Category Archives: House of Representatives

Appropriations and Executive Orders

By tmess2 | Published February 24, 2019

When President Obama was in office, we heard a lot from Republicans about how President Obama was usurping the power of Congress to write laws.  Since President Trump has been in office, despite President Trump going much further than President Obama ever did, the Republicans have been noticeably unwilling to do anything to oppose this practice of legislating by executive order.  The most recent invasion of congressional authority was the President’s decision that he could ignore the line items in appropriations bills because he wants more money for border wall construction than Congress was willing to appropriate.

Over 50 years ago, in Youngstown Steel vs. Sawyer, a case involving the temporary seizure of a steel mill at the start of the Korean War (i.e. a real emergency), the United States Supreme Court found that the seizure exceeded executive authority.  At that time Justice Robert Jackson (one of the leading conservative justices of the mid-20th Century) wrote a concurrence that recognized three potential situations which had different implications for presidential authority.  First, the president was acting with maximum authority if there was a congressional statute granting him that authority.  Second, the president was in a middle zone when Congress had taken no action.  In other words, while such a president would be relying on his constitutional authority, there was at least no law barring the action.  Finally, there was the circumstance in which there was a contrary statute barring the President’s action.  In such a case, a court could only allow the president to act if the president had independent constitutional authority and Congress lacked the authority to limit the president’s actions.

In the current circumstance, the debate will be over whether President Trump’s actions fall into category one (authorized by Congress) or category three (barred by Congress).  The President will be relying on the law governing declarations of national emergencies.  As part of that law, the President is authorized to engage in construction to support the use of the military in responding to such an emergency.  While the statute does not define national emergency, the past use of that power has usually been in the case of a military crisis or a national disaster.  Additionally, the authorization for construction to support the military is implicitly for support facilities (e.g. housing, etc.) not for construction of permanent structures intended for civilian use. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Federal Budget, Judicial, Senate | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Appropriations and Executive Orders

The Last Election of 2018

By tmess2 | Published February 3, 2019

When we last left North Carolina, the outgoing State Election Board had declined to certify the results in the Ninth Congressional District because of a concerted effort by the Republican candidate’s campaign to violate state election law related to the collection of absentee ballots.  However, before the Board could complete its investigation, the old Board (created under an unconstitutional statute enacted in 2016 by the Republican legislature and the outgoing Republican governor to reduce the power of the incoming Democratic governor) expired by court order. 

After the Republicans delayed as long as possible (avoiding any interim Board), Governor Roy Cooper appointed a new Board this past week.  The new Board quickly organized in a telephonic meeting and intends to hold its first official meeting as soon as possible at which time they will schedule a hearing to determine whether to certify the results in the Ninth Congressional district or to set aside those results for fraud and schedule a revote in the race between Mark Harris and Dan McCready. 

At this point in time, we are probably looking at late February or early March before we know for sure what the State Election Board will decide. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Elections | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The Last Election of 2018

A Long December

By tmess2 | Published December 16, 2018

As we come to the end of another year, there are a lot of things happening. 

Let’s start with North Carolina and the Ninth District, the last of the House seats still up in the air.  It is unclear how much of the vote count has been impacted by the shenanigans.  There is substantial evidence showing that political operatives broke North Carolina law by getting involved in the collection of absentee ballots from non-relatives.  There is also evidence suggesting that these individuals may suggests that these operaves were selective in turning in the ballots that they received and may have altered other ballots (e.g., by casting votes in races that the voter left blank).  Since some states do allow non-relatives to collect absentee ballots, what is happening in North Carolina shows the need to have some anti-fraud measures in such voting.  Making it easy to vote is a good thing.  However, historically, we have known that most voter fraud is connected with mail-in or absentee voting and not with in-person voter-impersonation.    Of course, Republicans have been more concerned with stopping in-person fraud in ways that make it difficult to vote in person.  Meanwhile, they have uniformly been willing to relax the rules designed to assure that ballots received in the mail actually reflect the intent of the person who supposedly have cast them.  Going forward, Democrats — wanting to make it easy for people to vote — need to be sure that the rules include adequate protection to prevent con-artists from stealing and altering ballots before they get to the election office.

We have also seen the start of Democrats announcing that they are considering running for President.  Over the next three to six months, we will see more Democrats announce their campaigns; some of these candidates will decide to halt their campaigns before we reach July, but many of them will make the late Summer when we begin to have debates.  While the DNC does not need to finalize its debate plans yet, it does need to consider what the Republicans did wrong in 2016 (as well as what the Democrats did wrong in 2016).  The Republicans big problem was having too many candidates for a single debate.  The simple reality is that more candidates on the stage translates into less substance and more personal attacks and everyone agreeing with what they perceive as party orthodoxy.  On the other hand, there is no rational method for choosing which candidates make the debate.  The Republican tentative solution was what many called the JV or kiddie-table debate in which polls were used to separate the top candidates from the others.  However, after the first four or five candidates, the gap between the remaining candidates will often be less than the standard margin of error in most polls.  (In other words, the difference is close enough that the real standing of the candidates is unclear.)  Offering my humble suggestions, the following makes sense to me:  1) No more than six or seven candidates on the stage at a time (even that is probably too many, but it allows each candidate to have a semi-substantive response to each question); 2) all parts of the debate need to be in prime time (see next suggestion below) even if that means short breaks between the parts in which candidates are rushed on and off the stage with no opportunity to schmooze with the audience for those in the earlier parts; and 3) the candidates in part one or part two (or part three if there are even more candidates) should be randomly suggested and there should be a limit on the number of consecutive times that a candidate can be in any part (in other words, no part is clearly the “Not Ready for Prime Time” debate and no candidate is consistently going in the early debate or the late debate).  Continue Reading...

