McCarthy Leading Charge to Continue (Own) Public Flogging

After two days, Kevin McCarthy is well upon his quest to become speaker for a couple of months (before he is run out for the first deal he makes). He just needs to peel off a few members with more special favors because they are obviously negotiating in good faith (;)). And while your making deals, agree to random demands from seemingly heretofore uninvolved interest groups. All that, plus supporting Trump after January 6, to be able to say you were Speaker of the House with no coherent agenda. It is not an admirable existence to be known as one of the most wishy-washy interest group transactional craven sycophantic operators in Congress—and not even a talented one at that. Turns out being one of the dumbest members of Congress might actually be his best quality.

As a side note, the insurrectionist caucus leading the effort to deny him the speakership may soften McCarthy’s image in history, putting him in a conversation with John Boehner. As the two gents have both learned, they would attack whoever was sitting in that chair. But McCarthy thought he did everything to placate them, including using all his charm to get Marjorie Greene to fall in love with him (awwww). No interest in governance, but high theater and job losses have the cave dwellers salivating at the mouth. And I guess they want to promote their favorite sophomore in Congress, Byron Donalds while they are at it.

All signs point to more days of this, so enjoy while it lasts 🙂

Fraud King Encourages Voter Fraud

Goes to a swing state and encourages people to break the law to keep him in power. Law and Order!

Donald Trump has railed against non-existent voter fraud for years, but until yesterday, we did not have sufficient reason to believe this line of misdirection had anything to do with his usual confession-projection approach to hypocritically attacking others for what he does. Well, that lacking evidence is now produced, and the voter fraud stuff was indeed projection. President Trump apparently wants his supporters to vote twice to own the libs (and keep him in power).

In North Carolina, Trump told his supporters to vote twice, on multiple occasions. In one exchange, he said , “Let them send it in and let them go vote… And if the system is as good as they say it is, then obviously they won’t be able to vote [twice].” At another point he said, “Send it in early and then go vote.” Elsewhere he said you can vote after election day, and if they receive it late and you already voted, it should not count. But if they want to count ballots after election day, it may count

The president’s psychobabble is usually hard to follow, but these are stunningly easy to understand. And it makes a lot of sense. His view of law and order is legal immunity for himself and his supporters, and frivolous charges against his perceived opponents (which is most of the world on any given day). It was only a matter of time before the wannabe strongman would encourage his followers to commit the very voter fraud he claimed was ailing American. This fits a larger pattern of authoritarians rising up through democracy, only to undermine the very mechanism that got them power–because what they want is power, not what is good for the nation. Moreover, his inability to criticize the ballot harvesting scam run by GOP operative in North Carolina’s 9th District, in which completed ballots were collected from voters and thrown away if they voted for Democrats, was always tacit approval for the enterprise of winning at all costs and using a partisan shield to defray claims of unethical behavior.

Luckily, the president realized he fucked up and took to Twitter to clarify his stance on felonious voting:

Do go vote twice, but not really, but do it anyway, but just make sure your vote is counted and hold up the line, then vote again? Umm… GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!

First, who the fuck is he quoting? Second, it is very difficult to understand what the hell he is saying between the weird punctuation, grammar, parentheticals, and capitalization. This is not the way a reasonable person communicates, let alone one of the best students at Wharton. And as usual, his ignorance is showing: the reason any voter fraud even occurs is because you are not institutionally inhibited from voting more than once. There is no widely available system to capture whether someone is trying to vote twice, once through the mail and once in person, or at several precincts within a short time frame. A poll worker at a local precinct will not have access to how every voter in that area voted. All they know is someone is eligible to vote. So what actually happens is both of those votes will both count and only be discovered after the fact. Then, that person is prosecuted for the felony of voter fraud.

Perhaps Trump is not so ignorant, and he is essentially trying to get his supporters to commit fraud, get caught, and get sent to jail so that he can stay in power and not go to jail himself. This actually makes some sense, and would fit with Trump’s me-first raison d’être. Nonetheless, it is nice to see the golden maxim of Trump–whatever he attacks others for doing he is currently doing himself or wants to do–applies to the voter fraud topic. As chaotic as Trump is, he is eminently predictable.

Fuck the Left! Biden and DNC Go Full 1990s Third Way

Republican Kasich explicitly said Joe Biden will never cave to the left. Is this the RNC or DNC?

Up until a few weeks ago, it looked like Joe Biden’s campaign to unseat failed president Donald Trump might buck the conventional wisdom and be somewhat inclusive of progressive voices in the party and grassroots activists. This wasn’t based on Biden’s team doing anything, but instead Bernie Sanders’ support of Joe and Joe’s campaigns apparent lack of clear antagonization of the left.

Well, that shit is over now.

In the past few weeks, the Biden campaign has taken the following actions that serve as evidence for a swing voter only, persuasion-based campaign strategy, eschewing the left:

• Shutout Bernie’s GOTV team in favor of Republican Ana Navarro’s lucrative contract to win reactionary Cuban voters in FL at the detriment to Latinos in the western U.S.
• Pick median Democrat Kamala Harris as VP, creating a more diverse, but centrist ticket to replicate the great success of Clinton-Kaine in 2016
• Inexplicably limit AOC’s speaking time to a one-minute recording that they can edit/axe
• Elevate former Ohio Governor and Representative John Kasich–the lead author of welfare reform–as a major campaign surrogate with the eventual payoff of a cabinet appointment

By no means is this list exhaustive, but these moves alone suggest Biden’s team thinks unicorn swing voters and disenchanted Republicans are his path to defeating Trump. While that could be true, it is not immediately obvious that the way to attract them is to play up party ID and publicly shit on the left. Maybe swing voters want policy. Maybe these groups are already going to vote against Trump no matter what. Maybe encouraging the youth and minority vote is an investment in the future, even if you don’t need them now. And maybe you do need them know, but your fetishism of conservative-leaning bipartisanship is clouding your judgment. Who knows!?

And for anyone saying Kamala is progressive, you have fallen for her strategic positioning. Her instincts are not with the progressive wing of the party, but when she has felt that taking progressive positions could propel her career, she will adopt them. She’s the west coast Kirsten Gillibrand. There is some virtue in this since that makes her a malleable politician, which is better than a Third Way ideologue like Joe Biden, but that still requires surrounding her with progressives voices that push her in that direction. A liberal voting record in the Senate is not the same as being progressive because of how the legislative agenda works. Party devotees–like Harris–often appear more liberal for Democrats, or conservative for Republicans, simply because they support their parties positions on major wedge issues of the day in a reliable fashion. This is why super progressive members that vote against the Democratic Party appear more conservative, while far-right Republicans that buck the GOP appear more liberal on both cumulative and focus vote measures. Kamala Harris is a mushy corporate Democrat who has been plotting her ascendency to the presidency for over a decade. To do that, she wanted to appear progressive while secretly assuring vested interests that she will do what the party consensus dictates. Unfortunately, Barack Obama did the exact same thing, laying the groundwork for Kamala’s approach.  Sbe’s a competent political actor, but a progressive she is not. And she deserves continued scrutiny about her consistently crummy office morale at every stage in her political career. A boss who fosters the antipathy of their employees is clearly failing at a core task of leadership.

I hope this is all overblown kabuki for now, and that if Biden wants a fusion cabinet, that fusion is not just conservadems and RINOs, but has authentic representation from this nation’s progressives. Robert Reich or Elizabeth Warren at Treasury would go a long distance on this front, especially if Cory Booker will be at HUD and Susan Rice gets State. For a big tent party, the Democratic Party never fails to show how much they hate the left-wing activists that propel them into power year after year.

Ideological Heterogeneity, Preference Cycling or Turn-Taking Kabuki? Conservative Justices and the Supreme Court

The landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County extends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which protects individuals from employment discrimination on account of sex—to prohibit discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. The logic in this ruling is quite creative and simple: if a woman marries a man named Steve, and a man marries a man named Steve, the man cannot be fired for the choice of his life partner because the only difference between the permissible and impermissible behavior was the individual’s sex. In this way, sex, gender, and sexual orientation are all linked under the non-discrimination provisions of the CRA. Simple stuff!

But of course justice and equality are not guaranteed in society, and the shocking extension of civil rights protections to gender expression and sexual orientation goes against the efforts of generations of conservative activists. You know, the people that vote for Republicans to keep their marriage sacred. In this case, Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four Democratic-appointed justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan) to author the 6-3 majority decision. Gorsuch follows the lead of his mentor Anthony Kennedy in pursuing a mostly libertarian tract on the court, the former now expanding LGBTQ+ rights as the latter had done with Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. Not to be ignored, John Roberts continues his haphazard explorations on the court, always entrenching economic elite power while periodically giving something to the masses.

In authoring the majority decision, Gorsuch applied the textualist approach espoused by Antonin Scalia during his years as the intellectual architect of conservative jurisprudence. In a stunning proof of concept, Gorsuch provides the best example yet that legal philosophy does not automatically lead to certain outcomes (like textualism favoring conservatism and living document favoring liberalism). Instead, the truth is these legal approaches are at best guidelines for how to arrive at a judgment, or at worst, fancy rationales to justify partisan hackery. In this case, Gorsuch used plain language meaning and legislative intent to establish the CRA as written was meant to cover sex, gender, and sexual orientation, since sex itself can serve as a proxy for the other two in the simple thought experiment. Of course, using textualism on a statute might already run afoul of arch-conservative jurisprudence, since purportedly the only document that matters is the U.S. Constitution. Statutes are just activism. Luckily Gorsuch is not dumb enough to think the country can rely on a single founding document, and has entered into the legislative intent zone. Ironically, legislative intent was something Scalia commonly engaged as well, but I don’t remember conservative activists up in arms with him over that. At the end of the day, all that matters to the public is that the decisions make sense and comport with their view of America. Gorsuch employed a “conservative” legal approach to come to a “liberal” outcome. Legal philosophies are generally just instruments to a goal, but here Gorsuch might have employed this approach as he understood it, and was led in this particular direction.

While the question of Gorsuch’s commitment to LGBTQ+ rights or textualism is still open, this decision and the behavior of the conservative justices on the court point to a larger pattern of behavior: the conservative members of the court cycle preferences on different issues. No one is consistently moderate except maybe Roberts in a far-right world. Instead, they are all consistently right-wing, save for one-offs on random issues over the course of their tenure. On occasional issue, Roberts will put the reputation and legitimacy of the court ahead of his policy preferences. These tend to be non-economic, although the decision in NFIB v. Sebelius definitely has economic components. But Roberts will never actually challenge aristocracy in America when they have give up wealth or power. Forcing several million people onto health care is not an attack on aristocracy; rich people have health care. The individual mandate just forced poor people, dislocated workers, and young people buy coverage. Then they cut medicaid, further hurting poor people. And he is supposed to be a moderate?

Other than the Chief Justice, the court’s conservatives seldom buck conservative orthodoxy, but when they do it is in an expected manner. Brett Kavanaugh sometimes sides with liberals on antitrust, environmental, and administration of law issues. Clarence Thomas will occasionally join the liberals on criminal due process violations. And Samuel Alito will find some fairly unimportant minutia to cross the aisle. And Gorsuch has a long track record of upholding the treaty rights of Native American, making his branching out into other civil rights areas not entirely surprising. But importantly, all conservatives agree that economic power should remain unchecked and the terms of democracy are malleable to fit the exigencies of maintaining political power. These one-offs may indicate authentic, deeply-held views, or might simply be a form of silencing critics about ideology determining court rulings. To the extent that they are consistent over time, it would suggest each of these members has some level of heterodoxy within their conservative jurisprudence. But when these decisions appear out of nowhere, a more likely explanation may be the justices creating the appearance of independence to maintain the legitimacy of the court. Each one will rise up, one at a time, to take turns doing the right thing (occasionally). I suppose that is better than nothing!

Trump Literally Gassed Civilians for a Photo Op

A reporter asks Trump, “Is that your bible?” to which he responds “It’s a bible.”

As his first course of action after invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, on June 1, 2020, President Trump sent out federal forces to disperse a peaceful protest across from the White House by firing teargas and flash grenades into the crowd. Then in a surreal moment, the sedentary president walked nearly two blocks to pose in front of the closest church to his house. That is a lot of exercise for this man, so you know this matters to him. He only visits this church around Easter for photo ops to show he knows Christianity exists, even if he doesn’t know a single passage in the Bible or believe any Christian teachings. The craven depravity to do this at a time of national crisis sets a truly dark milestone in downward spiraling presidency. The cartel of enablers around him will not be able to shake social censure for years to come, and police powers will not save Donald Trump. His day is coming, likely in the form of an electoral rebuke where he loses the popular vote for over 7 million votes. Trump thinks he is king. Well guess what: he is. He is the simultaneous Shit and Idiot King. A dual honor.

For now, this is a very dark day in American history for many reasons. This clear demonstration of capricious power is one for the history books. And it is only going to get worse until he is removed from office… time for a march on Washington.

The Intentional Collapse of the Federal Government

Pandemic federalism: four official and unofficial regional working groups (West Coast; Great Lakes; Chesapeake; Northeast) on the coordinated reopening of the states. The executive branch is AWOL.

Throughout the natural disasters (esp. in Puerto Rico), global pandemic, economic collapse, and now social unrest brought on by police violence, the Trump administration has excised itself from command and control and implicitly reasserted the Articles of Confederation. In this dynamic, all the federal government does is coordinate information between actors, with no formal authority to act on a thing. Coordination is good, but frankly, Trump is not even using his epicenter in power to do that. A central tendency of this administration is to shift blame and decision-making away from the White House, then position themselves to both take credit and deny culpability for things that go wrong. What this reveals is that the turn toward the unitary presidency is not a turn toward a unitary government–Trump, Pompeo and Barr instead want the president to do whatever they want at the national stage without actually governing the people of the United States. On the one hand that may mean the dawning fascist America will not occur through police state clamping down–a good thing–but will instead occur from societal collapse and government failure, leading a vocal minority of people to assert uniform control at the local level. This bottom-up fascism is not likely to occur, especially given the blue states are the economic engines of America. The most likely result is needless destruction until Joe Biden becomes president and reasserts some form of gainful government. While Biden is aligned to the Reaganite austerity regime of the last 40 years, there is a fair chance he will eschew his previous loyalties and realign the country back towards a government of the people and for the people. While time will tell on these last couple of points, what is clear now is local and state leaders only have each other to rely upon. The one saving grace is that every single governor and mayor in America is more competent than President Trump, so while he will continue sniping on Twitter to encourage the race war, at least in his enforcement capacity he won’t make things much worse. The anti-government ideology of Reagan and his followers is culminating in a hollowing out of the state and a divestment of federal actors from the subnational stage. Some may say this is a good thing, but the cost of this movement toward private power-only will lead to an incredible backlash and likely remove Republicans from federal power for a generation. Can’t say I didn’t warn you, Mitch.

As far as the these Covid-19 regional groups go, they are better than nothing, but will wholly fail at containing the virus. The main reason is states do not have the legal authority to close down their borders, which would violate centuries of legal precedent that states cannot inhibit interstate commerce. So while I applaud the create use of subnational associations to fill the void of national leadership, it will not work in the end. Until President Trump gives a shit about Coronavirus, it is here to stay.

Anatomy of a Protest Turned Riot

Mass mobilization in the form of street demonstrations is arguably the most effective form of political activism. While voting directly authorizes who has public power, votes do not advertise intent or any nuance behind what is generally a lesser of two evils election. Coming out en masse sends an indisputable message to those in power that the population has taken issue with a systemic issue—generally institutional racism or wealth inequality—and seek to use media to build awareness. This process is protected by the 1st Amendment right to free speech and association and is an essential behavior in democratically governed societies.

But like all political conflict, the groups involved in lawful protest are heterogeneous. Indeed, protests almost always attract a diverse configuration of good and bad actors with different motives, ready to use the crowd as cover to achieve their own discrete goals. The ongoing protests and riots over George Floyd’s murder are doubly compounded by a global pandemic and economy in collapse, creating a crisis of governance unlike anything in modern American history. These conditions, mixed with the political environment, contribute to the nature of the protests that have turned into riots across the nation. How does this happen? This post will dissect the various actors that generally get involved in protests, based on my first-hand experience from my Occupy days and now 24/7 monitoring of local news stations from coast to coast. Contemporary social justice protests have 3 overarching groups—Believers, Opportunists, and Infiltrators—and 14 varied subgroups. Their convergence in a single space and/or the bad actions of one group are the principle causes for protests turning sour.

Believers

Every protest has at its core people who have rallied together to contest the dominant political order. In this case, that is people who are fed up with institutional racism in America that makes murdering a Black man in broad daylight a common past time of police departments. Generally this group will be among the most moderate forces in the protest, willing to express their rights to expression while avoiding anything that can be perceived as violent. In general, believers—especially on the social justice end of the spectrum—will work to keep protests peaceful in the non-violent tradition. We can further disaggregate the group as:

Community Leaders and Organizers

This is the leadership cartel within any protest. They generally amplify the core message of the group and coordinate between groups to establish both timing, locations, and strategy. Back in the 1960s, there were relatively few groups organizing mass action for civil rights and against state-sanctioned brutality against Black people. This is where you get more iconic figures who became symbolic leaders of entire movements, like Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, and even young folks like John Lewis. But with time, we are seeing these groups become increasingly decentralized. For example, the most well known coordinating group against police violence toward Black people is Black Lives Matter. The leadership structure and approach of BLM is almost intentionally light on centralization, simply providing a valence and banner for other groups to organize underneath. That shifts to the leadership within any given community, where you will have national and local teams that get people out and communicate with government officials and law enforcement on the broad plans of the protest. This group also includes renowned local leaders who have experience organizing social movements and negotiating with those in power to move the ball forward in an incremental way. Every protest needs some degree of leadership, even if they ultimately have little ability to manage the crowd.

Vanguard and Provocateurs

Protesters do not all agree on tactics, but a constant in protest movements are frontline believers that seek to (physically) hold the line and potentially bate the police into a publicized massacre which will build awareness of the struggle. While I subscribe to the non-violent tradition of social change, I cannot deny that images of violence against peaceful demonstrators are the most effective iconography to get reference publics and the viewing audience to sympathize with the cause. But obviously baiting cops is not without its risks, so this group is the most volatile of the essential believer group. However, they are different from some later groups because they seek to instigate a limited response from police, not a full-fledged violent conflict. And moreover, they care about the eventual outcome of the campaign and are not simply there to fuck shit up. They may or may not be anarchists, but generally frontliners are experienced at both manipulation of the out-group (cops) and seasoned at crowd control on their side. I have personally witnessed these people talk down both cops and more rowdy protestors in an effort to deescalate, so their discipline is essential for a successful protest, both in peace and if need be, in limited violent exchanges.

Youth

Most mass-based protests require young people to serve as the lion’s share of feet on the ground. This is commonly well-meaning college kids and other young people who are getting their first dose of activism in a system that greatly discourages political involvement. Additionally, they also have little to lose by getting a rap sheet—it might even be a badge of honor. For the most part, there will be some level of youth leaders, but they do not take a large role in guiding the overall behavior of protesters. They tend to form all levels (front, middle and back) of the protest lines, but in general they just wander, chant, and at times break some shit out of ignorance or confusion. They may also check the certain unruly elements in a crowd, depending on the level of consciousness within smaller cells of friends and other crowd goers. Non-criminal youth are not likely to get overly amped during a protest, but people well-versed in criminality at a young age will vandalize if they see others doing it.

Neighborhood Families

An often under-valued core group of protests is the regular neighborhood families that understand the need for law and order and social cohesion, but nonetheless think change is needed to defray systemically biased abuse in the system. Classic swing group: if they are with you, you win, but if they are against you, your job is much harder. These are the people that will even bring young children to protests to normalize the contestation of power and maintain a certain facade that bystanders may acquiesce to: namely, if there are vulnerable populations around, people may behave a little better. It is controversial, but some parents will put their children in harm’s way to some degree, but if you see kids at a protest, it is less likely to be parental negligence and more about a show of community solidarity. Now, if you go to a protest and do not see a single middle-aged person, or a guy with a stroller, it likely means the protest will see violence. Parents have an extrasensory perception of threat and will not go to the riskier and more volatile protests.

Reference Publics

These are the apolitical people that might not even know what is going on, but once they catch wind they will honk their horns, cheer on protestors, or even join in. Protests become a social end for some people, and that is often in this group. Like young people, they pad the numbers of the protest and help it swell into numbers that police may have difficulty herding into specific areas. This group gets a real time education in civic participation that might not otherwise occur if there was not a crowd.

Opportunists

In contrast to believers, there are opportunistic actors who may seek to co-opt a protest for their own goals. While it is true these people may believe in their group’s goals, what differentiates them from core believers is that the discrete goal of the protest is not their only goal—they have an additional larger purpose that may encourage them to partake in certain behaviors believers may not get into. While many people who intend to agitate are true believers, it is my general suspicion (based on experience and conjecture) that the most violent and volatile groups fall in the opportunist and infiltrator camps, since the overarching goal of the movement is secondary to their parochial goals. In short, opportunists see a large crowd and view it as an opportunity to accomplish peripheral or personal goals.

Vandalizers and Looters

Most protests at some point devolve into property crimes of one form or another. But the people that commit these offenses are not a monolith. Indeed, looters have different profiles. Some people that face daily material deprivation could easily justify looting a department store when they have nothing and are desperate. Even if these people are convicted of their crimes, we should not entirely demonize them. While they detract from protests, the struggle to survive in a highly unequal society will push people to act in suboptimal ways. But is someone breaking into a Target to steal toilet paper worse than a president who has made $1,000,000 off charging taxpayers for him to stay at his own properties? Hardly, but I digress. We have also seen roaming caravans of looters, as many as 20 cars deep. This is unlikely to just be desperate people acting out, instead pointing to coordinated criminal syndicates, many of whom are not poor by any stretch. Just check out the cars they drive. Broadly speaking, there are four types of property destructing protesters: looters of need, looters of want, political vandals, and general vandals. Need looters steal staples from department stores, want looters steal clothing and electronics from boutiques, political vandals target government vehicles/buildings, and general vandals indiscriminately fuck shit up. There is an important difference between lighting a police car on fire—violent, but political in purpose—and tagging a mom and pop shop up with your tagger handle, or breaking into a Foot Locker to steal shoes. If most protests engage violence to some extent, there is a qualitative difference in intent and target depending on the group. For many, a protest is a great opportunity to enrich one’s self. Considering the historically high levels of  hunger and insecurity, it should be expected than any given protest of large numbers would attract a mix of desperate actors and career criminals. You can tell the difference in their targets. The people storming CVS or Target and taking toilet paper or food are desperate people who have been abandoned by a callous federal government under Trump. We should not think of these looters in the same way we think of the next two groups. Looters that target high-end boutiques in LA or a Foot Locker in Philly may be desperate, but they are channeling it into superfluous acts of selfishness, taking racks of clothes they cannot wear or shoes that don’t fit them. They may hope to resell the stolen merch, or they just love the thrill of stealing. Finally, there are some who do not want anything (food or apparel) and simply want to break shit. These last two groups gain the most media coverage and are often the costliest to the protest movement itself, as it paints the people on the street as up to no good and worthy of oppression. It is important to recognize any individual may resort to looting even against their higher-minded self, simply because the chaos of large protests restructures how social actors engage their environment. Anyone witnessing large-scale looting faces a group pressure to engage, which is importantly why decent people may succumb to this behavior at times.

Brawlers and Instigators

Unlike looters and vandalizers, there is another group that comes to protest specifically to fight people and draw others into the mayhem. People in several other groups appear to have similar behavior to this group, but the key distinction here is there goal is not to undermine the protest or enact a political agenda: all they want is to feel alive and fight someone. In this group will be bad apples with a career in violent crime, some homeless, some people with mental illness, and young folks who love the action. It is worth noting most criminals in America are non-violent, homeless people are more victims of crime than criminals themselves, and that mental illness manifests in many ways, sometimes but not always including violence. These folks will fight cops and protestors alike, depending on their personal profile and opportunities to draw people into manageable levels of conflict, although some of these folks have a death wish and suicide by cop or getting whooped by a protestor is as good as gold. Again, these are mostly non-ideological people who simply know traditional social rules go out the window in very large demonstrations, so they use the opportunity to have an exciting day of fucking up other humans. You will find these people toward the frontlines if cops are their target or roaming around menacing if protesters are the target. Relatively few in overall number, they tend to operate alone or with a very close cadre of one or two other people. In my experience, these are the people that get arrested the most, as cops may already have some knowledge of them and understand their loose association with other protesters. Finally, there are also people that love to stir up drama and leave others to pick up the pieces, so you do have instigators who are bitchmade and just want to see others fight. If that is how you get off, you are a truly pathetic piece of shit. For the most part, you can never snuff out all of the brawlers and instigators, but if protests are to remain peaceful, you need protesters to regulate this group as well.

Antifa

There are, however, ideological groups that use any protest as an opportunity to hit the streets and challenge authority. Broadly, these are anarchists and anti-system folks who may have legitimate critiques of American imperialism. While their presence may be useful because people are power, their behavior against fellow protesters makes them a constant thorn in the righteous quest for a better society. One of the leading groups that fits this is so-called “Antifa”: anti-fascist online cosplay community (afocc). I have had friends who were active members, and many of the ones I knew personally were fine people. But the anonymous pieces of shit who come out in all black with military boots, a mask when no one is wearing a mask (pre-Covid), a homemade shield, and carrying a fucking hammer are not good people. The core idea of anti-fascist ideology is to come out whenever Nazis or their favorite politicians come to town, which is unequivocally good. You must challenge fascists with counter protests to limit their reach within a community. But many of the contemporary self-stylized “Antifa” folks are just angsty teenagers or immature adults who live in their mom’s basement and are a perfect left-wing analog of right-wing incels. (And they only get the label “left-wing” because they adopt left-wing iconography and rhetoric—there is nothing left-wing about devaluing human life in service of gratuitous violence.) This club does not have a monopoly on opposing fascism, and oddly enough, their more ornery members willingly accept fascist practices. They believe their expressed rage will make them feel alive for a few moments, where violence becomes an end it itself. That often devolves to the initial property damage in a protest, usually smashing the windows of Starbucks and mom and pop shops alike, as well as turning on any protesters that ask them to stop fucking up their community. They come in from neighboring suburbs and do more harm than good. And just to be clear, Antifa is a decentralized collective with very loose membership, so I hope the group itself can develop some codes of conduct for its followers, and then disown those that dabble in community terror. For any given protest in SF, Berkeley or Oakland, these are the second worst actors, bested only by the racist cops that precipitate the demonstration itself. Many self-described Antifa protesters are more committed to destruction than social uplift, and demonstrators must pay special attention to policing the worst members of this group. Just because Trump singles them out (while selectively ignoring systemic oppression, police violence, and white supremacy) does not mean these folks are not a legitimate problem. They are and have been for decades. Only the protesters themselves can regulate them.

Black Separatists

Specifically on race-related protests, Black separatists usually show up. For the most part they are allies in spirit, and at worst a small group that may have motives that differ from the integrated crowd. They are distinguished by the difference between their goals and broader multicultural anti-racism campaigns—they want to build group insularity to justify a recession from society (like any identity-based separatist group). Black separatism has a vibrant intellectual tradition in America, from Booker T. Washington to Marcus Garvey to the Nation of Islam, both accurately diagnosing the central problems in the U.S. while prescribing a clear but difficult to achieve alternative. Frankly, I myself go back and forth between support for Black separatism or integration, optimistically supporting both ideas: integration should be possible for those who want it and recession may be a suitable last resort for others. However, unlike the programmatic Black Panthers of the 60s and 70s, contemporary Black separatists have more in common with fascist doctrines than social uplift. An example is the women’s march organizer Tamika Mallory, who has espoused her own bigotry in support of Louis Farrakhan, who has forged alliances with white supremacists for several generations at this point. I do not have enough evidence to say what members of this group have done during these protests, but their goals are not police reform. They want to create and use a crisis in the system to force people out of deal-making pragmatic politics, toward social identity as the end in itself. Then segregation becomes a virtue because there will be a semblance of self-determination. This is where Farrakhan, David Duke of the KKK, and President Trump’s classism all align, albeit for different rationales. Intellectually, these are eminently debatable points, but it is worth noting if police stopped killing unarmed Black folks, this group would have less justification for their prescribed solutions. That alone is a potential conflict of interest within ostensibly non-violent protests, since any mass gathering is also an opportunity for mass violence. Again, it is important to note this is a relatively small group that may use conflict to control the narrative on America, but in any given protest a Black protester is more likely to fit the believer subgroups than this very particular, but notable splinter ideology. To my knowledge, this group is hardly ever responsible for a protest turning bad, but there is some dissensus between their vision of America and that of most left-wing protesters, including the Black inter-generational intelligentsia. But it important to note that some members of the crowd may want protests to turn violent to use it as propaganda for their espoused cause.

Traveling Far-Right Militias and White Supremacists

These recent protests have seen an onslaught of militia groups coming in with the specific goals of: destroying cities; to make the poor and ethnic minorities look ungovernable; to justify stereotypes and dismissive resentment against their plight; and foment the Great American Race War. States like Michigan have entrenched militia cultures persisting off and on for its entire statehood. The recent militia movement started in the 1970s and is extremely anti-govermment. Since they hate everyone who is protesting—city folk, Black people, Asians, Latinos, latte liberals, NPR listeners/PBS watchers—they show up to specifically fuck up the community, fight other protesters, and cause havoc on the streets. This may include taking the first shot at a cop from around the middle of the crowd to get a response dedicated to the front of the crowd. This is a much larger issue in the Midwest than East Coast, South or West, but they are willing to travel pretty far to stir up great social discord. Trump’s online messages and verbal rhetoric are directed at this group, and when he said “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”, he was not talking about government response. He was declaring open season on the protestors and residents of the cities for private citizens to mobilize in service of protecting the existing hierarchy. We should expect more and more white supremacists and their allies to as national leaders spur them on and our politics continues to degrade.

Infiltrators

Every single protest I have been to had infiltrators. They show up in plain clothes as sleeper cells, then they erupt to start some sort of intra-protester conflict, or to sabotage the protests. They will dart through a crowd of people at high-speeds, then hop out near the epicenter and start a fight. (This happened to me once in Occupy Oakland, but I was partly to blame because I hit their car with my canteen because they nearly ran over several people. Luckily, only a boisterous girl wanted to have a face-to-face screaming match, then a 300-lb dude swatted me to side and said “don’t hit women.” Good lesson. By the way, before this lady approached me, she got something from her trunk, which I assume was a gun. So I lucked out by encountering a set of infiltrators that had a larger mission than just fucking with me. I wonder what they ended up doing?) The point of infiltration is to exploit the general anonymity and feelings of unity among protestors to subvert the entire enterprise. All powerful contemporary American social movements face infiltration, primarily from three actors:

FBI/CIA

Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, the FBI has infiltrated and surveilled groups, generally on the left. This is not just COINTEL stuff, but targeted assassinations like Fred Hampton in Chicago in 1969. Or in the 1980s, the CIA fed crack cocaine into central LA to poison a generation of poor people (and fund a futile campaign against the Contras in Nicaragua). Within mass movements, they show up and blend in with the group, likely to provide intelligence on protestors: their tactics and identities. A generous interpretation of their goals may also be to snuff out the violent elements in a crowd, but I have never witnessed anyone stop the violent folks in a protest except other protesters (leading to either the perpetrator running away or smashing a nice person in the face with a hammer). Currently, the FBI is concentrating on leftist more than rightists, so I would expect they have embedded some undercovers in protests, but I doubt they are contributing to any violence. Surveillance is their goal right now.

Local Police Departments

As the militarization of American police has skyrocketed since the end of the Cold War, local police have all sorts of contraptions to engage crowds, including literal tanks. But the tried and true method of infiltration and then selectively arresting certain groups occurs in many protests. Another common tactic is to go undercover, get to know the protesters, maybe even exchanging phone numbers, then after the fact raiding these folks for unlawful assembly (and whatever law with which they overcharge demonstrators). However, given the shortage of manpower across the country—leading to unpoliced looting and fires throughout Los Angeles’ west side yesterday—I doubt local PDs are infiltrating along traditional lines. They are more concerned with crowd control and ad hoc incident responses. In normal times, this is a core group to be wary of, but right now, their infiltration is the least of anyone’s worries—especially if uniformed officers are macing children and teargassing peaceful protesters.

Foreign Actors

Foreign actors have several purposes for getting involved domestic conflicts, both to monitor their own nationals who may participate and to further foment social discord. There approach is both in-person and online-only. An example of the in-person occurred when I used to protest in Berkeley. You would see people with masks and no press credentials exclusively taking photos and videos of the crowd. Walking up to each person, taking account of identifying information. While this behavior is more likely to be local PD or feds, foreigners are distinguished in who they want to get information on, namely their own citizens. For example, Chinese international students in Berkeley are monitored by one or two in-person agents that seek to deter and capture impermissible behavior. Several of my friends during undergrad were children of CCP officials, and they are fully aware of the myriad ways in which they are monitored. They know that protesting without their face covered will results in some sort of retaliation, either against them or their family back home. An example of the online-only model is occurring currently, as seen in Russian trolls using Facebook and Twitter attempting to get far-right and far-left protesters to show up to the same space at the same time. They often tell each target group different stories for why they should join in, while concealing from each group the duplicity of their deceptive messages. While blaming foreigners is an American pastime, at most foreign influence in social justice protests is peripheral around the margins.

