Midterm Takeaway 2: Moms in, Mobs out – the Culture War is On

This is the second in the series of my takeaways from the recently concluded 2018 midterm elections. You can read the first takeawayheree.

In a previous article, I argued that this midterm was going to be a battle of battlefronts, particularly history vs structure. On one hand, the history side suggests that the President’s party would lose seats. On the other hand, the structure side of the argument suggests that there isn’t much left for Democrats to gain for 2018, especially in the Senate. The opposition could in fact even lose seats in that case. Now we’ve gotten our answer: it was both and it was made clear by the fact that the House and Senate races were two different universes.

President Trump wanted this election to be about ‘Kavanaugh and the caravan’ (Kavanaugh is his Conservative Supreme Court justice pick and the caravan refers to those who are walking thousands of miles up to the Mexico-US border to seek assylum​). This push is in line with previous fights he wanted to wage from removing Confederate statues to kneeling NFL players during an anthem. Then there are his classic taunts on the media and his endless tweeting about rigged processes and how various investigations such as the Mueller probe are ‘witch hunts’. Pundits have thought these are reckless and impulsive but I thought there was some method into this so-called ‘madness’. I always mentioned he knows exactly what he’s doing (Remember Senator Rubio saying the same time about Obama during a debate? See the video below but replace Obama with Trump).

Some Democrats and left-leaning pundits thought that last year’s statewide Virginia races show that such waging culture wars would backfire. There’s just one problem with that assessment: not every state is like Virginia and even then, the Republican candidate’s percentage margins held up pretty well in counties the party was expected to do well in.

To put it another way, this cycle answered the question of​ whether Trump’s effectiveness in waging a culture war is transferable to Republican candidates. The answer is yes. President Trump focused on the Senate in his series of campaigns in the final weeks of the midterms by going to states he won but with a Democrat. Donnelly was well behind throughout the evening. There was a point in the night that I thought that Republicans would come close to a filibuster-proof Senate majority (though mathematically that was ruled out with Manchin’s victory).

And it’s not just the Senate where Republicans did well in. Rural House districts show how well Trump has done Republican candidates a favour. Republican incumbents have increased their majorities in most districts subject to a special election throughout 2017 and 2018.

Yup and #OH12. Although Abrams turnout undoubtedly helped McBath in #GA06. https://t.co/O0G76kfZoS

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) 9 November 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Returning to the Senate, I have to admit that a failure of Democrats to recapture means the most consequential​ aspect of Trump’s legacy – reshaping the Federal Judiciary – will continue unimpeded. Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley will no longer have to depend on Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski to provide the deciding votes on judicial nominees. Conservative justices will be able to thwart any ruling that is favourable to Democrats and progressives. And even if lower courts don’t, there’s a newly-emboldened Supreme Court with Brent Kavanaugh that would provide a reliably conservative ruling.

More broadly, I’ve always maintained that Trump could perpetually have a negative net approval rating in the US at large and be behind in the nationwide popular vote but because of the electoral system, he does not need to have them in his favour. He just needs to be popular in enough states and they don’t even need to have a tonne of voters (though having Florida as one of those states helps). That reality was not lost on Trump and the Republicans. An enlarged Republican Senate majority, built on the backs of Democrat incumbent losses in red states, signifies the culture war Trump wants to wage is well underway.

BUT, the cavalry has arrived for Democrats. Whereas Kavanaugh and the caravan powered cultural conservatives to oust red-state​ Senate Democrats, they have also empowered suburban women – voters and candidates alike – to help Democrats recapture the House. These new warriors are there to remind Trump that they have the authority to put a check on him. On top of that, barring any serious contests within the Democratic caucus, the likely next speaker is herself a woman.

Just as Trump’s base states have turned redder, white-collar suburbia has turned bluer. And it’s not just women who will enter the House but also minorities. This marks the first time that white men are a minority in the Democratic caucus. In an era where the #MeToo and #NeverAgain (referring to the resolve to stop gun violence) movements are on the rise, Democrats are on their way to use the House to wage their cultural war battles.

Throughout the twentieth century, suburbia has been a reliable source of Republican votes. To be sure, a lot of southern suburbs are still more likely to vote Republican than Democrat. But outside of evangelical and Mormon areas, Democrats have made significant inroads in suburbia to offset their losses in small town and rural America. The question is whether that would be enough in 2020.

