Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Census Sabotage

Most of the Constitution consists of “cans” and “can’ts.”  There are only a few “musts” — things that the government has to do.  One of the big musts is that, at least once every ten years” the government must conduct the census — or, as the Constitution phrases it in Article I and the Fourteenth Amendment, an enumeration of the whole number of persons in the United States.  The sole exception to being counted is “Indians not taxed.”

Now despite this plain language, Republicans do not like that persons includes those who are not citizens, particularly those who have not lawfully entered this country.  While the total number of unlawful immigrants is small, they tend to be concentrated in urban areas that elect Democrats.  (Of course, this tendency is offset by the large margins by which Democrats win urban areas.)   While there may be some electoral college disadvantages to not counting unlawful immigrants, Republicans have tended to conclude that the advantage in terms of the U.S. House and state legislatures outweighs any electoral college disadvantages.   Despite this clear command, the lawbreaker-in-chief has issued a memorandum asking the Census Bureau to exclude unlawful immigrants from the count used to apportion the House of Representatives.

Aside from the lack of legal authority for this directive, it is also unconstitutional.  Most of the arguments that I have seen out there supporting this position are simply misplaced.  Yes, other countries use different mechanisms for apportioning their legislation (for example, many use registered voters), but that is a policy argument supporting a constitutional amendment.  Policy arguments over what the Constitution should say (whether about redistricting or the electoral college) does not alter what the Constitution actually says. Continue Reading...

Posted in Uncategorized | Also tagged , , Comments Off on Census Sabotage

Impeachment Legalese for Non-Lawyers

Over the next several days, the Senate will (potentially) be voting on whether to subpoena individuals to testify in the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump.  With the caution that an impeachment trial is not quite like a regular trial that you would see if you headed to your local courthouse, the following are some terms that you may hear from Senators and talking heads during this discussion.

Subpoena — Stripped of its fancy title, a subpoena is an order to a person to appear in court to testify or to turn over documents to the parties.   In most courts, subpoenas issue upon request by a party almost automatically.  If there is a reason why that subpoena is improper, the witness can ask to “quash” (effectively cancel) the subpoena or one of the other parties can ask to exclude the witness.  For an impeachment trial, because the Senate is both judge and jury, the Senate needs to approve the subpoena.

Deposition — A deposition is out-of-court testimony.   The attorneys for the witness get to ask questions just like it was in court and a court reporter takes down the questions and answers.  The court reporter then prepares a transcript (a printed booklet containing all of the questions and answers, word for word).  Often depositions are used either to discover what a witness might say or because the witness is not available for trial.  (Typically, depositions are used for medical witnesses who can make time available after work for a deposition but would be unable to wait in court for their turn to testify without putting patients at risk.)  A deposition also allows parties to decide what part of a witness’s testimony they actually want to use. Continue Reading...

Posted in Uncategorized | Also tagged , , , , , Comments Off on Impeachment Legalese for Non-Lawyers

Health & Age in the 2020 Election

For a long time, there has been an expectation that Presidential candidates will release their health information.  Being president is a highly stressful job, and a president who is not fully competent has the tools to do a lot of damage to the country and the world.  As such, there is an expectation among voters that candidates will release health information.  Of course, as with every other expectation, President Trump made a farce of this expectation by releasing medical summaries that were not particularly credible to any neutral observer, but there was so much that was wrong with the Trump campaign in 2016 and the mainstream media tries to avoid the appearance of taking a side that the lack of a real report on Trump’s physical and mental health was only a semi-big deal even on MSNBC.

This week, we had a bit of a health scare with Senator Bernie Sanders.  From every report, Senator Sanders is recovering from his surgery and should be able to resume his campaign.  However, this medical emergency does bring back into sharp focus an underlying issue in the nomination process.  President Trump and the top three candidates for the Democratic nomination (according to the polls) are all in their seventies.  And that means that issues of age and health will be in the background of this campaign.  Unfortunately, a healthy discussion of health is not likely.  But there are several things that should be on the table.