Politically-connected Mercenaries

Arguably the most important group of infiltrators, paid mercenaries are currently being deployed by Betsy DeVos and Erik Prince, among others, to sabotage protests, exacerbate riots, and attack protestors. Their goal is similar to the white supremacists that they align with, but a key difference is the non-ideological nature of their agents. The wealthy of this country hire former military and police to serve as a event security—typical behavior. But then they slowly condition these people to accept bounty jobs, such as kidnappings, non-government extrajudicial extraditions, and private acts of terror that never get media coverage. They were recently mobilized in the Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio state capitols to terrorize elected officials without proposing some alternative vision They might even work for foreign interests, like Michael Flynn was when he planned the kidnapping of Fethullah Gulan from his compound in PA back to Turkey. Money is easily converted into private violence, and Trump cabinet is extremely involved in the private mercenary industry of America. The tell for when these people are in a group is not looting or arrests, but is usually incendiary behavior against other protesters, usually from a flank position. They will monitor the protesters, then strike at specific point, either as a quick attack and retreat, or to create a bulge and send the crowd running. The media is very unlikely to cover the exploits of this group, but any seasoned protester needs to watch out for these heavily militarized groups (they often have body armor, armored vehicles and long guns. A likely hypothesis is that as local and federal justice entities reform, these mercenaries will play a larger role in directly checking the ambitions of social reformers, both inside and outside of public demonstrations.

Heterogeneity of Mass Demonstrations

This post is an attempt to explain to participants and onlookers how protests convert from peaceful to violent—it is a product of the heterogeneous groups that converge in large protests. This comes nearly 10 years after I initially felt the need to document the bad actors taking advantage of the Occupy Movement back in my protest days. With the rise of a fascist (albeit incompetent) president who is using these protests for his political goals, and four simultaneous crises (a federal government that cannot govern; a pandemic; mass unemployment; social unrest), social disorder is only likely to get worse. When protests get out of hand, it is important to understand why even a normal person may succumb to looting. But that is not the only story here, as there are concerted forces at work that seek to undermine and pervert the righteous nature of these protests. Since we have no national leadership, all Americans need to protest safely and be vigilant for bad actors that may seek to harm them and their communities. March safely, everyone.

Trump and the Destruction of America

40,000,000 unemployment claims and countless additional dislocated workers. 100,000 dead due because federal leadership was unprepared for a pandemic (and then did not care to mitigate it after it started). Now cities are on fire with widespread looting and property destruction overshadowing peaceful antiracism protests. And the president tweets this:

“Law & Order in Philadelphia, NOW! They are looting stores. Call in our great National Guard like they FINALLY did (thank you President Trump) last night in Minneapolis. Is this what voters want with Sleepy Joe? All Dems!” [5/31/20 at 4:04 EST]

The nation is crumbling from centuries-long and new crises, and the fucking president of the United States is credit-claiming for nothing and partisan sniping instead of trying to fix widespread social discord. This shit is unreal. The icon of the right–a makeup applying, shoe-lift wearing, serial sex assaulting, low self-esteem, fragile ego dotard–has lost operational control of the country and has become a purely symbolic figurehead. The senile and inept man wants to politicize the protests as a culture war or command and control issue, but he will fail at both because this is all happening under his watch. He cannot claim he can fix the problem when the problem is blossoming under his failed leadership.

Frankly, it is hard to imagine any human being performing worse on this unless the point was to see America crumble. Ultimately, is that want Trump wants? Is that what his self-proclaimed patriotic supporters want? Is the goal to destroy social cohesion and the gainful role of government to create a wild wild west where the only protection you have depends on your personal wealth? Well, I guess they get what they want. A great country laid to waste, Trump-Pence 2020.

 

Legislator Spotlight: Mike Lee (R-UT)

Mike Lee epitomizes the Tea Party movement of Republicans that spawned from the 2010 wave election. By replacing a conservative, but legislatively productive (i.e., someone capable of compromise) Bob Bennett, Utah has lost any semblance of productivity from their now senior senator. Lee spoke on the floor today about the atrocity that is lawmaking without lawmakers being in town. That is shirks the responsibilities of Congress and can be done safely. This all seemed prefatory to eventually objecting to a unanimous consent request to suspend the rules and pass the 500 billion dollar small business, hospital, and locality support legislation that was recently negotiated between Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and the White House. But in his vague righteous indignation, Lee perfectly encapsulated the hollow nature of his tenure in Congress.

Importantly, Lee did not object to the previous spending bills, even though he claims to be a Constitutional conservative above all else. That means not spending a lot of money on the federal level for the social welfare of American citizens. It also means not supporting pork. And it means a limited government that allows the market to play out as it purportedly should. Not surprisingly, it turns out all of this is lofty kabuke, directed at the public to seem principled, and said aloud so that he can feel righteous. So while he has entirely disappeared as a the only true fiscal conservative, he still acts like he has some leg to stand on to criticize others. Democrats just want to snipe at the president and not actually solve the problem. China and the WHO colluded to screw over the world. Republicans actually care about small businesses. All of this is just partisan red meat to appear aware of the problems this nation faces. But the worst part of Lee’s sanctimony is that his performative cosplay as a some historicized lawmaker of great honor and repute belies the reality of a lawmaker with absolutely no valued added to the Senate. While Lee continues to sit in office and wait to be nominated to a high level federal court, Utah’s voters get absolutely nothing from this member. He has no ideas, no true principles, and no discernible negotiation skills or technical expertise to help the government’s response to a pandemic and other long-simmering public problems. There is no such thing as a Constitutional conservative in the Senate in 2020, and instead of working behind the scenes to improve the design of laws, Lee and Rand Paul effectively act out their fetish in full public view. The hollowness of Lee’s rhetoric and value to his constituents is an incredible indictment of someone who is bereft of gainful ideas in contemporary politics. If Utah voters across ideology have any sense, they will replace Lee with someone who can actually work the levers of government to get things done. Otherwise they forfeit true power for rhetoric and symbolism.

 

Why Does Trump Oppose a National Coronavirus Testing Regime?

The single most important component of a comprehensive response to a viral pandemic is to identify how widespread the virus is in the public. To execute this directive, nations may have to prioritize developing testing capacity through acquiring swabs, chemical agents, and functioning lab capacity. Any individual or organization that seeks to secure tests in a global pandemic will face high levels of scarcity in one or more of the aforementioned elements of a testing regime, and therefore will have to bid against others in the quest for supplies. This runs up the price for the materials, causes delays, and increases the chance of receiving fraudulent materials from profit-motivated actors. Since only the wealthiest and best connected can thrive in this environment, while most others cannot, the virus will just circulate undetected or partly detected, cycling between populations (including eventually touching the very people that could afford tests, lest they entirely withdraw from society).

To solve the issues of individual level suboptimization, collective structures need to be erected for the good of society. Since localities and states face the same fragmentation as individuals, especially if movement of travel is not restricted between states, the only sensible answer is a nationwide plan to test as many Americans as possible. Ideally, this would extend to all individuals, regardless of symptoms, but the current shortage of materials has limited the testing protocols to ER-level patients, wealthy individuals, or employees of resource-rich organizations. Not testing for asymptomatic carriers means we will never reach the point where we understand how widespread the virus is within society, making national planning around reopening the economy extremely difficult if one cares about public health.

All this is to say testing is the most essential component of a national planning strategy. While social isolation in ones home and personal protective equipment are more important at the individual level, we are essentially flying blind without a sufficiently comprehensive testing regime. The president can, at the very least, provide the technical means for states to collaborate on a unified strategy, a la the Articles of Confederation, or more presciently invoke national emergency powers, a la the Constitution. While Trump has had conference calls and provided written guidance to states of what they could do, while declaring a national emergency to release funds and flexibility to states and banning Chinese and EU nationals from entering the country (while initially exempting countries that house his golf resorts), he has not fully maximized interjurisdictional coordination nor his emergency powers. So we are essentially operating in some combination of pre-Articles of Confederation and pre-Constitution frameworks in the year 2020. The America First wannabe strong man finally has the opportunity to use emergency powers, and he either does it haphazardly or oddly declines to use them. Good grief, the incompetence…

Additionally, the president has statutory support to use the Defense Production Act of 1950 to compel vital industrial companies to make specific products for mass deployment, like facemasks, swabs, ventilators, protective shields, and chemical reagents, among other essential supplies. But importantly, Trump has only invoked the DPA in name, signing a vague authorization, and one time specifically compelling General Motors to make ventilators. While that is useful, I am sufficiently confident he did this to spite GM for previous issues he has had with the company. While 3M, DuPont, and others are price-gouging and selling products to foreign countries, Trump is still erring toward grievance-led decisionmaking.

All of this summary is prefatory to answer the question: why does Trump oppose a nationwide testing regime, coordinated and supplied by the federal government? In my assessment there are five potential answers, each one explaining part of the equation.

1. Blame: Likely the main reason (and one contemporaneously reported by the media early in the pandemic) is that Trump views the diagnostic measure of testing as threatening to his popularity and reelection prospects. The reasoning: because if people know the true number of infections, they will freak out and blame him. That is mostly correct, so at least he is operating in reality on this, a reality filled with paranoia and fear. Facing consequences for one’s (in)action is an important part of daily life, something most children learn between 5 and 9 years old. Trump, at 73, has not learned this. Nor has he taken his Oath of Office as a public servant seriously. So even if testing would lead to a negative view of him (and it would), knowledge is power, and the public and other governmental officials would better internalize the seriousness of the situation at adhering to mitigation protocols. The correct decision for a leader in this situation is to do everything they can to reduce the harm of a global viral pandemic–nationalize the cost of testing and nationalize the dissemination of tests–but this truth conflicts with Trump’s perceived self-interests. And it may in fact be the case that Trump would receive more approval if he followed the correct path here, as I suspect fearful Americans would appreciate sound governmental leadership.

2. Spooking Others: As a fearful man, Trump may also believe the necessary level of action may spook the stock market and/or piss off conservative business leaders, like the My Pillow guy. He definitely cares about how other people perceive him–he is very poor at getting this correct–but the My Pillow Guy is clearly ride or die with Trump. Any business leaders that supported Trump in December 2019 will support him forever. Period. On the stock market, it will go down with a global meltdown, so his short-sighted, denialist thinking is certainly inferior to long-term vision and virtuous public servant behavior. One additional argument for restricting testing is to defray mass pandemonium from occurring, but that’s a risk irrespective of testing. (Potentially, you could test and act but not publicize results broadly, which is probably occurring in one form or another by different agencies and jurisdictions.)

3. Crisis Profiteering: By maintaining the dog-eat-dog market conditions on testing materials (among other types of materials like protective equipment, food, and cleaning supplies like toilet paper), Trump is ensuring the supply is scare, demand is high, and therefore costs will rise. This is needless and serves no public good other than some businesses profiting while we lose the war. He may want to continue price-gouging for the entire duration of the pandemic, while working with Jared and Ivanka to figure out a new way to bilk the federal government out of money since he cannot house his assistants and the secret service on his properties (Trump will likely reap a big winfall through the PPP program). Maintaining private extortion in service of hierarchy is a standard hypothesis in contemporary American politics and sociology, so this explanation would likely occur in some form or another by every contemporary president. But better national emergency leaders would only accept the grift if it also meant solving the pressing public problem. Here we just increased inequality with no public good.

4. Laziness: A general hypothesis to explain governmental failures under Trump is laziness and incompetence. Pepper that with fear of blame and Trump’s inaction is a standard response for someone who has failed his way up through his entire life.  However, this explanation is unlikely here since he would have to exert zero actual energy in authorizing a nationwide testing regime. The same people that currently do what he tells them would also have to do 100% of the work on this, but at least they would have his imprimatur. He might rightly think it would go poorly, since his administration cannot do much right, and that could haunt him in the future, going back to explanation 1. In any case, it is much easier for Trump to stand around and do nothing than suddenly figure out how to be forward-looking and capable leader.

5. Ideology: the purportedly non-ideological president (except on migration, race, trade, and kleptocracy) is actually highly ideological in a definitional sense. Ideology is a reflected and projected ordered system to make coherent frequently contradictory ideas to provide for minimal cognitive dissonance in the user. (A political ideology just contextualizes which ideas are included.) By that definition, Trump is actually one of the most ideological presidents in U.S. history. His ideology is predicated on several pillars: views of eugenics and “good breeding,” social Darwinism, and just as a perverse twist, the power of positive thinking. These outlooks pair with his sociopathy developed as a child, malignant narcissism, and kleptocratic wiring to create a hot mess of a human dumpster fire. And that person happens to be in charge of a once-a-century global pandemic. In this view, Trump’s aversion to creating a comprehensive national testing delivery system is because he a) does not think reality can be forced upon him and/or b) does not care if people die. In a more bounded way, Trump may also simply believe that this is not the federal government’s responsibility, as he does outwardly state. But that is a consequence and not cause of his anti-testing decision matrix. It starts because of his denial of reality and belief that he can will anything into existence. He could think “if there are no tests, there are no positive tests. So we’re good.” That may work in a cult of personality, but people losing family members to Coronavirus may see it differently.

Modernizing the Democratic Party

While the last post explored the feel-good story of GOP Senators bucking party orthodoxy and outflanking Democrats on economic populism, it is important to consider how the Democrats should modernize the party to remain competitive. The party is at a fork in the road and must choose between two paths. One path is to appeal to right-leaning suburban and white collar swing voters who clutch their pearls at the atrocity that is Donald Trump–a heightened but continued Third Way politics. The other path is to mobilize traditional non-voters, the poor, service workers, young people and migrants by giving them a vision of a functioning, empowering government that actually serves the needs of the masses and the most vulnerable. As it stands, the party is going all in on the former strategy, in part because party leadership would rather govern as slightly less bad than Republicans than move to a coherent leftist strategy. Importantly, party identifiers have jumped all in on this approach by supporting Joe Biden. The surge in suburban turnout and lacking surge in the youth vote has essentially proven which theory of the case works better for 2020. Assuming Joe Biden does not die and can string together coherent sentences, the environment looks ripe for Biden to win based on the suburban vote cutting toward Democrats again like in 2018.

But thinking ahead, a corporate, centrist Democratic Party is not going to supply to necessary solutions to 21st Century global problems. Just gaining power in the 1990s, 2008, and potentially in 2020 while Reagan’s legacy looming over the party is an important feat, but power is not everything. If Democrats continue to cater to elite financial circles and well-off voters, they will en masse lose the support lower SES Americans and young voters, who will either not vote or vote third party. The new wildcard is if Republicans actually pursue economic populist policies, they will not just get Reagan Democrats, but more broadly anyone looking for radical change. While this latter course is unlikely, watching how the party elevates or marginalizes its ascendant populists will be riveting moving forward. While being less awful than Republicans works on some voters, the Democratic Party must construct an affirmative, positive agenda to inspire the masses. That is not governing by consensus to keep the trains running in a less vulgar way. It is through innovative ideas that discard stale orthodoxy that the Democratic Party could offer a sincere contrast to Republicanism and potentially solve systemic issues in American politics, society, and the economy.

To start that process, this post will offer four sources of revenues and four spending measures that should become the party’s platform if party leaders and identifiers are serious about their rhetorical decrying of inequality in America.

Revenue

1. A la Elizabeth Warren, create a surtax on stock market trades (40 cents per trade or 0.1% of the transaction value, whichever is greater). This will generate billions of dollars of revenue and defray overzealous and automated speculation which has hurt market stability.

2. Create a new top margin in the graduated income tax of 40% for individuals with $1,000,000 or more of income for a single year.

3. Enforce capital gains taxes on individuals, with a rate of 10% of the appreciation regardless of total value. This is arguably more important than the income-based taxation since the super rich rely on asset appreciation much more than direct income. However, if this policy is used, it should also allow for writing off depreciation, which is potentially hazardous since people like Trump currently abuse other parts of the tax code by intentionally reporting depreciation to not have any tax liability.

4. Remove the wage cap on paying into social security, which currently sits at around $130,000 per year. Income earned above this amount is not subject Lifting the cap will make SS completely self-sufficient (and them some) which can potentially become a new mandatory revenue stream for Medicare/Medicaid.

Spending

1. Adopt Andrew Yang’s Universal Basic Income of $1000 a month for every adult in America. This will elevate every individual to the poverty line, creating a basic needs floor. Then people can work gigs for money and could ostensibly enter the lower-middle class. Additionally, making it universal will make it more resistant to retrenchment.

2. Long overdue, but better late than never: complete the quest for universal health care that Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama started and expand Medicare to cover every American from birth to death. Bernie Sanders has led with this policy above all else because the United States is an incredible outlier in monetizing the suffering of Americans for corporate profits. Medicare for All will allow entrepreneurs to pursue their visions in the land of the free without fear of penury

3. As academics and now Kirsten Gillibrand have advocated, we need 600 “Democracy Dollars” to go to every American over 13 for them to donate to political campaigns that speak to them. In an era when money equals speech and any limit on spending is a limit on speech, one alternative approach to reclaim the democracy is to allow non-donors to become empowered to engage politics and support their preferred candidates.

4. Provide a 1 trillion dollar combination of block and categorical grant to states to experiment with human capital development programs. Since the federal government has been mired in gridlock for 25 years, broadly authorizing subnational innovation by subsidizing the costs of said innovation is a plan that fits this country. These funds could be used for any social capital development program, but are use them or lose them. Some examples could be a state-level Medicaid for all, free public university education, universal pre-K, housing subsidization, small business loans, environmental cleanup, and mass transportation development.

While Bernie and AOC have done a decent job of putting ideas like these on the national stage, Democratic leadership by and large remains resistant to all of these ideas. The interest group liberalism that started in the New Deal is very inert and it is much easier to placate the wealthy through things like lowering the SALT deduction caps and funding the arts, both of which are classic limousine liberal maneuvers. The party needs to modernize or it will go the way of Labour in the UK. Providing policies that actually impact the daily lives of struggling Americans is the only way to stay relevant in contemporary politics, but Democratic Leaders resent the left too much to realize they are become irrelevant. You know fucked up when Josh Hawley has better ideas than Nancy Pelosi.

 

 

Republican Austerity and Deprivation Orthodoxy at Risk?

One of the most important developments of the phase one-phase two-phase three legislative vessels to mitigate the fallout from a botched executive branch containment of Coronavirus is the incredible breaking of GOP orthodoxy by key figures within the party. Specifically, Mitt Romney (R-UT), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Marco Rubio (R-FL) each injected pragmatic, comprehensive, and fulsome ideas to a stale Senate caucus that under Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has prided itself on not solving national problems.

Since Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the GOP has primarily operated under three core precepts: 1) run government poorly to self-evidently prove to the public that government is a problem, thus increasing anti-government sentiment and absenteeism among voters 2) liquidate the state through tax expenditures, tax cuts, and somehow legal grift and self-dealing practices by politicians and 3) privatize or entirely remove as many socially gainful programs to increase the level of inequality in the public. All of these have contributed to Trump’s ascendance and yet, his administration continues to operate on all three tracts like any nominal Republican would execute. But importantly, the president, his supporters, and the media have fashioned Trump a populist like Andrew Jackson, which is starkly at odds with Reaganism.

Trump’s populism has always been social in nature, which in America often means demonizing racial and ethnic minorities, but if part of his ascension is the fiction of economic populism, than that seems to actually be reconstructed some of the ideological commitments within the party. Importantly, this is not because Trump gives a fuck about working families, but people like Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Hawley may want to create an actual basis to claim the party is economically populist. Until this pandemic, the only evidence of this was seen in Cotton and David Perdue’s (R-GA) immigration bill that would effectively ban poor people from entering the country for work. Trump’s xenophobia drives his interest in the immigration restrictions, but Cotton and Perdue (Cotton mainly) were using economic populist language for why the U.S. should restrict low-skill migration to the country: allowing the foreign working class to work in the U.S. allows local companies to pay less because of the workers’ tenuous legal status. This then displaces the wage levels for similarly situated domestic workers, forcing them into unemployment or accepting lower pay. Whether they are entirely genuine in their rhetorical shift and whether refugees and undocumented workers lower wages on a systemic level are both reasons to be skeptical of their approach. But the movement to fill in actual economic populism around the base of social populism does mean there are forces within the GOP that want to reconstruct the party to be worker-based–not just in symbols, but in policy. This occurring while the Democrats are increasingly suburban and managerial in their interest coalition–capped off my nominating Joe Biden to be their candidate against Trump–gives the GOP a real chance to be a majority governing coalition, similar to what Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party pulled off in the UK in 2019.

But moving beyond immigration was always difficult for the GOP and no other economic populist policies have emerged–even rhetorically–from party players since Trump has taken office. That was until the debate about the phase three package. The GOP wanted to bailout out corporations and and the Democrats wanted to boost unemployment benefits. This is the same symmetry that occurred in 2009 during the Great Recession. But in an odd historical twist, this outmoded and insufficient response was not enough for some Republican lawmakers.

First, Mitt Romney governing instincts kicked in when he proposed a direct payment of $1000 per adult to help Americans pay bills and buy food. Not to be outdone, ostensible “liberal” Kamala Harris proposed a $500 payment per family after Romney already went public. Second, while Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) dismissed direct payments in favor of beefing up unempoyment insurance provisions–which are good but not enough–Hawley recommended MONTHLY payments of at least $1500 for low-income and middle class families. And third, while Chuck Schumer was focused like a laser on making sure bailout money did not go directly to Trump’s businesses–which they obviously would not matter what safeguards go into the legislation–Marco Rubio worked with Ben Cardin (D-MD) to corral their caucuses to support a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) similar to the ones that European nations like Denmark are using to keep payrolls intact and defray mass business closure and unemployment. While the payments to individuals were limited to a one-time $1200 dispensation and the UBI to families did not even make it to the amendment stage, all of these GOP recommended policies are improvements over the bipartisan corporate consensus. They optimistically point to a more varigated politics that can potentially create bipartisan solutions where current party leaders continue to rely on 1980s policy frameworks.

While I continue to view Hawley with suspicion over his radical far-right views on social issues and habit of endless pandering in committee hearings, any member of the GOP willing to prioritize actual economic support (other than tax cuts) for regular people is an incredible twist of events. Regardless of whether Romney thinks corporations as inherently virtuous or that Hawley looks like someone with constant bouts of pink eye, they both set the LEFT flank of the debate on the Senate phase three bill. And while Rubio will have to work very hard to not backslide into his neo-con, compulsive liar self, if he matures into an effective lawmaker that provides pragmatic solutions to economic problems, he might just become president one day.

If the left side of the Democratic coalition continues to push insurgent candidates into Congress and this new economic populist right decides they want to create a populist governing coalition, party be damned, then American politics may just get out of the endless elitist bent and partisan gridlock that typifies the Sixth Party System.

Defeatist Trump Commits Mass Manslaughter While Seeking Reelection

“We have it totally under control, it’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control, it’s uh, gonna be just fine.” (1/22/20)

“And again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, uh, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done.” (2/26/20)

If “we have between 100,000 and 200,000 [dead Americans], uh, we all together have done a very good job” (2/29/20)

Trump’s sundry issues with truth, accountability, leadership, coherence, effectiveness, reflectiveness, conscientiousness, self-dealing, egomania, and understanding the meaning of life would all suggest the president would be a poor head of government during a pandemic. He does not understand death on a mass scale, borne from his inability to empathize and difficulty understanding orders of magnitude. Trump’s sociopathy is way too strong to expect the gravity of the situation to compel him to behave more competently. Because of his inability to understand causal sequencing, nuance, and scale, Trump will single-handily exacerbate the death toll and infected rates for Covid-19.

And indeed, that is the case: a more competent leader could have mitigated Covid-19 transmission in the U.S., if not prevent its global ascension altogether through a better understanding of international integration strategies. This episode again shows the folly of willing your mindstate into existence by denying reality. The power of positive thinking is one thing, but complete denial of the world you actually live in is mentally inexcusable. Humans are structured by our environments as much as we alter the environment. A real estate developer is the last profession that might understand this. To be a strong decision-maker, you have to first understand what is, not just the vision you have for the future.

But Trump is not a very good decision-maker. Nor does he have the ability to use reason to create society-wide gainful outcomes. He is a product of a cynical, hateful politics that relies on misdirected emotion and empirical ignorance to survive. His magical thinking is negligent and irresponsible. His malignant narcissism is inexcusable. And for all of this, he has direct culpability in Americans needlessly dying. The only reason there is a lockdown is because of Trump’s negligence, and the reason governors have to create a piecemeal state-by-state lockdown is because Trump’s lack of regard for public health meant he could not issue a national lockdown. Then in the midst of a pandemic, he defunds the World Health Organization to shift attention from his incompetence (by further displaying his incompetence). At every step of the way, not only has Trump made the wrong decisions, but he has made the decisions most antithetical to solving the crisis.

But the weirdest part of all of it is not the expected catastrophe. Instead, his flip from it not being a big deal to proudly proclaiming it could kill hundreds of thousands of people was an incredible failure of public leadership. No president in American history has rhetorically offered so many Americans up for the slaughter due to their own negligence. The defeatism in his odd acceptance that people will die (despite his repeated proclamations that it would be not be the case) is truly incredible. He is the weakest president this country has had since James Buchanan, and is obviously worse at dealing with the hand that is dealt. Congratulations, Donnie, you are THE WORST president in U.S. history. While the country burns, another record for the idiot king…

What Biden’s Lead Tells Us About the Democratic Electorate in 2020

As of this moment, Joe Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee with 1,196 delegates to Bernie Sanders’ 883. While Bernie coming back to win is highly unlikely–even if Medicare for All is the most appropriate single policy for the moment in which we live–is is notable Biden is far short of the 1,991 delegates he needs to secure the nomination on the first ballot.

Despite Biden’s pedigree as a party interlocutor in a diverse coalition, he is arguably the weakest candidate to put against Trump. Just as Hillary was made to be a creature of the D.C. swamp who does give a fuck about working people, Biden will face the exact same critique. In fact, he has 20 years additional years on Hillary, having served in Congress since the 1970s. And despite his public persona as scrappy Joe from blue-collar Scranton, PA, he was arguably the biggest booster of the credit card industry during his time in Congress, including his leading role in crafting the notoriously shitty Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Nonetheless, Biden has consistently sat atop the polls in his head-to-head performance against Biden, which paired with the corporate media hype machine has created the perception that Biden is the most electable candidate to displace the narcissist-in-chief.

Whether he is in fact electable is a simple empirical question that is best answered on election day in November. Indeed, he could be a great candidate and lose to the incumbent, or a horrible candidate who can hardly string together three coherent words and still win. But importantly, Biden’s polling lead in the Democratic primary, followed by paltry showings in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, then triumphant victory in South Carolina and Super Tuesdays 1 and 2 shed light on the state of the Democratic Party–its party elites, governmental actors, and the electorate.

Democratic politics are oddly reactionary and predicated on money

But importantly, it is not about how much money a candidate raises, as one would expect when making the connection between money and viability. If that were the case, Bernie would have the decisive advantage given Biden’s inability to raise money. Instead, money is central to the story here because party elites and campaign professionals need to maintain the corporate bent to the party in order to personally enrich themselves and stay employed. Biden promises to maintain the Third Way Wall Street Move-on Democratic orientation that doles out fancy polling contracts, high-paid campaign consultation fees, and a revolving door of governmental appointments followed by entering the DC think-tank/interest group nexus. While technocracy is not the best thing in the world, that would even be an improvement on the Democratic model of stocking governmental positions. Democrats fill their ranks with ideologically conservative, corporate dealmakers who resent the left more than Republicans–you know, with their pesky principles and all. Think about why Democrats have turned to James Carville, Dick Morris, John Podesta, Rahm Emanuel, and Neera Tanden in election after election, including when they lose. It is not because they have immense policy knowledge or idealistic visions of a better functioning America. It is because they are entrenched political elites with a grip on the party that creates an inertia for new, visionary leadership to rise in the ranks.

Bernie Sanders was an existential threat to these wine fundraiser neoliberal mercenaries and the clingers on they bring with them because as a party outsider he understands their reactionary nature. They provide very little utility to his campaign and would-be administration since they do not believe in his vision and would like sabotage it from within with the misguided notion that Bernie–even if victorious–will in the long-run make the Democratic Party less viable. That charitable explanation might be wrong, however, since they obviously realize he won’t play ball by hiring them in the first place, thus putting their profitable careers in politics in flux.

Ultimately, campaign professionals and lower level elected officials want security in upward mobility–hence the line to work with and endorse longtime conservative Michael Bloomberg–more than they actually want to enact progressive policy to decrease suffering in 21st Century America. Key to this is maintaining a large role for corporate donations and a money-centric politics, which Bernie Sanders’ grassroots volunteerist approach very threatening for the Democratic swamp.

The reactionary nature of Democratic elites is now visible in the electorate

Talking to young folks, people of color, workers, and academics, I have been repeatedly shocked by how many people have begrudgingly voted for Biden over Bernie. Some of these people supported Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren. While coalescing around a moderate makes sense for moderate voters, many of these folks are avowed progressive–or think of themselves as such. As it turns out, they voted for Biden because he was safe, while Bernie was risky. They know what to expect of Joe, while Bernie might seize wealth or run the economy into the ground. Even if they want universal health care, they think Bernie’s plans are too ambitious. And while Biden has documented cases of behaving creepy, Bernie is asshole, the sexist, the curmudgeon.

What this has revealed to me is Democratic identifiers are by and large opposed to radical progressive change, just as Schumer and Pelosi are in Congress. This is revelatory because I had always thought the Democratic electorate was more in favor of radical egalitarian change than the Democratic elites that rightfully worry about electability, and wrongly believe in corporate aristocracy.

The victory of symbolic politics over policy

Biden’s victory is not about the policies he espouses, since there aren’t really any of them to speak of. Instead, it is the product of a post-materialist politics in which identity and symbolism matter more than material conditions. While I am actually quite receptive to oppressed groups making claims for equity in a highly predatory and violent society, that is not what this current use of identity and symbols is used to generate. Instead, identity has become something that corporate Democrats and machine politicians alike can leverage to entrench their existing power. This works by playing up one’s identity as what legitimates their central role in politics. For example, the Chicago machine has taken to putting forth young Latina candidates to various offices in a play against progressive white males. This strategy works when local offices receive very little attention and voters use proxies, like names, ethnicity, and gender, in place of understanding proximity between the candidate the voter on issues of interest.

To my surprise, this highly insulting form of kabuke actually work really well even on high publicity races. Joe Biden has immensely benefited from two forms of symbolic politics that have little bearing on actual material conditions of the of the voters. First, by virtue of running as the closest thing to an Obama-endorsed candidate, he effectively co-opts Obama’s Blackness for his own electoral fortunes. And to my surprise, this actually worked, as he has dominated the Black electorate. An appealing alternative is Biden also benefits from the low expectations of Black supporters, actually appreciated his lack of overpromising, while Bernie is seen as suspicious. Nevermind that Biden actually did grave harm by criminalizing Blackness in the 1990s–he was Obama’s VP!

The second form of symbolic politics that really appealed to the talking heads on The View is that Joe Biden is a well-known Democrat, while Bernie is an independent who caucuses with Democrats in Congress. Nominal labels are helpful heuristics in a situation where a voter may have zero other information, but paid pundits obviously know Bernie Sanders is to the ideological left of Joe Biden, which actually makes him embody the symbolism of the party even more. Certainly Bernie’s politics are closer to FDR’s that those of Biden’s. And yet, this fixation on labels misconstrues the candidates themselves, with supposed liberals supporting one of the most Republican Democrats of the last half-century, while resenting, antagonizing, and demonizing a historically consistent progressive.

Strategic voting can be as misguided as any other form of vote choice

Since defeating Trump is the highest priority of Democratic voters, naturally they would choose who they perceive is best suited to accomplish that goal. On paper, that appears to be Joe Biden. Indeed, the notion that Biden is simply more electable than Bernie has contributed to many voters favoring his candidacy. This relies on the median voter theorem, in which winning moderate Republicans is the key to victory. In contrast, Sanders has campaigned on a mobilization-based strategy that looks to new and disenchanted progressive voters. In truth, Biden’s theory of the case has proven more accurate too date, as Bernie’s reliance on increasing turnout in the youth vote has by an large not taken place, while suburban Biden supporters have come out in droves. This has very little to do with the promise of transformative change, but instead a return to normalcy. For a lot of well off suburbanites, that is a wonderful thing. They will no longer have to clutch their pearls at the atrocity exhibition of Donald Trump. But for the people hurting in this country, a return to normalcy just means a continuation of Third Way and GOP hollowing out of America to their corporate overlords. This is all assuming Biden wins, which is anything but a foregone conclusion. The dude can die at any minute…

Senators and Impeachment Conviction Vote Prospects

‘Tis the season for an election year impeachment trial in the Senate. You know, typical stuff. This post will assess how each member of the body will vote on the matter by breaking down whether they actually have moral principles, would use those principles to convict in a secret ballot, and what chance they have for voting to convict on the record in front of the whole world. Most Democrats are already there and do not warrant in-depth treatment, save a few. In contrast, every member of the GOP caucus will be evaluated along the aforementioned criteria. Given the compilation of such information, the post concludes with the predicted outcome of the impeachment trial.

DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS

Democrats are unified that leveraging a foreign ally for self-serving electioneering is impeachable. The only question is the disposition of certain moderate, conservative, or maverick senators (Doug Jones, Joe Manchin, and Kirsten Synema, respectively).

Senators that will vote to convict every time

Almost every Democrat will vote to convict in 100 out of 100 trials, based on the strength of the case paired with the power of maintaining a unified position as the out-party. These senators are:

1. Patrick Leahy (VT), 2. Dianne Feinstein (CA), 3. Patty Murray (WA), 4. Ron Wyden (OR), 5. Dick Durbin (IL), 6. Jack Reed (RI), 7. Chuck Schumer (CA), 8. Tom Carper (DE), 9. Debbie Stabenow (MI), 10. Maria Cantwell (WA), 11. Bob Menendez (NJ), 12. Ben Cardin (MD), 13. Bernie Sanders (VT), 14. Amy Klobuchar (MN), 15. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), 16. Tom Udall (NM), 17. Jeanne Shaheen (NH), 18. Mark Warner (VA), 19. Jeff Merkley (OR), 20. Michael Bennet (CO), 21. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), 22. Richard Blumenthal (NY), 23. Brian Schatz (HI), 24. Tammy Baldwin (WI), 25. Chris Murphy (CT), 26. Mazie Hirono (HI), 27. Tim Kaine (VA), 28. Elizabeth Warren (MA), 29. Ed Markey (MA), 30. Cory Booker (NJ), 31. Gary Peters (MI), 32. Chris Van Hollen (MD), 33. Tammy Duckworth (IL),  34. Maggie Hassan (NH), 35. Kamala Harris (CA), 36. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV), 37. Tina Smith (MN), and 38. Jacky Rosen (NV).