Once again, Trump’s win in the Senate signifies his culture war wages on but Democratic wins in the House provide the party with new weapons and new foot soldiers in its upcoming battles.

Advice to Democrats on SCOTUS and Judiciary: Win the Senate Back

Journalist Jeff Greenfield has written an article that reminds everyone about President Trump’s most important legacy to date: reshaping the judiciary to become more conservative leaning for decades. Now we can debate about whether that is Trump’s legacy alone because the Senate, led by Mitch McConnell ultimately has a say on whether these nominations move forward. Some will observe that a lot of procedures meant to produce a fair vetting of nominations such as the ‘blue slip rule’ and filibuster have been done away with (to be sure former Democratic leader Harry Reid was responsible for some of this).

And now that Republican Senators have a ‘take it or leave it’ approach to Dr Ford’s allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brent Kavanaugh, their motive could not be clearer. After all, a lifetime appointment is at stake, and it could reshape the court for a generation on issues from abortion to voting rights. Personally, amidst the backlash pushing through with the nomination could create, Republicans feel that they can take that because Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court could make it easy for voter suppression tactics to survive, if such related rulings even get passed the already conservative federal judiciary where one out of every seven judges is a Trump nominee. In other words, the long run calculation is that if there is outrage by women from a Kavanaugh confirmation, there’s nothing the women can do about it because their friends in statehouses will be able to suppress votes all they want.

Which now leads us to what we think the next best solution for Democrats ought to be. Unfortunately given everything that has transpired, Democrats only have ​one alternative: win back the Senate. This is supposed to be a blue wave year given President Trump’s national approval level consistently under water.

There is just one major problem. There are 25 Democrats (including two who caucus with them) up for reelection in 2018, ​but the challenge does not necessarily come from the fact that more than half the caucus is up for reelection per se. Instead, it’s the fact that more than a third of this class of Senators come from states Trump won in 2016. Polls have suggested tight races, and at one point, I even suggested that a filibuster-proof majority is in play given the close correspondence between Senate and Presidential votes in recent years.

But make no mistake, whilst winning the House may be a symbolic victory for Democrats, them winning the Senate will send the real shivers down the spines of Republicans.

If Democrats lose on the Kavanaugh battle, my advice is for them to play the ‘long game’. This is a significant setback but only a setback; there is still a lot of minutes left to play. They should use this to galvanise their base. Republicans have historically been more energised if the Supreme Court or even the judiciary more broadly is cited as an issue. That’s one of the reasons observers cited for why wavering Republicans voted for Trump anyway in 2016. And it looks like Trump is delivering. Republicans have polished the art of winning over voters with the judiciary as an issue for almost half a century. If ever Democrats are showing a sign they’ve learned, they’re barely getting started. I don’t see as much passion in the blue team as they ought to.

Democrats need to mount a smart and tough campaign to do the unthinkable, which is to win back the Senate. There are less than seven weeks left to make their case especially as the other side has been making theirs for more than four decades.​ Democrats may not be able to stop Kavanaugh but if they win the Senate, they may be able to protect the legacies of the justices that matter more afterwards: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Is Dean Heller (R-Nevada) Really Vulnerable?

Last week, I made a list of the factors working for and against who I think are the most vulnerable red state Democrats in the context of whether incumbency really means something in a supposedly wave election that supposedly should favour Democrats. I also wanted to explore of whether one would rather be an incumbent House Republican or an incumbent Senate Democrat in a state Trump won by large margins.

This week however, I wanted to try something a bit simple, and I mean keep the analysis in the Senate. I would want to ask the question of whether one would rather be a red state Democrat or Dean Heller, the only incumbent Republican Senator this election cycle standing in a state that Hillary Clinton won (Nevada). I would submit that in terms of structure, Heller may not be completely vulnerable.

