength is. Thus I am still not willing to make a call in this race.
Trump begged the Prime Minister of Japan on behalf of Sheldon Adelson’s desires to built a casino in Japan, in return for which the magnate is donating tens of millions to Republican efforts. But that does not scare me because bogeyman to the Rs George Soros is donating even more to Republicans. It is true that after a certain point, additional money does not make that much of a difference. The contributions by Soros seem somewhat more targeted, at least as far as I can ascertain, to be for races where they might make a difference. Meanwhile in general we see far more cases of Republicans giving up on certain races (eg in CA, where the only statewide candidate of note for Rs is for Superintendent of Public Education, which means a lack of a top of ticket draw for turnout down ballot — remember, both candidates for the Senate are Dems, which will maximize statewide D turnout and depress R turnout), which may make for some easier House pickups.
I live in Virginia. None of the four current D House members is in any jeopardy. The biggest question is whether Tim Kaine’s reelection campaign can generate enough D enthusiasm to win 4 currently R held seats. If as I expect Kaine wins statewide by double digits, I would not at all be surprised to see Dems pick up 4 House seats in the Old Dominion. First, remember how well Ds did in the General Assembly races. Second, every single statewide elected office is currently held by a D. Third, it seems rather clear as of now that Barbara Comstock will be defeated in the 10th, which allows some resources to be shifted to other races. It also does not hurt that Comstock, only the 2nd women to be elected to Congress from VA, is the only woman the Republicans are running, while Dems are running women in all 4 of the Districts considered competitive, as well as in one other (the 6th, being vacated by retiring Bob Goodlatte). Remember, the surge in Democratic House of Delegates members last year was fueled by female candidates.
I remain quite confident, even more than 3 weeks out, that we will take back the House. The question will be by what margin. In one sense gerrymandering might actually help in some cases, because to maximize the number of House seats Rs hold Ds were crammed into fewer districts making the margins for many of the now R seats narrower. In a true wave election, one can then see a tipping point where a large number of seats get swept away. If the generic ballot continues to show double digit margin, remember what has already happened in some race, eg Conor Lamb, that we won in specials, and even some we lost. I am comfortable predicting a net gain of more than 30 seats, and think it well within reason that we might see in excess of 50. Since Virginia polls close at 7, I will be closely watching both Kaine’s race and the 4 CDs (1st, 2nd, 7th and 10th) to see what if anything that might indicate nationally. If the 6th also becomes close, that might well indicate a tsunami nationally.
The Senate is a far harder pull. In theory we have three current seats that could be in jeopardy: Nelson in Florida, Heidkamp in ND, and McCaskill in MO. ND is the toughest of those, especially give the Supreme Court ruling this past week. I will return to that anon. I think Tester, Donnelly, and Manchin are safe. I worry that Bredesen opening his mouth on Kavanaugh may have destroyed his chances of taking the TN open seat (I have heard that he has lost both volunteers and financial support). That should have been a seat we pick up.
So what besides TN is in play from the Republican side, and what do we need to do on our side to have a chance for 51 votes? I think we have to hold our losses to one seat and win at least 4 current Republican seats. That is still doable if this is truly a wave election, but it is far from a sure thing, and I think most Republicans efforts and money will go into holding the Senate. Senate Dems agreeing to fast track the 15 judges in return for being able to go home is somewhat of a mixed bag. It removes those judgeships as a campaign issue to gin up Republican support and allows vulnerable Ds more time to campaign, but it also allows vulnerable Rs to campaign as well. Since McConnell could force them through in a lame duck session, in general it probably was the right thing to do. And I happen to think the confirmation of Kavanaugh actually will over time increase D turnout and diminish some impetus for Rs to turn out.
As for R seats? We have to pick up both Nevada and Arizona to have any realistic chance of winning Senate control. The question is where we get a 3rd or more. If TN is off the table, many people would be looking longingly at TX. While possible, I begin to think that might be less likely than a race running under the radar, and that is the MS special, with Mike Espy running. If he can maximize African-American turnout, it might just be doable, and the fact it is running under the radar might help.
In theory, the Republicans could hold all of their seats and pick up 3 Dem seats. I think both of those are unlikely. Similarly, Dems could hold all of theirs and pick up TN,MS, NV, AZ, and TX. That is also unlikely. I unfortunately increasingly think 50-50 Senate is possible.
Let me return briefly to ND. Let me remind people that AL had closed a lot of motor vehicle offices in the Black Belt counties as a means of suppressing votes for the Senate special. Despite that, African-American turnout was up substantially, in part because of the attempts to suppress the vote and the organization in response. I note that the SC decision in the ND case, while it primarily affects those on reservations, also affects some rural whites who do not have Rural Free Delivery. That might be why two Dem justices voted with the majority. That said, there may be just enough time to be able to get those on reservations addresses assigned so they can vote. The decision might actually motivate more on the reservations towards turning out I also think any Kavanaugh effects against Heidkamp may fade over the next couple of weeks, and I have to wonder if some of Cramer’s remarks may lead to some backlash among female and pro-feminist voters. That said, ND is now the most likely D seat to flip.