The stories for why each of these senators would vote yes is fairly monolithic and uninteresting. For the next blocks, I will break down further their reasoning for each vote, especially since the easy call in this context is to convict. A decision to acquit requires some explanation of the undergirding logic (like partisan hackary or constituency maintenance).

[Running tally: 38 to 0]

Senators that will vote to convict 99 times out of 100

There are, however, some Democrats that could plausibly vote to acquit in 1 out 100 trials, even if we are very unlikely to observe this outcome in a single draw. All of them know right from wrong and would secretly vote to convict, but for specific reasons could go their own way on a public vote. They are:

39. Bob Casey (PA): ex-conservadem now moderate, could worry about his own prospects in a changing state. But he just won reelection in 2018 and may retire at the end of the term. So he is free to vote his conscience, which is clearly to convict.

40. Martin Heinrich (NM): holding down the moderate wing, I suspect Heinrich will end his career having taken on the party on some weird issues. This could be one, although he pursues a national security pedigree in Congress.

41. Sherrod Brown (OH): by voting for Ben Carson for HUD Secretary, Brown showed he gives people the benefit of the doubt. If Trump could come up with one semi-plausible defense, such as a fall-guy strategy saying Giuliani and Mulvaney were acting without direction of the president, but were trying to please him (like what allegedly occurred in Chris Christie’s Bridgegate), then Brown could be the kind of person to vote to acquit. But having recently won another term in the Senate, Brown faces no real pressure at home, just in his own mind.

42. Chris Coons (DE): he also gives people the benefit of the doubt. If any of the Republicans who he chats with asked this to be his favor to them, he might consider doing it. The problem is Coons’ bailiwick is foreign affairs, and the case against Trump is exactly in that terrain. So he will vote to convict.

43. Jon Tester (MT): a remarkably resilient and durable Democrat who has become less conservative as he wins more elections. Ideology and constituency are not what would move Tester, but instead, if the case was just so poorly prosecuted, he could be one person to say this just is not sufficient for such a serious removal vote. Partisanship would not move him to [correctly] go with the crowd. But the case is solid, so he will vote correctly.

[43 to 0]

Senators that know better but have homestyles or idiosyncrasies that make contrarian behavior more likely

44. Angus King (ME): King always likes to keep the public guessing about his actions, but ultimately sides with the Democrats on everything that is consequential. He is very likely to do that here, but with Jared Colden voting no on the second count in the House, King might also pursue a similar middle ground. May support a limited deal for witnesses as part of a gang of 8 or 10 that dictates from the middle.

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 100% chance

Will vote to convict in reality? 95% chance

45. Doug Jones (AL): Jones has been trying to remain ecumenical on the issue, but it is clearly just kabuki. He knows the facts already. Going on Sunday shows and claiming not to be aware of the details is a peculiar misdirection. Ultimately, Jones will vote to convict, but the need to play this game is trite. Are voters really placated by acting out a diversion? I doubt it. He should always remember who got him elected: Democrats, specifically Black voters, and even more specifically female Black voters. And he knows this. And he is a good person and is valuable in government. So my advice to him would be stay the fuck off t.v. if all you are doing is PR management–lay low with grace.

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 100%

Will vote to convict in reality? 90%

46. Kyrsten Sinema (AZ): Sinema is a riot in many ways and I respect some of the work she does. But unfortunately, defying her previous stances as a strong environmentalist and even Green Party member, she is carrying out the exploitation of protected lands in Northern Arizona to energy interests. She perhaps rightly understands the role of statewide delegate to maintain high employment, but surely she can pick and choose where to sell out. On impeachment, she could vote to acquit Trump if they proffered a serious defense, which they have not done to this point in the process. I can easily imagine her saying this should all be settled through the next election. Let’s hope it does not come to that, because at some point, she will lose her base in AZ while she’s not looking.

Knows right from wrong? I hope so

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 100%

Will vote to convict in reality? 80%

47. Joe Manchin (WV): Manchin could of jumped on the Trump express several opportunities before now. But he has held out as a Democrat and seems to authentically identify with the party. This is quite surprising given Governor Justice’s about-face as soon as Trump took office. But letting Trump off is not entirely the same as joining the Trump train. He could very easily say this was bad behavior, but removing a president is simply too high a sentence for him to cast, given the context. I honestly think that would go down just fine in West Virginia. He will look for whatever reasons get him to his preferred outcome. I came into writing this post thinking his chance of voting to convict was 70% based on his public statements, but now I lean toward him letting Trump off. He is the most likely member to vote against their party in this context. 50-50 flip of what he will do.

Knows right from wrong? Yes, in a pragmatic, do-not-modernize WV kind of way

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 90%

Will vote to convict in reality? 50%

[46 to 1]

REPUBLICAN CAUCUS

Senators that do not know better and will glowlingly support the movement toward fascism by an unfit president, largely because they are ideologically pro-fascist or hold right-wing authoritarian personalities

48. Jim Inhofe (OK): the dead-ender king. His entire mindset is the world is hurtling toward a biblical apocalypse so why not add to the destruction with unlimited energy extraction. Personally probably looks down on Trump, but publicly eats directly from the hand that feeds.

Knows right from wrong? No, but still uses moralistic rhetoric

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 2%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

49. John Barrasso (WY): Just like McConnell, power is what matters to Barrasso. Oh, and making sure health care remains especially expensive in America, which is a fascinating pedigree from a practicing physician. Obviously personally dislikes Trump, but since they are in the same party, it is all about keeping the family together while the heist of taxpayer dollars continues.

Knows right from wrong? Morality is something lost upon Barrasso many moons ago–classic might makes right kind of guy

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 3%

Will vote to convict in reality?

50. John Boozman (AR): The most anonymous and forgettable senator of a generation of lawmakers from the 1990s to this point. Plays the folksy farmer and uses populist rhetoric, but ultimately does whatever feeds power into the GOP and keeps him elected.

Knows right from wrong? Unlcear

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 5%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

51. Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS): a true follower in a leadership position. As a former Democrat, she now does literally whatever the powers-that-be in the GOP tell her to do. She is an odd politician that does not even have a niche issue that motivates her. Instead, politics is about making money and hanging out with other white lawmakers that went to segregated schools and work to disenfranchise Black voters. She fits right in.

Knows right from wrong? No evidence to say yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 2%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

52. Dan Sullivan (AK): entered the Senate with the full support of the state and national Republican Party to keep Joe Miller’s unintelligible ass away from losing to a Democrat. His ideology is not entirely consistent, at times libertarian and at others punitive authoritarian. In any case, up for reelection in 2020, so he will bend over for the Trump train.

Knows right from wrong? Former military member, so he should understand codes of conduct

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 10%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

53. Tom Cotton (AR): Personally carries himself in temperate non-firebrand manner, but all of his ideas are considerably right-wing for such a disposition. Will run for president very soon and may even win, so he is not going to challenge Trump on a goddamn thing. If Trump gets a second term, Cotton will become Secretary of Defense.

Knows right from wrong? Probably understands how good people should act, but politics is exempt from enforcing such standards

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 2%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

54. Jim Risch (ID): long one of the least redeemable members of the Senate, now actually has power on the foreign affairs committee but does nothing with it. Utterly forgettable lawmaker who still has no major accomplishments after a decade in the body–perfect for how Mitch McConnell runs the Senate!

Knows right from wrong? In a passive, abstract way, but it has never stopped him

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 5%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

55. John Cornyn (TX): may very well lose reelection in 2020 in what would be the biggest shocker of the cycle. While he clearly has apprehensions with Trump at times, he has resigned himself to joining the swamp and reportedly wanted the post of FBI director in 2017. No reason to think he is not ecstatic with Trump’s lawbreaking ways.

Knows right from wrong? Hardly

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 20%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

56. Deb Fischer (NE): self-dealing rancher from Nebraska, has a history of getting away with her own bullshit. In Trump she probably sees a more successful version of herself. How sweet! And everyone thought Ben Nelson was bad…

Knows right from wrong? No, graft is the name of her game (fits the party well these days)

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 30%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

57. Marsha Blackburn (TN): a reviled figure across the country for her publicity stunts, negative orientation, and lack of actual leadership skills. She panders every day of her life to the “White Christians are persecuted” victimization complex crowd, but is it pandering if she authentically believes that crap? The only glimmer of hope for her career is that as her looks continue to quickly fade she may have to actually start working to justify getting a paycheck from the taxpayers.

Knows right from wrong? lol

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 35% (Marsha in a reflective moment before caking on the makeup)

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

58. Mike Crapo (ID): in the past has dabbled in governance and bipartisan working groups, but has seemingly receded into a rubber stamp since 2016. Secretly he must despise Trump, mainly because Crapo thinks he smarter than the president (and everyone else).

Knows right from wrong? Not in politics

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 40%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

59. Mike Lee (UT): the so-called Constitutionalist who supports a president who didn’t even know about Article II before halfway into his first term. Utah voters will turn their back on Lee one day, so he smart to continue to position for a seat on the federal judiciary. While he and Rand Paul have always worked as a libertarian superteam, in the age of Trump only Paul has maintained some veneer of those principles (mainly fiscal restraint and withdrawing from the word). Lee has sold his soul for basically nothing. Good luck with that shit!

Knows right from wrong? No

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 50%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

60. Kevin Cramer (ND): at times affable and friendly, there is a deep ennui to Cramer. I think he wants to be an independent voice like his predecessor Heidi Heitkamp, but unlike her, does not have the fucking balls to go against partisan power. He recently started dabbling in the Trump has biblically ordained stuff, and that was about the end of him being a serious member of Congress. He is only in Congress to serve natural gas and oil interests, and for that, he will probably lose his next election some years from now.

Knows right from wrong? Apparently not

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 35%

Will vote to convict in reality? 1% (if scripture speaks to him one Sunday afternoon)

[46 to 13]

Sociopaths, habitual/compulsive/pathological liars, and opportunists that may know better but will vote to acquit as they kiss the ring of power

61. Mitch McConnell (KY): McConnell is heavily intertwined with Trump by providing nonstop cover to Trump, installing his wife as a bridge, and by pursuing his proudest moments in Congress: confirming a record amount of “conservative” judges. Very importantly in this particular case is that if McConnell allowed Trump to be removed from office, he would have to pick up the pieces to everything. That falls on him for the rest of his career and he may lose Trump voters in Kentucky.

Knows right from wrong? There is no morality to McConnell, only partisan power

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 0% (because he would have to clean everything up)

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

62. Josh Hawley (MO): A pace setter for who can go furthest right among recent entrants into the Senate. For his first term, he is very much trying to be known as the arch-conservative wunderkind, but I am not fucking buying it. Dude lies all the time. That matters. Just because Trump gets away with endless lying doesn’t mean everyone else will. I worry he gets the Kit Bond trajectory and Missourans just reelect him every time. But I also have to believe Missouri dems have someone they can run that can win statewide.

Knows right from wrong? Not if it hit him in the face

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 3% (maybe I am underestimating him)

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

63. Rick Scott (FL): A master of the negative attack ad. And a fucking joke. He led an effort to flood the country with anti-PPACA ads calling it socialism and communism and linking it to failed states. The Heritage Foundations early ’90s proposal? Socialism? Aren’t firefighters, cops, and teachers? What are we talking about, Rick Scott? You health care professional, you. Jesus. No one thinks you were a nurse? Famously committed Medicare fraud with his insurance company. I will give him credit for learning Spanish and using it to communicate with a diverse electorate. It is a good play in general, but especially in Florida. He and Trump are of an ilk, although Rick Scott no doubt thinks he is a better person than Trump.

Knows right from wrong? Nope

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 10%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

64. Rand Paul (KY): loves Trump’s chaos. That’s what he does. Thinks he can influence the president. Maybe in the worst fucking way, like with the Kurds or something.

Knows right from wrong? In his own way, perhaps

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 15%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

65. Steve Daines (MT): not a sociopath or liar, as far as I can testify. Productive lawmaker. In the pocket of special interests? Yes. But then additionally seems to form legislation around things, not all of which are bad. Some stuff on consumer rights, some stuff on familyrights.

Knows right from wrong? I say yes because he is a highly productive lawmaker. Caring about governing suggests he is not pure evil

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 30%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

66. John Hoeven (ND): former governor who is just in it for the energy and banking industries. I get that, being a small state interests situation, but the Republican Party in North Dakota actually meant something good at some point. He is not of that time. But as a governor, I do give him experience credit, which should mean he can see Trump is incapable of fulsomely running government.

Knows right from wrong? Yes, when it does not matter

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 45%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

67. Ron Johnson (WI): a leader in unethical, bad faith, factually unsound political behavior. He follows Paul Ryan’s PR school of misdirection and confusing the public while claiming to be an exalted expert on public budgeting–he is not. Johnson is one of the least talented politicians in the Senate, and yet you have to give him credit for beating Russ Feingold two fucking times. Will likely run for governor at some point, which opens his seat for a Democrat but then fucks over Wisconsin. The archetypal case of how a rich white guy who ran a business is the last thing you need in a functional governing body. Pretty entertaining to see his whole role in the Ukraine scandal, since he was one of the first members of Congress to learn about the aid being withheld, and then talking to Trump about it. But instead of talking about his own worries about what happened and trying to uncover why the president continues to do Putin’s bidding, he has shifted to talking about media bias (90% of the coverage of Trump is negative… but has he thought that this could this be a product Trump, perhaps??) and Page-Strozk-Page-Strozk-PAAAAAAGGGEEEEE-SSTRRRRROOOOZZZKKKKKK!!!! Hardly a winning diversion, but hacks gonna hack. Definitely one of the greatest embarrassments to come from Wisconsin since Joe McCarthy.

Knows right from wrong? Nope

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 49%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

68. David Perdue (GA): corporatist and hatchet man. Hates being filmed in public. Should of never won in 2014 to begin with. Every now and then a story will pop up that he has reservations with some crazy right-wing idea, but there is literally no evidence that there is any moderation to this Senator. He will lose in 2020, regardless of how he casts his vote here.

Knows right from wrong? Nah

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 70%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

69. Ted Cruz (TX): the castrated and abused eunuch has spent enough time in Trump’s GOP to accept his daily enema and proudly demand “one more, sir!” After how Trump abused his family, it is amazing Cruz can stomach going on Sunday shows to rationalize whatever Trump does and blame the media for everything. At least it removed the minor veil of principled conservatism in his pedigree, leaving in its wake the blackened heart of a man with no integrity or reason for existing.

Knows right from wrong? Abstractly, but not in practice

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 90% chance; this pussyass revenge vote would be the highlight of Cruz’s year

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

70. Lindsey Graham (SC): a walking embarrassment, Graham is the most vivid example of how a person can go against everything they believe in the craven desperation to “be in the room where it happens” (and develop a daddy figure to live through). Some people think he is being blackmailed by Trump, but I doubt that. Everyone knows he is gay, that should not be enough to make him act this way. He is a wandering soul who has yet to find his home…

Knows right from wrong? Absolutely

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 100%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

71. Marco Rubio (FL): a compulsive liar before Trump, now he gets to pick and choose when and where to lie–so he has matured. He is another person who you go back to the primary and your just baffled that Rubio can jump right on. Dickwhipped as fuck, it seems. I will say he has seemed pretty successful at steering Trump toward foreign entanglements, so if Rubio is chiefly concerned with foreign affairs, maybe he is achieving his goals in that space.

Knows right from wrong? Not in how he comports himself, but in politics he does understand what is mainstream from what hurts American interests

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 100%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

72. Thom Tillis (NC): a hatchet man type–does what the party tells him to do. Was instrumental in the NC voter ID law enactment and some shifty redistricting. Now he is supposed to grow a conscience? Fucking laughable.

Knows right from wrong? Nope

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 90% (he is openly embarrassed by the president)

Will vote to convict in reality? 1% (if a sufficient crowd lined up, like 19 Republicans, he would join)

[46 to 25]

Senators that know better but will never cross Trump on matters of substance

73. Richard Shelby (AL): the last successful party-switcher while in Congress (back in 1994; Jeff Van Drew is completely screwed in contemporary times, just like Arlen Specter, Parker Griffith and Arthur Davis; some Southerners successfully switched an gained power, like Hyde-Smith and John Kennedy. Charlie Crist at least switched parties between cycles and won authorization as a Democrat in a primary). Shelby is not a horrible human being and there is a reason his party entrusts him with heading up appropriations and negotiating spending deals with Democrats. He is not an ideologue and some extent sincerely believes in the positive impact of government on peoples’ lives. The problem is his low profile and lack of ideology means he goes along with everything the GOP wants to do. One of the last serious politicians on the GOP side, a true relic of a bygone era.

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 80%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

74. Roger Wicker (MS): much more ideological than Shelby, but passes for a moderate in the newly openly fascist GOP. Always one to prioritize political survival over all else, he just won reelection in 2018 and is now the state’s senior senator. He could forge an independent path, if he had any inclination to do so. Instead, he will happily eat his dogshit soup and compliment the chef.

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 75%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

75. Roy Blunt (MO): a partisan hack of high order, Blunt also has a clear interest in governance that many of his colleagues do not share. If McConnell loses reelection or the party finds itself in the minority, he may want to leapfrog Cornyn and Thune to be minority leader. But that is a thankless job. In any case, he has been providing cover for Trump this entire time, and regardless of his physical discomfort when questioned about Trump’s misdeeds, he is going nowhere.

Knows right from wrong? Yes, as his delayed reaction and diverting talking points in Sunday shows clearly suggest

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 65%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

76. John Thune (SD): he knows what is going on but is in too deep. In all likelihood he has probably been a moderating force in weekly caucus meetings over the years, but it remains unclear to me about being in the Senate for 15 years what Thune is actually about. Just enriching energy and banking interests? He’s not a cultural warrior. In any case, I do not need to figure out his identity for him. Republican president means stick with them to the very end in his mind. Good luck, Johnny.

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 51%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

77. Mike Rounds (SD): former governor of South Dakota, he does whatever commercial interests ask of him. Also not particularly interested in social issues. Classic first order money above all things Republican. The one hope for his is that he was a governor, so he should understand malfunctioning governance for properly led governance. But what do I know?

Knows right from wrong? Potentially

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 45%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

78. Mike Braun (IN): after portraying himself as an ultra-conservative to be Evan Bayh, he seems to cut a more business moderate vibe in Congress. Through press reports he has pushed back on some of the Trump administration’s proposals, but mainly in the form of whisper campaigns. So there might be a quality person somewhere lost in Braun’s person, but impeachment is not likely to be where that gets discovered. I hope I am wrong.

Knows right from wrong? Maybe

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 35%

Will vote to convict in reality? 0%

79. Pat Toomey (PA): there is a slight chance Toomey might finally be sick of Trump’s shit and try to take him down. But that chance is far surpassed by desire to stay in power forever, which requires a very delicate dance of appealing to Trump fascists and suburban voters at the same time. He is a more skilled politician than he gets credit, but there is very little redemption forthcoming from any politician that came out of the American’s for Prosperity cesspool.

Knows right from wrong? As much as a deregulate everything person can

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 80%

Will vote to convict in reality? 1%

80. Mike Enzi (WY): Not a moron, but not a great person either. Sort of Cheney-lite. In hearings he commonly talks down to people. I know he is otherwise supposed to be an affable, soft-spoken old man, but he has carried water for some heavy shit for years now (endless war; pilfering government). Now that Enzi is retiring, he can vote his conscience, but I am not entirely sure he would ever vote to remove a president of his own party, even if he believed they did something wrong. That’s kinda sad, really…

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 70%

Will vote to convict in reality? 1%

81. Chuck Grassley (IA): the archetypal curmudgeon, there are very few people who throw as many tantrums in floor proceedings or committee hearings as Grassley. He is constantly aggrieved the kids on his lawn. While it is easy to case Grassley as a staunch social conservative who is irredeemable, his work on good government initiatives over the years is truly laudable. He is nearly alone in his caucus as someone who actually works to make government more accountable and transparent, and even on this he is not entirely consistent. But every inspector general knows who he is because he has likely contacted them for some reason or another. He is going to let Trump get off, but will probably do one minor gesture during the trial (voting for witnesses or something) to make him feel like he held the president to account, when in reality he did nothing of the sort.

Knows right from wrong? At times, yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 60%

Will vote to convict in reality? 1%

82. Tim Scott (SC): he’s been laying super low for most of Trump’s presidency, and for good reason: being the token Black guy to defend a president that you know to be racist is a really belittling position to be in. Instead, he has picked his battles carefully, mainly against racist nominations to the courts, always consistently saying his problems are with the nominee and not the president. Scott will very likely run for governor of SC and then for president, so just getting through the Trump years intact is his goal. Say nothing of speaking truth to power or anything…

Knows right from wrong? I believe so

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 100%

Will vote to convict in reality? 2%

83. Bill Cassidy (LA): affable enough and naturally inclined to work toward pragmatic, bipartisan solutions to problems (mainly health care), Cassidy has gone full quisling and even seems to revel in Trump’s absurd and demagogic approach to politics. I distinctly remember a press conference where Trump was spouting off some nonsense, mispronouncing words, attacking anyone and everyone, and Cassidy was in the back just yucking it up. His face remains the most happy of any lawmaker I have ever seen as they witness Trump’s buffoonery. So there might be hope for him one day, but it will not be at Trump’s trial.

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 90%

Will vote to convict in reality? 2%

84. Kelly Loeffler (GA): Brian Kemp pulled off a pretty smart maneuver to maintain GOP dominance of the state by appointing a fairly respected, non-controversial businessperson in Loeffler. The idea is that a firebrand like Doug Collins would not appeal to suburban voters–true–and likely lose election to the remainder of the term in 2020. So Loeffler gets to come to Washington right in the middle of an impeachment proceeding and is expected to have some sort perspective on the matter? Yeah right. From the very little I know about her and her associations with the WNBA, she probably wants nothing to do with Trump. But she is also ambitious and knows the hand that feeds. So she will bow her head to McConnell and do literally whatever she is told. There may be some promise of her becoming an independent voice in an echo-chamber of a caucus, but that time is after she wins a full term on her on. So look out for post-2022 Loeffler!

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 90%

Will vote to convict in reality? 2% (would be amazing for he to make such a ruckus immediately upon entering the body)

85. Jerry Moran (KS): on voting record alone, he has always been a far-right conservative. But in the manner he speaks and works with others, he is much closer to pragmatic dealmaker. After witnessing what became of his state for a severe reliance on supply-side dogma, I hope he has developed a more discerning perspective on governance. Definitely not one of the worst Republicans and is generally a straight shooter (hence why he does not do many interviews where he has to defend the president).

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 90%

Will vote to convict in reality?2%

86. Pat Roberts (KS): retiring at the end of the term, so he is free to do whatever. Having presided over Kansas’ death slide from moderate Republicanism to burn-down-the-house government destruction, he is much more aligned with the older school. He is considerably more conservative than Bob Dole ever was, but is applied common sense to a lot of what he does. Plus he has a decent sense of humor, which will be missed in a sterile body. Do the right thing, Pat!

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 80%

Will vote to convict in reality? 2%

87. Shelley Moore Capito (WV): actually moderate by disposition, but has gone further right to win primaries and statewide office. Aside from being captive to the state’s very backward extraction industries, she does have the ability to look at evidence and exert independent reasoning on the matter. But the constituency connection is just too strong in the Trumpiest state of the nation, so the promise of her will be lost in the moment.

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 100%

Will vote to convict in reality? 3% (if she acts as a trustee using her judgment instead of an instructed delegate)

88. Todd Young (IN): I had very little faith in Young when he came in as part of the Tea Party wave of 2010. But since he has left the House and joined the Senate, he has been a breath of fresh air leading on foreign policy issues with Saudi Arabia and Turkey. He might even believe in NATO!!?!?!? Wow. But on most domestic matters, he just another Republican voting with the heard. So some of his moderate appearance may be just that–appearance. It could be much worse out of Indiana, so he is a better than almost any potential replacement.

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 90%

Will vote to convict in reality? 5%

89. Joni Ernst (IA): from bragging about castrating cattle to running interference for the swampiest president in the nation’s history. What a fraud! And yet, I interpret her instincts to be aligned with conviction. The problem: she is actually not a leader at all, and is instead a true, bonafide follower. She literally said as much by waiting for Chuck Grassley to make a public statement on xyz, then say “I’m with Chuck.”

Knows right from wrong? Yes, because she will literally used canned lines about what she can control instead of defend the president on his (low) merits

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 99%

Will vote to convict in reality? 7%

90. Rob Portman (OH): a sober-minded Bush-era neo-conservative. He will go along with all the disgusting illiberal things the GOP does, but will not lead these efforts himself. He has the composure of a statesman and comports himself with a strong even-keeled temperament. He was apparently working behind the scenes to get the Ukraine money released, but since it ended up going through I think he will err towards “we won the battle, let us let this go.” That would be a mistake for a rogue president, but rationalizations are what keep using doing what we are doing.

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 100%

Will vote to convict in reality? 10%

91. Cory Gardner (CO): a super conservative in the House, then becomes a moderate out of nowhere to beat Mark Udall. Now he has carried out some of that moderate rhetoric by not-supporting-but-supporting state-level cannabis initiatives. And early in Trump’s presidency he would just tell reporters he does not know how to respond to the crazy shit the president has said. But recently he has adopted canned lines that he delivers, regardless of the phrasing or topic of the question. That is how someone who has had their soul obliterated physically acquiesces to their context. Pretty sad to watch… but at least his misery will end when he loses by the largest margin of any incumbent in November 2020.

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 100%

Will vote to convict in reality? 10%

92. John Kennedy (LA): from endorsing John Kerry in 2004 to licking Putin’s boot on national t.v., just very sad. I really like Kennedy and find him entertaining, intellectually interesting, and a potential independent voice in the Senate. He has fulfilled all three of facets earlier in his term, but has recently wrapped himself in Trump’s stubby arms. Presidential coattails are important and Kennedy does not want to cross Trump in a major way, but I am absolutely sure he will outserve the president in government. At some point he will have to think about his own legacy and whether he can look at himself in the mirror. Impeachment is evidently not where he will use his legal mind for the public good,

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 90%

Will vote to convict in reality? 10%

93. Martha McSally (AZ): a moderate turned party-liner. Anyone choosing her as a most-likely-to-flip candidate is dead wrong for several reasons. First, she has already lost statewide once, and needs to maintain a mobilized base first and foremost. Since Trump is on the ballot, she will try to get perfect parity from his supporters. In a low turnout election, that would be a recipe for success. But since turnout will be very high in AZ, acquitting Trump risks alienating swing voters. Luckily for her, swing voters are not a prominent group in the state. It is a changing political topography stuck between a future minority of Yankee, tomato faced racists and a younger, more diverse and liberal AZ. Mark Kelly is about as strong a candidate as you could put against her, and his military chops nullifies her advantage on that front. Chances are she loses again, but it is too far out for her to accept her fate and vote her conscience.

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 100%

Will vote to convict in reality? 15%

[46 to 47]

Slight chance of doing the right thing and voting to convict

94. Ben Sasse (NE): the self-fashioned moral majority conservative. Man, that ploy would have worked much better before Trump. To his credit, I do think he believes all that nonsense deep to his core. But guess what: Nebraska voters are not intellectually conservative like Sass, they are reactionarily conservative. That means whoever brings the pain to liberals is there favored candidate, not the person who waxes on about the proper role of government and family values. Also to his credit–in the most cynical way possible–he recognized his personal popularity in the state was insufficient to challenge the president, so he put his tale between his legs after his book tour and has started to appear on milk cartons. I do not believe I have seen a single interview of Sass in 2019. Not one, after previously reveling in the spotlight. He could decide reelection is not worth squandering away his value system, but that is always a tough bet to place on a modern day Republican.

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 100%

Will vote to convict in reality? 20%

95. Richard Burr (NC): hardly an independent voice in the party before the Trump-era, Burr ran a fairly up-and-up bipartisan intelligence investigation on Russian election meddling in 2016 with his vice-chair Senator Warner. Then he announced his retirement out of nowhere. Whenever he campaigns he does so in bad faith, full of misrepresentations and distortions, but I guess he is good at compartmentalizing since his work in Congress is fairly magnanimous. What makes him more likely to support impeachment than other senators is that he is privy to a lot of core intelligence that does not depict a president who is ignorant to the criminality of his underlings, but instead, a president who is also a wannabe crime boss. Burr looks and sounds like George W. Bush, so let’s hope he channels that to adopt a mild adversarial position with the president. But ultimately Bush campaigned for Trump’s GOP, so maybe we shouldn’t have any faith in Burr.

Knows right from wrong? Yes, when not campaigning

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 100%

Will vote to convict in reality? 20%

96. James Lankford (OK): I’ve been following Lankford since he entered the House during the Tea Party 2010 cycle. What initially caught me was a ginger-mormon-looking dude who had a deep voice like an old school baseball announcer. That was just odd and fun. But then as he has matured, when he presided over the House it seemed interesting, and eventually he joined the Senate. This was surprising to me since I could not really figure out what made him better than any other energy industry shills that run the Oklahoma GOP. While he has occupied his post in the Senate he has slowly but surely become Jeff Flake’s protege, pursuing libertarian-ish policies with a heavy set of religious and moral rhetoric. Aside form saying Trump is not a role model for his kids, the fact that he did a sitdown tandem interview with Senator Coons makes me think Lankford is positioning himself to make some sort of move. Impeachment does not quite make sense from a political sense, but if he has decided someone needs to fall on the sword, I do not doubt his willingness to do so. He will probably just make a deal for a fair trial and then vote to acquit, but I appreciate his ascendance as a somewhat different type of Oklahoma lawmaker.

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 100%

Will vote to convict in reality? 25%

97. Lamar Alexander (TN): What makes him a wildcard is his impending retirement, plus his previous resignation from leadership to be more flexibly independent (that was to make some deals with Patty Murray to fix the low-hanging fruit in education and health care policy… but nothing came of it because Alexander doesn’t carry any votes with him). Alexander is not a bad person and seems to have a decent pedigree as a policy wonk in Congress and the executive branch. In some ways, I would actually expect him to break with the president and vote to convict before Susan Collins would, but he has a very scant record of opposing Trump’s position on anything in Congress. She has at least done it on fairly insignificant judicial nominations.

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 100%

Will vote to convict in reality? 30%

98. Susan Collins (ME): the former moderate turned whatever-the-fuck is trying to walk that thin line of appearing fair and independent, while eventually doing whatever is best for the GOP. Even her vote to keep Obamacare could still fit that paradigm, as it would’ve been a horrific mess for her caucus to deal with had the vote gone through. She is no dummy and is arguably an important member of a failing body. However, he potential to be independent and arbitrate the case appropriately is confounded with her desperation to win reelection. Trump is relatively popular in Maine, so the safe behavior is to use moderate rhetoric and hope the public does not recognize he towing the party line. If indeed it is true that she has been winning reelection on the strength of her support from Democratic women voters, then that base is about to disappear. At the very least, this will be her toughest election of her life. But on impeachment she is looking for every reason to support the Republican, just like with Brett Kavanaugh. Do not count on Susan Collins being an independent voice, and for that, she may lose her seat.

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 100%

Will vote to convict in reality? 33%

99. Lisa Murkowski (AK): A feel good story that everyone except Tea Partiers should appreciate, Murkowski has the most independent pedigree of any member of Congress. She won reelection after losing a primary by successfully winning Democratic votes in her write-in campaign. Her fairly consistent apprehension to do Trump’s bidding ended when she signed onto the regressive tax cuts, but that accomplished a long-term goal of hers to open up ANWR for more oil extraction. On impeachment, she does not really have any real carrot to acquit. She probably doesn’t care about the sleepovers at the WH, so I am not sure what is left to buy her off with. Additionally, she is someone who is willing to go on record and take the right vote even if she is alone in her caucus, whereas a lot of these other members will want to some herd to provide cover. That said, it is not hard to see her say the president’s behavior was wrong, but that since the plot was not successful (even though it was), the question is moot. That kind of middle ground fits her ecumenical approach, but frankly, betrays what she personally believes about this president. She knows he should be removed. But she will nonetheless look for a reason to acquit.

Knows right from wrong? Yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 100%

Will vote to convict in reality? 40%

100. Mitt Romney (UT via MA): Romney has been waiting for the right moment to get revenge on Trump for leading Romney on with the SoS nomination. Now he is in a perfect position to negotiate a fair trial, and then provide cover for others to jump on the conviction boat. But since any Republican senator that votes to convict will do so in a losing effort, it may just leave the one or two GOPers that have enough independence to persevere on their own. That’s just Murkowski and Romney. If he does not vote to convict, he will be the same paper tiger that Jeff Flake (AZ) became. The one thing Jeff Flake did was hold out his vote in committee on KavanaughFOR ONE WEEK to make sure the FBI did a “full background check.” Well nothing actually got investigated since the FBI did not interview any new accusers or their common acquaintances, just the same witnesses again. Then he fell in line. I guess he also did threaten withhold his vote on judicial nominations for just under a month to get the Mueller protection bill passed–which it did not. In the end, Flake tried a little, sometimes, to use his power, while steadily criticizing Trump in public. Rombot has done the latter to a lesser extent, and the former not at all. He wants to stick it to Trump. But he also cares about the Republican Party for some reason, and may want to provide cover for at-risk moderates.