CONS:
– represents a state that Clinton won
– midterms usually swing against the President’s Party
– large Latino population
– Trump’s net approval is -2 points in Heller’s state per Fivethirtyeight

PROS:
– incumbency
– Heller is well-funded by mega-donor billionaires; has Trump’s enthusiastic support
– Clinton won the state by just 2.4 points; vulnerable red-state Democrats are standing in states Trump won by double digits
– Trump’s net approval rating is only narrowly negative (-2)
– Latinos don’t turn out reliably, especially during non-presidential years

Nevada is actually an enigma. Despite the huge Latino population, Trump and other Republicans tend to be doing fairly well in the state. That should be remarkable given the news cycle which portrays antagonism towards Latinos. In addition, the most recent Axios poll shows that the Democratic candidate Jacky Rosen is up by only three points against Heller. This is close to Clinton’s margin over Trump two years ago and Trump’s latest net approval rating. This should give analysts some pause abut whether the wins we have seen elsewhere since Trump took office would actually turn into a wave given that polls suggest limited swings in the Silver state relative to the averages seen in special elections.

This could once again be a sign that whatever Trump is doing to bolster Republicans’ chances could be working, at least in the Senate. For now, one would rather be Dean Heller than Joe Donnelly given that the former is a Republican in a state that Clinton only won narrowly and the latter is a Democrat in a state that Trump won by a comfortable margin.

Incumbency Factor? What (Democratic) Incumbency Factor?

So far, most of the focus is on whether Democrats can take control of the House come November. A lot of prognosticators and pundits use special election performances as a benchmark for how Democrats would perform. Some of them hastily think that a 15-point swing would mean 50 or so seats would flip in the blue column. However others are more cautious because of two other factors: (low) turnout and incumbency. If you read the likes of Dave Wasserman and Nate Cohn, they think that incumbent House members would be harder to unseat. That’s probably true. And judging from the open seats, Democrats have had a poor batting average as far as the House is concerned since they only have won one House seat and lost six. If they can’t win in open seats, what more when it comes to supposedly competitive seats with incumbents standing?

Pssst: Open seats are more likely to flip than those with an incumbent on the ballot. (And Republicans have more open seats this cycle than at any point in the last 12 years) https://t.co/gr7yc04UBM pic.twitter.com/5i3ICfLIC0

— Alexi McCammond (@alexi) 3 July 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

On the other hand though, you don’t hear pundits give the same incumbency advantage to a lot of Senate Democrats representing states that Trump won by overwhelming margins. Consider this: special elections are suggesting swings favouring Democrats quite strongly, including in some states where Trump won handily, so why can’t they apply to the Senate? It should mean that Senate Democrats should be safe based on the swings. But Fivethirtyeight has reiterated that votes for Senate and Presidency have become much more correlated over time. To be sure, states like North and South Dakota have traditionally sent Democrats even in years where the Republican presidential candidate had won those states fairly comfortably. But polarisastion has made things harder for parties which do not win those states on the Presidential level.

Based on the foregoing, here is my pecking order of the five states where incumbent Senate Democrats are most vulnerable to a Republican candidate. I will also be outlining the things that are working for and against each candidate. In some cases, an attribute may be working for and against the candidate at the same time. To begin with, the biggest advantage they all share is that midterm elections usually swing against the President’s Party but this year, it is not guaranteed on the state level given such polarisation. (The first state is the most vulnerable.)

1. Indiana (Joe Donnelly)
PROS:
– incumbency
– midterm elections usually swing against President’s Party
CONS:
– Trump won the state by almost 19 points
– Trump is still popular in the state: net approval of +8 (based on Fivethirtyeight).
– no polls so far have shown him ahead of his Republican challenger
– no special elections in the state that have shown at least a dramatic swing to the Democrats
– establishment Republicans have gotten the candidate they hoped for
BOTH PRO AND CON:
– voted for Trump’s previous Supreme Court pick.

2. Florida (Bill Nelson)
PROS:
– three-term incumbent
– midterm elections usually swing against President’s Party
– site of the Parkland school shooting where current and former pupils are making a push to campaign for candidates who support gun reform (usually Democrats)
– Puerto Ricans flocking to the State in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria which Trump has been criticised for.
CONS:
– expected Republican opponent Gov Rick Scott is popular in the state and well-funded
– Trump’s net approval is +5 (based on Fivethirtyeight).
– Trump has been given high marks for handling of Hurricane Irma.
– special elections are mixed where some have shown a swing to the Republicans.
– Nelson does not have much of a ground game that reaches out to Latinos. Limited name recognition among the Latino demographic.
– state has a huge population of seniors (usually vote Republican and are most reliable group to turn out)
– Trump has exempted the state from some environmental deregulation upon the request of Gov Scott.