Also posted in Democratic Party, Elections, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Long December

The Need for a Leadership Shuffle

By tmess2 | Published November 25, 2018

On Tuesday, the House Democratic Caucus-elect will meet to select its leaders for the upcoming Congress.  Both before and since the election, there has been discussion about whether the caucus should pick Nancy Pelosi as its candidate for Speaker of the House.  It is hard to think of a credible reason for removing a leader who just had a tremendous victory other than the Democrat’s usual flaw of forming a circular firing squad.  While Representative Pelosi — like most leaders of both parties — currently has a negative favorability rating, that goes along with the job and whomever would replace her would soon have similar numbers.

What is disheartening about this discussion is the failure to look at what does need to change — the rest of the leadership team.  One of the reasons for this lack of discussion is how difficult it is to replace any of them.  The current team represents a decent cross-section of the senior Democrats in the House.  That will make it difficult to challenge any one of the leaders.  But the problem is how long these individuals have been in the leadership.   Our senior leadership is getting too senior, and it needs to renew and revitalize.

Start with likely majority leader Stenny Hoyer, Representative from Maryland.  Representative Hoyer will turn 80 in the next Congress.  He has been in Congress for thirty-seven years.  He became Chair of the Democratic Conference (technically the number four position when Democrats are in the majority and the number three position when Democrats are in the minority) in 1989 and served in that position until 1994.  In 2002, when Nancy Pelosi became minority leader, Representative Hoyer (who had earlier that year lost the race for minority whip to Representative Pelosi) became the new minority whip and has been the number two for the last sixteen years.  It is not unusual in most democracies for the loser in a leadership battle to become the new deputy.  What is unusual is for that person to keep that position for sixteen years.

Likely majority whip Jim Clyburn is currently 78.  He has been in Congress for twenty-six years.  He became chair of the Democratic Conference in 2006 (just before the Democrats took control) and ascended to majority whip in 2007.  When the Democrats lost control in 2010, Representative Clyburn was given the newly-created position of Assistant to the Leader to avoid a contest between Clyburn and Hoyer over the minority whip position.  As the senior minority in the leadership, it will be hard to just challenge Representative Clyburn.

With Representative Joe Crowley losing in his primary, the next person in line in the current leadership is Representative Linda Sanchez of California who is the current vice-chair of the Democratic Conference.   Compared to the senior leadership, she is relatively young — will turn 50 in the next Congress — and has only been in Congress for fifteen years.

Looking at the committee chairs, twelve of the current ranking members (and the likely chairs of those committees) are over seventy.  Only four of the current ranking members are under 60.   For the two committees in which the ranking member did not run for re-election, the next senior member of one is over 70.  The other (Veteran’s Affairs) does not have a clear-cut next in line in terms of seniority — which is problematic for other reasons as no remaining Democratic member has been on the committee for more than six years — but the next senior member is under 60.    When you look at the big committees (Appropriations, Armed Services, Budget, Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Judiciary, Oversight, Rules, and Ways and Means), six are over 70.

While seniority and experience are important, it is also important to have a next generation that is ready to take over.  One of the reasons that Representative Pelosi is the likely speaker is that you can’t beat somebody with nobody, and there is no logical successor with any significant experience in a leadership position — either in the Conference or as ranking member on a committee.   Speaker Pelosi has to get started on the transition process for the next generation.   We need members in their forties and fifties as chair and vice-chair of the Conference.  We need to have as many younger members as possible serving as chairs of the sub-committees.  With all due respect to Representative Clyburn and Representative Hoyer, they need to prepare to step down from their leadership positions after the 2020 elections and somebody needs to step up to challenge them.  Saying that it is time for Representative Hoyer to make way for the next generation may not get the same traction with activists as a direct challenge to Representative Pelosi but getting into that heir apparent position is a necessary first step to making the argument that Representative Pelosi needs to step down after the 2022 election.

Those of us who were alive in the 80s remembers all of those May Day parades in the Soviet Union in which the entire senior leadership of the Soviet Union looked like they were on death’s door.  And until recently, the Saudi monarchy was best classified as a group of men over 70 hoping that their older brothers and half-brothers would die first so that they could sit on the throne for ten to thirty months.  A well rounded political party needs some senior members who are there to advice their younger colleagues and provide some institutional experience on what has been tried and failed.  But you also need a mix of youth and vitality in the leadership as well; a group with a stake in making a better future for all.  Today’s Democratic Party has too many who have been holding on for the past eight years hoping for their shot to run the House.  They will get that shot, but they also need to start making way for the next generation to renew and revitalize the Democratic Party.

Also posted in Democratic Party | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Need for a Leadership Shuffle

2018 Mid-Term Election Preview — What to look for on election night?

By tmess2 | Published November 4, 2018

There are two major factors that drive the reporting of results on election night.  First, the U.S. is one of the few countries with a significant East-West width.  This fact, combined with state autonomy, means that, unlike a Germany or United Kingdom, we have staggered poll closing times (ranging from 6 p.m. EST in parts of Kentucky and Indiana to 1 a.m. EST in parts of Alaska).  Second, even with recent improvement in vote counting technology, there is (even with the same state) delays in reporting results that lead to precinct results being released throughout the evening due to:  1) processing all the people who were in line to vote at the official poll closing time; 2) getting the electronic vote counting devices from the individual precincts to the county/parish/township counting center; 3) downloading all of those devices into the counting center’s computer (obviously more precincts in urban counties = longer to download all of the data); and 4) reporting those results to the media and the state election authority.

