Category Archives: Senate

Ranked Choice Voting and the Senate

By tmess2 | Published August 4, 2019

Earlier today, DocJess posted the first Sunday with the Senators of this cycle.  I am posting this follow-up on the weird features of Maine election law that could determine whether there is a Democratic majority in 2020.

In Maine, for federal elections, there is ranked choice voting — both for the general election and the primary.  While we do not yet know the full list of candidates who will be running in 2020, my hunch is that ranked choice voting probably hurts Senator Collins in the primary but may help her in the general election.

My thinking behind this is that a multi-candidate primary field would make it difficult for any candidate to get more first choice votes than Senator Collins.  However, I think that most of the primary challenge to Senator Collins will be from candidates who do not think that she is loyal to the new LePage-Trump version of the Republican Party and see her as a RINO.  The voters who support these candidates are likely to rank Senator Collins last among their choices.  So if Senator Collins only got 45% or so of the first choice votes, there would be a decent chance (assuming that everybody ranked the entire field) that the strongest of her opponents would pass her once all preferences are distributed.  A primary loss by Senator Collins would move the Maine Senate race from lean Republican to likely Democrat. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Elections, Primary Elections | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

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, House of Representatives, Judicial | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Appropriations and Executive Orders

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, House of Representatives | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on 2018 Mid-Term Election Preview — What to look for on election night?

Sunday with the Senators: Can we win it back?

By DocJess | Published September 2, 2018

I’ll spare you the suspense — if a number of things break well, yes, we can. Let’s dig in.

We have a good shot at picking up four seats: Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee and Texas. Will we get all four? Let’s assume no, but that we pick up three. That takes us to 52, less any seats we lose. The question in Arizona, Nevada and Texas is whether millennial and Hispanic voters come out in droves. The Hispanic population of Tennessee is 5%, so that would make a difference only in the closest of races, but the Hispanic populations of Arizona, Nevada and Texas are 31%, 29%, and 39%, respectively. Note that is only population, not voters. The percentage of registered Hispanic voters in all those states is lower. Still, those are election-changing numbers. Plus, “Hispanic” is not a monolithic voting bloc. However, in the era of families separated at the border, the rescinding of passports of American citizens, and the horror of how the incumbent fascist regime treats and speaks about Hispanics, and it may well get people to the polls.

Add to that the number of people who want a check against Trumpkin in the Senate, as well as the regular base of Democratic voters, and we’ve got a real shot. If it was possible to turnout millennials, and we’d for sure be over the top. Millennials are huge in number, but their turnout levels in the past several elections has been less than stellar. BUT – this year we have the “Parkland Effect” – many people turning 18 this year are energized (and registered) and that could make a difference, especially in Arizona and Texas where age distribution skews young. That’s true to a slightly lesser effect in Nevada, and not a consideration in Tennessee.

In Arizona, the seat is being vacated by Jeff Flake, who has steadfastly refused to endorse either Martha McSally or Kyrsten Sinema. He sent congratulations to both on Primary Night. Arizona came close to overturning a Congressional seat in a Special Election a few months ago, and that may well get just a few more people out statewide. The 8th CD was a 5 point win, in a district that should have been much more red, and people have had a few more months of the Trumpkin regime (include the family separations at the border) and it looks eminently possible. Polling (a bleeding edge) has Sinema ahead. Sinema has a bit more money than McSally, who spent heavily in her contested primary.

In Nevada, Dean Heller is considered the most endangered Republican Senator. Jacky Rosan won an open Congressional seat in 2016 in a swing district in a highly red year. She’s running a strong campaign, and has almost as much money as Heller, although there’s a good chance that will change in September. The GOP and it’s dark money accomplices will be looking across the country and will pour money only into the strongest races – as they are defending seats they never thought they’d have to, and may overlook Heller.

In Tennessee, Phil Bredesen is a popular ex-Governor, and Marsha Blackburn is a Trumpite. While Bredesen outraised Blackburn, he’s been spending heavily, so we’ll see if he can make up the deficit. Right now, he’s polling ahead of her, and the question will be how much of the Trumpite base is actually left in Tennessee.