3. North Dakota (Heidi Heitkamp)
PROS:
– incumbency
– midterm elections usually swing against President’s Party
CONS:
– Trump won the state by almost 36 points.
– Trump’s net approval is +8 (based on Fivethirtyeight).
– mixed polling in the state
BOTH PRO AND CON:
– voted for Trump’s previous Supreme Court pick
– Koch Brothers endorsed her candidacy.

4. Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
CONS:
– Trump won the state by almost 19 points.
– Trump’s net approval is +5 (based on Fivethirtyeight).
– ‘Planegate’ controversy
– Eric Greitens has stepped down as governor reducing the potential ‘drag’ on other Republican candidates.
– establishment Republicans have gotten the candidate they have hoped for.
PROS:
– two-term incumbent
– midterm elections usually swing against President’s Party
– most polls show her ahead, albeit narrowly
– Missouri has seen at least two special elections at the state level swing strongly in favour of Democrats
– Jason Kandor, the previous Democrat to stand for a US Senate seat, overperformed Trump’s 18-point margin. Kandor has lost to Roy Blunt by only three points.
– the #MeToo movement where sexual harassment has gone to the forefront of issues may resonate with voters as McCaskill has been known to fight against it

5. Montana (John Tester)
CONS:
– Trump won the state by almost 21 points
– Trump has a net approval of +3 (based on Fivethirtyeight)
– establishment Republicans have gotten the candidate they have hoped for
PROS:
– two-term incumbent
– most polls show him ahead, albeit narrowly
– a Democratic governor has been elected in the same year as Trump’s thumping victory in the state
– some special elections (notably the at-large House seat) have swung in the direction of Democrats even if the party has not won them.

Notice I didn’t put West Virginia on the list despite Trump’s overwhelming margin. It’s actually close and it may still make up the top 5 but Manchin has won both as Governor and Senator in the state. Manchin won in 2012 by an overwhelming margin despite Willard Romney’s 27-point margin against Obama. This assessment can still change though.

Finally, there is one wild card and we still don’t which way it will play. That wild card is the Supreme Court vacancy that will be left by Anthony Kennedy when he retires later this month. Unlike the House, the Senate has power to confirm the President’s Supreme Court pick. Analysts say that Majority leader Mitch McConnell has intentionally wanted to confirm Trump’s nominee before Kennedy retires to force red state Democrats to make a tough choice, thinking it is a lose-lose proposition for them. He also hopes that it would energise the Republican base. Here is the thing about that though: Republicans turn out in high numbers anyway, vacancy or not. And the Supreme Court has always been a top issue for Republicans and it motivates them to turn out knowing that a vacancy could occur at anytime. Therefore, it might serve red state Democrats well to hang on to as much of the limited Democratic base they have in their state knowing that Republican-leaning voters would vote for Republican candidates anyway. The likes of McCaskill can take comfort in the fact that in special elections in her state, Democrats have won districts that Trump carried handily two years ago; they also serve as a warning that if she votes to confirm Trump’s Supreme Court pick, that energy may just dissipate.

As I have said, Trump may be unpopular nationally, but his statewide approval ratings have implications for how well his party can potentially perform in the Senate. And yes, a filibuster-proof Republican Senate is still in the cards, pundits must at least discuss it, and Democratic strategists must get ready for the prospect of it.

Election 2018: The Election of Battlefronts

The midterm election of 2018 features several battlefronts.  Normally, these fronts work together.  In fact, if Hillary Clinton won the 2016 presidential race, we would not be having these debates.

History vs Structure

On one hand, history dictates that the President’s Party loses seats in a midterm election. There are rare exceptions to this trend but it is important to highlight that lost seats don’t always necessarily equate to lost chambers.  The 1966 midterm election held in Lyndon Johnson’s presidency resulted in a 47-seat loss for Democrats but they retained the chamber.  The 2010 election held in Obama’s first term resulted in a six-seat loss for Democrats but they still retained the Senate.