Knows right from wrong? Other than on money, corporate personhood, outsourcing, and vulture capitalism, yes

Would vote to convict if the ballot was secret? 100%

Will vote to convict in reality? 49%

[46 to 54]

There you have it: a lot of words to arrive at an almost purely partisan outcome. Trump will get his acquittal and campaign on it. The most likely to see some bipartisanship is on the early procedural votes that forces witnesses, but they will be very limited in scope and be all most Republicans need to say they did their part. The interesting aspect of that approach (appearing open to evidence only to vote along party lines) is that it still hurts Republicans. As the public continues to learn more about Trump’s criminality, it might impact public opinion. In contrast, McConnell’s plan to quickly dismiss would save the GOP all of this anguish. Alas, he does not have the votes for that at this time. Damaging trial will hurt the president, but getting acquitted will make him feel completely exonerated. Off to the next impeachable episode!

This Photo Encapsulates the Trump Presidency

The discipline and poise of a master politician with ample experience dealing with the fits of children. A petulant man-child who prefers to insult everyone than bring together a divided nation and govern accordingly, let alone support allies and stand up for human rights. The earnest interest in actual policy matters, clearly visible in Senator Reed’s posture and stoic look. The shame and defeatism of Trump’s allies in Congress, seen in Minority Leader McCarthy and Minority Whip Scalise’s face to the ground. And finally, the crestfallen despondence of the military men at the table, only interrupted by Defense Secretary Esper’s full body attempt to emulate a centuries old statue. The completely unaware publication an image that hurts the president more than it helps, just like the Ukraine call summary.

The following day, the Speaker said the following of what transpired at the moment of the photograph: “I think I was excusing myself from the room… The thoughts I conveyed to the president in the meeting about the 354 to 60 votes in the House disapproving of his Syrian actions… My concerns about all roads leading to Putin. And if the president is saying, “I said during the campaign I will take the troops home,” is home Saudi Arabia? That would be the essence of either sitting down or standing up what my conversation was with the president. Most important part of the meeting was, what is the plan? That was part of my report on the legislation on the floor: what is the plan for fighting ISIS? Now we have reneged on our handshake with the Kurds to do that fighting for use there? That was strongly presented by Senator Schumer. So one or the other of those things was being said. I think it’s interesting–you tell me–if we could have a recording of what goes on in those offices? Because they come out and say “oh, this happened, that happened,” it’s like we must have been at two different meetings because that didn’t happen… No fidelity to facts… At that moment, I was probably saying, all roads lead to Putin.”

It is all here. This is the textbook photo for the future, augmented with the thumbs-up photo of Trump and Melania with an orphaned child in El Paso.

Stop Calling Mueller Old

This is bullshit. Try testifying on the most important issue in this presidency. Stop fucking pointing out how old or sick Mueller seemed in testimony. People are being discriminatory as fuck out here.

 

 

 

Legislator Spotlight: Mo Brooks and Excessive Intellectual Dishonesty

Mo Brooks frequents all manner of media as he slowly but surely rises up the ladder of Alabama politics. To that end, the representative was on C-SPAN to discuss news of the day and respond to viewer calls, which did not go well to say the least. Throughout the short segment, Brooks repeatedly made incendiary, inaccurate remarks to appeal to a base that likes demagogues like the president, instead of act like a national leader of repute. Here is a short sample of the content of his ramblings, with corrections for all truth-seeking folks in the world to read:

“Democrats are all socialists”

This statement is wrong on several counts. First, it is ahistorical and combines American left-liberalism (which is historically centrist and moderate) with more extreme ideologies more often found in European nations and non-Democrat leftists in the United States. In short, if you are truly a socialist in America, chances are the Democrats are too corporatist, reactionary, and compromised to be your party. While folks like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez are trying their best to move the party to the left, neither of them espouses the nationalization and centralization of industry that literally defines socialism. So at best, they aspire for something more left-wing than the current system, but even then it would be socialism the way that most educated political actors understand the term.

Second, is everyone just adopting Trump’s endless projection, calling your opponent what you indeed are yourself? This administration is practicing a form of socialism by overtaxing consumers through tariffs on China, then using other tax revenue to socialize the cost of farming in this country by paying farmers not to produce, or buying up their surplus product. This is a shocking development, since the GOP and farmers have long asked for markets, not subsidies. Leaving aside the socialism of Social Security and Medicare (very popular programs among all members of the public), and the continuation of socialistic subsidies to energy producers, this recent streak of right-wing socialism is downright confusing and nonsensical.

“Democrats oppose border security”

The classic trope of Democrats being in favor of open borders to ostensibly gain new voters has recently hit an all-time high of elite-level parroting. Here, Brooks claims Democrats simply do not believe in borders or the nation state. What about Schumer’s deal to give Trump 25 million dollars in exchange for a DACA legislative fix? Surely Schumer would not have offered this deal if he believed in open borders–it really undermines openness to have a wall. Is it perhaps more truthful to say Democrats just don’t believe in the wall? Absolutely. That is empirically true. But they do believe in borders, which is why deportations hit a record level under Obama, a known Democrat.

“Relations with traditional allies have not been damaged in Trump’s administration”

BREAKING NEWS: the GOP has lost all credibility to make national security critiques of the Democrats. The denialism in this quote is incredible. Foreign leaders openly and frequently critique Trump, diplomats report to their homes countries that you cannot take this administration at its word, and Trump has applied tariffs to allies more than enemies. Brooks simply does not live in a fact-based world, either because he is a sick, demented individual, or because he thinks he needs to emulate the post-factual politics of the president to maintain conservative support in Alabama.

“The Iran nuclear deal naturally expired”

Pretty weird argument here. So instead of just agreeing that Trump was right to end the JCPOA, Brooks wants to get creative and make up a new line that the deal just naturally expired. Nothing could be farther from the truth, since Trump had to act to alter the multilateral executive agreement. If his inaction ended the deal, then the claim would at least make logical sense. But he had to affirmatively opt out of the deal. Incredible amount of small and big lies with this guy,=.

“Illegal immigrants kill 2000 Americans a year”

His xenophobia is showing. As any fact-based person knows, undocumented migrants commit less violent crime than the domestic population. The homicide rate in 2018 was just under 5 for every 100,000 inhabitants, which means there is about 15,000 homicides every year. Even if his number is correct, that means 13,000 murders are perpetrated by citizens of this nation. Of course, his numbers are likely false, simply comporting with his preferred target population for demonization.

Understands how to navigate disagreement b/c his children are Auburn alums but he and his wife support Alabama U.

This was a complete non-sequitur that has almost no analog with partisan politics. To operate in such a homogeneous bubble to the point that which public, southern college you go to is a leading cleavage in a community lets you know he is severely out of touch. While I am sure he believes this statement means he is open to people not like him, it only demonstrates that he recognizes getting along with his kids is not worth fighting over alma maters. Again, both schools still southern, public universities–the problem is not elite Southerners hating each other, it is oppressed Southerners getting ignored by Brooks’ agenda.

Overall, Mo Brooks is a disgraceful figure who seems to offer almost nothing but symbolic leadership to hateful types. While he might eventually get his Senate seat or become governor, he has shown himself in this era to be a person devoid of basic decency, honesty, and intelligence. Shame on you, Mo Brooks!

Attorney General Barr’s (Mueller) Report

Since the media is failing hard at explaining what has transpired with Attorney General Bill Barr’s 4-page summary of the Mueller report, I will come out of hibernation to bring some clarity to anyone reading this.

Briefly, Barr’s report is clearly motivated by three goals.

1) Get some good press for the president among a captive audience over a weekend, and potentially longer.

2) Frame and agenda set that the investigation is over, the president is clear, and we need to move on, drawing out the period time where we learn about specifics.

3) Selectively disclose the report’s main findings, making it difficult to understand where certain information is coming from, to make it look like everything is on the up-and-up.

So far, there is definite success on the first two counts. First, the sensationalist press led with “No Collusion” everywhere on Sunday night and Monday morning, and turned to attacking Democrats that claimed there was evidence of collusion in the past. Great job media, your depravity and lack of substance makes you easily manipulable by the very actors label you “enemy of the people.”

On the second count, the majority of C-SPAN callers Monday morning believe this means the conspiracy chapter is over, and that if the Dems continue to investigate, it will be out of partisanship. If Barr withholds the actual document for an extended period of time, this narrative will likely become a contagion that infects even discerning, non-partisan people.

Luckily, on third count Barr failed. His cherry-picking of phrases from Mueller’s report, and assumption of the role of arbiter on obstruction of justice are clearly for hack purposes to protect Trump. On that front, he delivered on why he was nominated. And just like Trump used Rosenstein as a beard on the Comey firing, so did Barr here on the Mueller report’s findings. I have no doubt Rosenstein came to an agreement with Trump on something of import (which is why he was not fired in Fall 2018), but that does not mean Rosenstein thinks obstruction did not occur. Rosenstein will now have to explain in front of Congress what his role in all of this is, even if he resigns in short order.

Overall, part of Barr’s agenda in the memo is to muddy the waters so that it is frequently unclear whose views are espoused in the document: his, Mueller’s, or Rosenstein’s. Having read the short document several times, it is clear to me almost all of the material is based on Barr’s perspective–not Mueller’s or Rosenstein’s. Barr decided the issue of indicting a sitting president is moot because the evidence did not rise to that level. He gets to make this claim without anyone being able to challenge the facts. This asymmetry pays immense dividends  to a gullible public and desperate media that wants closure or a sexy story, respectively.

The only saving grace here is that Trump and the GOP seem to be overplaying their hand by attacking anyone and everyone who believed there could be merited arguments about Trump either colluding with or being beholden to Russia. Ultimately, this offensive will alienate the same on-the-fence reference publics that could believe the president was the victim here. Instead, they will relearn that the president has a host of other temperamental issues that make him a bad fit for the office. The tendency toward self-sabotage continues with Trump.

Trump’s Cabinet Appointments: Likely Senate Vote Outcome in Each Case

Secretary of State: Rex Tillerson

Exxon executive with no government experience, but close ties with Russia. Slam dunk, right? Tillerson is a savvy business elite with government connections that run very deep, and with very important boosters, like former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Gates is said to be the person that brought up Tillerson to Trump for SOS. That should be reassuring since Gates is one of the few remaining Republican patricians that is willing to govern in a legitimately (not rhetorically) bipartisan manner.

Tillerson’s hearings have been contentious, with several Republicans voicing serious reservations about voting to confirm him to the post. However, I believe they will heed his decent answers to their concerns about Russia, and he will eventually be confirmed with some Democratic support, 68-32. Even still, he might be the only cabinet pick to face a no vote from a GOP Senator, which is quite remarkable given the controversies and lack of experience of other candidates.

Secretary of the Treasury: Steve Mnuchin

Goldman Sachs executive keeping the streak of ex-Goldman execs running the nexus of monetary and fiscal policy. At least he was one of the financiers behind Mad Max Fury Road. Jest aside, before the bombshell that he failed to disclose hundreds of millions of dollars worth of assets, I would of thought he would be confirmed with something like 81-19, but now Democrats have more credibility to say there is something awry here. That said, I doubt it sinks his chances. Now we are looking at something closer to a party-line vote with some sporadic Democratic support, 59-41.

Secretary of Defense: James Mattis

Trump’s best cabinet pick, with something to like on all ends of the spectrum, from doves that appreciate his calculated nature and seriousness in deliberation, and hawks that love his anti-Iran suspicions. I have heard leftist circles call him a war criminal, but that perspective is not shared by many Democratic senators.

The Warrior Monk will either be confirmed by acclimation (no recorded vote) or if there is a recorded vote, at worst it will be something like 88-12.

Confirmed 1/20/17, 98-1 (51-0 R; 45-1 (Gillibrand) D)

Attorney General: Jeff Sessions

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III has a long, well-known history with confirmation hearings. In fact, he only came to the Senate because he was denied a judgeship on the circuit courts. Even considering his baggage and fairly extreme views, there is ZERO chance Sessions will be denied confirmation? Why? First, because many Democratic senators will defer to one of their own, that they know well and generally respect (Cory Booker’s theatrics notwithstanding). I expect Al Franken and many of his ilk to vote to confirm Sessions, which will undermine their credibility with the party base. Second, for Sessions to fail nomination, three Republican senators would have to vote against confirmation. That is very unlikely. One person above all exemplifies how unlikely this is: Susan Collins–the most liberal Republican in the Senate–introduced Sessions in his first hearing. She expounded his virtues and proclaimed he is not a racist. Good to know. When the most liberal Republican is one of his biggest advocates, it suggests this confirmation was signed and sealed before it even started.

Sessions is confirmed, 74-26. His time at DOJ may not be long, as he should also be considered a dark horse candidate for Trump to appoint to the Supreme Court. He would likely fail confirmation, if that were the case, since the stakes would be even higher.

Secretary of the Interior: Ryan Zinke

On its face, a very solid pick. Zinke is perhaps the squeakiest clean nominee Trump put forward, or at least top two with Chao. He says the right things about conservation and seems like a decent person. One of DOI’s biggest issue purviews is on indigenous issues, and Montana is generally pretty good to its native population (in a comparative sense). However, despite his modest proclamations, Zinke will probably favor liquidating more federal lands, which in isolation is not so bad, but in conjunction with deregulation, cronyism, and imminent ecological disaster foretells a dangerous tenure at the helm. Arctic drilling is sure to be a priority in this administration.

Will definitely be confirmed, and probably by a fairly large margin given the low regard people hold in DOI jurisdictions, and Zinke’s station as a current representative. 94-6.

Secretary of Agriculture: Sonny Perdue

After much delay, Trump finally selected former Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue to be his ag secretary. Although Perdue is very conservative, has a history of pseudo-racist remarks, and may have improperly benefited from sweet heart land dealings while in office, he is actually very mainstream and is among Trump’s safest picks. He will likely work toward the long-standing GOP goal of eliminating farm subsidies, but as someone who has benefited from them, perhaps he minimizes the amount of change from former Secretary Vilsack. Perdue will be confirmed 67-33.

Secretary of Commerce: Wilbur Ross

Billionaire who had an “illegal” immigrant working in his home. That exact dynamic–hiring an undocumented immigrant for domestic are–has sunk several nominations in the past. It would be him too, especially since Democrats have little to like about Ross. 56-46.

Secretary of Labor: Andrew Puzder

Secretary of Health and Human Services: Tom Price

Tom Price has long been a far-rightist trying to pull the party over with him. He gained influence as the head of the Republican Study Committee, where he espoused practical versions of non-mainstream ideas. Price has long been in hot water for ethical lapses, and the latest alleged insider trading will not help. Will anyone in the GOP care? Perhaps. At this point, it seems he will fail to get the majority needed for confirmation, which means he likely will not face a vote (why put a failing nominee up?).

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: Ben Carson

Eternally fascinating that of Trump’s biggest early surrogates within the GOP, Carson–not Christie, Giuliani, or Gingrich–that gets a governmental job. The others have ample experience, but Carson’s novice understanding of most things non-medical has propelled him to Corinthian heights.

I agree with what his surrogate Armstrong Williams noted in November, which is Ben Carson is not qualified to run an executive department. Of all of Trump’s picks, this is the most likely to fail during the confirmation process. His support base is limited to the GOP, but if he has a series of good meetings with some Democrats, it could become a minimal bi-partisan vote. I suspect Carson never reaches the vote stage, and instead, after Carson receives enough grief he and GOP leaders will tell Trump to let it go. The one potential saving grace for Carson’s candidacy is the GOP does not value HUD much, and the amount of damage Carson can do in that department is not terribly high. He could still run the department incompetently, but it might not be a FEMA level disaster.

Carson may be the only casualty of everyone Trump has put forward, but it won’t be because of Democrats. His incompetence in office may have utility to them. If he fails, it will be because enough GOP members realize Carson has neither the know-how nor disposition to run an executive department. At this moment, I expect him to be confirmed 50-50 with VP Pence breaking the tie.

Secretary of Transportation: Elaine Chao

Competent career GOP technocrat and wife of Senate Majority Leader McConnell. Selecting Chao shows Trump does plan to govern to some extent beyond the boilerplate arch-conservative ALEC type of agenda he will pursue. Whether Chao is the person to oversee a massive trillion dollar investment in infrastructure is less clear, but that opacity can leave some hope while many still believe Trump will deliver.

Unanimous passage by voice vote (or something like 99-0, with McConnell abstaining).

Secretary of Energy: Rick Perry

Qualified by proxy because he is idiot king of Texas, but actually has very little demonstrated knowledge on energy policy, let alone nuclear policy. Insofar as he is just a figurehead of a very large department, his commitments to fossil fuel extraction and against transitioning to renewable energy clearly indicate how Trump’s administration will operate for its four years.

Reluctantly confirmed, with only a handful of Democratic votes. Slight chance he could be a casualty of the confirmation process, but not due to skeletons or lack of qualification. Perry might just come across as too dumb or unaware. 62 to 38.

Secretary of Education: Betsy DeVos

Of all the nominees Trump put forth, she should be contested the most. She and her whole family of in-laws have a warped view of religion in government and education (as well as the role of mercenaries in a democracy). Flatly, she is an opponent of public education–no need for euphemisms about being for charter schools or vouchers. She also lacks any expertise whatsoever and will likely stumble over and over again throughout her tenure.

Will three Republicans decide to reject her appointment? Very doubtful. Even if she is incompetent, her antipathy toward public education is mainstream within the GOP, so they will take the lightweight to accomplish a larger agenda. Still, someone might vote no. 51-49.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs: David Shulkin

Secretary of Homeland Security: John F. Kelly

[I didn’t get around to predicting Kelly’s vote share, but as a respected member of the national security apparatus, and given the continuation of the Washington Consensus across the parties on security issues, I would have thought he would received at least 75 votes. He got substantially more.]

Confirmed 1/20/17, 88-11 (51-0 R; 35-11 D)

United Nations Ambassador: Nikki Haley

Haley has no record of foreign policy, but the daughter of Indian immigrants, it is assumed she has a world outlook. Haley is not much of an internationalist, but compared to Trump, she looks like Woodrow Wilson. Other than descriptive features, I am not entirely sure why Trump wants Haley to represent the country in the UN, but she should have no problem get through the process. Not much is riding on the position.

Confirmed 79-21.

Office of Management and Budget: Mick Mulvaney

Mulvaney and Trey Gowdy always seemed like the two South Carolina reps from the Tea Party wave most destined for notoriety, mainly because they crave it (more the latter than the former). Mulvaney generally comes across poorly as a smarmy, sharp-toothed operator, but he is also clearly intelligent and has some ideas. With any of this help him at OMB, which requires someone above all else with solid judgment? I am not sure. But if his failure to pay taxes does not sink him, little else will. He is confirmed 64-36.

Environmental Protection Agency: Scott Pruitt

Yep, Trump did it. Trump fucking did it. He nominated one of the most well-known climate skeptics in Oklahoma’s Attorney General Scott Pruitt. Pruitt has sued the federal government and EPA numerous times to allow his state’s fossil fuel industry to pollute and exploit the environment. I get the problems farmers have with dust regulation in their cultivation processes, but the environmental contamination–and EARTHQUAKES–caused by fossil fuel extraction. Although Oklahoma has long been an oil state, the recent movement to maximal natural gas extraction through fracking is wrecking Oklahoma’s nearly faultless plains terrain. Here, take a look at how unique Oklahoma’s ecological topography and earthquake ubiquity are compared to other states.

USGS map of all earthquakes in US of 2.5+ magnitude for the last 30 days (12/26/17-1/24/17)

Notice all the earthquakes? Perhaps they are all not caused by fracking, but a history of the state shows earthquake activity in this region used to be relatively rare, and is now commonplace. Well, luckily the defender of this order will be able to have some power to nationalize this trend by lessening regulation of a resource extraction method that causes this problem. Pruitt is among the most likely to face unified Democratic oppositions, sans Joe Manchin. However, it is unlikely Susan Collins or any other Republican opposes his candidacy. Democrats will be on notice, however, that voting for this confirmation will likely be used against them in a primary in the future. Therefore, Pruitt will become EPA administrator, 61-39.

Susan Collins proved me wrong and voted no. But I bet she did it because she knew he would pass, and two Democrats to vote in her stead. So Joe Manchin stayed true to the polluting gang. Joining him in the dumpster fire: Heidi Heitkamp. I generally like Heitkamp, but she will go down in history for this vote. I hope North Dakota’s energy interests (and employment to be fair) were worth it. 52-46. R: 50-1; D: 43-2

Small Business Administration: Linda McMahon

The fairy tale story of Linda McMahon’s ascendency in politics continues. After failing to buy a Senate seat in two consecutive elections (and setting records for campaign spending in the process), the Grand Ole Party will reward one of its least successful, but richest members with a cabinet position. Nevermind that Linda McMahon knows nothing about how to foster small business, since she and her husband practice a trust style of capitalism.

SBA is not usually deeply contested in confirmation hearings, so she will get passed into executive office. I doubt she will receive universal acclaim, but she will likely receive 60+ votes, perhaps as much as 80. Being rich helps in this setting. Final vote: 66 to 34

Why Trump Won

So I, like everyone else except for some comedians, got the election wrong. Even though Hillary is leading Trump by over 1,000,000 votes (61,913,199 votes (47.9%) 60,911,924 votes (47.1%) as of 11/16), Trump won the election with a strong electoral college showing, 306 to 232.

First, it is really important to note the obvious, which many in the media seem to be missing here. With the exception of Florida–a perennial tossup–all of Trump’s gains were in the Rust Belt. Hillary’s support in many western states was either as good or better than Obama 2012, she made gains in Texas (almost 600,000 more votes than Obama 2012), forced Trump to win by plurality in Arizona (although this is arguably more the product of Gary Johnson’s vote share) and only slightly fell behind Obama’s high water marks (2008 or 2012) in Georgia and South Carolina, and had a wider margin of victory in Virginia. The Northeast trended toward Trump, but only by a few percentage points (for example, Hillary lost 3 percentage points on Obama’s 2012 margin in NJ, even amid increased turnout). The only exception in this region is Upstate Maine, which swing to Trump by a net spread of 20 points. In short, in the aggregate the West, South, and Northeast did not shift very much in this election. What did shift was the formerly industrial Great Lakes/Appalachian states that moved heavily toward Trump. A combination of Trump turnout surge among uneducated white workers, lack of turnout among urban African American voters, and suburban Obama voters fleeing the Democrats explain the general political terrain in these states.

Why did suburban voters switch from Democratic support to pro-Trump?

Trump won 50% of the suburban vote, while Hillary won 45%, a pretty sizeable margin in the largest geographic electorate (49% of the electorate, compared to 34% in the big cities, and 17% in rural America. Why did this happen? This one really comes down to the fundamentals, and speaks the least to either of the two candidates unpopularity or transformative campaigning. Many forecast models actually had a generic Republican beating a generic Democrat in this election, based purely on a handful of variables. Among them, the two most important predictors are how long the party in power has held office, and the economic growth rate leading into the election. Well, the Democrats have held the executive office for eight years, which generally favors the out-party to gain the presidency. The only exceptions to this in the 20th century are Taft following TR’s two incomplete terms, Truman winning in 1948 after assuming the presidency after FDR passed, and George HW Bush winning his solitary term after Reagan’s 8 years (some consider only the latter to be analogous to the current situation given the shortened time-frame of the former, and Truman’s station of VP in the latter). Economic growth rates have been steady, but low in 2016. The first quarter had a recorded growth rate of 0.8%, the second 1.4%, and the third (ending with September) had 2.9%. Except for the last quarter, this country has not seen very much economic growth this year. While it is always unclear on what basis people feel or understand economic conditions in their everyday lives, it has historically been a good indicator into the public mood on staying pat or changing leadership.

For these basic reasons, in all likelihood suburban voters (“middle America”) were going to swing to some degree to Trump. America does have a strong tradition of switching party in power following a two-term president, and these are the types of people that generally see to that. It is also important to note this category of voters is the least likely of the three (with high white voter turnout and decreased Black turnout) to be instructed by aversive, reactionary racism. Although Trump made both latent dog-whistle (“law and order candidate,” “Make American Great Again,” etc) and overt racist pleas (banning Muslims and portraying Latin American immigrants as criminals), these voters predominantly voted for Obama in not just 2008, but also 2012. The racial backlash against the president argument and nativist appeals may have some import for this voting bloc, but it is no way the dominant explanation for the suburban switch to the GOP.

The states in which this was the primary cause of the shift are Pennsylvania and Ohio. Although Iowa is not generally conceptualized as a suburban state, the bellwether facet to this category does apply to the Iowan electorate.

Why did Black voter turnout decline so dramatically?

Although turnout was actually higher in absolute terms this election that 2012 (something pundits continue to get wrong), this aggregate trend belies group dynamics. I have yet to find a good metric for white or Asian turnout, but it is clear Latino turnout was up and African American turnout was down. Texas, Arizona, and Nevada all trended more heavily towards Democrats than expected, almost exclusively due to the rise of Latino mobilization. However, the gains in the West were more than offset by the losses in major Midwestern urban areas, such as Wayne County in Michigan, Milwaukee County in Wisconsin, and Cuyahoga County in Ohio.

The margin of victory for Trump in Michigan (+10,000) and Wisconsin (+25,000) were notably much smaller than the difference between Obama and Hillary’s vote share in the two biggest metropolitan areas. Turnout declined in Milwaukee County from just under 491,000 in 2012 to just under 430,000 in 2016. Notably, Hillary won the same 66% of the vote in the county as Obama in 2012. In Wayne County, total votes cast went from 814000 in 2012 to around 766000 in 2016. Hillary did receive less support than Obama by proportion (67% to 73%), but had turnout been the same as 2012, she would have carried both states.

It should be noted Black turnout was a bit higher in places the Atlanta metro area, greater New Orleans, and Philadelphia, and also lower in Southern Florida, northeast North Carolina, Wyandotte County in Kansas, Hennepin County in Minnesota, and Shelby County in Tennessee. So what explains this variance in Black mobilization, since a clear geospatial pattern is not immediately clear?

As of now, I have three leading hypotheses. First, the obvious: Obama was a Black male, while Hillary is a white female. The racial distinction is self-evident–plenty of social science scholarship has demonstrated all people, and especially African Americans, tend to show higher levels of support, trust, and efficacy towards officials that share their descriptive features. It is expected that Hillary would lag behind Obama for this reason alone. But importantly, Hillary’s gender could have been an impediment in the Black community, which is not exempt from chauvinism. However, it is unlikely that descriptive features alone explains such a steep, concentrated decline, let alone the regional variation of the decline.

The second hypothesis is Hillary Clinton’s immense unpopularity ended up mattering a lot more than Trump’s even higher unpopularity. According to Pew in late October 2008 Obama had a favorability of 60%, while Hillary in late October had 43% favorability. Specifically to the Black community, the ubiquitous feelings of support among voters for Obama during his initial election could only be made by Hillary  if Hillary was Black. Other scholarship has shown the Black voters rally around Black candidates under fire, but Hillary’s whiteness impedes a similar steadfast support for her candidacy (Clintonian honorary Blackness notwithstanding). Clinton’s inability to craft a convincing message in decreasing police violence against African Americans, lack of attention to employment strategies, and lingering questions about her loyalty to egalitarian change could also help explain her lack of standing in the Black community. But this approach is a very coarse measure, and explains none of the variation manifest in the maps.

The third, and perhaps leading hypothesis, is the role of heavy-handed voter ID laws across the nation, but most concentrated in the Rust Belt states Donald Trump flipped.

Obstructive–and biased–impediments to vote, such as voter ID laws, tend to favor Republican causes, since the people most affected by ID requirements tend to be less economically secure, which is more common in the Black community, for immigrants, the poor, students, urbanites, and the elderly. Noticeably, only the very last constituency is even remotely pro-GOP. So if voter ID laws tend to decrease the Democratic electorate, and frequently African-American voters, is it possible these laws had some effect in this election? The answer is yes.

Most of the states with the most pernicious voter ID laws–Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Kansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee–saw a decline in Black turnout during this election. The only two exceptions to this rule are Georgia and Virginia, which makes some sense: the Clinton campaign spent a lot of time encouraging turnout in and around Atlanta, while Virginia has a Democratic governor that went so far as to pardon incarcerated members of the population with an important election in sight. Additionally, Texas had an increase in turnout, but it is unclear whether Black turnout was up with Latino turnout, or if the latter simply masked a decline in the former.

The only ways to truly understand whether voter ID laws played a role in the election, beyond the recognition of a pattern, is twofold. First, interviews with voters that can testify to the increased hardship in voting and interviews with those that did not vote and their reasoning. Second, a calculation of IDs issued based on demographics would confirm a bias in which groups failed to gain the necessary IDs to vote.

States that were most affected by the decrease in Black mobilization are Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio (although the latter would not have been a Clinton state even with more Black support–see suburban voter explanation).

Why did working class whites support Trump?

The most common explanation for the outcome is that disaffected white, working class voters with low educational attainment broke hard for Trump, and moreover, they turned out in high numbers to voice their displeasure with the status quo. Importantly, neither of these points are proven with the data, even if they are true. White voters made up 70% of the electorate in the election, their lowest number on record (down from 72% in 2012 and 74% in 2008). Moreover, according to exit polling Trump won about the same proportion of whites as Romney did in 2012 (Romney won 59%, Trump 58% with more third party candidate share). What about turnout? It is actually very difficult to find counties with mostly white residents that increased in turnout. For example, turnout was up by 2.5% in Hall County, Georgia, but although this is a heavily Republican county, whites only constitute 2/3 of the county population. Since both the Ds and Rs gained around 4,000 votes, it is not clear the white backlash thesis is correct.

So while it is plausible that uneducated whites in the Rust Belt feel unrepresented by both parties, leading many to favor the outsider candidate, the evidence does not show increased white support for Trump, either in the form of preferences or turnout. If anything, Trump’s 1-3% gain in vote share among Hispanic, Black, and Asian voters, and decreased turnout among Black voters, seem more consequential.

Trump did improve on Romney’s figure in regards to those that made under 30k a year–from 35% to 41%. If we assume many of these poorer voters were white (which is a hefty assumption), there is a good explanation for this change, especially in the Rust Belt. Trump preached isolationism and the false promise of being able to hedge job loss in manufacturing, and even restore many of these jobs. This plea to voters would be a successful frame, given the job loss in heavy manufacturing and lack of trade adjustment funding for jobs training with each successive free trade agreement. However, Trump will not succeed on this promise unless the labor force in the region is willing to work for 4 dollars (or less) an hour. Tax incentives are not enough to reverse private sector-led globalization and deindustrialization that has been occurring since the 1970s. The government can certainly facilitate the flight of business to other countries, but reversing that trend would require government-funded factory construction and jobs training, which there is little evidence any politician favors. The Democratic alternative–at least among the left side of the party–is economic diversification of the region, such as making education attainment higher in the region, jobs training in high-tech manufacturing, and increased demand-side stimulus to allow poorer citizens to use federal funds to redistribute wealth in their local economy.

This explanation is the most shaky for Trump’s victory. It is not clear there was an appreciable increase in poor white turnout in this election. Absent state-level exit polls in the Great Lakes, the data will not prove this point. If poor white voters were consequential in any states, it would have been predominantly the Great Lakes and Appalachia, both of which have been trending GOP for quite some time.

What about race?

With the immense amount of race-hate spewed by Donald Trump throughout the election, it is certainly plausible it activated, or made manifest, racism in the electorate. The endorsement by KKK and neo-Nazi groups of Trump, violence against racial minorities at Trump rallies, and rise in hate crimes are all reasons to assume race played a seminal role in this election. Moreover, the post-election ascendance of Steve Bannon to the top of the executive branch shows there is some work to promote white supremacy in government, if only descriptively and not substantively (although there is definitely room for both in a Trump administration).

However, the likelihood of either racial backlash against America’s first Black president or activated white supremacy by Trump being the defining facet of this election is very low. Not because it does not matter–which it obviously does–but because there are ample legitimate reasons to feel that the country is going in the wrong direction and that government is not responsive to the needs of the disaffected. Essentially, it is true some voters were mobilized by Trump’s white nationalist sentiment, but this race-centric theory fails to explain much of the suburban shift from Obama to Trump.

What can be stated about race is that racist rhetoric was not refuted by the public at-large or Trump supporters. Although we cannot know if Trump’s supporters were motivated by racism, we can safely say they were not deterred enough by Trump’s racism to vote for another candidate. This is kind of an odd dynamic, but in essence, we can say Americans are not racially liberal enough as a whole to rebuke a clearly racist political campaign. It should be noted there are probably many conservatives, like Mitt Romney and many in the Mormon community, that decided supporting another candidate (perhaps one less bigoted like Evan McMullin) was the thing to do. (Side note, I am a bit disheartened that so many Mormons decided to stick with Trump, as I suspected he would be the least attractive candidate of the main three Utah was considering.)

What about gender?

Gender is another important variable, especially with the disproportional negative media and political attention Hillary has experienced since the 1990s. She is perhaps the most scrutinized political figure in American history. Trump’s entire stamina critique of Hillary seemed to be about gender, veiled in her health episodes. It is safe to assume her gender is part of this, as is her relation to Bill’s promiscuity, her opportunistic position-taking and her email server issues. There are both legitimate and illegitimate reasons to be hesitant to support Hillary Clinton. As it turns out, Hillary’s support among men and women is nearly the same proportion as what Obama achieved in 2012 (the only big difference is the presence of third party candidates). Is it possible patriarchy is so ubiquitous in American society that women were self-policing and hyper-critical of Hillary in a way that would not occur if she were a man? Sure. Again, until we have enough interviews of women saying any woman is not well-suited to be president, we cannot posit out thin air that gender discrimination is a dominant explanation for what happened in this election.

What about immigration?