Given that it takes hours to get near full counts (and days or weeks to get full counts), the news media uses “cheats” to project races as early as possible.  The two main cheats are somewhat related.  First, at least for state-wide races in state’s expected to be crucial, the media conducts exit polls at key precincts.  (These precincts are chosen to provide enough of all key demographic groups based on past voting history, along with weighting formulas based on past history adjusted by reweighting based on actual turnout.)  Second, the media relies on past history as far as how the parties have performed in counties and precincts in the past.  (The media has the advantage of having all of the relevant data pre-digested.)  For both “cheats,”   the question is how the early reporting precincts differ from what is expected.  If the exit polls show the Republicans “underperforming” in rural precincts by three percent, and the early precincts show a similar result in those precincts those results “confirms” that the exit polls are close.  Similarly, in a D+5 state, if the early results show that Democratic candidate is doing 5% better than the norm for those precincts in that state, that is a pretty good sign that the Democratic candidate is going to win.   Because most average people lack the media’s ease of access to this data, we are sort of in the position of having to reverse engineer things.

For the most part, there is no need to pay close attention before 9:00 p.m. EST.  Nine states (ten if you count Florida which is mostly closed at 7:00 p.m. EST) are closed before 8:00 p.m. EST.  And, for the reason noted above, it takes about an hour before a decent share of precincts start reporting.  (In some states, early vote results get released pretty quickly after the polls close, but you still need enough time to get a concept of how many people voted on election day and how much election day results seem to differ from early voting).  The 2016 election gave us a good clue on what we should be looking for — particularly given that we are looking at 435 individual house districts, 35 Senate seats, and 36 governor’s races.  In 2016, at the start of the evening, there were a significant number of states that were close enough that the media waited before calling.  However, as the evening progressed, the lean Republican states were being called for Trump while the lean Democratic states stayed to close to call.

Translating this history to 2018, most of the focus as of 9:00 p.m. EST should be on the Senate races.  Polls will have been closed for three hours in most of Indiana (and Kentucky), two hours in Florida, and ninety minutes in West Virginia.  If the Democrats are doing well, all three of those states will already have been called for the incumbent Democrat in the Senate.  In addition, if the Democrats are doing well, the Governor’s race may already have been called for Andrew Gillum.  On the other hand, if these races are still too close to call, and the Republicans have already picked up Tennessee (polls only closed for an hour) and have held the Governor’s mansion in Georgia and Ohio, Republicans will be in good shape to keep the Senate and might even have gained the House.  Because there is less likely to be exit polls for the House races and not enough precincts to allow projections in most House races, there will be few close House races called by this time.  Of the key House seats, the most likely to be called by this time is Kentucky Sixth (which will have three hours worth of results).  The Republicans are slight favorites to keep this seat; so if it is still too close to call or has been called for the Democrats, that would be a good sign.  Similarly, polls will have been closed long enough (ninety minutes to two hours) that we might have projections in Florida Fifteen, Florida Twenty-Five, Florida, Twenty-Six, Florida Twenty-seven, Virginia Five, Virginia Seven, Virginia Ten, North Carolina Nine, Ohio Twelve, and West Virginia Three.  These districts range from likely pick-ups in Florida Twenty-seven and Virginia Ten to a long shot in West Virginia Three.  If Democrats have gained more than two of these seats and most of the rest have not yet been projected, Democrats will almost certainly have a House majority when all is said and done.  If Republicans have several holds and the Democrats have no pick-ups, it might be a long evening.

Over the next two hours, the pace of projections should gradually increase.  By 11:00 p.m. EST, most of the states on the east coast should be projected.   The Republicans are only seen as having good chances at gaining two districts, both in Minnesota (which will have been closed for two hours).  On the other hand, the Democrats have good chances at gaining two seats in Minnesota.  At this point in time, how many of these four districts have been projected — and which ones — will be a good indicator of how the evening will ultimately turnout.  Other than North Dakota and Montana (most of the “at risk” Democratic Senate seats will have been closed for two hours.  If the Democrats have managed to hold (or have leads) in these nine states, Democrats might just have a chance at getting to 51 seats — particularly if they are winning states like Indiana, Florida, West Virginia, and Missouri comfortably.   Additionally, with heavy early voting and the polls having been closed for two hours, Arizona might have been projected.  So are Democrats at plus one in the Senate or minus two or three?   Overall, what is the Democratic net in the House.  If the Democrats are over twenty seats, the Democrats have enough likely gains in the west that the race for the House is effectively over.  If the Democrats have actually lost some of the approximately twenty seats that they are currently favored to pick-up and the Republicans are keeping the maybe districts, then the Republicans might keep control of the House.    Finally, we should have projections in most of the close races for governor other than Alaska, Iowa, Nevada, and Oregon.  Are the Democrats picking up states like Florida, Kansas, Maine, and Ohio?  And, four hours after the polls have closed, what is happening in Georgia (a winner, a run-off, or waiting for the last precincts to report)?

As we know from 2016, we may not know who will control the House or the Senate until the early hours of Wednesday morning.  Because the House is determined by district level results, it is the least likely of the three to go that late.  By midnight, there will be two hours of results from every state but Alaska, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Washington.  Thus, by this point in time, the question is what is still outstanding and what is the current net swing at all three levels.  If one party has picked up/held most of the “competitive” seats that they were favored to win and the “outstanding” seats are the ones that were supposed to have been wins by the other party, that party is likely to be happy when the evening is done.  So are we waiting for the Tennessee and Texas Senate seats or have the Republicans held onto them.  Have the Democrats lost any state (and are states like Missouri, Montana, and North Dakota still outstanding)?  Is the House at a net over twenty for the Democrats?  Have the Democrats netted more than five Governor’s races?  Have the Republicans gained any Governor’s mansions that the Democrats have held?  By this time, it is unlikely that everything will be up in the air.  If the Democrats have not yet wrapped up the House, they have probably failed to pick up seats in the Senate and may have lost a Senate seat or two.  If the Republicans have not yet wrapped up the Senate, they have probably already effectively lost the House.  (Technically, there are enough House seats on the West Coast, that neither party has yet “won” 218 seats,  but the Republicans really lack any pick-up opportunities outside Minnesota so if the net at midnight is over 25, the Democrats will win the House.)