And then, we have Texas. Back in 2008, the solid projection was that Texas would turn blue in 2024, based on Demographic markers. But, the world has changed since then. Texas consistently has the 5th worst voter turnout in the country.  There are a lot of reasons for this, but the bottom line, the greatest challenge, and the greatest hope, is that Democrats don’t turn out. When you look at the crowds that Beto O’Rourke is garnering as he visits every county in Texas (and returns to many) – crowd size often dwarfs the number of voters that showed up to the polls in 2016. (Yeah, I know….amazing, but hopeful!) Trumpkin is planning to “fill the largest stadium” in Texas in a campaign event for Ted Cruz.  and the optics are going to suck, since the largest stadium in Texas is Kyle Field at Texas A&M which holds 102,000 people. Trumpkin’s largest crowd was in Alabama in the summer for 2015, when he turned out about 25,000 people. Plus, Trumpkin campaigning for candidates hasn’t helped them. His endorsement sometimes does, but showing up in person doesn’t.

In addition, O’Rourke is running a clean campaign dedicated to hope and promise, and ignoring the pettiness that is Ted Cruz. It is a message that seems to be resonating. He’s raised more money than Cruz, and has more cash on hand. Cruz is polling ahead, but within the margin of error.

So those are the pick-up opportunities. Where are we vulnerable? “The Conventional Wisdom” says that we are in danger of losing Bill Nelson in Florida, Joe Donnelly in Indiana, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota and Joe Manchin in West Virginia.

Nelson just received the gift of Andrew Gillum this week. The base that gave Gillum the primary win was predominantly comprised of millennials and people of color. If the two of them can get each other’s bases to vote for one another (HEY! Straight Democratic tickets up and down the ballot) the whole will be more than the sum of the parts and both will cruise to victory. Medicare Criminal Scott has more money than anyone, but it might not help him with the algae bloom, and other important statewide issues (like taxes and education.) The two headwinds for Nelson are “The Villages” outside of Orlando, chock full of Trumpites who are rich and retired and have way too much time on their hands, and the lackluster voter registration of Puerto Ricans who have arrived since the hurricane.

Indiana? Incumbents generally start with +5 for name recognition, and Donnelly running against a businessman named Mike Braun who hasn’t really been vetted since he won because the other two competitors beat each other to death during primary season.  Donnelly has a 6:1 financial edge over Braun, who CAN self-fund, but has been out there fund raising ever since the primary.

Claire McCaskill has angels on her shoulder – remember Todd Akin? (If not, look him up). And this year, running against Josh Hawley, there is a lot of intrigue about the most recent (convicted) governor. McCaskill has a financial advantage of 3:1, although the polls are dead even. This will be a nail biter.

Heitkamp has a financial advantage, and polls are close (with her losing to Kevin Cramer) BUT Trumpkin has given props to both candidates.

Manchin seems to have it in the bag, and I don’t understand why people still have the race listed as a toss up.

So where are we? I think we pick up 3 seats. I think we lose North Dakota. If so, that would put us at 51 in January. Which would be enough.

Please use the comments to explain why you think I’m wrong…and as always – VOTE AND BRING THREE FRIENDS — Elections Have Consequences.

 

Also posted in Elections, Sunday with the Senators | 3 Comments

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, House of Representatives, Primary Elections | 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, House of Representatives | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Republican Civil War — Alabama Edition

By tmess2 | Published September 24, 2017

The next seven days is one of those weeks that happen from time to time when there are a lot of events competing for the attention of political wonks — the German elections, the “long conference” at the Supreme Court, perhaps a vote on the latest Republican effort to repeal Obamacare, perhaps even more news on the Russian involvement in the 2016 elections and the Trump campaign’s connections to those illegal acts.  The most significant event, however, might be the Republican runoff in the Alabama Senate special election.