Then there are governors and other statewide races, as well as state legislatures. Here the voter suppression efforts are greatly in play. I am not going to comment upon Georgia, but rather focus on the upper Midwest and Kansas and the Oklahoma legislature, starting with the last first.
Education is the main issue in Oklahoma, and it has led to a surge of new candidates, many of them teachers, in both parties. While I do not expect party control to flip, I think Dems will pick up a number of seats, and as a result there may well be a majority to increase funding for public schools, which would be a real positive — remember, I am still a teacher.
I think there is a decent chance that we will defeat Kobach and take back the KS Governor’s mansion. The overreach by both Brownback and Kobach has created an environment in which that becomes possible, and there is clearly some positive interactions with the highly competitive House race outside of Kansas City.
But it is in the Upper Midwest that my attention is focused. I fully expect to win the Governor’s races in WI and IL. The polling there seems solid. I am reasonably comfortable about Michigan. OH is competitive, and it might be interesting to see what interaction is there with some increasingly competitive House districts and what impact Brown’s expected reelection will have. Imagine winning all 4 and the impact that would have. I remind you of the axiom of Markos with which I began. Even more, holding a governor’s seat can have a huge impact upon redistricting after the 2020 Census. And remember, losing these four seats and the possible impact as well on legislative races implies for 2020: take away Oh (18), MI (16) and WI (10) and Trump would have only 260 electoral votes even were he to hold every other (you need 270 for victory).
Finally, I want to address the notions of voter suppression and turnout. I remember when South Africa after apartheid ended had its first election, how millions stood online for what we might consider intolerable periods in order to vote. We have seen some of that — think of the lines artificially created by Ken Blackwell in OH in 2004, where some in college towns or minority communities stood online for more than ten hours. We have too long a history of making it hard to register and to vote in this country, something that shames what claims to be the world’s oldest and preeminent democracy. Yes, I know the Founders did not fully agree with democracy, and some argue that we are created as a Republic not a Democracy. But we have for well over half a century, or if you prefer well over a century, moved in the direction of being more of a democracy, and in political science terms a liberal democracy. Some want to move away from that, both by restricting who can vote and rolling back the rights in theory protected by the First Amendment.
Consider how far we have come from 1791, when the Bill of Rights went into effect.
We now have the principle of one man one vote, which means equal representation in legislative bodies — except of course for the United States Senate.
We cannot deny the right to vote on account of gender, age over 18, and race, nor can we condition the vote in FEDERAL elections on payment of poll or other taxes. In theory a Supreme Court decision allows college students to vote where they study rather than absentee at home. We until recently were expanding how we could register, and having early onsite voting. A number of states allowed or required mail-in (or drop-off) paper ballots.
But some want to make it harder to vote, claiming nonexistent patterns of fraudulent registration (there is no requirement to notify a jurisdiction when you move to remove you from the voting roles) and similarly nonexistent patterns of fraudulent voting. We have jurisdictions and people in charge of voting trying to make it harder both to register and to vote, primarily to suppress the votes of those who might not vote for them. Those targeted tend to be younger, minorities, lower socio-economically. Regardless of our history, this is regressive, and not worthy of American
A government for which not all can vote is not a government of We the People, it thus violates the social contract expressed in the Preamble which begins with those words.
Insofar as Constitutional amendments might be required to fix problems (eg the construction of the Senate and POSSIBLY the electoral college (if there are issues with the national popular vote initiative)) we have serious problems, because a constitutional amendment can be blocked by only 13 states. 7 states — AK, ND, SD, WY, MT, DE, VT — have only 1 Representative. 5 states- HA, ID, ME, NH, RI 0 have only two. Add any one of the three with only 3 - NE, NM, WV — and you have 13 states: WITH ONLY 20 OF THE 435 HOUSE SEATS, OR LESS THAN 5% OF THE POPULATION. And with that what might be good for the country as a whole is blocked.
Still, we could move to national standards on access to voting, to removing obstacles to registration and voting, to restoring voting rights of felons who have completed their sentences. We could make it easier to vote without appearing in person, we could have ballots with audit trails (perhaps machine scanned paper ballots). We could make election day a national holiday, and/or allow voting over more than one day, including some weekend days.
All legislative districts should not only be contiguous, but also should be compact, and where possible not slicing and dicing communities. Gerrymandering is already illegal on the explicit basis of race (at least for now) but should also be illegal on the basis of partisan affiliations.
Because what happens in state legislatures and executive offices has a huge impact on what happens nationally, including in other states, these issue should be addressed on a national basis.
The 14th Amendment says that no state shall deny any person equal protection of the law. That is supposed to apply to what it does to people within its boundaries. I would argue the principle applies to the impact of people in other states, and in the territories, Commonwealths, and the District of Columbia — their residents are also Americans.
While we can argue around the margins of this, those who advocate restricting rights are violative of the principles upon which this country was ostensibly founded, even if we did not always live up to our ideals.
It is also well past time that we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote, at least for all citizens not currently incarcerated (which would mean automatic restoration of that right upon release).
IF we do no address these issues, elections will not matter, They will become as much of a sham as they are in Russia.
Just a few of my thoughts.