At this point, in any election, the candidates have pretty much done what they can do to swing the election.  The campaign has finished filming all of their ads and have booked air time over the next 48 hours.  They have done what they can to register voters and have them vote early (in the states that allow early voting).  They have volunteers ready for get out the vote effort on Tuesday.  At this point, it is up to us, the voters, to make the difference.  If you haven’t already voted, vote on Tuesday, and get a couple of like-minded friends to vote too.  We have worked too hard over the past ten years to protect people with pre-existing conditions, to improve the rights of the LGBQT community, and to restore the economy after the disaster of the Bush year to give Trump a blank check for the next two years to destroy the economy with mindless trade wars and to pander to the vile racists who want to divide America.  We also need to assure that in 2021, Democrats will control enough state governments that the Republicans will not be able to stack the playing field for the next decade in the way that they have done since 2011.  The time to prevent America from going the way of many previous self-centered superpowers is now.

 

Also posted in Elections, General Election Forecast, Senate | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on 2018 Mid-Term Election Preview — What to look for on election night?

California Chaos

By tmess2 | Published May 29, 2018

With no primaries this week, the focus turns to June 5.  While there are several other significant states with primaries on June 5, the big one is California.  While California is a blue state, it is large enough that there is still a significant Republican contingent (14 Representatives) in the California delegation.  Measured either by total seats, by current Republican delegations, or by Partisan Vote Index score (6 in seats that are R+3 or more Democratic), California will play a significant role in which party has a majority in the House in 2019.  The House seats in California range from D+40 (Barbara Lee) to R+14 (Kevin McCarthy).

Aside from the size of California, the complicating factor for next week’s primary are the rules governing the primary.  California uses a “top two” primary.  Like a jungle primary (which is not really a primary, but a general election with a run-off rule), all the candidates from all of the parties run in one election.  (Thus a voter could pick a Democrat for Governor, a Republican for Lieutenant Governor, Green for U.S. Senate, and Peace and Justice for U.S. House.)  Unlike a jungle primary, in which a candidate can win the seat by getting over 50% in the “primary,” a top two primary is a true primary and the candidates who finish first and second will be on the November ballot.

The nature of the top two primary creates an element of strategy for the parties.  In districts in which you have the majority, having two strong candidates is a good thing.  It makes it possible that the general election will feature two candidates from your party.  In a district in which your lead is solid enough, you can even have three strong candidates without risking the seat.  On the other hand, if you are the trailing party in the district, you want fewer candidates from your party.  You can get away with having two candidates if the other party has more than two strong candidates and the district is close enough.  The bottom line, however, is that having three strong candidates in a close district can result in you being shut out of the general election.

To be blunt, Republicans tend to do a better job of candidate control than the Democrats.  This can be seen in some of the current Republican seats.  Take for example, California’s Tenth District.  By the numbers, this seat is a pure Toss-up seat (an even PVI).  The Democrats have six candidates to the two Republican candidates.  That creates a real possibility (especially with strategic voting by the Republicans) of no Democrat making the general election ballot in a district that the Democrats could win in November.  The need to make sure that some Democrat makes the November ballot puts the national party in a bit of a bind.  They can designate one of the candidates as the “Red to Blue” (the party’s list of key challengers in Republican-held districts) candidate.  But that runs the risk of charges that the national party is interfering in the race.  Or they can sit back and hope for the best.  Turning to the key races . . . .

In the U.S. Senate primary, there are ten Democrats, eleven Republicans, and eleven independents/third party candidates on the ballot.  Current polling has Senator Feinstein with a comfortable lead over the pack (31% in the most recent poll, almost enough to assure her of making the general election regardless of how the undecided voters break).   In the most recent poll, none of the other candidates has over 10% and about 50% of the voters are undecided.

For Governor, there are twelve Democrats, five Republicans, and ten other candidates on the ballot.  This race is a little closer, with Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom leading the field (21% in the most recent poll).  However, in the most recent poll, there are two candidates (one Democrat and one Republican) in the low double digits, and around 45% of the voters are undecided.  Given the number of candidates, twenty-one percent might be enough to make the top two, but Newsom probably needs to pick up at least some of the undecided Democrats to make the general.  (By contrast, Senator Feinstein should make the general even if all of the undecided Democrats end up supporting the leading Democratic challenger.)

For the House, it should go without saying, but turnout is the key.  Even though California makes it relatively easy to vote, many voters skip the primary trusting that they will have at least one good candidate on the November ballot.  Strong Democratic turnout will make it easier for Democrats to get at least one candidate on the November ballot in all of the districts and could lead to Republicans being shut out of some districts.  With 53 seats, we will not be able to note all of them, but here are some of the ones to pay close attention to:

California 1:      A R+11 seat, so one that will be a challenge to win in November.  Incumbent Republican Doug La Malfa will almost certainly make the November ballot.  There are six Democrats running, so there is a slim chance that the other Republican on the ballot could finish second.  However, that other Republican has no funding.  The two top Democrats in terms of fundraising are Jessica Holcombe and Audrey Denney.

California 4:  A R+10, so another one that will be something of a stretch in November.  Incumbent Republican Tom McClintock should make the November ballot.  As in California 1, there are six Democrats versus two Republicans creating the potential of an all-Republican general election.  Again, the other Republican has not raised much money and two Democrats have stood out — Regina Bateson and Jessica Morse — in terms of fundraising.  In both districts, the leading challengers have raised enough to stand out from the other contenders, but whichever makes the general will need to raise a lot more.

California 8 — A R +9 district, so somewhat on the edge of a winnable district in a Democratic wave.  Democrats have had a little better candidate control here (3 Democrats to 2 Republicans).  Incumbent Republican Paul Cook should make the general.  The battle for second may be a close one between Republican Timothy Donnelly (who unlike some other Republicans challenging Republican incumbents have raised some funds) and Democrat Marjorie Doyle.