Over the years, a recurring topic on this blog has been the internal divisions in the Republican party (and to a lesser degree the divisions in the Democratic party).  The run-off in Alabama pits a conservative “Establishment” candidate (interim Senator Luther Strange) against the Tea Party/Trumpist candidate (State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore).    It is not possible to describe all of the wacky things that Justice Moore has done over the year that violated his oath of office (some of which got him removed from office the first time).  A Senator Moore would actually make Ted Cruz and Rand Paul look normal.

While Trump — perhaps seeing a need to at least pretend to work with the Republicans in D.C. — is supporting Senator Strange, but Breitbart and other parts of the Trump machine are supporting Justice Moore.  Current polls are showing Justice Moore with a comfortable (but not necessarily safe given how difficult it is to predict turnout) lead.

If Senator Strange wins, it is a minor setback for the ultranationalists/reality-challenged elements of the Republican party led by Steve Bannon and the Mercer family.  They have already announced that they are looking to primary Republican incumbents in next year’s primary and will undoubtedly continue to do so.

A win by Justice Moore will make things interesting.  The Democrats have a credible candidate for the general election in December — former U.S. Attorney Doug Jones.  While Senator Strange would probably win the general election by a comfortable margin, Jones might have a fighting chance against Justice Moore.  The result of that general election would be a signal for the rest of the country.

A win by Justice Moore in the general election would show that Republicans can nominate wacky candidates (like Roy Moore, Kid Rock, Donald Trump) and win.  It would open the flood gates to primary every Republican Senator.  A win by Doug Jones would show that, even in safe Republican states, there are limits to how far to the right the Republican Party can go before it starts losing to many independents and moderate Republicans to carry an election.

A Justice Moore win would also influence Democratic politics.  In many states and districts (especially those that lean Republicans), Democrats have nominated moderate candidates in the hopes of pulling out narrow wins.  If it is impossible to win in places like Texas and Alabama with candidates who appeal to the center, there is no reason to nominate a candidate who disagrees with the base on some issues as it will not alter the results.  There are several incumbent Democrats in red states/districts who could easily find themselves facing a primary if the Alabama election undermines the traditional view that elections are won in the center.

A further move away from the center by both parties would undoubtedly increase the problems in Congress.  We have pretty much reached the day when the most conservative Democrats in Congress is significantly to the left of the most liberal Republican.  Soon we will reach the day in which there will only be a handful (or no) Democrats holding lean Republican seats and a handful (or no) Republicans holding lean Democratic seats.  As we have already seen, when politicians are more concerned about primary elections than with general elections, compromise and working across party lines becomes risky and harder to do.

In short, Tuesday’s results could start a chain reaction that would shape the 2018 elections for the U.S. Senate.   If several Republican incumbents lose in the primary to far-right candidates, the pool of opportunity for Democrats in the general election could become large enough for Democrats to get to fifty-one Senators.  That result is still unlikely as the Republicans only have eight seats to defend, but — if the Democrats start at 49 rather than 48 and have shots in Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah as well as Arizona and Nevada — a majority would become possible.

Also posted in Elections, GOP | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Republican Civil War — Alabama Edition

Voter Fraud and the Missouri Senate Race

By tmess2 | Published August 29, 2017

Earlier this month, the law on voting where you reside appears to have caught an unlikely person in an election law violation — Missouri’s Attorney General — and presumptive Republican Senate candidate — Josh Hawley.  To understand what happened, a little local background is in order.

The main campus of the University of Missouri is in Columbia — thirty miles away from the state capitol in Jefferson City.  Before becoming Attorney General, Hawley was a law professor at the University of Missouri.  Aside from his full time job, like some law professors, Hawley offered his assistance on cases that he thought deserved his assistance.  One of those cases involved aiding the religious owners of Hobby Lobby in their effort to deny birth control coverage to their female employees.  This case gave Hawley connections to ultra-conservative donors in Washington, and also was a selling point as he went around Missouri speaking to local Republicans in rural counties.   These two advantages allowed him to pull an upset last year in the Republican primary over the “establishment” conservative candidate in the Republican primary, and the Trump landslide helped him win the general election.