Immigration definitely mattered in this election, arguably more than race and gender. Many of the suburban voters claimed to be motivated by immigration related issues, such as building the wall or deporting undocumented residents. The anti-Latino sentiment of Trump clearly worked to mobilize Latino communities in Nevada, California, Texas, and Arizona. And unfortunately, Trump’s policy details are arguably most developed on the immigration question–a low bar, but true nonetheless. Luckily, it appears House Republicans are less apt for mass deportations than what many previously expected, so maybe a combination of meaningless fence construction and some path toward citizenship will occur. According to exit polling, those that claimed immigration was the most important issue supported Trump 64 to 32. However, among the four issue options, immigration was tied for last with foreign policy at 13%, while terrorism received 18% and the economy reached 52% (Hillary decidedly won the economy and foreign policy, while Trump won terrorism and immigration).

What about the urban-rural divide?

This is pretty clear as an important dynamic, with Trump setting records in rural areas. The resentment rural voters feel towards cities is palpable and somewhat justified: governments are located in cities, and government services are best delivered in cities. This dynamic often leaves the countryside feeling alienated from spending decisions, with little to show for their tax dollars. If the conversation ended there, an anti-establishment vote would be legitimate and easy rectify (show a new commitment to delivering services in the country). However, it is much more complicated, and heavily tied up into stereotypes and anachronistic notions of what modern governments should do. Many people in rural America have a skewed perception of what city dwellers are like. Sure they like lattes and ombre haircuts, but dependency on government support is not nearly as ubiquitous in cities as one might expect. In fact, the opposite is actually true: in what some term “red state socialism” many rural states receive more federal funds per outgoing tax dollar that do metropolitan states (New Jersey perennially getting the least for what they pay). Moreover, antagonism towards government in the countryside seems to deny the presence of social problems unique to cities that require collective governmental action, such as housing segregation, concentrated poverty, crime, and infrastructure maintenance. While the cultural divide between rural and urban folks is unlikely to get resolved, it is probably not a good sign to see the parties reshaped as metropolitan versus agrarian, as both geographic locations stand to gain from concerted government action to address the struggles in each environment.

Concerning this election, there is ample evidence that rural resentment of urbanites spurred support for Trump. There is some multicollinearity here, though, since race, class, partisan sorting, and ideology are correlated with settlement type, meaning it is difficult to ascertain the causal power of urban-rural cultural divide separate from those variables.

What about the media?

The media is culpable for this outcome in myriad ways. First, the unfettered coverage of Trump’s every move, from eating pizza with a fork and knife to taking a shit at 3am is a sign of the repugnant state of sensational, now tabloid, journalism. Making money is a necessary means to finance a news operation that allows for extensive investigative journalism, but money-making cannot be an end in itself. Trump should get a lot of credit for running a staff-less campaign and his innovative use of directly calling into news shows, but breaking regularly scheduled programing to cover one of his many rallies became gratuitous and transparently about ginning up the horse race.

Second, the lack journalistic push-back on Trump’s many false statements enigmatically fits in with the dominant to trend to draw a false equivalency on all sides of a debate. Hate speech cannot be covered as anything other than hate speech. Although the media was by-and-large critical of Trump, much of it was less fact-based and more focused on pot-shots and sensationalized quotes.

Third, the over reliance on tracking polls to explain dynamics on the ground directly contributed setting up high expectations for Hillary. There are examples of celebrities and journalists traveling around Michigan and perceiving it to be a Trump state, but the media did not seem aware of this sea change due to stable poll results and a lack of care for understanding Trump supporters.

A media that is solely concerned with ratings, and sanctimoniously dismisses a candidate that continues to beat expectations is a recipe for disaster. I do not think it is fair to claim the media should have known Trump could actually win–that is way to much to ask of anyone–but a more nuanced coverage of his bases of support would have changed expectations going into the election.

Did James Comey cost Hillary the election?

In the immediate days after the election, I would have summarily dismissed this claim. The polls showed very little movement beyond the pre-existing trend toward Trump because of the FBI reopening the investigation of Hillary’s emails. However, exit polling tells a different story about the effect of the very late announcement by Comey, which was only a week and half before an election. The weekend before the election the FBI concluded no further action would be taken on Hillary’s email scandal (although Anthony Weiner will surely be less lucky). Exit polling shows a trend: Clinton did better with voters that decided before September, while Trump did better in September and October. Importantly, those that decided to vote in the last week (after Comey reopened the investigation) supported Trump 50 to 38, while those that made up their minds in the last few days (after Comey cleared Clinton) supported Trump 46 to 44.

Hillary picking up supporters after the Comey clearance can really only be explained by two answers. It is possible as the weight of the decision to support one of the candidates became more salient, voters decided supporting Trump was a less responsible move than they had previously felt. Or, Hillary was gaining steam after a lackluster October and the emails derailed some of her “momentum.” Both could be true at the same time, but this pattern in the exit polling suggests the emails might have had some effect. In either case, Comey’s meddling in the campaign and lack of control of his own agents at the FBI (with all the leaks), suggests he has lost institutional support for his leadership. Therefore, Comey should resign effective immediately, since he is neither serving the public nor FBI interests, but is strictly looking out for himself.

While it seems likely the Comey fiasco had some effect on deterring support for Clinton, it is still unlikely that the margins are perfectly correlated with areas where she needed more support, like in the Great Lakes. Until we see evidence from voters in that region that the emails mattered on a large scale, this episode will remain a stain on the cycle, but not a determinate one.

2016 Election Predictions: Democracy Still Intact (Sort Of)

I meant to write this several weeks ago with much more depth (especially to examine who won each Senate debate; Loretta Sanchez unintentionally did her best Sarah Palin impression in her debate with Kamala Harris), but the night before the election is pretty much the last time to make any sort of predictions. So here we go:

Hillary Clinton will be the first female president in US history, while Donald Trump will create a new media empire that effectively destroys Fox News. These are both positive developments in what has been a truly odd election. The map above shows Hillary winning 328 to 210. Interestingly, this map shows Hillary winning Utah, which is no mistake. Evan McMullin’s compassionate conservativism campaign will likely pull significant support, but that will primarily come out of Trump’s margin. I expect the results in Utah to be a plurality for Hillary of 34.5%, to McMullin with 34.3%, Trump with 29%, and Johnson with 2.2%.

Although I was pushing for Trump to win Florida (a dystopian candidate for a dystopian state), it now seems Cubanos are voting in droves against the standard bearer of their party.

The Senate elections will lead to a 50-50 seat tie in the upper chamber. Duckworth and Feingold defeating GOP incumbents is foregone, but after that the GOP candidates are well-equipped to survive in this anti-Trump environment. Jason Kander will defeat the archetypal conservative deal maker in Roy Blunt, while Maggie Hassan will narrowly beat Kelly Ayotte. Joe Heck will carry Nevada even as the state votes for Clinton, primarily due to his seeming moderation and calm temperament.

Super Tuesday Predictions

A momentous day in the presidential cycle is upon us. Bernie needs to win a majority of the states just stay in the race, and Rubio and Cruz each need to win several states to maintain any hope of stopping Trump.

Here are the predictions for how today will shake out, first on the Democratic side.

Alabama: Hillary (76-24%)

Arkansas: Hillary (68-32%)

Colorado: Bernie (53-47%)

Georgia: Hillary (72-28%)

Massachusetts: Hillary (51-49%)

Minnesota: Bernie (58-42%)

Oklahoma: Bernie (55-45%)

Tennessee: Hillary (59-41%)

Texas: Hillary (64-36%)

Vermont: Bernie (88-12%)

Virginia: Hillary (60-40%)

These results relegate Bernie to a near impossible chance of beating Hillary on delegate count.

 

Now the GOP:

Alabama: Trump (42) Cruz (24) Rubio (22) Carson (8) Kasich (4)

Alaska: Trump (46) Cruz (27) Rubio (15) Kasich (9) Carson (3)

Arkansas: Trump (34) Cruz (33) Rubio (21) Carson (7) Kasich (5)

Georgia: Trump (36) Rubio (28) Cruz (22) Carson (10) Kasich (4)

Massachusetts: Trump (45) Kasich (22) Rubio (20) Cruz (11) Carson (2)

Minnesota: Trump (32) Rubio (29) Kasich (19) Cruz (17) Carson (3)

Oklahoma: Trump (33) Cruz (29) Rubio (22) Carson (9) Kasich (7)

Tennessee: Trump (38) Cruz (29) Rubio (17) Carson (11) Kasich (5)

Texas: Cruz (35) Trump (33) Rubio (20) Carson (7) Kasich (5)

Vermont: Trump (37) Kasich (25) Rubio (25) Cruz (10) Carson (3)

Virginia: Trump (33) Rubio (29) Cruz (20) Kasich (11) Carson (7)

 

Trump  wins big, and Cruz can spin that he is (again) the only one that can beat Trump, even if only every now and then.

New Hampshire Predictions

Democrats:

Bernie 57%

Hillary 43%

 

Republicans:

Kasich 25%

Trump 23%

Christie 16%

Bush 11%

Rubio 10%

Cruz 7%

Everyone else 8%

2016 Iowa Caucus Takeaways

The primary season is up and running with Iowa now in the rear view mirror. On the Republican side, we get to find out who the arch-conservative, eventual primary loser will be. On the Democratic side, traditionally we do not learn much (for both of these claims, see Iowa as being a poor predictor in general). But are these truisms correct this cycle. Here are the facts:

The NY Times are the best at graphics!

Hillary Clinton edged out Bernie Sanders to win the Iowa Democratic Caucus. Good for her, right? Not so much. Hillary had a very large lead in Iowa for months, and Bernie Sanders was able to mobilize progressives, young voters, and neighboring state activists to saturate Iowa the last three weeks of the campaign. Winning by 0.3% in a non-winner-take-all-state is not much of a victory. The two candidates will leave with nearly the same amount of delegates, and come next week when Bernie wins New Hampshire, he will actually take the lead.

A few other takeaways:

-Shockingly, I will lead off with Martin O’Malley and this incredible feat: some people actually do like him! Instead of railing on his shockingly low support in Iowa, I will instead suggest he exceeded expectations by proving some people would choose him over the ethically questionable Hillary or commi bastard Bernie. So although O’Malley is sure to drop out any day now–unless he really likes to lose by epic levels in a small field–he and his family can leave Iowa knowing they are not without support from some people. Fittingly, he has no geographic base of support, but instead, sporadic support in some rural counties.

-Bernie effectively peeled off the sizable left in Iowa and got out the youth and co-op farm vote to match Hillary’s party regulars and moderate base. Although Hillary technically won (or did she?), it matters very little in the scheme of things. What matters is Bernie took on Hillary’s onslaught of name-rec and resources and walked away tied after round 1. That is incredible someone not descriptively suited to beat Hillary (i.e. he is a Jewish socialist from Brooklyn… not a sizable bloc like Obama and African-Americans). Bernie’s strength in the most progressive part of the state–the southeast–is a clear indicator of where he gets his support.

For now, Bernie is effectively the front-runner for the next couple of weeks. Certainly Hillary’s ground game, and more importantly, advantage among party elites (superdelegates) will lead to her collecting a series of victories on super Tuesday. But if Bernie can continue to win the states with the most active left or legacy of populist socialism (Minnesota, New Mexico, Wisconsin, North Dakota, West Virginia, Michigan, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii), the last primary states may take him seriously enough to spurn their devotion to the Clintons. As it stands, Bernie has a very low chance of winning California, Texas, New York, Illinois, or Florida. If he can win one of these states, that would signal a very large sea change in in either the calculus of ethnic minorities, or an incredible turnout among youth voters. In is nearly unforeseeable for Bernie to start winning moderate or home-owning types, even if they have reservations about Hillary’s character. Texas will be the first of these states, and a key race to watch (Bernie will win NH and Hillary is very likely to win Nevada and South Carolina).

-Regarding Hillary, if I were in her camp I would still be optimistic. That is because this is a long race, and Hillary’s structural advantage across many multi-ethnic and non-leftist states makes her a clear favorite, even still. That said, Bernie has all the momentum, and she really needs to find a more convincing talking point that I am the best suited to win the general, and I have a lot of bipartisan experience. As much I actually believe that stuff, as a progressive, neither are likely to make me support her over Bernie. Going negative will not beat him either. The only way to beat Bernie, other that holding constant until the convention and winding an underwhelming plurality of the delegates, is to prove to progressives Hillary’s policies will continue and expand Obama’s legacy. Not only will she be mindful to steward the country through necessary, but unpopular decisions, but she will actually achieve success on progressive policies. That requires her to tell anecdotes about specific GOP senators that favor climate change, carceral reform, and raising the minimum wage. Because if those senators do not exist, then we are just as well off electing an authentic progressive icon than a competent statesman that might lead to non-progressive policies as much she gets the progressive ones. A history of bipartisanship is not enough; that these senators still exist, and on issues progressives care about, is key to Hillary proving her pedigree.

Oh, and overall, I think it is fair to say Iowans just do not like Hillary Clinton.

And now the GOP, the party of America! With a vast misinformation campaign, aided by a dumb leading opponent, arch-conservative (or so he makes everyone think) Ted Cruz took first place. Several people have suggested Trump’s refusal to participate in the last debate really hurt him among those that were still undecided. However, Ted Cruz looked especially bad in that debate, which to me suggests these undecided voters likely did not move toward Cruz, but some other candidate, which ostensibly could have been Trump. At any rate, Marco Rubio had an incredible night, and is the real big winner on the GOP side.

Key takeaways:

-Cruz winning is not surprising, given that Rick “Santorum” Santorum won in 2012. Iowa loves batshit unelectable conservative types. And given the large size of the field, the real advantage of “winning” Iowa is people making a big deal about you “winning” Iowa. If the media depicted event in Iowa as being a fairly bad predictor of subsequent events, the bandwagon effect would be much smaller (and it is already very small). They key question about Cruz are: when Trump inevitably quits the campaign, will those voters go to him? Same with Carson? And even if they pule into his camp, a combined 61.2% of the vote in Iowa is still probably not enough to predict the strength of that candidate in normal states. A conservative standard bearer, yes, but the eventual nominee, probably not.

-What I consider the biggest story of the nigh: Bush fails hard. Really hard. I don’t care how conservative Iowa Republicans are, 2.8% of the vote for a fucking Bush is ludicrous. If Jeb does not win New Hampshire, which he likely won’t, then I do not see how he can continue his campaign. The one ray of light is Marco Rubio is also not positioned to win New Hampshire, which means some moderate has to step into the fray. Kasich and Christie are well-suited to win New Hampshire, and they are not nearly as moderate as Huntsman in 2012, which should help them a little.

-Marco Rubio is the big winner of the night. He has seemingly pulled in enough regular conservatives to push him ahead of the moderate-only club of Republicans (Bush, Christie, Kasich). Now, Rubio will be able to get the moderates and eventually coalesce a strong election constituency around him, which one might even call “the establishment.” Most interestingly, Rubio surged atop college town enthusiasm. If he and Sanders make it to the general election, it might be the first time in American history in which the key deciding election group was young people. High turnout among college students and 20-somethings has propelled both of these candidates forward. But belying the “all college students are indoctrinate liberal” tag, Rubio (and Rand Paul) genuinely appeal to younger voters. One can argue endlessly about whether that is false consciousness by these youths or principled conservatism, but the feat of simply getting these kids excited is a high order. Rubio can authentically claim to be the leading non-batshit candidate at this point, which is especially stunning given his own history of being pathological liar.

-Surprisingly, there is not much to say about Trump. The accusations of electoral fraud by the comb-over against Cruz are really entertaining though. Seeing that he has continuously said he won every debate-business-election-farting contest in human history, the fact that he is 0/1 in election season (a zero percent success rate over his electoral career in the GOP) is interesting. The maverick in him could upset the conventional wisdom and he can take New Hampshire, but all the momentum is against him. Whoever his supporters are, at some point they will get burned out. That time might be sooner than later (and then he wins New Hampshire and I have reassess the world).

-Ben Carson achieved his high water mark for a primary this year. He will not fare any better moving forward. He might stay in to continue his public presence before his book releases, but his candidacy is essentially over now that the conservative side of the field is becoming more settled.

-Rand Paul has suspended his campaign. I do not know what he was expecting in Iowa, other than potentially winning the Iowa City area. But Rubio took those votes. So Paul will move on to concentrate on his jeopardized senate seat, but we will see him again in 2020 and 2024. I do believe at some point he will be a top 3 candidate in the party, although I honestly thought that could have been this election. Paul must eternally hate Rubio for stealing his campus cred.

—

Overall, the key story in Iowa is really the roll of college students in providing insurgent candidates with their support. Both Sanders and Rubio received large turnout in the college towns.

An Argument for Keeping the Confederate Flag

Well publicized and–in political time–hasty removal of Confederate flags, and soon iconography, across the South is pushed in a bipartisan lens as positive steps toward national reconciliation after the terrorist attack in Charleston. In isolation, the removal of Confederate iconography is good. There are many other symbols particular to the South that capture the heritage and alienation that is the Southern experience in America. Many of them do not possess the clear racial tinge of the Confederate, slave-economy-then-Jim-Crow flag.

Out of ignorance, many people cling to that flag as a token of how the South has generally been an other in the American polity. Whether that otherness is because of external victimization or a conscious choice by Southern leaders to foment alienation as a tool of collectivization around single-party, stratified socio-economic hierarchy is a question for another day. (Hint: it is mostly the latter.)

The Confederate flag should be elevated high atop the tallest flagpole in each state that has strong governmental policy in place to encourage racial discrimination. By removing this symbol of oppression, political leadership claims credit for a generational victory while doing literally nothing to lessen racism in society. In some sense, it would seem better to keep the flag as a symbol of ongoing racism in places it occurs, especially since it now seems to make conservatives uncomfortable and businesses are superficially deterred from operating in these states.

The National Conference of State Legislatures puts out some incredibly handy reports every year. One such report surveys the state of voter ID laws in the states. Below is a recoloring of their map to show greater contrast in state-by-state laws. Dark green states have a low amount of discrimination in voting procedures (i.e. voter ID laws), while the transition to yellow and red denotes an increased form of lawmaker directed institutional discrimination. There is a very high correlation between the implementation of draconian voter ID laws and the presence of a GOP governor and unified GOP legislature. That in itself is evidence the GOP’s recent turn toward “social justice”–removing the confederate flags–is purely symbolic in an effort to keep heat off of their more harmful, purposefully created discriminatory policies.

This map is slightly misleading, as several dark green states actually passed voter ID laws. North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin’s voter ID laws have either been struck down by the courts or set to kick in late 2015 or 2016, so this map does not fairly characterize the intent of the legislative and executive regimes within those states. However, it does indicate the state and federal judiciary seem to remediate some of the worst tendencies of state lawmakers and Nixonian types like Scott Walker. New Hampshire’s voter ID law is also set to become strictier in the new year.

Every state that makes it harder for anyone to voter, but especially those that face barriers to entry such as the poor, elderly, naturalized citizens, and students, should be stamped with a Confederate flag in proportion to how much they discriminate. The nationalization of this Southern symbol might be useful, as plenty of Northern and Plains states implement racism and discriminatory policies, but because the legacy of racism in these areas was not economic-based, but instead social, people often ignore how pernicious racism is across America. The map below converts the NCSL map into a simple demonstration of how discriminatory state voting regimes are as denoted through the size of the affixed Confederate flag. Even states that do not dabble in voter ID-based oppression still receive a small Confederate flag, since other policies, such as race-based incarceration disparities (California and New York lead the pack), police violence, educational outcomes, school closures (Rahm Emanuel in Chicago), housing costs, unregulated predatory banking practices, and general economic deprivation are supra-state, national problems.

The Confederate flag is the symbol of race war, white supremacy, slave economics, state sanctioned violence, and cultural warfare. Because many of these issues still pervade society, politics, and public policy, I argue the Confederate flag should remain a visible symbol of ongoing discrimination. I fear taking it down will supplant rightful discussions about racial inequality. Many political leaders have already argued racism is a thing of the past, but the prominence of the Confederate flag has always hampered the legitimacy of these claims. Now that the flag is being removed–to join lynch mobs and the word nigger in the annals of “heritage” lost–racism deniers will have fewer visible symbols of ongoing racism. If not for videotaped police perpetrated beatings and murders of people of color, the US media might never address issues of race.

Race still matters, and irresponsible politicians that downplay its relevance in state policy contribute to ongoing racial inequality. They should have to see what they defend everyday, in the form a detestable flag.

Republican Presidential Candidate Roundup, 2016: Analysis and Predictions

Sixth Party System has been out of commission for too long, and what better way to return than with a roundup of all the GOP candidates for president. We have some real quality people… in America, and none seem to be running for president in this field. Oh well, one of them will advance to the general, so we may as well get to know them. The format is simple: below each picture I will explain the type of candidate, why they are running, their chances of victory, and their support base. I will handicap each candidates chance of winning the GOP primary, and if that is above zero, their chances in the general election. This is the chance of winning the presidency overall, not the likely popular vote share. Since the national electorate leans Democratic right now, anything over a 33% chance of victory denotes a strong candidate. Moreover, this percentage is estimated with the assumption that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate. If she somehow loses the primary, then all of the chances to win would be much higher. Just add 10% to each number and that is how they would fare against Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb, Martin O’Malley, or any other Democrat.

Primary chances are zero sum among the candidates on this page, whereas general election chances are variable since it is a new, discrete game for each candidate versus the Democrat. Structurally, Republicans face an uphill struggle to win over the national electorate, which means no GOP candidate is favored to win over Hillary in 2016. A strong GOP candidate can make it a tight race, as some of these candidates could capably achieve. Some might even win the presidency in 2016, but it would be close. Who can win some Great Lakes states, the upper South, Colorado, and/or Florida?

Well, let’s see!

Jeb! Bush (smug autocratic former Governor of Florida)

Type: neo-conservative patrician

Purpose for running: legacy, turn

Chance of winning primary: 21%

Chance of winning general: 40%

Base of support: moderates; people who like dynasties; neo-cons; GOP establishment; he wishes Hispanics

Geographic base: national, but primarily the Northeast, Florida, and the Sun Belt

Jeb! (pronounced yeb) Bush is attempting to craft an image of himself that reeks of inauthenticity. A man of the people–namely Hispanic people. The problem is he is neither of the people nor his he Hispanic. But what he is certified as is a politically connected son and brother of former presidents, and a former governor of a swing state. That pedigree would generally make him the odds-on favorite to win in a party that has historically observed an it-is-your-turn approach to candidate selection. The problem is the party has become more conservative, and the “activist” class has managed to forge the most powerful narrative, which now reverberates in formerly moderate circles. The fractured field actually helps Bush–almost everyone is to his right and will fight it out for the looney tunes vote–but he has looked quite underwhelming in these early stages of the campaign.

With his classical training as a political operative in mind, Bush’s inability to answer the “knowing what you know now, would you invade Iraq?” question is astonishing. I contend if you were to ask him that question right now, you would get a different answer.It is a pretty simple question, which from his perspective would have a telegraphed answer: yes, with some caveat. That is it. He cannot refute his brother’s vision of Iraq and domestic security without hurting his own brand. Whether Jedediah likes it or not, he is conjoined with Dubyah at the hip on nearly everything. Moving away from his brother’s legacy is only remotely possible if he at least surrounds himself with different people and espouses different wisdom on the area, but his advisers are the same people that masterminded the war, and his messaging is also the same.

Back to his ethnicity, Bush is badly hurt by Marco Rubio’s presence in the campaign. Although Rubio is Cubano, his skin color and general straight-shooting manner leave him in a much better position to court Hispanic voters than Bush, who married a Mexican woman and has a biracial child, but is himself a product of an Aryan Episcopalian aristocratic family.

Jeb!’s bumbling, tone-deaf, and incredibly back-heeled campaign is inherently cynical. It operates under the clear modus operandi that he is destined to become president, and that if he avoids controversy and gotcha’ moments, his connections and name recognition will keep him in the race until early November 2016. No matter what he overtly stresses or claims in his manicured public gatherings and speeches, Bush’s campaign is not about earning it (the candidacy), but enduring it (the campaign).

Ben Carson (blind neurosurgeon in Maryland)

Type: Tea Partier/take-my-country-back(er)

Purpose for running: profit

Chance of winning: zero

Base of support: Tea Party; conservative policy wonks and intellectuals (too small a group to build a base)

Geographic base: a couple of people at the selfish Johns Hopkins medical school

Carson’s primary reason for running for president is to sell books. Plain and simple. This is a profit-making endeavor, although I do not doubt his sincerity when he decries the PPACA as the worst form of social control since slavery, or that same-sex marriage is really not that different from bestiality. And while I find him a pretty boring, inconsequential candidate or pundit, there is something to be said for how infatuated many Tea Party groups are with his person. Do they think he has smart ideas? Do they like his tenor? Are they just looking for any black conservative, and Allen West is busy right now? All I know is Ben Carson hails from the JHU medical school which is famous for bogarting resources that the rest of the university would benefit from. Fitting that side of the school would produce a vitriolic GOP candidate.

 Chris Christie (cartel Governor of New Jersey)

Type: metro machine conservative

Purpose for running: ambition and power

Chance of winning primary: 2%

Chance of winning general: 31%

Base of support: white homeowners; very confused good governance types; labor haters; network of  cronies; Italians; police and firefighters.

Geographic base: Northeast, Mid-Atlantic

The Culture of Corruption candidate really hurt his credibility with the whole Birdgegate debacle. It is obvious the whole thing was orchestrated because of how he runs his operations. The facts as currently available in the public surely disqualify him from overseeing a nation of diverse thought–some that do not jive with his thinking. Especially in this historical time period, in which federal security state affairs are at a crossroads, a Nixonian candidate like Christie or Walker is quite dangerous. Christie is very enigmatic: he seems to be go-getter, no nonsense type, as seen in how he handled Hurricane Sandy. At the same time, he is petty, abusive towards any opposition (e.g. questions), and he maintains a solid record of carving out special interest privileges. If you have to live under the reign of any of these candidates, Christie might be among the least pernicious, but that says more about the field of candidates than Christie’s acceptability. Such a pity; before the scandal I thought Christie could give Hillary a run for her money. Although he is still a strong campaigner, he is unlikely to make it through the GOP primary, let alone topple Hillary.

Ted Cruz (vacuous false-idol Senator from Texas)

Type: opportunist, McCarthyite, Tea Partier

Purpose for running: attention and profit

Chance of winning primary: 1%

Chance of winning general: 3%

Base of support: Tea Party; Minutemen; various anti-government types; people who gravitate towards false idols

Geographic base: Sun Belt, Big Sky country, Washington D.C.

Ted Cruz loves attention more than anything else, such as power, governance, policy, esteem. This run for president is not serious in any way, but simply an opportunity to keep his name in the public eye so that he can sell books, book speaking engagements, and engage donors. He is a weak candidate in any general election that has at least 1/3 non-GOP voters, which makes his reelection in Texas precarious. Therefore, time is of the essence for Cruz to cash in on his exploits, lest he be left with no policy achievements and not enough money to show for his time in politics. The real kicker is if Cruz used his education and ability to cajole colleagues to do as he says for a greater purpose, he could potentially be a formal leader and decision-maker within the party. It is fairly clear he does not want this sort of responsibility, unless of course that would keep him in the public eye ever more. Cruz is one of the few in-government vanity candidates, which usually hail from non-elected circles.

iCarly Fiorina Version 0.32 (failed business executive in California)

“You’re all fired, pissants” … “Oh, I’m fired… ingrate”

Type: business conservative

Purpose for running: vanity, life-meaning

Chance of winning primary: zero

Base of support: California Republican Party

Geographic base: Certain Silicon Valley home, Orange County

Fiorina’s version number is to suggest she has regressed below the 1.0 status, into a walking, talking demagogue. Aside from Ben Carson, she might be the least qualified person to become president. Unlike Carson, she has executive experience and has run for elected office, but short of the Trump, she has failed at being an executive as she ran HP into the ground. HP’s products, profits, innovation, market share, brand loyalty, and worker morale all declined under Fiorina. Since her departure, HP has actually returned to form to some respect, showing crappy leadership indeed outweighs decent thinkers and workers when it comes to final product. She is a vitriolic, bitter person that is very insulting and defensive in just about every setting you will see her in. California is light on the GOP bench, but even there, she is a horrible, horrible candidate. The 42.2% vote share in the California Senate race against Barbara Boxer looks pretty good, as does winning Ventura and San Diego counties. However, the year of that election was 2010, and Boxer has long faced mainstream issues with getting Socal white middle class votes, which suggests a) the impressive counties Fiorina won had more to do with dislike for Boxer, and b) 42.2% in 2010 is actually pretty awful. A stronger candidate could have brough Boxer into plurality victory territory–still a loss, but a more respectable one. Fiorina does not deserve to be president or vice president, and she really has no particular base of support to justify her candidacy. Seriously, who supports Fiorina?

Lindsey Graham (limp-wristed Senator from South Carolina)

If you get this reference, cheers.

Type: Neo-conservative war hawk

Purpose for running: policy, keep neo-con hawk line on the agenda

Chance of winning primary: zero

Base of support: neoconservative war hawks; legal community; log-cabin Republicans

Geographic base: coastal Carolinas, D.C., Southern cities

Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman made up the holy trinity of neoconservative war hawks in the Senate between the late 1990s and 2010. They were bipartisan, but generally agreed on a conservative, anti-darkies agenda. Now in 2015, Lieberman is gone, with Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire subbed in, but Graham still has all the same answers. “Invade, invade, 9/11. bomb, invade, kill, 9/11, radical Islam, war, Iran, Benghazi, bomb, security, kill kill kill.” I suppose it is disingenuous to use quotes, but I stand by those terms as a pretty good paraphrase. His presidential run is not in any way to win, but instead to do two things: become a potential VP candidate, but more importantly, keep the hawkish line in the official discourse.

I guess this presidential run means Lindsey will not announce his coming out of the closet any time soon, but I sure hope Graham accepts his homosexuality soon and drops the facade of being a lifelong bachelor.

Mike Huckabee (snake oil selling former Governor from Arkansas)

Type: evangelical conservative

Purpose for running: profit

Chance of winning primary: 9%

Chance of winning general: 22%

Base of support: Evangelical movement; certain right-wing populists; some moderates that view his rhetoric and governance as two distinct, almost disconnected paths.

Geographic base: Bible Belt, south of the Ohio River, east of the Colorado

Mike Huckabee has managed to transform from mild-mannered, pragmatic conservative governor to hate-filled, pandering, solicitous demagogue in a matter of eight years. Where Huckabee used to come across as an authentic populist with religious commitments, he now seems to represent purely reactionary elements within the country. Further, he tends to use language that foments anger and increases general hostility toward government instead of framing his perspective on issues as problem-solving what others fail to fix. These changes point towards a general lack of interest in governance, and instead, a growing interest in money. If he has a secondary motive, it might be to grow his power within the American baptist and evangelical communities, but even this may now simply serve as a vehicle for resource extraction through peddling snake oil products like crappy health care coverage after the PPACA, or weak cure-alls to diabetes. Among all the profit-motivated candidates in the race at this time, he still has the largest political base and greatest chance to at least win some primaries. He has done it before, and even if he has lost the esteem of more serious voters, his burgeoning power within the religious right affords him a strong, motivated base to turnout in droves.

Bobby Jindal (awkward malware Governor of Louisiana)

“Uh sir, you just don’t seem to get it. The fedurrul guvurnment caused the BP oil spill and is making it worse.” I imagine dealing with Jindal for coordination purposes is extremely obnoxious.

Type: panderer

Purpose for running: self-meaning, VP bait

Chance of winning primary: zero

Base of support: none really, but some conservative policy wonks like him

Geographic base: parts of Louisiana

Bobby Jindal is not a well-liked or popular political figure in any circles. Louisianans don’t like him, so he has no geographic base. Big money types have all-American good ol’ boys like Walker and Bush to turn to. Youths don’t like him. I am sure he holds some esteem in the Indian community, which on balance is more conservative than most Asian American communities, but that base is not strong enough in the GOP to do much. He tends to play up new generation leadership with fresh ideas, much like Rubio (and in his awkward, vague manner, Cruz), but Jindal does not actually have many ideas. School choice? Stopping Iran from getting a nuke? Repealing Obamacare? Keystone XL? Nothing innovative or original about this stuff. Even in a weak field, he would likely finish near last, but here, Jindal stands no chance. Chances are Jindal becomes a highly paid lobbyist for an oil company after he leaves the governor’s mansion.

John Kasich (calculating Governor of Ohio)

Type: Reaganite, pragmatic conservative

Purpose for running: governance; ambition

Chance of winning primary: 3%

Chance of winning general: 48%

Base of support: Beltway players; moderates; policy wonks; Reagan era pols; in-government bureaucrats; business interests without conservative social agendas

Geographic base: Great Lakes, D.C.

Governor Kasich is a savvy politician, well-seasoned in decades of austerity era American governance. He probably aspires to be nearly as conservative as most of the other candidates here, but unlike them, when he perceives public sentiment is against him, he will compromise. The Issue 2 debacle in 2011 seems to have shaken the depths of his conservative agenda, but that likely made him a better general election candidate and representative of broader interests. Perhaps the fact that he has a conscience precludes him from becoming the GOP candidate, but if he somehow made it to the general, there is a strong chance he could beat Hillary to become president. When an authentic conservative willing to make deals to keep the country moving has almost no shot of winning the Republican primary, something is seriously wrong.

George Pataki (bored former Governor of New York)

“Who farted? Must be al-Qaeda.”

Type: security statist

Purpose for running: relevance, life meaning, probably profit

Chance of winning primary: zero

Base of support: Giuliani type well-to-do metropolitan homeowners who fear minorities and crime

Geographic base: places hit with terrorism, suburbs, and exurbs

As a fringe candidate running purely out of boredom and a dwindling sense of life-force, Pataki at least fulfills the security state fear monger role Giuliani usually fills. Aside from that, not much to say about Pataki except he is unlikely to gain any traction short of a terrorist attack that somehow he forecasted. That should also make him a prime suspect if one is to occur. He has a reputation as a New York conservative, but short of James Buckley, he would still seem quite moderate to the GOP base. A meaningless campaign for a meaningless person.