California 10 — As noted above, a nominally “Even” district.  While there is a second Republican on the ballot along with incumbent Jeff Denham, that other Republican has raised very little, if anything.  There has been good fundraising for the Democrats, and the Democrat with the most money raised — Josh Harder — is only a little behind Representative Denham.  However, three other Democrats have also raised at least $200,000.  Assuming that the Republicans do not organize strategic voting to assure that both Republicans make the top two, this race will be a key one in November.

California 21 & California 22 & California 23 & California 24 — In all of these districts, the Republican incumbent managed to avoid drawing any Republican opposition.  As such, the incumbent should make the November ballot, and one of the Democrats should also make the general election ballot.  (Outside of California 21, there are third party candidates on the primary ballot who could steal the general election ballot slot.)  California 21 is a D +5 district, currently held by Republican David Valadao.  As there are only two candidates on the primary ballot, both will make the general election.  California 22 is a R+8 district, currently held by Trump Administration stooge Devin Nunes.  One of the three Democrats (most likely Fresno County DA Andrew Janz) should make the general election ballot.  California 23 is the most Republican district in the state (R +14) currently held by Speaker-wannabe Kevin McCarthy.  One of the four Democrats should make it to November, but none of them have raised any significant money.  California 25 is an Even district, currently held by Steve Knight.  Two Democrats (Bryan Caforio and Katherine Hill) have raised more than $1,000,000.

California 39 — An Even district, but one in which the two parties have done a poor job of candidate control.  With Republican incumbent Ed Royce deciding not to run, seven Republicans and six Democrats have gotten into the race.  The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee decided to put their thumb on the scale to assure that, at least, one Democrat makes the general election by naming Gil Cisneros as a “Red to Blue” candidate.  Besides Cisneros, Democrats Andy Thorburn and Mai Tran have raised over $1,000,000.  Two Republicans — Young Kim and Shawn Nelson — have raised over $500,000.  Without polling, it is difficult to be sure, but I am seeing a result in which several candidates are clustered in the upper teens/low twenties.  With a lucky break, two Democrats will be on the November ballot.  If things break wrong, two Republicans will be on the November ballot and a likely pick-up will have been blown.

California 45 — A R+3 district that Secretary Clinton carried in 2016.  Republican incumbent Mimi Walters has no Republican opposition; so one of the four Democrats should make the general.  All four have raised at least $500,000, and three of the four have raised at least $1,000,000.  The primary election should be very close, and this will be a pick-up opportunity in November.

California 48 — A R+4 district where incumbent Russophile Dana Rohrabacher has been a frequent Democratic target.  There are six Republicans and eight Democrats on the ballot.  Three of the Democrats and one of the Republicans “withdrew” after the deadline (meaning that they stay on the ballot).  Two of the Democrats specifically endorsed Harely Rouda, but two other Democrats (Hans Keirstead and Omar Siddiqui) have also raised significant funds.  The Republican who withdrew endorsed another of the Republican challengers (Scott Baugh who has also raised significant funds).  In short, it is looking like a five-way race.  Representative Rohrabacher will probably make the general, but it is unclear who will be the other candidate.  In short, like California 39, there is a real chance that the number of Democrats running may result in two Republicans making the November ballot and a lost pick-up opportunity.

California 49 — A R+1 district that has been a frequent Democratic target.  Incumbent Darrell Issa saw the writing on the wall and decided to retire.  Four Democrats, eight Republicans, and four other candidates jumped into the open race.  All four Democrats have raised significant funds (over $900,000).  Three Republicans have raised over $300,000 but less than $500,000.  Given the number of candidates, if the Republicans manage to unify behind two of the candidates, the Democrats could get shut out of the November ballot.  Given the lack of significant funding for any of the Republicans, there is also a chance that the Republican vote could be widely dispersed (with none of them getting over 10%) resulting in the Democrats picking up this seat next week.

California 50 — A R+11 district represented by Duncan Hunter.  There are three Democrats and three Republicans on the ballot, but only two of the Democrats and one of the Republican challengers have raised significant money.  Again, one of those districts where there is a chance that Democrats could be shut out of the general election.  However, if one of the two main Democrats — Josh Buttnar and Ammar Campa-Najjar — can pull away from the other, that candidate should finish in the top two.

In short, if things go the Democrats way on June 5, the Democrats could pick up a seat or two even before the November general.  If the votes split the wrong way due to too many Democrats running, two or three seats that should be Democratic will stay Republican.

 

Also posted in Democrats, Elections, GOP, Primary Elections, Senate | Tagged , | Comments Off on California Chaos

Primary Season — Late Spring

By tmess2 | Published April 29, 2018

Because each state gets to set its own primary date, primary season is a gradual thing.  Putting aside a handful of exceptions (and run-offs), most primaries fall into two clusters.  The first cluster occurs in May and June (starting on May 8 and ending on June 26).  The second cluster occurs in August and September (starting on August 2 and ending on September 13).  During both clusters, most primaries occur on Tuesday, and there is at least one state on each Tuesday (other than May 29).

On May 8, there are primaries in Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia.  Key primaries are the Republican Senate primary in Indiana and West Virginia.  Both are states won by Trump in which Democratic Senators are running for re-election.  In Indiana, you have three candidates running for the Republican nomination.  It’s not clear that it really matters who wins or that there is much difference between the candidates.  West Virginia is a different matter.  The Republicans are scared to death that Don Blankenship could get the nomination.  Blankenship is the former CEO of one of the state’s larger coal miner and did time in prison related to miners who died due to unsafe mining practices.  The national GOP has (through super-pacs) been running adds against Blankenship.  In Ohio, the key races are for Governor with both parties having primaries in the race to replace term-limited John Kasich and Ohio’s 12th District in which there is both a regular primary and a special election primary (most of the candidates are the same in both, so both parties should have the same winner for both primaries, but there is always the chance in a close race that there could be a split result).