After the election is where the fun begins.  First, among the changes that flowed from the 2016 election, the new Republican governor appointed the state representative who represented part of Columbia and the surrounding area to an administration positions.  Before becoming Attorney General,  Hawley and his family lived in this district.   The Governor set the special election to fill this seat for this August (one of the available election dates under state law).

Second, Missouri law has a special provision requiring the Attorney General to actually reside in Jefferson City.  This law dates to the old days before modern communication.  At the time that the law was written, it made sense.  The Attorney General is officially the attorney for every state agency.  When the staff was the Attorney General with a handful of assistants,  the state’s lawyer needed to be close enough to his clients to be reached on short notice.  While, today, both modern communications and the large staff make the location of the Attorney General’s bed less significant, the law is still in the books.  After some bad publicity about the fact that he was still living in Columbia, Hawley rented an apartment in Jefferson City to serve as his “legal” residence even though his family still lived in Columbia.

On election day, these two situations collided.  Even though he was now “legally” residing in Jefferson City,  Hawley had never changed his voting address from his Columbia home to his Jefferson City apartment.  So he voted in the special election, creating two possibilities.  First, he has not actually changed his residence to Jefferson City.  If that is the case, he has been misrepresenting his residence and violating his legal obligations as Attorney General.  The exact legal consequences for such violations is unclear but could include forfeiture of office.  Second, he did change his legal residence to Jefferson City.  If that is the case, his vote earlier this month was a violation of state election law.  If he violated state election law, the legal consequences would be severe.  If charged and convicted for voting where he did not reside, Hawley would lose his law license, be removed from office, and would be ineligible to run for office (along with permanently losing his right to vote).

Ultimately, this issue will probably not go far.  As election fraud goes, this fraud is highly technical.   But it does reflect the hypocrisy of the Republican Party — using claims of rampant vote fraud to get Democrats elected as a cover for voter suppression when the reality is that the isolated instances of actual vote fraud is as likely to benefit Republicans as Democrats with the proposed measures doing little to prevent such fraud.

Also posted in Elections, GOP | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Voter Fraud and the Missouri Senate Race

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, House of Representatives, Russia | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on A June to Remember/Fear?

The Supreme Court and the Filibuster

By tmess2 | Published April 2, 2017

This week has the potential to be a significant week in Senate history.  Over the past two presidencies, there was a rise in the use of the filibuster to block executive branch and lower court nominees.  During the George W. Bush presidency, there were enough Democratic and Republican senators willing to work out a deal in which the Democratic senators agreed to vote for cloture on most nominations and the Republicans agreed not to invoke the “nuclear option” (exempting such nominations from the three-fifth’s rule for cloture by the vote of a majority of the Senate).  During the Barack Obama presidency, there were not enough Republican senators willing to make such a deal and the Democrats were forced to go with the nuclear option on such executive branch and lower court nominees.  However, the normal cloture rules were left in place for Supreme Court nominees.

As a starting point, here is the tentative schedule for the week.  First, on Monday, the Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the nomination of Neal Gorsuch.  Right now, it appears likely that the committee will approve that nomination by a majority vote.  Assuming that the Committee sends its report on that nomination to the Senate on Monday, that would trigger Rule XXXI which provides that (except by unanimous consent which will not be given) the Senate may not vote on a nomination on the same day that the nomination is reported to the full Senate.   The Republicans will then attempt to call the matter up for a vote by unanimous consent on Tuesday.  At least one Democrat will object, and the Republicans will file a cloture motion.  Under Rule XXII, that motion will probably come up for a vote on Thursday and would take sixty votes to pass.  Based on current whip counts, those sixty votes will not be there.  If somehow, the Republicans get the sixty vote or invoke the nuclear option, Rule XXII would permit thirty more hours of debate resulting in a vote between Friday and Monday the 10th.  (Technically, the Easter state work session is currently scheduled to start on the 10th and go through the 21st.  The last two weeks of argument in this year’s Supreme Court term are the weeks of April 17 and April 24.  So if Judge Gorsuch is confirmed this week, he could sit on the last thirteen arguments of this term.  If the final vote takes place after April 21, Judge Gorsuch will not sit on any argument until the next term beginning in October.)