First, heart disease is a serious problem in this country impacting people of all ages.  A heart attack or a stroke can occur at any age.  I have known people who have died from a heart attack in their forties and fifties, and I have known people who have survived a heart attack in their seventies and eighties and have returned to a mostly fully functional life.  While people have become more health conscious in the past several decades, there are a lot of dietary and other factors that contribute to heart disease being one of the top causes of death in the U.S. Continue Reading...

Posted in Presidential Candidates | Also tagged , , , , 2 Comments

blowing up the 4th

In general, I LOVE the 4th of July. It celebrates the adoption by the Continental Congress of one of Thomas Jefferson’s greatest pieces: The Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration was the first formal statement, by a people, asserting their right to choose their own government. Read that again. The Declaration was the first formal statement, by a people, asserting their right to choose their own government.

We were, with the Declaration, and again with the US Constitution, a nation of firsts. I like to go to the National Constitution Center. One of my pick fave things to do is to go up to the second floor, to the front of the building, out onto the balcony, and look south across Independence Mall, to Independence Hall, where the Constitution was written. I think of the men who negotiated and finally agreed to this marvel that made us a country of laws. They were guilty of treason against the Crown, as America was still part of Great Britain. They, and all the men, women and children who stood up, offered their lives so that going forward, we could breathe free. Continue Reading...

Posted in Uncategorized | Also tagged , Comments Off on blowing up the 4th

The Walk and Chew Gum Agenda

Earlier this week, the petulant child-in-chief stated that Democrats on Capitol Hill can either choose to work on legislative issues or investigate him.  As we have gotten used to over the past several years, President Trump simply does not understand the rules for how government works.  This latest temper tantrum, however, is a challenge to Democrats on Capitol Hill.  It’s important that our leaders show that we can do both and do both in a big way.

Because President Trump can veto any legislation and because Senator Mitch McConnell is best at blocking legislation and lousy at getting anything done, it is unlikely that Democrats can actually get any significant laws passed until after the 2020 election.  But Democrats can make a big deal of the House passing a set of laws that will be the core of the legislative agenda in 2021. 

On infrastructure, the appropriate committee needs to draft a bill that will make a major down payment on the backlog of crucial infrastructure projects.  And then, the Rules committee can set aside a healthy block of time to debate that bill on the floor of the House.  During that debate, Democrats from every swing state and swing district can speak about what that bill will mean for their area — the type of speeches which can be blasted on you tube with highlights on the local news.  Then Democratic Senators can regularly ask when Mitch McConnell will let that bill come up for a vote in the Senate. Continue Reading...

Posted in Donald Trump, House of Representatives | Also tagged , , Comments Off on The Walk and Chew Gum Agenda

Foreign Elections — Spring/Summer 2019

The next two months will see several elections in our allies/major democracies. 

This weekend is the election in Spain for both houses of their parliament.  In Spain, the lower house is elected by proportional representation on a provincial basis.  While there is a nominal 3% threshold in each province, the (fifty) provinces range from one seat (in which whomever finishes first gets the seat) to thirty-six seats (in which case the threshold makes a real difference as it would take slightly over 2.7% to win a seat).  In the Senate, most of the provinces get four seats.  While voters directly elect most of the members of the Senate, the catch is that voters have one vote less than the number of seats (i.e. three votes in a province with four seats) which translates into the largest party getting three seats and the second-place party getting one seat.  The regional parliaments also get to appoint the remaining fifty-eight members of the Senate.  For this election, there are five national parties (ranging from two Democratic Socialist parties to a Trumpian nationalist party) and several regional parties. 

There are three things to look at in the results from Spain.  First, is there a natural majority for either of the two main blocs (the two Democratic Socialist parties vs. the two center-right party)?  Second, how does the Trumpian (Vox) party perform?  Third, how do the regional parties (which want increased local autonomy/independence) perform?  From the traditional American foreign policy, we would prefer a result that creates a strong functional government capable of being a partner with us.  Russia (and our current administration) would prefer a divided election result with strong performances by Vox and the regional parties pulling Spain further away from NATO and the European Union and potentially splitting Spain (one of the larger European countries) into several separate countries focused on their grievances with each other rather than building a strong Europe. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections | Also tagged , , , , , , Comments Off on Foreign Elections — Spring/Summer 2019

Closing Out 2018

It has been a year. Never before in the history of our country has a president ended out the year with 17 separate ongoing criminal investigations against him (and his family) in multiple state and Federal jurisdictions. And yet, the two groups of voters that supported him have not yet wavered in their support of him and his criminal enterprise. After a year of studying everything I have been able to find on these groups, I finally understand who they are.