On May 15, there are primaries in Idaho, Nebraska, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.  The big story is likely to be the new congressional districts in Pennsylvania.   Amazingly, there are no incumbent against incumbent primaries although there could be an incumbent against incumbent general election.  Given the newness of the lines, it will be interesting to see how the local interests will influence the candidates chosen.

On May 22, there are primaries in Arkansas, Georgia, and Kentucky, and a run-off in Texas.   In Texas, there are key run-offs on the Democratic side for Governor and the Seventh District.  In both contests, the Republicans will be favored but Democrats have a shot.   The question for local Democrats will be whether to go with the “purer” candidate ideologically or with the candidate who could win over college-educated Republicans who do not like being part of the Party of Trump.

June 5 is the big day with primaries in Alabama, California, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota.  California is the tough one to call given its “first two system.”  Particularly in close districts, it matters how many strong candidates each party has.   In a district (or state-wide for the Democrats) that your party should win, you want a second strong candidate so that you can lock the other party out of the general.  If you are slightly behind in the district, you want one strong candidate to assure yourself of a place in the general (and hope that the other party nominate a divisive candidate that gives you a chance to pick up independents and moderates).  What you don’t want is three strong candidates which create the possibility (as has happened in the past) that your party could get the most primary votes but still not finish in the top two due to your vote being split too much.  (Districts where Democrats could find themselves locked out of the general include the 1st, 4th, 8th, 10th, 39th, 48th, 49th, 50th.  The last three are districts that would be targets in November if a Democrat makes it to the final two.)  Particularly with Governor being an open seat, the other big question will be whether the Democrats can get both of the general election slots (as they did for Senate in 2016) for Governor and Senate.  (The primaries in Mississippi do not include the special election for Senate which will be a “non-partisan” race in November with a run-off if nobody wins a majority.)

June 12 has primaries in Maine, North Dakota, Nevada, South Carolina, and Virginia.  In Maine, you have an open race for Governor.  In Nevada, you have an open race for Governor and two congressional seats (3rd and 4th).   In Virginia, Republicans have a three-way Senate race.  You also have an open seat in Virginia 6th and a very important Democratic primary in District 10 which will be a target race in November.

June 19 is the calm week with the only certain primary being for D.C. but the chance at a run-off in Arkansas.

The spring primaries end on June 26 with contests in Colorado, Maryland, New York (federal offices only), Oklahoma, and Utah.   There could be a run-off in Mississippi, North Carolina (depending on whether any of the federal offices need a run-off), and/or South Carolina.  In Colorado, Governor is an open seat.  Additionally, the 2nd District will be an open seat as the Democratic incumbent is running for governor and the 5th District might be an open seat as the incumbent Republican failed to get enough signatures on his petition.  (That issue is still being fought in court.)  In New York, the interesting race might be the Republican Primary for the 11th district where disgraced former Congressman Michael Grimm is challenging incumbent Congressman Daniel Donovan.  In Utah, the big race is the open seat for the U.S. Senate where Mitt Romney is hoping/expecting to do better with primary voters than he did at the Republican state convention with activists.

While technically not a primary, the special election (as in Mississippi, Texas special elections are nominally non-partisan with a run-off in nobody wins) for Texas’s 27th District will take place on June 30.  All four of the candidates who will compete in the run-offs on May 22 are on the ballot for the special election.  (Whether anybody will drop out after May 22 is to be seen, but you could have the unusual result that a candidate loses on May 22 but makes it to the run-off in the special election due to cross-over votes.)

There could also be run-offs in some states in July depending upon the results in the primaries noted above.

 

Also posted in Democrats, Elections, GOP, Senate | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Pennsylvania Redistricting

By tmess2 | Published February 21, 2018

Monday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order (with attached maps) redrawing the Congressional Districts for Pennsylvania  This order follows on last month’s decision finding that the 2011 map violate the Pennsylvania Constitution as a partisan gerrymander.  The United States Supreme Court is currently considering two cases — one argued last fall and one scheduled to be argued next month — on whether the U.S. Constitution also bars partisan gerrymanders.

I will leave it to our local experts to follow up on exactly how the new lines should impact November’s election.  The key points to make for now are:  1) this map will govern this year’s elections as filing with the Supreme Court’s including a time table for implementation of the order and candidate filing that will allow the primary to take place as scheduled; 2) the old maps were gerrymandered in such a way that the Republicans have carried 13 of the 18 districts (and the same 13) in each of the three elections so far under the old map (even though the Democrats won state-wide by 5% in 2012 and 9% in 2014 and barely lost in 2016);  and 3) in the three elections under the old map, 37 of the 39 Republican wins were by double digits (the other two involved margins of 9% and 4%).   The early numbers that I have seen from national prognosticators is that Democrats should pick up at least two seats in a 50-50 cycle and, in a cycle in which Democrats get 55% or more nationally, the Democrats would pick up an additional 2 to 3 seats (a 9-9 split or 10-8 in favor of the Democrats).  That compares to 2012 in which the Democrats got 53% nationally but still only won 5 seats in Pennsylvania.

One thing that is significantly different about the new map is that there are less weird shapes, and most of the weirder shapes in the new map comes from not splitting counties or municipalities unless such splits are absolutely necessary to maintain equality.  There is also some changes in the numbering.  As a result, some incumbents (including whomever wins the upcoming special election in Western Pennsylvania) will have to decide what district they will run in this year.  Some incumbent may be looking at a situation in which either: 1) their base is split between multiple districts; 2) they live in one district while the heart of their old district is in another district; 3) their new district contains a substantial portion of the old district of another incumbent.  As such, sitting members may have to decide between retiring, challenging another incumbent from their party, or running in a district in which they will have a difficult time running.  We may not know until filing closes on March 20 (one week after the special election) how the incumbents will reshuffle from the old seats to the new seats and whether we will have any incumbent vs. incumbent primaries or general elections.