Assuming that the cloture vote goes as currently anticipated, the Republicans will have three options.  Option number one would be to use the Easter recess to put pressure on vulnerable Democratic senators.  Right now, the two most vulnerable Democratic senators (Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota) seem likely to vote for cloture, but there are other Democratic senators from other states that Trump won by wide margins.    While there are ten Democratic senators on the 2018 ballot from states that Trump won (and Maine’s independent Senator is not necessarily going to join the Democrats on this issue), half of those senators are from swing states.  The only two other Senators who come from states that were not too close to call in 2016 are Senator McCaskill from Missouri and Senator Donnelly from Indiana.  Unless the Democratic senators hear from party activists that party activists do not really care about this issue, the vote is unlikely to change much after the recess.  On the other hand, the Republican leadership would be in a stronger position to invoke the nuclear option after the recess.  (The more moderate members of the Republican caucus might believe that the Democrats should at least be given some time to debate and make their case before the nuclear option is invoked.)

Option number two would be for the Trump administration to decide to make Judge Gorsuch a sacrificial lamb.  The last two times that the nuclear option was on the table, the argument in favor of invoking the nuclear option was a pattern of obstruction.  If Trump were to withdraw Judge Gorsuch and nominate a slightly more moderate candidate, continued resistance from the Democratic caucus could be painted as “obstruction.”  That circumstance would make it easier for Republicans to claim that they had no choice but to invoke the nuclear option to keep the Supreme Court functioning.  (Of course, a combination of both option one and option two is a possibility — having a second vote on cloture after the recess followed by a replacement nominee.)  Option two would give the Republican senators more coverage, but my own opinion is that President Trump does not care about helping Republican senators.

Option number three (and what most expect to happen) would be the Republicans immediately invoking the nuclear option after the cloture vote.  What the nuclear option involves is appealing the ruling of the chair that sixty votes are need for the cloture motion to pass.  A 51-49 majority of the Senate (or 50-50 if Vice-president Pence breaks the tie) could overrule the decision of the chair and find that the cloture motion passed even though it only got 54 or 55 votes.

Reaching this crisis this early in a new President’s term reflects how divided our politics have become.  My belief is that there is a significant segment of the population that believes that senators should not filibuster a president’s nominees without a very good reason.  (For example, Justice Thomas who, more than any justice in U.S. history, deserved a filibuster got an up-down vote on confirmation.)  On the other hand, I believe that a significant segment of the population would agree that the Senate minority should be able to block a Supreme Court nominee in an exceptional case.  At least, as of now, the Democratic caucus has not made a convincing case that Judge Gorsuch is such an exceptional case.

While this center represents a significant segment of voters in American politics, the center has unfortunately allowed itself to become less relevant.  Too few people vote in party primaries, giving less moderate groups control over the nomination process.   It is hard to motivate people by being sensible.  It is hard to motivate people with complex solutions to complex problems.  While the Republican Party has effectively been taken over by the alt-right, the Democratic Party  has not been entirely exempt from attempts to primary challenge incumbent Democrats for being too willing to compromise and find bipartisan solutions.  Even in general elections, split ticket voting has declined (as it should) and voters tend to vote on overall impressions on how things are doing (with limited exceptions for single issue voters who tend toward the extremes anyhow) with limited focus on individual issues.  Because individual issues no longer matter, there is no incentive to find a compromise solution on those individual issues.  Instead, the goal of American politics has unfortunately become to convince centrist voters that the blame for the failure to solve problems rests with the other party.  And this blame game has resulted in the center splitting in a predictable factor making turnout of the base (rather than winning over the center) the key to winning elections.

So we are facing a critical moment in Senate history.  While what happens next may be (in the long term) the “right” approach to judicial nominations, the decisions are likely to be made for all the wrong reasons.  It would be nice if everybody could take a step back and think about the way out of this mess, but Senator McConnell cares about power and President Trump hates being told “no.”

Also posted in Judicial | Tagged , | Comments Off on The Supreme Court and the Filibuster