Rand Paul (the less disgusting Senator from Kentucky)

Type: libertarian extraordinaire

Purpose for running: keep libertarian line in public discourse; sell books

Chance of winning: 18%

Chance of winning general: 28%

Base of support: paleo-conservatives; libertarians; Bourbon GOP; college-aged white males; Ayn Rand readers.

Geographic base: national, college campuses

Every now and then Rand Paul will say or do something that seems cross-partisan and almost beneficial for the country, such as fighting the surveillance state and working with Harry Reid to retrench the prison industrial complex and enfranchise felons. That is really good stuff, and his voice within the GOP is much more important than the many Democratic civil libertarian analogs, which is quite ironic since the GOP is supposed to be the party of limited government, reserved rights, and skepticism toward governmental power. As some–but not all–political observers understand, the GOP actually seems to be the party of inflated and wasteful government, which is an interesting method of decreasing public confidence in government, which thereby bolsters claims to dismantle parts of the state that actually do serve a purpose, such as the welfare state. Anyone who followed Reagan’s presidency understands this tactic well: starve the beast to create the crisis in which retrenchment takes hold; make government so heinous regular folks will call for deregulation and the marginalization of public goods. But while these conservatives, starting with Nixon, the expansion of state oppressive apparatuses such as the surveillance and carceral states belies much of their retrenchment messages. This is where Rand Paul is both confounding and refreshing: he generally wants to dismantle nearly everything across the board, which includes conservative-led police state structures. Paul’s several filibusters have certainly kept these items on the agenda and disallow quick, bipartisan reauthorizations, even if he fails at the end of the day. Launching a filibuster when you are publishing a book about your filibusters is also a nice way to profit from these seemingly symbolic articulations.

That is where Paul becomes a little easier to figure out than say, Scott Walker: Paul wants to spread the gospel of libertarian doctrine, and if that forces him to lose some allies while he makes some money, so be it. The senator is not running for president to win, but instead to keep his agenda in the public eye, and to further build his middle-class white college boy base into a larger network. Perhaps one day he will become the GOP candidate, but right now the primary voters are not libertarians, but instead generally Huckabee type social authoritarians. In the past, Paul has pandered to this crowd (see any of his comments on civil rights), but he seems less content to make that a focal point in his current campaign. Although the Paul electorate is not fully formed, the elder (Ron) Paul did exceedingly well for an insurgency campaign in 2012. Perhaps Rand will go even further this time, which means several states outright. That libertarian strain is strong in California, Colorado, Maine, the Dakotas, and possibly Kentucky (for obvious reasons).

Rick Perry (moronic former Governor from Texas)

Certainly (I hope) an accidental sieg heil, but Niggerhead owner Perry has eclectic views on social issues, many of which are grounded in late 19th-early 20th century thought.

Type: states-rights evangelical conservative and secessionist

Purpose for running: relevance

Chance of winning primary: 5%

Chance of winning general: 2%

Base of support: secessionists; racists; Texans

Geographic base: Texas and parts of the Sun Belt

Oh Rick Perry, why do you want to advertise your stupidity? I know glasses can be perceived as a sign of intelligence, but that is if you adhere to Khmer Rouge assessments of intelligence, in which Perry should probably take the glasses off lest he be led to the killing fields. As if the glasses were not enough, he also obtained a lecturer job in the political science department of Texas A&M, which is actually a pretty good school and department despite it being his alma mater. What would complete Perry’s transformation into the conservative’s intellectual would be the ability to articulate clearly, write legibly, and remember one’s argument. Once he gets those down, National Review here he comes!

As if Perry’s meltdown last cycle was not enough, Perry is back for more. If he was the only southern conservative with occasional bouts of racist psychobabble, he might actually have a chance to make it to the final three. However, this cycle has Huckabee, Jindal, Santorum, and Cruz, which is a clown car of the same ilk. They will splinter the vote to the point that a “moderate,” northern conservative, or libertarian might carry the day, further marginalizing the quite formidable southern bloc. Perry is probably in the race to provide liberals with laughs and to potentially hype a forthcoming book about Texas secession and why he hates America so much. Of all the fringe candidates, Perry has the highest likelihood a winning a state primary (South Carolina maybe), but he will quickly lose steam and implode, much like happened to revisionist pseudo-historian Newt Gingrich.

Marco Rubio (thirsty Senator from Florida)

“Excuse my Obama bashing, I’m really rolling right now and some agua would be divine”

Type: Neo-neo-conservative

Purpose for running: ambition and hopeful VP pick

Chance of winning primary: 11%

Chance of winning general: 35%

Base of support: politically illiterate young people; moderates; certain Tea Partiers; Club for Growth

Geographic base: Southern Florida

The man that drinks scared, Rubio loves to tell everyone how much he likes hip-hop, and apparently, electronic music. Well that’s nice. I like hip-hop too. Oh, you like Tupac and Biggie? Me too!!!! I guess you have my vote (says no one). Although I do not doubt his sincerity with liking rap, I definitely think his infatuation with dub step is pure pandering. That said, in a general election equipped with rock the vote campaigns, he might benefit from some of these statements. But there are very few Republican primary voters who share his authentic interest in 90s hip-hop. If Rubio is crafty enough, he will try to learn a thing or two from Rand Paul and storm college campuses for his voting base. Simply put, Cubanos are not a large enough population in states out side of Florida, which will likely go for Bush over him, though I could be wrong on that. Rubio is betting the farm on this campaign as he is not running for reelection in the Senate–unlike unscrupulous Rand Paul–which implies he is either very confident in winning/gaining VP nod, or he does not want to be in DC anymore and would rather run for FL governor or get a show on Fox. Rubio’s message has predominantly focused on international issues, such as Iran and ISIS, with sprinkles of Obamacare and entitlement talk. I doubt these combination will go very far in such a crowded field, but I am hesitant to dismiss Rubio the way I do with other candidates. Historically he has shown a unique leadership style, such as his state-crossing idea generation tour when he was a state lawmaker, which allowed him to craft an image as a visionary man of the people. I do not see him doing such things nowadays, but if he can stay in the race past the first primary months, I think he could be a serious candidate that is capable of pleasing both establishment (“moderate”) GOP business interests, as well the Tea Party. Moreover, he then adds in the youthful vigor element to contrast with Hillary, and who knows, maybe he pulls off an incredible upset. Stranger things have happened.

Rick Santorum (talking airbag and former Senator from Pennsylvania)

Type: Christian conservative, blue collar conservative

Purpose for running: profit, nothing better to do

Chance of winning primary: 1%

Chance of winning general: 8%

Base of support: 19 & Counting; disenchanted conservative union workers; nuclear family idealists

Geographic base: Rust Belt

Rick Santorum is an utter moron, but lately I have realized he is probably not a bad person. Moreover, he has a strain of preferences in his career of taking pro-worker stances on some issues when the GOP line would be to his right. Granted, these are rare and often meaningless, but my point is he is not the worst. He might be a fundamentalist, but he has some common sense. He also has a low IQ, which hurts his ability to answer questions and communicate in an effective manner. Anyway, Santorum is not a threat to win this election–he seems to struggle to find an audience willing to listen to him. Unfortunately, that means this race is simply about keeping his name out there so he can make enough money off of family biographies to buy the his eponymous domain name. A frothy mixture indeed.

Donald Trump (ego-maniacal profiteer)

Type: xenophobic business conservative

Purpose for running: vanity and self-meaning

Chance of winning primary: 3%

Chance of winning general: 1%

Base of support: himself; interests abroad

Geographic base: Suburbs, NY and Chicago, Northeast

Trump is the most prolific troll in American political history. Unlike most human beings, when Trump makes an assertion at the beginning of a sentence, he has no problem completely disowning that view by the end of the sentence. Where many people are bound by consistency to decrease cognitive dissonance, Trump will float from one string of ideas to another that completely contradicts what he just said. He is neither principled nor conservative, which is what the base really wants. He is an opportunist who says what he thinks people want to hear, which may strike people as untrue, but that is what does. Many members of the GOP hate Mexicans, but Trump does not. And yet he feels very at ease with attacking anyone of that nationality as likely criminals or moochers. He makes business deals in quick succession with Chinese or Arab autocrats and tyrants, then will vilify their whole lot as enemies of the state. Wouldn’t that make Trump a traitor? Anyone that allows the words that fart out of Trumps disgusting head to bother them is misunderstanding what Trump represents in the cosmic collective: Trump is the desperate fame worshiping failure that thinks he has all the answers, when he has exactly zero solutions to anything. No matter how well he polls in New Hampshire, or any other state, the egomaniac will never gain elected office with a diverse electorate. He could run for mayor of Greenwich if he wanted, and might win, but that is about as high as this vanity candidate can buy his way into elected office. Now he could become a diplomat for a winning candidate he financed, but then he would have to knock off the racism, which might be asking too much.

Scott Walker (sinister Orwellian Governor of Wisconsin)

Type: smooth talking arsonist

Purpose for running: power, policy, ambition

Chance of winning primary: 26%

Chance of winning general: 46%

Base of support: Koch Bros™; multi-national business interests; homeowners; union haters; polarized and fearful public; bikers.

Geographic base: Great Lakes and Great Plains

First off, Scott is a such a cool dude. Like really. What a man of the people and just really humble, and hey, he is just like me: a commoner. He rides around Wisconsin in a rotund motorcycle, he has badges. I mean, so cool.

Too bad he is the contemporary incarnation of Richard Nixon. Seriously. He is the most Nixonian candidate this country has seen in… ever. His paranoia, quest for power, unscrupulous personal and institutional attacks on others, and his incredible ability to forge a seemingly benign message to cover up a dystopian policy is uncanny. Walker is the biggest threat of any candidate to become president, and then quickly deregulate an already deregulated country, open up nature reserves for resource extraction, and massively retool the surveillance/security state to Orwellian levels. Fear, like with Nixon, is his currency.

Walker is quite perplexing. The weirdest aspect of Walker’s person is no one really knows what he actually believes. It is easy to paint him as a mouthpiece for the Koch Bros™, willing to do anything for his big money donors in the quest for quid pro quo enrichment and political gain. But, he could also be a principled business oriented conservative, driven to implement his ideal vision of an American in which… businesses… and… Republicans reign supreme. But who knows to what extent he pursues his principles, discrete interests, constituent demands, or big business directives. Does it even matter?

The answer is no. Whether he believes in the policies or political tactics he readily employs hardly matters. What is known is that he pursues a deregulatory, union-busting, surveillance included agenda that would likely hurt almost every person in the country, whether they realize it or not. I could see the allure of seemingly normal, seemingly humble, seemingly direct leader that levels with people and claims to balance budgets and cut taxes. All this amounts to a middle class white male homeowner’s dream candidate.

Whether Walker is driven by personal goals or select interests, one thing is known: he is a power hungry politician that uses covert tactics to achieve his strategy of ensuring politics is filled with hatred, animosity, fear, and permanent crisis. In this context, he can step in and be the patrician leader business interests and scared people adore. God help us if ever becomes president.

Strictly about this campaign, he is among the most sophisticated politicians in the country, and he has an endless stream of dark money to keep him in the race long after most other candidates piss their sugar daddy off and bow out. I consider him the strongest primary candidate in the GOP, and among the top 4 strongest general election GOP candidate. If he wins Iowa, he could still lose in other states, but if he wins New Hampshire, I would say primary season will be over very quickly.

——————————-

2014 Senate Elections Prediction Map

Democrats narrowly keep the Senate, with Greg Orman caucusing with the majority–in this case, his conscience and pragmatism converge.
114th Congress, Senate side: 52 Democrats – 48 Republicans

2014 Senate Election Predictions

This election cycle is looking increasingly favorable for the GOP, but several interesting shake-ups are in the works. Here are the site’s predictions for the 33 Senate desks up for the taking:

(Disclaimer, this blog entry has been updated several times to add more text and debate links, but prediction winners and vote shares have not been altered. Whether they end up being accurate is less important that the fun of taking an educated guess several days before an election, and seeing how reality differs)

(Further disclaimer: I did change my prediction for the Louisiana Senate race on 11/2/14 to reflect a PPP poll that showed Maness with a 15% share. I have upped his share in my prediction to 10%, with a 3 pt reduction in Cassidy, and a 2 pt reduction in Landrieu’s share. I stand by my above disclaimer for all other race predictions)

Alabama: Jeff Sessions (R) v. write-ins.

Not much to say here. Sessions will win with about 81 to 87% of the vote. There must be some statewide office that Dems are looking to pick up but did not want to mobilize federally minded Rs to the poll. I could look into it, but who cares. Too bad, keeping one of the biggest tools in Congress honest is an admirable cause.

Winner: Sessions

Results: 79R-16former D-2-1-1-1

Effect: R Hold.

Alaska: Mark Begich (D) v. Dan Sullivan (R) v. assorted third partiers.

Debate

If any Dem can win in Alaska, it is Begich. He is an independent-minded, frontier type politician, just like his daddy. He supports the worst energy industry tendencies to bogart federal dollars to profitable oil companies via tax expenditures (i.e. subsidies). However, this is an anti-incumbent year, with an out-party tilt, though not as dramatic as 2010. Dan Sullivan is a run of the mill Alaska Republican, with not nearly as much baggage as Joe Miller. To me, this is the toughest race to call this cycle. Begich is a much stronger candidate than Pryor, Braley, and maybe even Landrieu, but the votes just might not be there. That said, Alaskans would be wise to set partisanship aside and develop their seniority, which — considering his fierce substantive representation of the region — should satisfy the common economic interests of the region. Environmentalists may never have a representative of their own, but Begich is a smart guy. If Sullivan was a stronger candidate, none of the above would matter.

Winner: Begich

Results: 48D-47R-4L-1

Effect: D Hold.

Arkansas: Mark Pryor (D) v. Tom Cotton (R)

Debates here and here

Mark Pryor is definitely one of the dumbest members of the Senate. His father was an accomplished legislator, bringing in a new, more progressive type of southern politician in an era of Wilbur Mills types. But he is not his father. Pryor is little more than nondescript conservative Democrat. Cotton, on the other hand, is a Ivy educated vet, but funny enough, is not actually very bright either. Certainly Cotton is the more cerebral of the two candidates, but either Cotton is as big of an ideologue as he wants conservative Arkansans to believe, or he is a slightly smarter master manipulator of public sentiment, just to advance his career and quietly work to ingratiate himself within the GOP leadership. He could potentially be a bridge between the Tea Party and mainstream sides of the Senate caucus, as double speak is certainly a trait of his, but he has to get their first. And unfortunately for Pryor, this might all be quite consequential. Although Cotton is not the superstar many had hyped him up to be, he has enough partisan id in his favor to win this election, even if he has done little to deserve a raise.

Winner: Cotton

Results: 52R-46D-1L-1G

Effect: R pickup

Colorado: Mark Udall (D) v. Corey Gardner (R)

Debates here, here and here

Mark Udall has never been a great candidate. Unlike his more progressive cousin Tom to the south in Nuevo Mexico, Mark has never carved out an area of specialization in the Senate–either ideologically or on policy. By overemphasizing women’s issues, he did alienate much of the state that just wants balanced discussion, or anti-feminist who find it taxing to have to listen women’s needs. I happen to think his ads are spot on in showcasing Gardner’s anti-choice record (including the personhood bill he refuses to call a bill). But the winds are blowing against the Democrats in general, and Corey Gardner has made sure to moderate and obfuscate as much as possible to play off of people’s uncertainties and angst. Had

Winner: Pure tossup, but Udall

Results: 48.1D-47.9R-2L-2G

Effect: D Hold

Delaware: Chris Coons (D) v. Kevin Wade (R) v. Andrew Goff (G)

Debate

Not much of a race here. Coons is not a charismatic politician, but a solid hybrid populist-technocrat. Wade does not come across too poorly, but his critique of Coons is not sufficient to propel him to victory in blue state.

Winner: Coons

Results: 57D-41R-2G

Effect: D Hold

Georgia: David Perdue (R) v. Michele Nunn (D) v. Amanda Swafford (L)

Debates here, here, here and here

Perdue has very little to offer voters in terms of an affirmative agenda. More than any other candidate, he is simply running against Obama, who is the source for all ills in the world. Nunn, on the other hand, has posed herself as an independent pragmatist, cognizant of the problems this country faces and willing to work toward solutions. Now whether one would be better than the other is up to your ideological preference, and how you judge competence, but certainly Nunn has wiped the floor with the seemingly hollow man of Perdue. A stronger Libertarian Party candidate would likely play spoiler, perhaps on both sides, but Sawfford is fairly ineffectual, as she focuses more on the novelty of having a third choice than convincingly attracting support.

Winner: Nunn

Results: 48.6D-48.4R-2L

Effect: D Pickup

Hawaii: Brian Schatz (D) v. Campbell Cavasso (R) v. Michal Kokoski (L)

Without knowing the full history of the GOP side of this race, I am baffled how the party arrived at Cavasso as the candidate. Former governor Lingle could have pushed Schatz hard, but this election is a pure push.

Winner: Schatz

Results: 69D-29-2L

Effect: D Hold

Idaho: John Risch (R) v. Nels Mitchell (D)

Debate

One of the most right-wing creeps will return to the Senate. In the debate, Risch did everything he could to steer away from any substantial issue to instead paint Mitchell as an Obama surrogate from California in an effort to legitimize his insurgent candidacy. Such a creep… I definitely think Idaho could produce better people than Risch. Even Crapo is better.

Winner: Risch

Results: 67D-33R

Effect: R Hold

Illinois: Dick Durbin (D) v. Jim Oberweis (R) v. Sharon Hensen (L)

Debates here and here

Oberweis is a mega lightweight. His words carry no weight, he seems to lack any conviction on the issues. Durbin in a landslide. The question is, how far Obie runs behind Bruce Rauner–I figure somewhere around 12 points (which unfortunately means Rauner wins his race).

Winner: Durbin

Results: 57D-41R-2L

Effect: D Hold

Iowa: Bruce Braley (D) v. Joni Ernst v. Doug Butzler (L)

Debates here, here and here

Braley had this election well in tow before making fun of farming Senator Grassley. Since then, he has alienated a large proportion of older voters in the state, who may look at Ernst’s general election stance as who she is, when her primary positions deserve extreme scrutiny. That said, she may be more moderate than her primary stances, and more conservative than her general, making her a median member in the Senate GOP caucus. It seems like Ernst has this race in the bag, which should serve as a lesson to anyone who disparages the core economic venture in the state and seeks a raise to higher office. You would not think that needs to be said, but Braley clearly did not get the memo.

Winner: Ernst

Results: 50R-48D-2 all others

Effect: R Pickup

Kansas: Pat Roberts (R) v. Greg Orman (I) v. Randall Batson (L)

Debates here, here, and here

Orman is one of the best challengers in this election cycle. He comes across as even-keeled and clear-headed. In contrast, Roberts comes across as desperate and on edge, with a little (though not as much as other faltering incumbents) transparent hostility. I have heard numerous stories over the years of Roberts being the funniest man in the Senate–sharp witted and consistently entertaining. But Orman has created a pretty unique Tea Party-progressive coalition, which although mercurial and at risk of shattering at any time, might carry long enough to get him one term in the Senate. Once the Democrat got kicked off the ballot, this race really became a heated race.

Winner: Orman

Results: 49.8I-47.2R-3L

Effect: I Pickup

Kentucky: Mitch McConnell (R) v. Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) v. David Patterson (L)

Debate

McConnell is a seriously slimy pol, both pejoratively in his shifty appearance and questionable motives, and positively in his savvy ability to manipulate the general electorate into supporting him, even if no one likes the guy, This election will likely confirm all of the above, with McConnell barely getting by with a simple plurality (instead of majority) of the vote. McConnell’s explanation of certain issues, like keeping the Kentucky exchange (it is “okay”), while repealing the whole of Obamacare, and Kentucky’s dwindling economy over the last 50 years being somehow a product of Obama’s regulatory policies, are a bit hard to swallow. Lundergan Grimes is a very strong candidate who would likely defeat McConnell in 4 out of 10 races, but in a single election, winning is tough. She is also one of the few Democrats who is more likely to win in a midterm year than a presidential year, with a negative pull of Democratic presidential candidates in Kentucky, as well as a very small liberal base (college students, African Americans, intellectuals, environmentalists) to turn out in Kentucky. The one thing about ALG, and with many red state Democrats, is basically defending why they are even Democrats. In this race, she has not done a good job standing up for her party id, which essentially means she is more liberal than what she expects would fly in Kentucky. Much of being a red state Democrat comes down to confusing enough voters into thinking you are something you are not, or simply benefiting from antipathy toward the GOP candidate. Both seem true here, but the latter may not move enough voters into Lundergan Grimes’ camp. I should say McConnell also has to deceive voters to receive votes, as most normal people would not support his particular use of tactics or dystopian policy views, even if they identify as conservative. Patterson is the clear spoiler here, but my calculation is he pulls about equally from disenchanted ultra-conservatives as potential Democratic independents who resent liberal elitism. The vote margin will be within 8000 votes, or about 0.6% of the total vote.

Winner: McConnell

Results: 48.5-47.9D-3.6L

Effect: R Hold

Louisiana: Mary Landrieu (D) v. Bill Cassidy (R) v. Rob Maness (I)

Debates here and here

Unlike Lundergan Grimes above, Landrieu is the genuine article conservative Democrat. She nearly killed Obamacare, she wanted to let BP skate with barely any penalty for destroying the Gulf, and she has often risen to the Senate floor to challenge progressive reforms offered by less senior members. On paper, Cassidy should beat her, based on the party id structural advantage, midterm year, and Cassidy’s history of pulling some African American votes to his side. However, Cassidy is campaigning in a very erratic manner, which makes him look very unstable (watch the debates above). In contrast, Maness has seemed lackadaisical and ill-informed, although he does come across as a fairly nice person. Landrieu is a very savvy campaigner and knows her state as well as any governor or senator in the country. The question becomes will she receive enough support in the general to avoid a runoff (which depends on Maness’ ability to pull votes from Cassidy)? The answer is no. Then she is disfavored from victory in a runoff. But I think she will fail to receive a majority in the general, and still win in the runoff, even with key Democratic base voters staying home. What explains this, I do not know–which may mean I am wrong–but she has done it before and can do it again.

Winner: Landrieu

Results: Plurality in general (46D-44R-10I); Majority in runoff 50.1D-49.9R

Effect: D Hold

Maine: Susan Collins (R) v. Shenna Bellows (D)

Debate

Put simply, the Democratic Party of Maine likes Susan Collins for some reason. More than respect, more than “she is a formidable candidate so we will not challenge her”–there is something going on there. Collins is a great legislator (though not as prolific as Olympia Snowe), and there is little reason to make a change in a state as independently liberal as Maine.

Winner: Collins

Results: 67R-32D-1 others

Effect: R Hold

Massachusetts: Ed Markey (D) v. Brian Herr

Markey and John Kerry are very similar legislators, and as such, he will be returned to Congress with almost a Kerry-like electoral margin. I expect him to achieve fully Kerrydom in the next cycle in 2020 with a 70% share.

Winner: Markey

Results: 59D-38R-3other

Effect: D Hold

Michigan: Gary Peters (D) v. Terri Lynn Land (R) v. Jim Fullner (L)

The disappearing candidate strategy of Land (which is why there were no debates) will turn out not be a winning one. Peters wins. Pretty dumb strategy considering the best time to defeat an incumbent party is when they have to replace a long-time candidate. Peters will not be as vulnerable in 2020.

Winner: Peters

Results: 55D-42R-2L+1other

Effect: D Hold

Minnesota: Al Franken (D) v. Mike McFadden (R) v. Steve Carlson (IP)

Debates here and here

Franken has tailored a Minnesota first image by advancing local issues and only speaking to local press. He is a smart, dedicated leader who represents the interests of members of the public who may hold more conservative views. His debate performances have been quite underwhelming, but luckily his opponent McFadden is indefatigably moronic in his line of critiques and ideas. I could pick so many baffling quotes to display here, but I do not quite care enough to do it. Well, ok, I will do one. He supports revenue neutral tax code reform, “because we have 17 trillion dollars of debt.” Doesn’t that suggest the government needs more money? Or is the debt not the point, but and ideological commitment to not raising taxes is actually the motivation?

Winner: Franken

Results: 54D-44R-2IP

Effect: D Hold

Mississippi: Thad Cochran (R) v. Travis Childers (D) v. Shawn O’Hara (Ref)

Childers being as conservative as he is will demobilize Democrats from seizing the momentum against Cochran. Cochran’s appeals to black voters in the primary may bolster his totals this go-round.

Winner: Cochran

Results: 61R-38D-1Ref

P.S. If write-ins were accepted (which I do not think they are), I would expect McDaniel supporters to aggregate into about a 17% vote share. 46R-36D-17McDeezee-1Ref

Effect: R Hold

Montana: Amanda Curtis (D) v. Steve Daines (R) v. Roger Roots (L)

Debate

Curtis acts like she is taking one for the team by falling on the sword this election, which I think is unsavory being that Daines is not a perfect candidate and could be called out on more things. But Daines does have a strong legislative temperament and actually possesses a semblance of competence that many freshman Republicans sorely lacked. Although I think Curtis is more intelligent on the issues that she conveys in a debate forum, her lack of eloquence reduces the ability of voters to project competence at the next level. That is key since Daines has used competence as his explicit number one quality.

Winner: Daines

Results: 61R-37D-2L

Effect: R pickup

Nebraska: Ben Sasse (R) v. David Domina (D) v. Jim Jenkins (I) v. Todd Watson (I)

Debate

Sasse is not the worst conservative to have around, but is a fairly standard pseudo-moderate. But his opponent Domina is much less attractive candidate. He is a mild idiot–he can explain his positions on issues, but does not seem to understand the root of the concepts he is addressing. And example, when asked in a debate to name a conflict, if any, he would have opposed sending the military, he said Bosnia and Albania. Ok, not a bad answer. But in answering the question, he stated authoritatively that the primary role of the the US military is eliminate threats beyond our borders at the lowest possible level of appearance. Uh… no. Not at all.  Independent candidate Watson seized on this in his response, addressing the need to be more defensive, to which Domina stated the point is to never be on defense by always being on offense. Wow. That would Domina in the extreme right with his foreign policy and defense views, perhaps even of John McCain. Basically, Sasse skates by with simple answers, his youth, and party id to get to the Senate. Who knows, maybe he is capable of doing something good…

I was ready to end this post but then Domina said Israel saves the US billions of dollars by defending itself, because the alternative is to have a substantial military presence in the Middle East. Ok… so we do not have a military presence in the region, let alone an enormous one?

Winner: Sasse

Results: 58R-36D-4Watson-2Jenkins

Effect: R Hold

New Hampshire: Jeane Shaheen (D) v. Scott Brown (R)

Debates here and here

The Great Carpetbagger Scott Brown followed through on moving to New Hampshire–which according to him he was never not a part of–and challenged solid, if not amazing Jeane Shaheen. In theory, Brown should be able to beat Shaheen in a midterm election in the most conservative northeastern state. However, Brown will lose for several reasons. One, carpetbagging is not well-received in contemporary politics. Historically, it mattered very little, except for northern Unionist moving down the former Confederacy to run shit after the Civil War. Only in the last 50ish years have enough states solidified that you cannot hold office in one state then attempt to attain office in another. Put simply, people look on candidates from other states or districts as not them, and suspicious for even attempting to manipulate them or meddle in their affairs. Second, Shaheen is a fairly strong candidate. Yes, she has lost an election in the past, but she has a strong record within the state and even with current attacks on her, is a fairly moderate Democrat. Third, Brown’s campaign has been so excessively negative and snarky, I do not see who would switch a previous vote for Shaheen for a prospective vote for Brown. He has fear mongered on ISIS and Ebola well beyond the median fear mongering politician in the last few weeks (which is an incredible statement since overacting to this public health issue has become a characteristic of American political culture). I would not be shocked if Brown won, but I figure it is more likely New Hampshireans (New Hampshirites?) would consciously vote in a strategic manner to split their delegation. This state has a record of somehow making that happen.

Winner: Shaheen

Results: 53D-47R

Effect: D Hold

New Jersey: Corey Booker (D) v. Jeff Bell (R)

Debates here and here

The question is how transformative a politician Booker will become, as gauged by his electoral margin. Booker’s conservative, Main street, Third Way form of liberalism is actually a step back from Lautenberg’s overt progressivism. But Booker connects with people exceptionally well, which just like President Obama, allows him to build coalitions that exceed that of a standard moderate or progressive Democrat.  That said, the large coalition may not materialize in election returns, which is a bit confusing. Bell is a weak candidate. If Christie can pull Dems to his side, I am sure Booker can gain a reciprocal amount of GOP votes. (The dirty secret in NJ politics is that they are not that far apart on most issues.) Anyway, Booker wins, but probably not as big as he will in 2020 (assuming he does not allow a replacement to run while he seeks the presidency).

Winner: Booker

Results: 58D-41R-1other

Effect: D Hold

New Mexico: Tom Udall (D) v. Allen Weh

Debate

Unlike his weak sauce cousin up north, Tom Udall has risen to near moral leader status in the Senate. It may be because New Mexico is more liberal than Colorado, but the Tom version of Udall has staked our coherent and logical positions on topics across issues, which has allowed him to cultivate a clear image in the eyes of voters. I venture to wager if Tom was running in Colorado, even with his more left-wing record, he would beat Gardner at least 54-46. But anyway, about this race: … not much to say… Udall returns to the Senate and advances good government reforms.

Winner: Udall

Results: 57D-42R

Effect: D Hold

North Carolina: Kay Hagan (R) v. Thom Tillis v. Sean Haugh

Debates here and here

You would not think the architect of kicking voters of voting rolls and requiring state issued ID to vote would seek a raise, let alone proudly campaign on his legislative accomplishments during a campaign. But that is Thom Tillis. He has serious guts, I will give him that. But he will not win, primarily because of his record, Hagan’s solid get out the vote effort, and Libertarian Haugh’s place on the ballot (which will pull votes almost solely from Tillis).

Winner: Hagan

Results: 50D-46R-4L

Effect: D Hold

Oklahoma 1: James Inhofe (R) v. Matt Silverstein (D)

The prickly curmudgeon of the Senate asks voters for their support for the 5th time, with what pitch exactly? He is going to continue to aggressively deny reality and stop the illegal Muslim Manchurian programmed Obamar? This may prove to be Inhofe’s most successful vote share in Senate elections, as he traditionally receives either 55% (one time) or 57% (three times), but this time, he is polling in the low 60s with almost 10% undecided. His opponent is a classic lightweight who portrays himself as not a DC insider, but the Democratic version of Tom Coburn. Ok, so why should anyone vote for you?

Winner: Inhofe

Results: 63R-33D-4others

Effect: R Hold

Oklahoma 2: James Lankford (R) v. Connie Johnson (D) v. Mark Beard (I)

Debate

Among the freshman GOPers to arrive in the House in 2010, I always thought Lankford and Kevin Yoder of Kansas City would rise high within the party apparatus, as both are classic Republicans (not Tea Partiers, even when they have received Tea Party support) and they both have deep baritone voices, which gives their words an extra “I am an adult” feel to them. Both of them consistently serve as presiding speaker in the House, which is a sign of courting leadership support. I took no higher pleasure than watching Lankford beat wack-job TW Shannon in the GOP primary, even as Shannon paraded the anti-reality GOP stars around to increase his crypto-fascist cred. Shannon’s lose indicates Oklahoma may have a strong moderate Republican wing, which belies Inhofe’s repeated success over the years. Langford’s Christianity has seemingly played a role in not fear mongering on Ebola, suggesting the US cannot abdicate its role as a leading force in eradicating the disease by sealing the border and ignoring Africa (which interestingly, Johnson then took the screen everyone approach). I expect Langford to run ahead of Inhofe, as I imagine there are some Dems who will vote for Langford, who would not vote for Inhofe.

Winner: Lankford

Results: 65R-34D-1I

Effect: R Hold

Oregon: Jeff Merkley (D) v. Monica Wehby v. Christina Lugo (G) v. Mike Montchalin (L) v. Karl King (I)

Debate

Merkley is one of the leading reformers of the Senate, and although he has seemingly allowed himself to drift leftward, he is still a pragmatic, innovative leader akin to his fellow Oregonian Ron Wyden. Wehby, on the other hand, is an ineloquent speaker, with a seeming level of disingenuous distortion that motivates her fleeting campaign. Her primary health care recommendations, aside from the numerous plagiarized ones, is to… lower costs? She strikes me as one of those doctors who writes her own scripts for muscle relaxers, which then proceeds to take before every interview she gives. Her lackluster campaign will lead to a libertarian Montchalin picking up some of her prospective voters. Lugo’s vote share is not as much a reflection of dissatisfaction with Merkley, but simply a baseline level of support the Green Party receives in the northwest.

Winner: Merkley

Results: 56D-38R-3L-2G-1I

Effect: D Hold

Rhode Island: Jack Reed (D) v. Mark Zaccaria (R)

No contest. Reed and Whitehouse represent their state extremely well, and there is not disconnect between the average voter or body of voters and their two Senators. I take it from polling Zaccaria is a weak candidate, but even if he were stronger, Reed is well entrenched.

Winner: Reed

Results: 72D-28R

Effect: D Hold

South Carolina 1: Lindsey Graham (R) v. Brad Hutto (D) v. Victor Kocher (L) v. Tom Ravenel (I)

Debate

Weirdo disgraced ex-Treasurer/reality star Ravenel is running a Tea Party campaign to syphon votes from Graham, with no chance of victory whatsoever. Graham, now free of his scary primary, can fulfill the role he likes the most, which is to lecture the population on how bipartisanship and war-hawkery are the way to go. His opponent Hutto strikes me as quite capable and makes pretty convincing arguments that South Carolina should think about switching representation at this point. But that said, there are enough right-of-center moderates who would generally vote blue dog, but for Graham specifically will cross party lines. Graham wins, but with his lowest percentage in his career.