First, incredibly rich people with no consciences. (Pretty self-explanatory.) Second, a conglomeration of people who cannot separate fact from fiction (and admittedly, Russia did a good job of helping there), people so distressed from how their lives turned out that they clung tenaciously to a simple (false) message of turning back the clock, as well as racists, misogynists, anti-Semites, homophobes and other haters.

Will that needle move as more of the corrupt organization is found guilty? Time will tell.

The year was fantastic for Democrats being elected. The House! The statehouses and governors’ mansions! The special elections! While we didn’t win the Senate, it could have been worse, and 2020 looks good – we will be defending 12 seats to their 21, and already Lamar Alexander has decided to call it quits, meaning the first open seat will be Kentucky.

How well we do in 2020 will be dependent on three things: Continue Reading...

Posted in Holidays | Also tagged , Comments Off on Closing Out 2018

A Long December

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...

Posted in Democratic Party, Elections, House of Representatives, Politics | Also tagged , , , , , , , , Comments Off on A Long December

German Elections 2017

In a little over two weeks (September 24), Germany will hold parliamentary elections.  As with most parliamentary system, the leader of Germany is determined by which party (or coalition of parties) wins the majority of seats in parliament.  As such, the results on September 24 will determine if Angela Merkel continues as Chancellor of Germany for another four years.

In electing members of its parliament (the Bundestag),Germany uses a variation on the mixed member system.  The basics of this system is that voters cast two ballots.  In one, they vote for the person who will represent their constituency in parliament.  On the second, they vote for the party.  Each lander (think state) has a certain number of constituencies.  On the high end is North Rhine-Westphalia (Bonn, Cologne, Dusseldorf) with sixty-four constituencies.  On the low end is Bremen with two constituencies.  In total, there are two hundred ninety-nine constituencies.

In theory, each lander has a number of “party list” seats equal to the number of constituencies in the lander (which would translate to a parliament of 598 seats), but there is a catch.  In calculating, the number of party list seats that each party wins in each lander, the formula uses the whole number of seats in the lander (constituency plus party list seats and allocates them using proportional representation (i.e. if a party won 10% of the vote, they are entitled to 10% of the seats) based on the vote for each party in that lander.  After calculating the number of seats that each party should receive from the lander, the formula then subtracts the number of constituency seats that each party has won.  If that leaves any party with a negative number (i.e. the party won more constituency seats than the number of seats that they would have won under proportional representation), the party gets to keep the extra seats (commonly called overhang seats), the other parties receive “compensation” seats to make the results proportional, and the lander ends up with additional seats in parliament.  )

There are two mechanisms for qualifying for party list seats — win 5% of the vote nationally or win three constituency seats.  In the last election, the Christian Democrats (including their Bavarian counterpart), the Social Democrats, and the Left were the only parties to win three or more constituency seats.  (Since unification, these are the only three groups to win three or more constituency seats in any election.)  Other parties have, in the past reached the five percent national threshold to win party list seats.  For the party list seats, while the lander results are used to allocate the seats, it is the national result that determines if a party is eligible for seats.  In other words, if a party got 8% nationally, they will still get seats from a lander in which they only received 4% of the vote.  On the other hand, a party that only got 4% of the vote nationally will not win any party list seats in a lander even if they got 7% of the vote in that lander.

Based on the polls and the results in 2013, there are six parties that have a reasonable chance at winning seats this election.  The party group that is likely to win the most seats are the Christian Democrats of current Chancellor Angela Merkel.  (The Christian Democrats run in fifteen of the sixteen lander.  They do not run in Bavaria where their sister party, the Christian Social Union runs.)  The CDU is traditionally a center-right party (think of them as a little to the left of a moderate Republican).  In the last election, the CDU won 311 (out of 631) seats on 41% of the vote nationally.