Also posted in Elections, Judicial | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Pennsylvania Redistricting

A June to Remember/Fear?

By tmess2 | Published June 4, 2017

There are times when, through the normal cycle, and discretionary decisions, events start to come in rapid procession.  June is shaping up to be one of those month between elections (both in the U.S. and abroad), the end of the Supreme Court term, and the matters currently on the plate of Congress.  We have already had the first major event of June — the decision by the Trump Administration to make America weaker by playing to his misinformed base on climate change and withdrawing from the Paris Accords.  It’s almost impossible to count the reasons why this decision is wrong,  here are a few:  1) the agreement was non-binding; 2) being a signator gave us a seat at the table in future discussions; 3) withdrawing makes China and the European Union more powerful; 4) state laws requiring an increasing percent of energy to come from renewal sources are still in effect and will contribute to the U.S. meeting its pledge anyway; 5) the federal courts have held that greenhouse gases are a pollutant requiring federal action under the Clean Air Act (even though the precise terms of the regulations to reduce greenhouse gases are not yet final) which means that we may have to meet or exceed the pledge anyway.

Moving to the Supreme Court, June is looking like immigration month.  May ended with a decision in the first of four immigration cases heard this term.  The case involved what types of sexual offenses against a child trigger deportation hearings for authorized immigrants (e.g., permanent residents).  The Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the statute, meaning that — for some sexual offenses (those that can be committed against a 16 or 17-year old — the first offense will not trigger deportation.  Two of the other three also directly or indirectly concern deportation.  In addition, with the lower courts having barred enforcement of the travel ban, the Trump Administration is asking the Supreme Court to stay those injunctions.  (The real issue is the enforcement of the restrictions on visas and entry.  It is likely that the Supreme Court will grant relief to some overbroad language in those bars that could be read as suggesting that the Trump Administration can’t begin work on revisions to the vetting process.)  There are 22 other cases to be decided this month, so immigration will not be the only big news this month.  And, even aside from the decisions in cases already argued, the Supreme Court will be deciding what cases to take next term and there are some potentially major issues that could be on the agenda for 2017-18.

Moving to U.S. elections, there are still three special elections — all of which will occur this month.  Two — in Georgia and South Carolina — involve vacancies created by the Trump cabinet appointment.  The other — California — arose from a vacancy created by filling the vacancy in the California Attorney General position created when the former AG won the U.S. Senate election last fall.  Because California uses a “jungle primary” (i.e.  one in which all candidates from all parties run in one primary with the top two advancing to the general election), we already know that the Democrats will keep this seat and the only question on Tuesday is which Democrat will be elected.  For the most part, both parties in choosing members of Congress to fill vacancies have followed the rule of only choosing people from “safe” seats.  As such, while the Democrats have so far — in the first round in California and in Montana and Kansas — run around 10% ahead of 2018, this success has not changed the winner of any seat.

The run-off in Georgia is the best chance for Democrats to actually win a Republican seat.  This district went solidly for the Republicans in 2012 with Romney winning by 13 percent.  On the other hand, Trump won by 2 percent (while the Republican member of Congress by 23 percent).  That leaves this seat as roughly an R+8 seat (meaning that Democrats would expect to win this seat if the Democrat’s national vote is around 58 percent).  This seat is the 165th most Republican seat — based on the 2012 and the 2016 results — so it is not necessarily one that the Democrats would expect to win, but if Trump is shuffling the deck on traditional party divisions, this suburban seat is the type of seat that a youth + white collar + minorities Democratic Party could win.   The race in South Carolina involves a district that is only slightly more Republican, but it is a mostly rural district which was even more Republican in 2016 than it was in 2012.  The bottom line is that — if predicting in advance — the fact that Republicans have had to fight hard in all four seats is a good sign for the Democrats, but it would be nice to get a pick up.  Both of these special elections are scheduled for June 20.

Besides these special elections,  New Jersey and Virginia will hold primary elections.  In New Jersey, the big question is which Democrat will be replacing Chris Christie after the November election.  There are six Democrats and five Republicans running.  (The primary is this Tuesday.)  Virginia (holding its primary on June 13) will be  closer general election.  The Virginia Democratic Primary looks like a close race between the state government Democratic establishment (supporting the current lieutenant governor) and the Washington D.C. Democratic establishing (supporting a former Congressman).  This fight represents the unique geographic position of Virginia, with northern Virginia dominated by the federal government and central Virginia dominated by the state government.  In November, regardless of which candidate wins, the Democratic nominee will need to do well in both the D.C. suburbs and in the Richmond area in order to carry the state.

In foreign elections, first up is the British elections this Thursday.  The continuing fallout from last year’s narrow decision to leave the European Union led to these early elections.  At the time that the Conservative government called these elections, polls suggested that they would win comfortably and substantially increase their current narrow majority.  Since then, the polls have tightened.   As with the U.S. election, the final national vote count is not what will determine the winner.  What will determine the winner will be the results in each of the 650 constituencies.  In theory, it takes 326 seats to win.  However, one of the parties running (Sinn Fein — the political wing of the Irish Republican Army) refuses to sit in Parliament (members of Parliament most take an oath of loyalty to the Queen before taking office and Sinn Fein members will not take this oath).   As such, depending on how many seats Sinn Fein wins (four in the last election), it actually takes around 323 or 324 to have a majority of the sitting members.   There are two additional complicating factors:  1) each of the four “nations” of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) have very distinct politics; and 2) third parties will win a significant share of seats.  In Scotland, the Scottish National Party is the leading party in Scotland and the “unionist” parties are simply hoping to win back some seats.  In Wales, Plaid Cymru will win some seats (but they are not anywhere near as strong as the SNP).  In Northern Ireland,  the parties likely to win seats are only loosely affiliated at best with the British parties.  In England, the Liberal Democrats have pockets of strength — particular in the South — where they will win some seats and the United Kingdom Independence Party may win a seat or two in “Trumpian” parts of England.  Polls in England close around 10 p.m. their time and — depending on the seat — can take between 1-4 hours to count; so we should have some idea of the results during prime time in the U.S.