Winner: Graham

Results: 53R-37D-8I-2L

Effect: R Hold

South Carolina 2: Tim Scott (R) v. Joyce Dickerson (D) v. Jill Bossi (A)

Debate

Tom Scott is very popular in South Carolina–no Democrat in the whole state could be him in this particular election. Dickerson is a very weak candidate to begin with. One thing that is odd about Scott is he leans very heavily to his right side when he gives stump speeches, which is quite disorienting. Is it a tell that he is lying about something? Is there a medical explanation? Does he even realize he does this?

Winner: Scott

Results: 66R-33D-1A

Effect: R Hold

South Dakota: Mike Rounds (R) v. Rick Weiland (D) v. Larry Pressler (I) v. Gordon Howie (I)

Rounds has a solid economic development record (and by that I mean, right place right time), to send him straight to Congress. Weiland is a progressive in a state that has been steadily obliterating any left-wing sense. Pressler probably represents average/median voter the best. Howie is just to attack Rounds. Pressler could have beat Rounds if Weiland was not on the ballot.

Winner: Rounds

Results: 46.5R-35D-18Pressler-0.5Howie

Effect: R Pickup

Tennessee: Lamar Alexander (R) v. Gordon Ball (D) v. Danny Page (I)

Ball statement; Alexander statement

Alexander’s only threat was (and always will be) in the primary, as he is a moderate and responsible Republican, which makes him public enemy number one to many ultra-conservatives. Well, he got through the primary and faces a competent, though overall uninspiring Democrat in Ball. Then there is Page, who is campaigning to the right of Alexander. No matter, in a general Alexander is quite formidable, and he will skate to victory.

Winner: Alexander

Results: 60R-38R-2I

Effect: R Hold

Texas: John Cornyn (R) v. David Alameel (D) v. Rebecca Paddock (L) v. Emily Marie Sanchez (G)

Debate

After surviving the grass-roots onslaught of the great populist icon Steven Stockman (hopefully my sarcasm was obvious), Cornyn will meet business Dem Alameel, which says about all you need to know about his ability to mobilize the D base. Hispanic mobilization is probably more important than black mobilization at this point, but they are both necessary for a Democrat to win statewide. Although I appreciate Alameel’s heated rhetoric blaming Cornyn for the free trade, outsourcing, and stagnant wages that characterize the US economy, I do not see how that would attract enough outright conservatives to beat the tone deaf ideologue of Cornyn. After all, there are many more of Cornyn’s lot in the general electorate than Alameel’s. If this were a presidential year, Alameel would probably crack 40 percent.

Winner: Cornyn

Results: 58R-36D-4L-2G

Effect: R Hold

Virginia: Mark Warner (D) v. Ed Gillespie (R) v. Robert Sarvis (L)

Debates here, here and here

Ed Gillespie just rubs people the wrong way. He seems smarmy and unrelatable. His fear-mongering and laying all the nation’s ills at the heels of the Democrats and Mark Warner just do not fly. Warner is a corporate technocrat who rarely does anything too poorly or too well. He is calculating and plays to his strengths. He and Time Kaine are the template for the type of Democrat that can win statewide in Virginia, and I doubt that will change (ever). He has a seat for life, unless he faces a primary from the left.

Winner: Warner

Results: 53D-44R-3L

Effect: D Hold

West Virginia: Shelley Moore Capito (R) v. Natalie Tennant (D)

Debate

It is sad to see how far Moore Capito has deviated from being a cerebral moderate pragmatist, now portraying herself exactly like Tea Partiers: Obama is to blame for everything, Harry Reid is an obstructionist, and the GOP does no wrong. From the debate above, it seemed quite obvious the Tennant may be a lefty, but her critiques of SMC were very strong and she positioned herself well as the true change the paradigm candidate. But none of that will matter as the state continues to shift Republican, and Moore Capito is the most electable member of that party in the whole state. She will likely maintain the seat for over 12 years.

Winner: Moore Capito

Results: 56R-43D-1others

Effect: R Pickup

Wyoming: Mike Enzi (R) v. Charlie Hardy (D) v. Curt Gottshall (I) v. Joseph Porambo (L)

Enzi is going nowhere in the most conservative state in the union. Among most Republicans, he is actually one of the more integrity filled, honest brokers (which has got him in hot water with right-wing activists before). As is often the case, this seat is his until a formidable enough Republican defeats him in a primary.

Winner: Enzi

Results: 70R-28D-2others

Effect: R Hold

Eric Cantor Loss: Not Due to Low Turnout (or Immigration)

Hearing House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his primary election last night was the biggest political surprise I have ever witnessed. Amidst the great flurry of calls and texts exchanged between my immediate friends and family that Cantor will not longer be part of government, I kept noticing high levels of inaccuracy in the news reporting on the election.

The most egregious of the consistently stated falsehoods: this was a low turnout election which benefits the most energized members of the electorate.

This has been repeated my news sources, from Dana Bash on CNN saying only 12% of the district members voted, when that is a completely dumb benchmark to use (especially since 1/3 of that figure is children who cannot vote), to FOX “news” Carl Cameron saying the turnout was sooooo low because the weather kept people in doors. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes (who is supposed to be a little smarter than a simple reporter) asked Virigina’s Larry Sabato if the low turnout is why Cantor lost, to which Sabato corrected him that turnout was actually high, which seemed to be of no consequence. Seeing this repeatedly, from NBC news, the New York Times, Politico, and many more is extremely discouraging.

It is not difficult to take one minute to look up previous primary results, which finally the Washington Post did in their piece published after midnight. In the piece, they show the last primary Cantor was involved in had 47,000 votes cast. Further, if one just looks the 7th district’s 65,000+ votes cast to the results in the comparably conservative 1st district, which had only 17.4k votes cast. Or another very crude, but extremely fast measure, would be to take the total number of Republican votes cast in the 2010 midterm election, which is likely to be around the number cast this fall, and simply divide the sum of this primary by the total Cantor received then: 65,022/138,093=0.471. In contrast, the 1st district figure is 17444/135432=0.12. So in 30 seconds, it is easy to figure out that nearly half of the GOP supportive voters (and likely much higher when just considering registered Republicans) came out in the bad weather to vote in the Cantor vs. idealistic-dude-who-will-never-deliver-anything-he-says candidate. That is remarkably high.

So either turnout among the all Republicans was high, or Democrats did vote for other-dude strategically in an effort to finally get rid of Cantor. The media has undervalued the degree to which this may explain the increased turnout.

This is a map of the R v D share of the vote in the 2010 election. The circled area is where Brat votes were most concentrated in this part of the district (based on the map created by the Virginia Public Access Project). Evidence for strategic Democrats voting anti-Cantor?

In the end, both candidates received a heightened amount of votes.

The full story is both candidates mobilized a substantial amount of GOP voters. Yes, some anti-Cantor voters believe the immigration line propounded by the idealistic dude, but plenty of pro-Cantor voters also disfavor immigration reform. What mattered is twofold: 1) the some-dude actually campaigned by meeting people and explaining why a change in leadership is needed (primarily on the basis that) 2) Cantor does not effectively show face and represent his constituents. The second condition is necessary, but not sufficient to vote Cantor out of office. The district would likely have gotten rid of him sooner if he had to thwart off primary challengers ever two years, as someone, even a snake-oil salesman like this guy, would ultimately strike a nerve.

This election was about good old district relations. No matter how close your district is to Washington D.C., you still have to go home, smile, shake hands, kiss babies, talk about the local sports team, visit the local diner to ask what people think you should do on policy x (even if you ignore it completely), and genuinely act like you are not entitled, but would be grateful for someone’s vote. On the bright side for Cantor, at least he can transition smoothly into a lobbying position where he can authentically be himself: a tool for money wielding conservatives of any stripe (as long as they pay).

The 1992 Vice-Presidential Debate: An Exercise in Futurism, Stupidity, and Senility

Entertaining debate, but for a lot pathetic reason.

I should get back to doing these more often. For whatever reason, I found myself watching the entire 1992 Vice-Presidential debate, and I was surprised with several things. One, Al Gore was much more aggressive than in any other setting I have since seen him in. Although he is still mechanical by human standards, I did not get the feeling he was an alien sent to Earth to save us from ourselves. Now it just seems like he came from a dystopian future Earth where Reagan reigned into his 130s. Considering climate change is still a debate happening only in one party, he comes across as quite innovative in this setting. Two, James Stockdale seemed extremely out of it, even though he came across as a nice person. Although his service is… service, I do not think Vietnam was a particularly important issue to the American electorate during the early 90s. Three, watching I remembered why Dan Quayle is regarded so poorly by so many people. He seems to have an attack-dog mindset, with very little factual substance to back up a lot of his claims. Most importantly, he speaks like shit, even when it is prepared. In his concluding remarks, Quayle proclaims, “Do the ‘merican should demand that their president tell the truth? Do you really believe, do you really believe Bill Clinton will tell the truth? And do you, do you trust Bill Clinton to be your president?”

Geez…

I guess you cannot blame his son for not being so bright. It would be very tough to grow up dealing with such psychobabble and not imitate it.

Poor kid never had a chance. It takes a certain type of spoiled neophyte to make David Schweikert look more acceptable to the masses. Can’t even use a cup, he needs a pitcher…

Why Partisan Politics Is Clouding Understanding of the Russian Incursion in Crimea

Regardless of the reasons for Russia deploying military personnel to southeast Ukraine, the aptitude of American politics to affect this process requires the media, public, and policymakers to understand a set of dynamics that have developed in since the USSR dissolved and Yeltsin ushered in the contemporary mob state. First, any criticism of Obama’s leadership in dealing with Putin—that somehow he is a weak leader and that someone else would do it better—affixes a simple partisan motivation to a deep-seeded structural reality. Namely, no American president in the last century would send troops to back up a deeply divided and volatile Ukraine. Even Harry Truman, who sent “military advisers” to bolster Turkey and Greece, would not send troops in this situation. Even Lyndon Johnson, who was so insecure in his knowledge and confidence to handle foreign affairs that he erroneously escalated the war in Vietnam, would not send troops into a country neighboring Russia (or within the USSR as Ukraine was during the 1960s). Here is a cold hard fact for any anti-Obama neo-conservative who thinks Lindsey Graham, John McCain or Ronald Reagan would handle this situation better: America has no military power on in the former USSR part of eastern Europe. Although the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the threat of Iran, have fostered American military relations with the Turkic -stan countries, the extent of U.S. military power in eastern Europe is far inferior, NATO notwithstanding. The extent of military planning in the former Soviet bloc essentially at missile defense planning. No military bases housing American troops exist in this region, with the closest being in Germany and Turkey.

We cannot project our power might here! And if we could, why would we?

Economic sanctions, trade restructuring, and collective pressure through diplomacy (both bilateral, trilateral, and through the UN) are the only possible mechanisms to express displeasure with Russia. Constant dialogue with the pseudo-governing parliament in Ukraine to ensure they do not make the mistake of attacking the Russian military is also paramount. If Russia decides to take any more regions in the country, an argument for self-defense and action would be highly legitimate, but as it stands, Ukrainian forces cannot survive a war with Russia. The only way out of this is to negotiate a preferential deal for Russia and Russian sympathetic Crimeans, and have a full withdrawal of Russian forces. As long as Russian troops maintain a presence in the region, they will pay a continuous price for such behavior. So far, no one has died, kidnappings have not been reported. This is as symbolic as it is belligerent. Cooler heads must prevail.

For America’s part, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox (albeit unlikely), must maintain an objective understanding of what is transpiring in Crimea. Showcasing partisans such as Lindsey Graham, Newt Gingrich, and John McCain, should be met with direct question of “what would you do differently?” It should not be sufficient to simply talk in terms of leadership, since it is an intrinsically subjective quality, but instead decision-making. If the aforementioned conservatives disfavor military intervention, which they have, then they should spell out what their viable alternative is to the Obama administration’s policies.

The NY Times, among others, have shown the language disparity in Crimea. Though this creates more nuance in the public understanding, the narrative of Crimea being receptive to Russian troops is incorrect. Russian Ukrainians are still Ukrainians. The only Ukrainians that do not share a dual Russian-Ukrainian identity are nationalists, who make up a very small percent of the general public. During the tsarist and Soviet eras, Ukrainians identified nationally as Russian, but lived in a distinct historical and cultural region. The only split in the country is political, not cultural or linguistic. The plurality of citizens speak both Ukrainian and Russian, and many households have speakers who know both, even if their children might not.

x

2014 Democratic Targets in the House

Most of the talk regarding this year’s midterm election centers on the the Republican chances of taking the majority in the Senate. Though Democrats are on the defensive with a disproportionate amount of red-state Democratic centers seeking reelection, this is not the only majority changing storyline in Congress. The Republican controlled House sits at 234 R, 200 D and 1 vacancy (Republican Bill Young’s St. Petersburg based district). The Dems will likely have to net +18 districts in to gain the majority in 2014, which is a tough pull considering the decreases in district competitiveness across the country. Nonetheless, myriad fluid factors, such as candidate strength, local issues, national mood, weather, third party candidates, migration, and the confluence of money may override simple considerations of voter party id and previous election results. That said, here is a map of those districts that provide the greatest potential for democratic pickups in the House in 2014:

Yellow districts are GOP held districts the Dems should target.

Below is a ranking of which seats should be prioritized the most, based on incumbent vulnerability and district demographics. The rankings are debatable between individual lines, but as a bloc, the top 10 should be easier than 11-20, and so on.

*CA-31 was a R v R general election after low turnout and a splintered Dem field in the jungle primary left two Republicans with the highest vote total, thereby advancing to the general election.

Whether it is district demographics (IL-13, CA-31, CA-21) or weak incumbents (Benishek, Bentivolio, Amash, Noem), a strong Democratic candidate and at least 75% turnout of Obama supporters from the 2012 election, should lead to a net gain of at least 8 seats. To get the other 10, several of these candidates need to publicly implode with scandal, and the national mood needs to shift back to the pro-Dem levels during the government shutdown. Though this may be a best cased scenario, not many (any?) people foresaw a 63 seat GOP gain in 2010, so a more modest Dem gain is not beyond  the pale. At some point, strong candidates (previous electeds, well funded, district ties) need to step up in off years to compensate for the decreased pro-Democratic turnout. The status quo has a lot of inertia right now, and it would not be surprising if Democrats lost a seat or two in the Senate, and picked up a couple of seats in the House, creating a null effect in changes of power structures in Congress as a whole.

The Beginning of the End of the Filibuster

Harry Reid shocked all political observers by actually pulling the trigger. This will earn Reid a place in congressional history as one of the more powerful leaders the Senate has ever seen.

Today was such an important day in Senatorial (and in fact, American) history, that it warranted the first post in eleven months. Though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has long earned the respect of his peers for keeping his party together and being adept at using parliamentary procedure in the Senate, today Reid solidified his place in history by changing the rules of the Senate. The abusive use of the filibuster has marred the Senate for much of Bush’s second term, but its exponential rise under the Obama presidency has made its continued place in the system untenable. Filibuster reform advocates, such as Tom Harkin (D-IA), Tom Udall (D-NM), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR), petitioned the leader to change Senate rules at the opening of the 113th Congress. The changes on the first day of the session, and succeeding agreements that intermittently pop up, hardly affected legislative output, and showed the weakness of “gentleman’s agreements.”

Unlike the highly institutionalized House of Representatives, the Senate does not operate based on lengthy and clearly defined rules, but instead, operates on precedent and cultural norms. Essentially, the House of mechanistic and routinized, a legislative body created to empower the will of the people as seen in the majority of representatives. In contrast, the Senate is a deliberative body, created to consider the validity of legislation in the other chamber, advise presidents on their appointments, and ratify treaties. Further, the Senate runs on comity and interpersonal relationships between members, which is supposed to encourage statesmanship, bipartisanship, and consensus, beyond what a pure majoritarian body encourages. The Senate, unlike the House, is a minority controlled body: not in leadership or committee chairs, but in deference to the minorities prerogatives and input into the processes the body propounds. This system has worked fine over the years, as long as members of both chambers understand their roles; Representatives advocate for the will of the majority of voters through affirmative government policy, while Senators rise above quibbles, to think about the effect of the policies would be on the country, and to refine it to the most moderate, median-voter-pleasing form.

But as the party system changed from the fifth to the sixth, and liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats switched parties, bipartisanship as a practice (and concept) waned. Paired with social migration, in which voters tend to live around those they agree with on ideology, and party primary changes, which exclude general voters in favor of party loyalists, you end up with legislators who do not understand their partisan counterparts, and worse, do not even seek to try and bridge that gap. Legislators who work constructively to build consensus are often demonized on both sides, leading to the further erosion of moderate legislators in Congress (see the primary losses of Senators Murkowski (R-AK), Lugar (R-IN), Spector (R & D-PA), and Bennett (R-UT), and Representative Castle (R-DE); and retirements of Senators Voinovich (R-OH), Hagel (R-NE), Bayh (D-IN), Snowe (R-ME), Nelson (D-NE), Dorgan (D-ND), and Bond (R-MO)). For the Senate to work in its 20th century manner, it would have to be filled with members who want to work with one another to create necessary public policy. The increasing polarity is only one half of the equation; the other half is the type of people joining the Senate more an more often. These people cater to party bases as the primary objective; not policy. General elections have become secondary to primary elections. Finally, the legislators that wield the most influence, financially and organizationally, are becoming more and more clustered on the extremes of demagoguery. Demagogues do not want to legislate; they want to instigate. A perfect storm occurs when demagogues with anti-government philosophies gain power, which is the case for 12 (or 13 if you include Chuck Grassley) of the 45 Republicans currently seated in the Senate.

What is startling is how the parties are changing every successive election, with less and less policy driven individuals being elected into the Senate. Of the demagogues I enumerated above, over half of them have entered the Senate after the 2010 election. Is it due to the anger against Obamacare during that election? One can only hope, though the trend of GOP party purity (whose purity?) does not seem to be going anywhere.

So today, after being so apprehensive as to indicate this would never happen, Harry Reid overruled the presiding officer (as advised by the parliamentarian), to change the cloture rule on executive appointments (except those to the Supreme Court) from a 60 vote threshold to a simple 51 vote majority. Chuck Grassley’s distorted talk about packing the courts (by offering three judges to a three judge vacancy) will now actually lead to packing the courts. Obama can nominate nearly 100 judges to different federal courts, and that number is likely to climb to 150 by the end of his presidency (creating a 3D to 2R national balance on the courts). This change in the cloture rule, so that the 60 votes only applies to legislation and SC nominees, has ushered in a new era in Senate history. This is the beginning of majority rule in the Senate.

What of the Democrats? Are they blameless in this predicament? No, but false analogies often blame both sides equally for what one side is more responsible for. The current problem of government productivity is because of Republican base pandering and irrational hatred of the president. But Democrats are equally responsible for the quality of legislation deteriorating, and for public policy to take a back seat to political processes. I will not address this point too much within this post, but essentially, the administration of government is becoming increasingly inefficient, poorly targeted, cumbersome, and misguided. A new paradigm of policymaking must be created that is not based on logrolling, pork-barreling, particularized benefits, or ideological purity. The new system must revolve around pragmatism in making government work for the people, which only the Democratic party is in a position to achieve (therefore it is their responsibility).

But back to the question of blame and solutions. Senate Democrats have been slow to understand the depths of the body’s problems, and therefore, deserve some blame for it getting this bad. Take for example Carl Levin of Michigan. He, along with Senators Pryor and Manchin (both conservatives), voted against the change today. His rationale was that it sets a horrible precedent for future Senatorial rules changes, and intimated there may have been another way. His idealistic view is not ingrained in reality, and his stature within the party has carried much water on this issue. He himself probably deferred action on filibusters by working with Senators McCain, Lieberman (when he was around), Snowe, and Graham to create agreements that were not adhered to. It is old guard Democrats like Levin who are ill-equipped to successfully legislate in the current Sixth Party System. Their memories of the better days inhibit their ability to diagnose the issues and solutions to contemporary problems. Ideology does not matter much in this discussion; what matters is understanding changes in society and party dynamics that warrant changes in institutions. Otherwise, our governing institutions simply look illegitimate and out of touch, like the outgoing senator.

Carl Levin opposed the change, caught between nostalgia and idealism, and the reality of the contemporary party system. Levin’s solution to the problem (the status quo) would essentially lead to more government inaction on key appointments and legislation. Levin is a respected Senator, but he has never been lauded for his vision as a leader, so this is a fitting exit to his congressional career.

Though the filibuster is still around on the more important legislative votes, Abe Lincoln would say a house divided cannot stand, and Senate with domain specific rules surely cannot either. This means soon the Senate will completely remove the filibuster from use on all matters. Every course of action will require just the majority caucus to push through legislation. One can argue this is a sad day for deliberation, but since that has largely disappeared anyway as a product of the low quality people elected to this branch (the House included) nowadays, responsible party government will have to take over. There are definite downsides to this approach, which means party voters need to hold their members more accountable than they have so far, which we have no reason to believe will happen. Essentially, the filibuster’s removal will not save the entire system, nor will it destroy it. But it does allow the legislative process to fulfill its duties more readily, which inherently benefits the causes of affirmative government policy over those who wish to destroy, or obstruct, the government. Will there be examples of Republicans using this change to their favor, on perhaps horrifying draconian measures? Yes, but there is always bad with the good.

This is a step in the right direction. Chamber differences will still create a system in which the bodies negotiate with one another, and further, the checks and balances in the system will keep radical change from happening too quickly. But at least change can happen, now that the filibuster is on its last legs.

Legislator Spotlight: Steve Womack’s Unethical Adjournment

This man should be ashamed of himself.

Following the fiscal cliff votes, Steny Hoyer announced that Speaker Boehner would not put the Senate passed H.R. 1 Hurricane Sandy relief bill on the floor in this Congress. Now I was not particularly mad about this, as it will surely be passed in the first week or two of the next Congress, but one thing really pissed me off. The presiding chair of the House, Representative Steve Womack of Arkansas’ 3rd District, heard a motion to adjourn the House until Wednesday, following very heated pleas of politicians whose constituents were affected by the hurricane. As an ardent observer of parliamentary procedure, I listened as the motion to adjourn was heard. Womack spoke: “All those in favor say ‘aye'” which was followed by two, maybe three ‘ayes’. Womack continued: “All those opposed, say ‘nay'”, which was followed by the loudest cocaphony of ‘nays’ I have heard in quite some time; possibly 30-40 pleas to remain in session and discuss the issue. Quite suprisingly, Womack hesitated for a moment, looked around, then concluded: “the yeas have it, the House is adjourned…” I was left quite angry. In fact, all I kept saying to myself is, “wow, that is really unethical. I cannot believe he just did that.”

The chair of House proceedings is chosen by the Speaker of the House to act in his absence (which is most of the time). They are generally loyalists, good orators (like Kevin Yoder) and they are expected do their party’s bidding. When it is close, it is the prerogative of the chair to rule as he will, even if he knows his side has not reached the two-thirds threshold (fair enough). However, When two-thirds are not in the affirmative, and it is extremely evident, it is not uncommon for the presiding chair to rule against his party, which usually just means a recorded vote must occur. I have seen this in both parties, as Charlie Bass has done it against the GOP, and Jose Serrano did (laughingly) against Dems when they were in the majority. Unfortunately, Representative Womack clearly ruled against the majority in a blatant, unethical manner. With his position on the Appropriations Committee, it is clear he is a loyalist to leadership, but not matter what outcome may be desired, the will of the House cannot be denied. On an issue as heated as disaster relief, with a bipartisan desire to provide assistance, it is quite detestable for the presiding chair to conduct House business in this manner.

I watched as he left the podium and was approached by a fellow Republican. Womack extended his hand to shake hands after a long day of legislating, only to be denied by a clearly perturbed Congressman. A Democratic Representative briskly walked across the floor to give Womack a piece of his mind, only to have the C-SPAN feed cut out. I would have liked to see that interaction.

I will remember this throughout Womack’s time in Congress. As someone who has shunned the integrity of parliamentary pocedure, Womack’s unethical behavior will now live in infamy.

Ron Johnson and the Myth of “Punishing Success”

Senator Johnson has trouble deviating from talking points, and his myriad charts are often methodologically fallacious.

Considering how this man illegally financed his 9 million dollar Senate campaign with his disproportionately high severance pay from his old company, it does not surprise me that this man acts like he has all the answers. After all, he is where he is because of distorting Russ Feingold’s record and going negative, millions of dollars after millions of dollars (by the way, had that election occurred in a Presidential year, even one where a Republican won, Feingold would have won). Anyway, the amount of times Johnson uses revisionist economics, such as saying the Bush tax cuts and unfunded wars only accounted for 25% of the debt (neglecting to include Medicare Part D). In fact, nearly all of the pre-recession deficit was a result of those three factors, with larger economic forces such as health care inflation driving much of government spending (what is Johnson’s plan to lower health care costs? Other than tort reform and buying coverage across state lines?).

Anyway, there seems to be a fundamental fallacy that Johnson espouses frequently, which is that taxes are a punishment for being successful. If this is what someone believes, than why wouldn’t he propose an abolition of taxes? That’s right, because corny capitalism likes government contracts and defense spending, which Johnson is adamantly for.  Johnson is one of the most ideological, nonsensical legislators currently in the Senate. He will not be reelected as part of the Scott Walker cohort, as major distinctions can be made between Walker’s brand of conservative legislative prowess, and Johnson’s inability to pass anything of import. Johnson’s committment to obstructionism, elitism, and condescension embody the worst aspects of the GOP, and politicians as a whole.

New General, Same Delusions

In a highly rehearsed confirmation hearing for the next Commander of the Afghanistan War, prospective nominee Joseph Dunford repeated platitudes of idealism relating to troop draw-downs and the ability of Afghanistan’s army to takeover the security mission within the country. I guess I should not expect anyone in the military to respond with honesty and candor, especially in a rehearsed committee hearing, but seriously, when do military men ever realize a mission cannot be fulfilled. Would any elected official be privy to a General’s apprehensions about a policy of war, if they even had such apprehensions?

It is tiring to think after 11 years the USA is still occupying a country that no single nation or foreign entity has ever successfully made to capitulate. Of all people, John McCain, the perennial hawk, is questioning whether the General is aware of enough to assume head command. Who knows what his motivation is, but at least McCain should realize this nominee will not decide the overarching policy in the area, as that comes from the White House. Listening a little further, McCain essentially claims the mission cannot be accomplished with the current draw-down timetable, but he is neither confident that if we stayed, that we have the strategy to fulfill the mission.

What will Afghanistan look like in 20 years?

Belated Texas Senate Race Analysis

 

I did not pay much attention to this uncompetitive race, but when I saw a non-partisan prognosticator claiming Ted Cruz is a future superstar in national politics, I decided to check out some of the debates between Cruz and his Democratic opponent Paul Sadler. Before I checked out these debates, I knew the election result. Cruz won 56.6% to Sadler’s 40.5% vote share. I thought, hmm, a Tea Partier winning well, but not impressively, a state where Romney won with 57% of the vote. Coming into the debate, I had heard Cruz was an expert debater. What I found did not quite conform to that view. He is methodical and premise oriented, which creates clear logical arguments, but in debate, premised arguments rely on factual efficacy. Much of what Cruz claimed throughout the debate were simply ordered talking points that mirror the Tea Party (and nowadays, GOP) mantras. Cruz’s delivery is understated, unoffensive, and yet, the crux of his policies would leave many people who might have voted for him in a worse position. He is an intelligent, educated man, but that begs the question, why does he hold his extreme views?

However, the revelation of these debates, and my  belated viewing of them, was actually the sincere and effective manner in which Cruz’s opponent discussed issues. Even though Sadler would often admit, “maybe I am not explaining this as well as I need to,” the fact is, Sadler was more honest and straight with the voters of Texas. Where Cruz would avoid addressing what to do with current undocumented immigrants, or the DREAM Act, or balancing the budget, Sadler pinned himself to clear policy positions that he could work toward from day one. Now I do not know the baggage Sadler has, and I have been aware that he was not a first tier candidate, (as that candidate, former Army Lieutenant General Richardo Sanchez, dropped out), but his truthful and sincere approach very much impressed me. I could see him working to fix problems. Now for Texas, he may a liberal, but in national politics he would be a firm moderate, and the Senate needs many more of them to forge a new bipartisan way.

Too bad Sadler lost. I guess one of the Castro brothers will face Cruz in 2018, which by then, Texas will be an embryonic swing state.

Also, a word about Cruz. He now joins the extreme right faction of the Senate, and he and Mike Lee will construct a plethora of reactionary bills that most GOP voters would not even support. However, given Cruz’s education and background, I wonder if he, and possibly Marco Rubio, may change their tune at some point and move toward the middle. If these two Senators did that, they might contribute to the GOP becoming a next generation party, and thus ensure the GOP maintains its place in our two-party system. Cruz is the kind of politician who may never change, and may simply dig his heels in, but if he sees the light, he may be “a future superstar in national politics.”

Post Election Analysis

A few thoughts:

• The Sixth Party System failed to call every race correctly. SPS called 29/33 (88%) Senate races correctly (being wrong about Tester in Montana, Flake in Arizona, Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, and Baldwin in Wisconsin), and 49/50 (98%) states (with Florida going for Obama being somewhat of a surprise).
• Obama won every state he won in 2008 except for Indiana and (by a slim margin) North Carolina, even with a reduction of his popular vote by 6 million voters.
• You might say, how can that be? A simple glance at all the Midwest prairie states shows that Obama’s share of the vote in conservative states decreased by an average of 5% across the board. For example, Obama received 42% of the vote in Kansas in 2008, but only 37% this election. Same margin for Wyoming, Missouri, Nebraska, Utah, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana.
• The electorate was somewhat stickier in the South, as Obama basically matched what he received in 2008 in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina. This is largely because white voters did not vote for Obama in these parts in 2008, so he could not go down very much. The minority Black electorate still supported Obama by the same intensity (though turnout was slightly down).
• Other Appalachian and Tennessee Valley states that do not have a significant Black population, and therefore did not have the electoral anchor of the South, decreased their support for Obama by about 4-5% on average. This includes a 3% reduction in Tennessee and  Kentucky, and a 6-7% reduction in Indiana and West Virginia. Here is where white voters who formerly thought of him as a structural reformer, only to later believe him to be an uber-liberal, channeled their alienation and voted for Romney. It also did not help that all of these states have moved away from the Democratic party in general in the last decade, and furthermore, that these voters may identify Obama to be anti-coal, anti-domestic energy, which poses a threat to their livelihood (especially true in Kentucky and West Virginia).
• Furthermore, in non-competitive states with a blue hue, Obama’s average decreased by 2-3%. This follows in California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Minnesota, New Mexico, Maine, New York, etc etc.
• Finally, Obama’s strength lay in battleground states. He tailored policies to appeal to those who reside in those states, and this shows in the empirical data. Obama’s average reduction in swing states was between 2-3%, which is almost statistically insignificant based on his previous margin. These states were Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Ohio, Iowa, and North Carolina.
• All of these reductions explain his lower percentage of the popular vote, even without addressing the turnout question in metropolitan areas. One can conclude that Obama essentially faced an average 3-4% reduction across the board, but that where it counted, the margin was less. Essentially, the Obama campaign relented on governing or campaigning as base pleasers, and instead focused on policies tailored for, and GOTV efforts in, swing states, thus ensuring his reelection even with popular parity. Quite an astute strategy in such a vitriolic and anti-government environment.
• The dichotomy of the House and Senate essentially remaining the same, in conjunction with Obama winning reelection by a slim popular vote, but a large electoral vote, poses several questions.
  • Do institutions (1/3 of the Senate running each cycle; the electoral college) impede the will of the people?
  • Why did some great candidates, like Kathy Hochul, lose, and some lackluster candidates, like Martha McSally, win?
  • How does the electorate conceptualize policy-making in relation to their vote? Would a voter favor a moderate who could advocate and fulfill a legislative agenda that would benefit the voter, or instead, would the voter favor an ideological member who cannot work in a bipartisan manner?
  • How will the GOP reassess their platform. With the current redistricting, there is a strong possibility the GOP controls the House for the next decade. The only impediment will be either a) Blue Dogs make a comback or a realignment takes place in the South, or b) The GOP becomes more extreme and loses moderate areas (like most of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan).

2012 Senate Election Predictions

Why not pile everything in at the end? The Sixth Party System likes handicapping as much as the next person, so let’s get to it:

Election Landscape: 21 Democrats, 10 Republicans, 2 Independents; 23 Dem caucus members versus 10 GOP.
Overall Senate Landscape: 51D to 47R to 2I (53D to 47R)

Arizona (retiring R)-Jeff Flake (R) versus Richard Carmona (D):

Flake is too odd to be a sure fire victor, which, coupled with Richard Carmona’s positioning as a right of center candidate, leads me to believe Carmona will win. He is one of the strongest localized candidates the Dems have recruited in a decade. His strategy will lay the groundwork for a further Dem penetration into red, Midwestern and Western territory.

Estimate: Carmona wins, 49.3% to 48.9% D+1 R-1

California (D incumbent)-Dianne Feinstein (D) versus Elizabeth Emken (R):

Feinstein is invincible in California, for one, she is to the right of Boxer (and most Democrats), which allows her to win a significant amount of voters in the Central Valley and Greater San Diego area. Secondly, she maintains liberal support based on her legacy in San Francisco following the Harvey Milk and Mayor Mascone. The base has not been pleased with her conservative ways in quite some time, and yet she has never received a serious challenge. Also, it helps the GOP conceded this seat by running a far-right campaign, just like Carly Fiorina did in 2010. Invincible, I tells ya.