Second place is likely to go to the Social Democrats, a center-left party (think of them as a little to the left of Bernie Sanders).  In the last election, the Social Democrats won 193 seats on 26% of the vote.  There was a time earlier this year when the Social Democrats (with a new leader) were running neck and neck with the CDU.  The most recent polls, however, put the CDU in the upper 30s and the SDP in the lower 20s (in other words roughly the same place as 2013 with a slightly larger share going to the minor parties).

In the last election, third place went to the Left.  The roots of the Left are in the old Communist Party of East Germany and its base tends to be in that part of the country where it runs even with or ahead of the SDP (in several lander in what used to be West Germany, the Left struggles to get 5%).  In the last election, the Left won 64 seats (including four constituencies in East Berlin) on 8% of the vote.

Of the remaining three parties, only the Greens won seats in the last election (63 seats on 8% of the vote).  Like in the U.S., the Greens are an environmental/ultra-progressive party in Europe.  The other two parties — the Free Democrats and Alternative for Germany fell just short of 5% in 2013.  The Free Democrats used to be the centrist party in Germany holding the balance of power between the CDU and SDP.  However, they have become more conservative/quasi-libertarian.  The Alternative for Germany is an ultra-nationalist (think Donald Trump) party.  (Alternative for Germany started about five years ago as a Euro-sceptic party but has become so far right that some of its founders who were centrists have abandoned the party.)

For the four smaller parties, polling has changed dramatically over this year.  Just before Trump was elected, the Alternative for Germany looked like it might finish in third place with something in the mid-teens.  Since then the number has dropped.  Depending upon which poll you credit, all four are looking at receiving something between 7 and 11% of the vote which would mean that they would all win some seats.

If the poll results hold up, several things are likely to be true.  First, as in the recent elections, the CDU will probably win a very large majority of the constituency seats.  (In 2013, the CDU/CSU won 236 of the 299 constituency seats.)  Such a one-sided result will also mean that the CDU/CSU will pick up a large number of overhang seats.  Second, there will be a much tinier percent of the vote going to no-qualifying parties. (In the last election over 13% went to non-qualifying party as both the FDP and Alternative barely missed qualify; if they had both qualified, the non-qualifying vote would have been around 4% which is what seems to be likely this election.)  That means that the same percentage of the vote as last time will translate into fewer party list seats for each of the four parties that won seats in 2013.

The German election system tends to produce coalition governments (but, since the founders of West Germany wanted to avoid repeating the disaster of the Weimar Republic, there are several rules in place to enhance the stability of such coalitions and avoid early elections.)  In the perfect world, the CDU would prefer to form a coalition with the FDP and the SDP would prefer to form a coalition with the Greens.  At least for now, neither the CDU nor the SDP see the Left or Alternative as suitable coalition partners.  Given the recent weakness of the FDP and the strength of the Left, two of the last three elections (including the 2013 elections) have resulted in  a “grand” coalition of the CDU and SPD.  Based on where polling currently stands, while the FDP is almost certain to return to parliament, it looks more likely than not that the CDU/CSU and FDP will not win enough combined seats to have a majority.  While it is theoretically possible that the CDU/CSU could reach out to the Alternative or the Greens, both are unlikely.  As such, the most likely result is another coalition government between the CDU and SDP.

In short, it looks likely that the status quo will prevail in Germany.  Given the hostility between Chancellor Merkel and President Trump, the solid win for Chancellor Merkel has to be seen as another rebuke to Trumpism by a major European democracy.  (Particularly as Trump’s preferred party has fallen so significantly over the past twelve months.)  For the U.S., this means that we can expect Germany to continue to assert itself as the natural leader of Europe — particular with the U.S. being effectively AWOL from European issues under President Trump.  The tough question for the U.S. will be whether — under a new President in 2021 who believes that the U.S. should play a leading role in forming the international consensus on the major global issues — we will be able to reclaim our leadership from Germany.

Posted in Elections | Also tagged , , , , 1 Comment

Special Elections — Kansas Edition

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.

Posted in Elections, House of Representatives | Also tagged , , Comments Off on Special Elections — Kansas Edition