After the British vote, France will have two rounds of voting in its parliamentary election.  The first round will take place next Sunday (June 11) with a second round on June 18.   If any candidate gets an absolute majority of those voting and more than 25% of those registered to vote, they can win the seat on June 11.  If no candidate meets that threshold, the top two candidates and any candidate who gets more than 12.5% of the registered vote will advance to the run-off.  In 2012, approximately 58% of registered voters participated in the first round.  Assuming the “average district,” any candidate who got an absolute majority would also meet the 25% of registered vote requirement.  It would take 22% of the vote in such a district to qualify for the run-off.  Thus most districts with run-offs would involve 2-3 candidates with a very tiny number having a fourth candidate.  (A candidate who advances to the run-off does have the option to withdraw which can avoid a district in which two candidates from the same side of the political spectrum “split” the vote and allow a candidate from the other side to win the run-off with 40% of the vote.)  In France, there are four major left-wing parties/alliances, the centrist party of the new President (running for the first time), a center-right (Gaullist) party/alliance, and two extreme right parties.  Current polling suggests that the presidential party will get about one-third of the vote in the first round and will probably end up with a slim, but working, majority after the second round of the vote.

Besides election and court cases,  June will also feature the continued business of government.  The two big issues here will be continued Congressional hearings related to Russia and the Trump Administration (including whatever pressure the President may have put on James Comey to stop the investigation).  Meanwhile Senate Republicans will continue to try to negotiate behind closed doors on a health care bill.  And at the same time, House and Senate Republicans will be looking at tax reform and infrastructure spending.  On all of these bills, there are three main problems:  1) passing any bill requires both moderates and conservatives to agree unless the Republicans want to negotiate with Democrats; 2) passing any bill requires both the Senate and the House to agree (and may require some Democrats in the Senate); and 3) the clock is ticking.  Recent years have shown that the Freedom Caucus/Koch Brothers/Tea Party is willing to primary Republicans who do follow their version of Republican purity.  That means that House and Senate Republicans will soon need to start worry about a potential primary opponent and switch from governing mode to election mode sometime this fall.  After about mid-July, the focus will shift from substantive legislation to passing a debt ceiling bill (which needs to be done before the end of July).  After that, the House will be in recess for most of August, and September will be focused on trying to finish appropriations (or at least passing some continuing appropriation to buy more time).  If we are going to see any movement on any of the big three issues on the Trump/Republican agenda, it has to come soon.

In short, there are four things to look for in June:  1) Will the Supreme Court be as hostile as the lower courts were to Trump’s immigration agenda; 2) what special elections and primaries say about the 2018 cycle; 3) do foreign elections have any impact on the U.S. agenda abroad; and 4) is there any sign that the Republicans can actually do anything legislatively with their control of both houses and the presidency.

Also posted in Civil Rights, Donald Trump, Elections, Russia, Senate | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on A June to Remember/Fear?

Special Elections — Kansas Edition

By tmess2 | Published April 11, 2017

As I write this post, the results are coming in for the special election in the Fourth District of Kansas.  While the election has been close all night, it now appears that, by a very narrow majority, the Republicans will keep this seat.   This seat is the first of four special elections to fill vacancies in seats formally held by Republicans who are now serving in the Trump Administration.  (There is also a special election to fill a Democratic seat formerly held by the new Attorney General of California — who was appointed to that office after the previous A.G. won the U.S. Senate seat last fall.  The primary for that seat was held earlier and two Democrats advanced to the runoff.)

It is hard to tell whether this seat was close because of the unpopularity of Kansas Governor Sam Brownback — a stellar example of why the Freedom Caucus’s plan for government is a roadmap for a complete disaster — or the unpopularity of President Trump.  The Republican candidate is the current State Treasurer and as such is unable to avoid association with Governor Brownback’s reckless scheme to bankrupt Kansas.  And Donald Trump will probably claim that his assistance via a last minute robocall saved this seat.

The bigger question is what this close race means going forward.  In the last two elections, the Republicans won this seat by 30%.  This race looks like a final margin between 4-8%.  That type of swing if replicated across the country would lead to a Democratic majority in the next Congress.  In the shorter term, the question is whether this result can be replicated in next week’s special election in Georgia or the upcoming elections in May and June in South Carolina and Montana.  With the exception of the Georgia seat, even if a Democrat wins the special election, these seats are going to be difficult for a Democrat to hold in 2018.  Having a Democratic incumbent in these seats would, however, require the Republicans to devote a significant level of resources to get them back, making it easier for us to pick up seats elsewhere.  More importantly, if the Democrats can keep these races close and even win some, it is going to increase the jitters of Republicans in lean Republican seats.  During the Obama Administration, it was easy for Republicans to just say no and not have to accept responsibility for the gridlock in D.C.  The Republicans are now fully in charge and are responsible for getting things done.  The problem for Republicans in Congress is that the American people do not want what the Republican Party wants — even the voters in Republican seats do not want what the Republican Party wants.  That puts Republican Representatives on the hot seat.  They can either tell their Republican colleagues to slow down and take a second look at things or they can follow Speaker Ryan and President Trump like lemmings to their downfall in the 2018 election.  My hunch is that, like most politicians, the Republican members of Congress are tuned into their own survival.  The warning signs from the 4th district of Kansas this week and the 6th district of Georgia next week is going to make it very difficult for President Trump and Speaker Ryan to get their plans through Congress.

Also posted in Elections | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Special Elections — Kansas Edition