Estimate: Feinstein wins, 64% to 34% No Net Change

Connecticut (Retiring I)-Chris Murphy (D) versus Linda McMahon (R):

Money talks, and Linda McMahon has tons of it. She has been attacking Murphy very hard, and it seems to have had an effect. However, a blue state is a blue state, and only a strong ideas candidate with integrity and credibility can pull off this upset—McMahon is not that candidate. Murphy fits the state well, as he could easily be a shill for the financial services sector, which is essentially the number one issue in CT political elite circles.

Estimate: Murphy wins, 53% to 46% D+1 I-1

Delaware (D Incumbent)-Tom Carper (D) v. Kevin Wade (R) v. Alex Pires (I):

Interesting blowout race, as Alex Pires has flanked Carper to the left, which may shift his margin of victory. Wade is a weak candidate, sort of a business Tea Party type. He makes incendiary remarks and uses faulty attacks to often to beat Carper. Anyway, Carper has a lock on this state, perennially (at least until the GOP begins to accept moderates back into the fold).

Estimate: Carper wins, 62% to 32% to 4% No Net Change

Florida (D Incumbent)-Bill Nelson (D) versus Connie Mack (R):

Nelson is a very unique and above-the-frey type of politician. Mack is trying is darndest to tie Nelson to Obama, but the voters of Florida know Nelson is his own type of Democrat, albeit predominantly liberal. Mack was actually a strong candidate, but he cannot beat Nelson, who is stronger. At least Mack and his imploding wife will have each other when they both lose their races. Even with Romney winning the state, Nelson will win.

Estimate: Nelson wins, 55% to 44% No Net Change

Hawaii (Retiring D)-Mazie Hirono versus Linda Lingle (R):

Cannot fault Lingle for a second; she is a strong candidate, a firm moderate, and a reasonable policymaker. However, the native son being on the ballot, and Hirono representing the island’s views closely, means Lingle is out to sea. She would have beat Ed Case, and truth be told, I would have voted for her over his slimey behind.

Estimate: Hirono wins, 57% to 43% No Net Change

Indiana (Retiring R, sort of*)-Joe Donnelly (D) v. Tricky Dick Mourdock (R) v. Andrew Horning (L):

The asterisk is because Dick Lugar, one of the great statesman currently in government, lost his primary; he did not want to retire, but the Tea Party got him. We all know Mourdock has repeatedly shot himself in the foot on various issues, not just God-created rape, but even without those blunders, Donnelly could have won. He is a centrist, much like the center-right electorate of the state, and in absolute terms, he is ideologically closer to Lugar than Mourdock. He is banking on people realizing this, and voting for him. I think they will. He is a strong candiate, who would have held Lugar to around 60%; Mourdock will not fare as well. Additionally, Horning will siphon a significant portion of anti-GOP conservatives that otherwise would have bit the bullet and voted for Mourdock. Horning is your classic libertarian, but with a slightly better niche combating the GOP from within, then leaving when his attempts let to no avail.

Estimate: Donnelly wins 51% to 46% to 3% D+1 R-1

Maine (Retiring R)-Angus King (I) v. Charles Summers (R) v. Cynthia Dill (D) v. Danny Dalton (I) v. Andrew Ian Dodge (I) v. Steve Woods (I):

Only way popular former Governor Angus “The” King loses is if Dill siphons enough far-left votes from him. Luckily, the presence of another liberal in the race, as well as three conservatives, will splinter all ideological groups, and the race ill become a cult of personality and name recognition. Both of those factors leave King atop the standings, and the king will join the Senate, where he will caucus with the Democrats. Interesting because all six leading, as in debate participating, candidates support Roe v. Wade, including the Tea Partier Dodge and Republican Summers.

Estimate: King 48% to Summers 31% to Dill 17% I+1 R-1

Maryland (D Incumbent)-Ben Cardin (D) v. Dan Bongino (R) v. Rob Sobhani (I) v. Dean Ahmad (L):

The presence of Sobhani attracts votes from both sides, limiting Cardin’s margin of victory, but also stymieing Bongino’s ability to attract a plurality. Non-race.

Estimate: Cardin 56% to Bongino 25% to Sobhani 12% to Ahmad 1% No Net Change

Massachusetts (R Incumbent)-Elizabeth Warren (D) versus Scott Brown (R):

Excellent race. Two strong candidates. Here is how both parties should proceed, by selecting district/state tailor made candidates that can attract voters of the opposite party. In this case, Scott Brown does not attract Dems that much, but he is incredibly strong among the state’s 50% Independents. However, this race will surely end in his defeat. Warren, though a member of the Harvard elite, has the important pedigree as an outsider turned insider reformer, and it is quite difficult to make her look bad. Brown has tried the carpetbagger stuff, but Warren fits the state’s interests well, and the voters will make that clear. Even in defeat, Scott Brown is one of the best GOP campaigners in the biz today.

Estimate: Warren wins, 49.2% to 48.3% D+1 R-1

Michigan (D Incumbent)-Debbie Stabenow (D) v. Pete Hoekstra (R) v. Scotty Boman (L):

Remember that racist ad with a Berkeley alum pandering to xenophobia? We were so proud to see one of our own contribute to racist propaganda!! Anyway, Hoekstra is not that weak of a candidate: yes, he is pron to verbal gaffs and racist/anti-Islamic behavior, but he has a manner that resonates with suburban males. However, that is not enough to overcome Stabenow. She has adeptly positioned herself as Ag committee chairman, which will benefit her in the rural parts of the state that Dems have trouble in. Of course, if a farm bill passed, that would be even better, but most concerned voters understand that issue was on the House side. Anywho, Stabenow wins by a wider margin than she should of.

Estimate: Stabenow wins, 56% to 40% to 3% No Net Change

Minnesota (D Incumbent)-Amy Klobuchar (D) versus Kurt Bills (R):

Way off the grid. Klobuchar us perhaps the best Democrat in the nation at attracting GOP voters, even though she is liberal. This race may see a 30 to 45 point margin. Here is an example of a candidate who has cultivated her electorate well.

Estimate: Klobuchar wins, 66% to 34% No Net Change

Mississippi (R Incumbent)-Roger Wicker (R) v. Albert Gore (D) (and some other cons):

Wicker is a vulnerable republican, as he is not very prolific at any policy field and has definite weaknesses in personality. However, the Dems have conceded this seat, for no apparent reason that to justify not spending money on a losing race. So you get some old foggy name Al Gore and that’s that.

Estimate: Wicker wins, 62% to 35% to 3% others No Net Change

Missouri (D Incumbent)-Claire McCaskill v. Todd Akin (R) v. Jonathan Dine (L):

Yup, never good to justify, or legitimize rape. McCaskill would have lost to Sarah Steelman by a good 7 points, but Akin is out of touch enough to cost his party this election. On merit, McCaskill does deserve to win, as she is a moderate in a moderate state, but Obama will drag her down a little. Essentially, to make up for the structural disadvantage, she needed the other guy to mess up and make himself look unelectable. Well, Akin did… loser. Dine will get the conservative voters who were disenchanted with Akin, but not enough to simply stay home.

Estimate: McCaskill 48.8% to 46.3% to 3% No Net Change

Montana (D Incumbent)-Jon Tester (D) v. Denny Rehberg (R) v. Dan Cox (L):

Suing the government because firefighters did not save enough of your large estate is not a flattering look for a politician. Such is the case with Denny Rehberg, whose selfishness and bad-guy qualities may cost him the race. Additionally, Dan Cox is a fairly strong Lib candidate, and will steal some votes otherwise allocated to Rehberg. However, structural factors, and Tester’s difficulty disassociating himself from leadership, will lead Rehberg to gain a promotion he does not deserve.

Estimate: Rehberg wins, 48.3 to 48.1 to 3.4 R+1 D-1

Nebraska (Retiring D)-Deb Fischer (R) versus Bob Kerrey (D):

Ben Nelson probably could have weathered the storm, even with the PPACA vote, but he chose to quit. Though I have had a lot of personal animus toward Nelson over the years, he has been valuable in key votes, and for that, liberals should be thankful (to some extent). Anyway, Deb Fischer was the second weakest potential candidate to emerge from the GOP primary, ahead of Tea Partier Don Stenberg, but behind established candidate Jon Bruning. And Bob Kerrey was the strongest potential candidate. However, the deficit in this race, caused by the hatred of Obama and rightward, intolerant turn of the general electorate, has left this race solidly for Fischer. Had Kerrey maintained his presence in NE, he could win, but being a “New York liberal” does not play well in Kearney.

Estimate: Fischer wins, 56% to 43% R+1 D-1

Nevada (R Incumbent)-Dean Heller (R) versus Shelley Berkeley (D):

Not hard to diagnose this race. Heller is from the rural northern part of the state, which explains his Tea Party conservatism, and Berkeley is a New York transplant from Vegas. Statewide elections in Nevada always hinge on either a) massive turnout in Las Vegas and Henderson, or b) the swing electorate in Reno and Carson City. This race will not benefit from heightened turnout like 2008, as home foreclosures and unemployment have made pro-Dem turnout less likely. Therefore, the race will be decided in Reno, where Berkeley is unpopular and is seen a too closely aligned with Vegas interest (and some conflict of interest stuff). Heller, on the other hand, has very little baggage other than his voting record, and can appeal to people with his reform minded rhetoric. I expect split ticket voters to favor Heller, as pragmatic moderates may see Obama’s predicament as not solely his doing, but nonetheless not support Berkeley’s elitist caricature.

Estimate: Heller wins, 51% to 49% No Net Change

New Jersey (D Incumbent)-Bob Menendez (D) v. Joe Kyrillos (R) v. Ken Kaplan (L):

Menendez seemed vulnerable going into the race, but Kyrillos has an incredible amount of trouble explaining his views on matters that put New Jerseyeans at odds with national Republicans. He still has not explained how he would vote on abortion legislation, which although it is not the premier issue, is just a microcosm of his policies as a whole. Menendez wins by default.

Estimate: Menendez wins, 56% to 40% to 3% No Net Change

New Mexico (Retiring D)-Martin Heinrich versus Heather Wilson (R):

Wilson is a strong candidate, with an interesting pedigree and reasonable stances for her electorate. However, New Mexico is moving away from the party, f not the values, that she is connected to. Heinrich was thought to be a much stronger candidate, but has proven lackluster; only good enough to win. Some might say that is good enough.

Estimate: Heinrich wins 54% to 45% No Net Change

New York (D Incumbent)-Kirsten Gillibrand (D, Working Families, and Independence) versus Wendy Long (R and Conservative):

Gillibrand has moved to the left since coming under the guidance of Chuck Schumer, and is being groomed to possibly be the first female president of the nation. Fortunately for her, she is well liked in all parts of the state, and as an indicator of how center-right voters view her, she received the Independence party endorsement. She will win handedly.

Estimate: Gillibrand wins, 68% to 28% No Net Change

North Dakota (Retiring D)-Rick Berg (R) versus Heidi Heitkamp:

Heitkamp is a superb candidate. In a midterm election, she might have won. However, in this presidential election year, she may be tied to Obama, and may lose the race by a slim margin. Berg has problems conveying his accomplishments, but his party identification may prove enough to gain a plurality. Too bad, Heidi is an ideas person to boot.

Estimate: Berg wins, 50.6% to 49.1% R+1 D-1

Ohio (D Incumbent)-Sherrod Brown (D) versus Josh Mandel (R):

Mandel is a very creepy and awkward guy. I do not doubt he patriotic, and I do not doubt in his heart, he believes what he stands for, but I do question how aware of social forces and inequity he is aware of. Watching the debates between he and Brown, it looked quite forced and gimmicky how he was trying to pigeonhole Brown. Brown was talking about policy, and Mandel was rolling in mud and trying to mislead people. His youth means he will eventually become Governor or Senator, but it will not be during this election. Some split ticketing, in favor of Brown (especially in the Southeast portion of the state).

Estimate: Brown wins, 53% to 46% No Net Change

Pennsylvania (D Incumbent)-Bob Casey (D) versus Tom Smith (R):

Tom Smith is not ready to join government. He has a very low level of understanding about both politics and policy, and I do not think that would change with experience. I think he would simply end up totting the party line in a mindless fashion. Watching the debates, it is clear Casey has learned from his position on the Joint Committee on Taxation, whereas Smith knows almost nothing. The surge for Smith has been because of the millions of dollars he has spent attacking Casey. It may have cut Casey’s margin, but will not change the election outcome.

Estimate: Casey wins, 58% to 40% No Net Change

Rhode Island (D Incumbent)-Sheldon Whitehouse (D) versus Barry Hinckley (R):

Whitehouse and his cohort Senator Reed are highly entrenched in Rhode Island. Even though Representative Cicilline is facing a tough reelection, almost all of detractors from Cicilline will still support Whitehouse. He is a smart legislator who minds the interest of his people. On the other hand, Hinckley has not gained any momentum as he has not found a line of attack that works against Whitehouse.

Estimate: Whitehouse wins, 63% to 36% No Net Change

Tennessee (R Incumbent)-Bob Corker (R) v. Mark Clayton (D) v. Shaun Crowell (L):

Bob Corker, though a millionaire, was once considered a conservative reformer who may work independently of his party. Every now and then, this permutation of Corker still shows up on a procedural vote, but he has otherwise become the party’s median member. His Democratic opponent is an incendiary dixie-crat who the party disavowed in a state with a relatively strong bench. Crowell will take more votes from Clayton than Corker, but Corker will get some of the Democrat votes that might otherwise have stayed home. Crappy situation for the Dems, but Corker could not have wished for a easier election.

By the way, Clayton’s “Issues” tab on his campaign page is quite interesting. He praises Hillary Clinton and talks about “Snoopy bills” (privacy rights), while simultaneously .

(TN Clayton Senate Race 2012

Estimate: Corker wins, 71% to 24% to 4% No Net Change

Texas (R Incumbent)-Ted Cruz (R) v. Paul Sadler (D) v. John Myers (L):

Ted Cruz will fit nicely with the Rand Paul-Rob Johnson-Mike Lee-Jim DeMint faction of the Senate. Texas will become a purple state within the decade, but its current constitution is bright red. Paul Sadler is conservative, but the Texan electorate has no tolerance for a  Democrat right now, period. Cruz will win despite Myers operating in the same space, as well as some other candidates. But that would only be a problem if the race was close, which it won’t be.

Estimate: Cruz wins, 55% to 44% to 2% No Net Change

Utah (R Incumbent)-Orrin Hatch (R) versus Scott Howell (D):

Hatch lucked out of the eponymous Tea Party state convention, and then the election was over. No much to say, except Hatch is as much a product of this era of ideological shift as any other Senator. He was an original sponsor of the DREAM Act in the Senate, but has since become an Obama conspiracy theorist and bad-faith dealer.

Estimate: Hatch wins, 68% to 31% No Net Change

Vermont (I Incumbent)-Bernie Sanders v. MacGovern (R) v. odd bunch:

I am watching the Vermont Senate debate right now, and man, between the pro-marijuana, China is Big Bird lady, and hippie burnout who thinks Sanders is a warmonger, to the lady who says bills need to be a few words, and the Austrian engineer who thinks the Democrats and Republicans are really only one party, Sanders looks outright moderate and reasonable. If there was one person I could work for in Congress, it would be Bernie Sanders. He will win this one with a wide margin, even though MacGovern isn’t that for from the median voter in suburban areas of eastern Vermont.

The moderator questioned him pretty hard about why he supports the F-35, which he was largely defensive in response. Interesting turn of events when Sanders is the pro-military industrial complex candidate. I actually agree with his pragmatism—local jobs valuable and should be preserved, while the greater policy should be changed.

Estimate: Sanders wins, 76% to 23% (1% for all other candidates) No Net Change

Virginia (Retiring D)-Tim Kaine (D) versus George Allen (R):

George Allen wants his old seat back, and the conservative political elite want it back for him. In this newly purple state, Tim Kaine and George Allen both hold a soft spot in the electorate, one for his father’s coaching experience, the other for his stewardship of Virginia into a job creating machine. Both are ex-Governors, both have high name recognition, and both wield incredible sums of money. This one will not be as close as it could, but in this Obama year, expect high turnout in Northern Virginia, ensuring Kaine’s victory.

Estimate: Kaine wins, 51% to 48% No Net Change

Washington (D Incumbent)-Maria Cantwell (D) versus Michael Baumgartner (R):

Cantwell is a New Democrat and her ideological pairing of state business interest, like Boeing and the tech sector, with her ability to speak on social issues, make her a well positioned candidate in her Washington. Baumgartner is also a unique Republican, as he seems to be the next generation of Tea Party deconstructionist, but seemingly a little more selective on what he is nihilistic about.

Estimate: Cantwell wins, 57% to 42% No Net Change

West Virginia (D Incumbent)-Joe Manchin (D) versus John Raese (R):

Rematch of the last special election, which was much closer than this one will be. Raese does not have credibility with voters and in many ways works against workers’ rights that some in West Virginia still value. On the other side, Manchin has tailored an localized image as the last protector of West Virginian interests, including coal in all forms and a commercial of him shooting a target with Obama’s face on it (pretty fucked up, regardless of who is President). His independence from his party, as well as his paternalistic approach (which he had as Governor), will lead him to an easy victory. Shelley Moore-Capito could have given Manchin a run for his money, but Raese cannot.

Estimate: Manchin wins, 59% to 40% No Net Change

Wisconsin (Retiring D)-Tommy Thompson (R) versus Tammy Baldwin (D):

In the most polarized state in the nation, it is possible this race replicates the electoral geography of the recent Scott Walker recall election. Both Thompson and Baldwin are strong candidates, Thompson because of his highly esteemed record in Wisconsin, and Baldwin because of the progressive views she holds. These two dimensions provide the two contending interests (labor, youth and educated progressives versus religious, rural and suburban conservatives). Pragmatic conservatives are not necessarily too far removed from Baldwin ideologically to inhibit their crossover.

Estimate: Thompson wins, 49.7 to 49.2 R+1 D-1

Wyoming (Incumbent R)-John Barrasso (R) versus Tim Chestnut (D):

Wyoming is the most conservative state in the country, which makes it even nicer that Chestnut is running as an authentic, reasoned liberal. The only major caveat is his energy policy, but being the way Wyoming is constituted, that makes perfect sense. Barrasso is well-entrenched, even if he is one of the worst offenders of misleading voters, distorting the truth, and operating in bad faith when he legislates (although, is legislating against his ideology?). Barrasso should imitate his compadre Mike Enzi, who is on the far-right, and yet has decent working relations with numerous moderates and liberals in the Senate. Still waiting for Freudenthal to run, maybe in six years…

Estimate: Barrasso wins, 68% to 29% No Net Change

Overall Change In The Senate: No Net Change! The Democrats will gain some new seats, while losing some in the Midwest, which will all be offset. Even two independents who caucus with the Democrats will return to the Senate (King will caucus with the majority, which will be Democratic once more).

I hope you enjoyed this set of predictions and did your civic duty and voted! If you have not voted early, make sure to take some time to vote today!!

2012 Election Prediction

Obama wins, despite a country searching for a new way. Simply put, not enough voters believe Romney can do any better, and how he would govern if elected. Vacillation is not a good political quality.

The election is tomorrow, and accordingly, a belated electoral college prediction is necessary. I regret my inactivity on this blog in the last six months, but life sometimes pushes hobbies to the wayside. Let’s get into it:

Among the tossup states, it is my belief Obama will take all of the Rustbelt states, largely due to the auto bailout and ancestral alliance to unions (though the 2010 election showed union members are willing to leave the Democratic party). This means, regardless of the voter irregularities in the counting of votes in Ohio, which Governor Kasich’s character has ensured will occur, Obama’s margin will be large enough to where it is moot. Wisconsin may be even closer than Ohio, but the ground game, and national level thinking of the electorate, will once again make it a blue state.

Florida will go for Romney. Rick Scott becoming Governor of Florida shows the electorate there is among the least informed and aware in the country. There are simply not enough Jewish and black voters in Florida to overcome the caucazoid and Cuban conservative coalition. Florida will be a blue state again, but not this election. Virginia, in contrast, will go for Obama based on the yuppie class that populates the northern segment of the state. Their whole reason for even living in Virginia is due to the expansion of the federal government, so this constituency will break hard for Obama. Still a 50-49 race, but the victor will be the same as 2008.

Moving west, the pundits and pollsters seem to think Colorado is in Romney’s camp, but the demographics, and good governance history of Colorado, make me think otherwise. In truth, Romney is the perfect type of Republican for this state: moderate, sort of folksy (in a contrived way), and non-threatening. However, the voter intensity in this state will still favor Obama, as a whole new group of 18-21 years olds who are not policy oriented (and thus do not feel scorned by Obama’s continuation of Bush era policies) will vote as they would have in 2008. Expect a 51-48 victory there, with Gary Johnson pulling a max of 2% of the vote (leaving a 50-48-2 split). In Nevada, the preponderance of Mormons and the state’s nation’s worst unemployment figures should all aid Romney. Again however, demographic changes, and the inability (or lack of trying) to court Hispanics into the GOP has left a structural gap that cannot be made up this election. Expect a 51-46-3 split, with Gary Johnson pulling evenly from Obama and Romney in third place.

That leaves the electoral college at 303 to 235, in favor of Obamar. The overall popular vote will be something like 63,500,000 for Obama and 62,000,000 for Romney. As you can see, I expect lower voter turnout, by about 2 million voters, than in the 2008 election. Most of these would have supported Obama, but are to his ideological left and feel betrayed by not fighting harder for a progressive change agenda.

And that is the election. Next up in national politics: gridlock in Congress, a civil war in the GOP, and who will crack first on the sequester?

CA-36: Mary Bono Mack Debate Meltdown

Disgraceful. Mary Bono-Mack’s performance was one of the best reinterpretations of the Wicked Witch of the West that I have ever seen. She should be embarrassed and ashamed for how she has acted.

This woman is desperate. I have at various points in my life afforded Mary Bono-Mack more respect than the average Republican because she used to be a pro-environment, social moderate. She has shown herself in recent times to be a complete hack, much like her current husband Connie (maybe she simply emulates whoever her husband is; Sonny would be ashamed).

She also made the outrageous (among many) claim that “Joe Biden was out defending Iran”: Really, really!? Did she watch the debate? Quite disgraceful. I really have had an exalted view of Bono-Mack compared to whoever this person is. Of all the members of the state GOP, I thought she was the most malleable to her constituents’ needs; turns out I was wrong. She is a vindictive, scared women, who will stop at nothing to assassinate Raul Ruiz’s character, especially when he clearly has a wonderful personal story. Not everyone can marry into money (twice).

Saying she wants to get rid of the high-speed rail that “nobody wants” is pretty out there. The voters passed Proposition 1A in 2008 with 52.7% of the vote. She does not respect the voters of the state.

I did not think this election was going to be that close, even with the changing demographics of the district. She has shown the ability to garner votes from moderates and independents in the district. And yet, after seeing this debate, I think she knows something I do not. Maybe they put a poll into the field and it came back with her losing to Ruiz. They obviously would not publish it.

Everything Bono-Mack presented in the debate confirms Raul Ruiz’s critique of her. She is out of touch. She is fickle. She has disdain for those who disagree with her, instead of trying to understand why they might think that way. Furthermore, she does not have enough intellectual integrity to even explain her views on a myriad of subjects, and thinks posing questions to her are simply attacks.

Raul Ruiz was very impressive. He spoke efficiently and sincerely. He should be rewarded by going to Washington. CA-36 deserves someone who knows what it is like to live in the district.

Vice Presidential Debate Analysis

It has certainly been awhile, but the VP debate poses as good an opportunity to get back into the swing of things as any other event. Let’s do it, bullet-point style:

• When Ryan claims that his Medivoucher program will not cut benefits to anyone who needs them, but simply reduce benefits for the rich, it is the first step in a long process to end the program. True, vouchers with support for the poor is not so bad in itself, if indeed it covers everyone’s medical costs (unlikely as it is), but turning a universal benefit program into a means-tested program is the easiest way to reduce the policy constituency and therefore splinter the political clout of those who are still in the program. Universal programs have much more of a shelf-life than means-tested ones, and Ryan is quite aware of this. This is why it is true that Ryan would end Medicare—his policies would create a path dependence in which the complete retrenchment of the social safety net would  take shape.
• Essentially the playbook of Romney-Ryan is to take the opposite view of Obama-Biden. It is pretty odd that such a strategy would be employed in America’s uber-ideological struggle. However, the one characteristic of the current party system that is more dominantly divisive that ideology is partisanship, and essentially that is what this is. Romney-Ryan will position themselves wherever they see an electoral advantage, but the problem is they are alienating their base

Reverends Become Single Issue Advocates; Forget the Teachings of Jesus

Turning on C-SPAN this fine Saturday morning has left quite the disgusting taste in my mouth. The Coalition of African-American Pastors is truly a vile, short-sighted association of bigoted and stubborn individuals. You might think that this group of supposedly “righteous” and “godly” men and women would comprehend that gay rights are analogous to black rights, and that all people seeking further inclusion to draw on the benefits that the majority receives should gain their support. Instead, what you will see when these people speak is one after another, a recitation of the struggle of the civil rights movement, and how they have learned from it, and for this reason they will deny gay men and women their own rights to adoption, medical benefits, insurance coverage and spiritual recognition. The cognitive dissonance is among the most I have ever witnessed, and yet this group so steadfastly believes what they advocate for is right, that not only will they argue against gay marriage, but they will abandon the support for liberal policies as advocated by President Obama to fight poverty, discrimination, make college affordable, and so on. Denying gays the right to marriage is the single most important issue in contemporary America, according to the CAAP. This myopic view has led the head of the CAAP, and the subsequent speakers, to plead with black Americans to “withhold their support” of Obama for his reelection. Now I do understand the argument that Obama has ignored black America, as he knows they are captive voters, and furthermore, if a third party or single issue group wants to be heard, they often have to attack the closest political ally in power to force responsiveness, but to think that the alternative candidate in Romney will hold the interests of Black America is quite obscene. It is clear from some of the participants that many of the CAAP did not even support Obama the first time, as many are aligned with conservative Republican groups such as the Frederick Douglass Foundation, so they agenda is less one of an epiphany and more an opportunistic means of fooling somewhat religious Black folk. I highly doubt this will work in costing Obama the election, but the repugnant and unaware bigotry of the CAAP should be widely condemned by any sensible follower of Jesus Christ, as they abdicate the whole of his teachings for a few cryptic lines of scripture in a book written by hundreds of men almost 2000 years ago.

Marco Rubio: Mentira Oportunista

Who me? Why would I tell you the truth when I constantly say “the truth is” and then follow with a lie… or two…

If this guy is the future of the Republican Party, you have to question in what alternate reality would such a party even still exist. Throughout the speech he gave to keynote a fundraiser in South Carolina today, Marco Rubio solidified his uncanny ability to misappropriate the opposing view in every manner other than the truth. He has claimed throughout the speech: a) Obama does not believe in America b) all Obama believes in is government c) the Republican Party is a big tent party, one which is bigger than that of the Democratic party d) the Senate is better because of Jim DeMint e) Obama is the most divisive figure in modern America history (More divisive than you, Jim DeMint, or Bush-Rove circa 2004? Oh that’s right, Rubio did not follow national politics back then) f) the only two things he can do as a Senator are write laws and create new bureaucracies (you can place holds on nominations, as you have done; you ratify treaties; you confirm justices to the high court; you allocate the distribution of public funds for government projects; you provide moral leadership to a nation (something Rubio has forfeited with his conceit)  g) I could keep going but why should I.

Also, he is relying heavily on a teleprompter, in a much more contrived and obvious fashion than Obama. Perhaps the next line of conservative attacks should be: we use teleprompters, but we are not as good at it as Obama, therefore, he is an elitist Kenyan Muslim socialist fascist.

Wow, now he is talking about his father’s struggle as an ex-Cuban bartender. This guy is about as inauthentic and insincere in what he says and how he acts as anyone in Congress, rivaled only by his pal Mitt Rombot 2.3 (pending further updates). If this is the future of the Republican Party, I fear America may devolve into a one party state, without socialism, but instead demagoguery and money driven electioneering.

Legislator Spotlight: Henry Hyde of Illinois

The Sixth Party System is rolling out a new on-going series taking a historical look at various Representatives and Senators who have served significant roles in the history of Congress. Only retired members will be examined. This examination will largely be ethnographic, with some analysis of the policies put forth by the individual.

Our first member is Henry Hyde of Illinois. He is certainly not my ideological soul mate, but nonetheless, his accomplishments and importance in the House cannot be denied.

Henry J. Hyde (R)

• Represented the Republican-centric suburbs north of Chicago, including cities in Cook and DuPage counties, such as Park Ridge, Wheaton,and Elmhurst.
• Most famously authored the Hyde Amendment language to federal appropriations bills, which has in perpetuity banned federal funds for abortion.
• He is widely considered an honest-broker and someone who legislates in good faith. Ideologically he is a compassionate conservative, as he has supported the assault weapons ban and family medical leave, while holding the line on most far-right evangelical ideations.
• His magnanimity allowed him to work as one of the most prolific legislators of his cohort. Was always willing to vote his conscience, and compromise for the greater good—a rare quality in American legislators.

White House Correspondents Dinner

Used sexist jokes. Otherwise solid performance, especially his Mitt Romney routine.

I appreciate him asking the question about Obama’s marijuana crackdown. He even said “I don’t mean to be out of line…” which is very polite for Jimmy Kimmel. The press corps.’ silence on this issue is incredible. The effect this has on people of reasonable living is quite high compared to most policy constituents.

Thanks Jimmy.

Read To Your Kids!

This is somewhat beyond the purview of this site, and warranted the creation of an ‘education’ category, but The Sixth Party System would just like to tell anyone reading this blog:

Please read to your kids! The earlier in their life the better. It has a major impact on their intellectual development.

Whether you head a single parent household or have a spouse, all parents in the home should cultivate an environment that fosters intellectual curiosity and comprehension. Mom’s can do it, and dad’s can do it too. Just look, old Honest Abe did it:

Dude was hella good to his son. Look at this, they are reading together!

Jim Costa Abandons Constituents: Good For Them

Who do I represent? Me. Oh, and agribusiness.

Jim Costa is a slimy guy. He is the type of politician who rarely ever looks at the greater good and tends to focus on parochial issues. Additionally, he is the kind of politician who you can buy off to vote in a certain manner, especially if it is against his party and “liberals.” If that’s not bad enough, he does not support the large amount of workers’ interests in his district, which is the current CA-20 (soon to be CA-21), instead supporting the agribusiness industry that is ubiquitious with wing-nut politics and hyperbolic, hate filled propaganda signs along the 5 freeway (which often link him to Pelosi when he undermines her every chance he gets).

Can’t believe my homie did me dirty like this.

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Costa abandoned his current constituents, 79.07 percent of which will end up in the new CA-21, in favor of his buddy Dennis Cardoza’s would-be district. Announcing to run in your friend’s district is pretty shady, but well within Costa’s character. He effectively retired his only friend in congress so hopefully he makes new friends in the Republican caucus.

That district, known as CA-16 is centered in Fresno, and only contains 24.39 percent of his current constituents. Costa has done this for two reasons: One, his political base in Fresno, where he has represented the Portuguese Länder for many a year; two, he knew his support in Bakersfield and the surrounding area has been waning as people get to know him better, and furthermore, he feared a primary challenge from Astronaut John Hernandez.

Campaign slogan: I might be a Blue Dog, but I’m not Jim Costa. Hernandez 2012!

None of this is new news, as Cardoza retired months ago, but nonetheless, I thought it would be meaningful to start focusing on some House races. All three of these guys seem pretty contrary to liberal, or god forbid progressive, values. The tone Hernandez strikes clearly shows he will continue in the Costa-Cardoza mold, but at least his campaign videos make him look pretty relatable.

RI-01: Brendan Doherty Does Not Know The Issues

What? Me actually know the issues? Is you crazy!?

In Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional district, David Cicilline faces a tough general election from Police dude Brendan Doherty. In a 67% Obama district, this should not be a race; however, Cicilline is in hot water for claiming Providence’s city finances were in “excellent financial condition,” when in fact the city was millions and millions of dollars in the whole.

Anyway, Cicilline is in trouble. And Doherty has been reported to be a very strong Republican in this blue state. So I decided to do some research and see how moderate he is, and potentially, if he has any unique understanding of the issues. He does not. His issues page on his campaign website is a joke. It certainly contains all the mainstay issues, but they are vague and very much of the Republican party line ilk. The only “moderate” stances are on civil unions (pro) and energy policy (which he is pro renewable energy; hardly going out on a limb). What I thought was interesting was his description for Health Care:

Health Care – We must find a way to maneuver through the incredibly complex and confusing health care changes our state and nation are considering. This must be accomplished in a balanced and measured, bipartisan effort by finding common ground with fiscal responsibility. I intend to focus on examining three elements I consider to be partly responsible for the deterioration of our current health care system: fraud, waste and corruption. I know quite a bit about fighting fraud, waste and corruption and will be a strong proponent of leading the charge to finally eliminate the related, skyrocketing costs.

Is that a joke? Health care inflation has almost nothing to do with fraud, waste and corruption. That is such a parochial understanding of perhaps the most pressing issue in the American economy outside of full employment and income inequity, and his answer is cracking down on fraud? Seems to me the man does not understand this issue, and the other ones are mostly platitudes. I guess he is running on character, which he claims to possess while Cicilline does not.

This race is still in the Sixth Party System’s eyes, a solid Dem seat. Cicilline will win, though he will trail Obama’s numbers by about 6%, which will mean a Cicilline victory of 58% to 40%.

On a side note, Independent Governor Lincoln Chafee endorsed Cicilline. I wonder how much of that is due to playing the establishment game, and how much has to do with Doherty not knowing shit about the issues.