On the other hand, you have structure.  Congressional and statehouse districts have been heavily gerrymandered, making Democratic victories extremely difficult to achieve.  Look at Virginia’s House of Delegates race.  In 2017, they won almost 54% of the generic statewide House ballot, which is as good as Democrats can ever get in the state.  Yet they haven’t regained control of the House of Delegates.  And I argued in a previous article that this is a bad omen for Democrats looking to retake the House.

Still on the issue of structure is the Senators standing for re-election.  Twenty-six Democrats (including two independents who caucus with them) are on the ballot.  That’s more than half the entire Democratic caucus.  Some analysts note that the imbalance is unusually high in Democrats’ favour.  But that’s not the kicker.  Ten of those 26 happen to represent states that voted for Trump in 2016; he won some of those states by at least 20 points.  Fivethirtyeight has argued that straight-ticket voting has become more prevalent.  In other words, I don’t think the lopsided number of Democratic Senators per se is the problem, but the fact that a lot of them represents states he won.  If Fivethirtyeight’s observation of straight-ticket voting continues to hold, we may be seeing a filibuster-proof Republican Senate majority in December.

Thus, the tension between history (i.e. president’s party losing seats), which tends to favour Democrats, and structure (i.e. gerrymandering, increased prevalence of straight-ticket voting), which tends to favour Republicans.

Incumbent Democrats vs Incumbent Republicans

Related to the history vs structure front is which incumbent will prevail.  You will hear a lot of analysts say that it is premature to say a 20+-point swing in the special election to Democrats will mean outright victory.  And that’s because in these special elections, there are no incumbents standing.  November’s elections will be different: incumbency almost always serves as a headwind for the challengers.  If you noticed the two-tier primary in California last Tuesday, particularly around Orange County, Democrats collectively scored over 50% in only one Orange County-district: the one that Daryl Issa is vacating.  Most of the others will have incumbents (seePatrick Ruffini’s tweet below).  California is arguably the heart of ‘resistance country’.  If Democrats can’t oust incumbents in ‘friendly’ territory, what more when it comes to not-so friendly states?

Cumulative GOP percentage in California battlegrounds:

CA-10 52%
CA-21 63%
CA-25 53%
CA-39 54%
CA-45 53%
CA-48 53%
CA-49 48%

No lockout, but these numbers can’t make the @dccc happy.

— Patrick Ruffini (@PatrickRuffini) 6 June 2018

On the other hand, the media is talking as if the Senate Democrats representing states Trump won do not have the same incumbency advantage as House Republicans.  Historically, it is pretty rare for incumbent Senators who are not of the president’s party to lose seats.  Then again, as I mentioned in my first point, polarisation and straight-ticket voting tendencies are what is different about then and now, and they’re making me think that Democrats indeed don’t have the incumbency advantage to cling on to.

Old vs Educated Voters

Midterm voters tend to feature an older and more educated electorate.  In the past, both used to favour Republicans in such an environment.  However, the 2016 election has shown an erosion of support for the Republican Party among university-educated voters, especially women.  The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll shows Trump and Republicans underwater with college-educated whites by double digits; Quinnipiac University’s poll shows Republicans trailing by just four, but still worse than where they historically have been.  Older voters though continue to support Republicans more than younger voters though.

This will be an interesting tension to watch.

Approval Rating vs Economic Numbers

The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll reports 53% disapprove of Trump’s performance and 44% approve of it.  For sure, this is an improvement of five points from the previous poll but it is still historically under water.  Presidents Reagan and Obama had similar approval numbers at this point in their presidency (1982 and 2010, respectively) and as a result, faced massive losses during their respective upcoming midterms.

However, the economic picture is rosier.  The economy continues to add hundreds of thousands of jobs each month.  If the economy improves under Republicans, it normally helps them.

My thought on this is that there usually is a delay in translating good economic news into political fortunes.    Six in ten voters think the economy is doing quite well and more voters give Trump good marks on the economy.  These numbers, and Trump’s approval rating were slightly lower months ago but in the NBC News/WSJ poll and other polls, voters are giving Trump more credit.

These are just some of the advantages.  All-in-all, I think Trump and the Republicans have one advantage: time.  They still have five months to build on the progress.  Anything can happen.  It is still a fluid situation.

The Peril of Reading Approval Numbers: States Matter

At the time of this original post, the latest Fivethirtyeight poll tracker shows President Trump with a 54.1% disapproval and 40.2% approval.  That’s a net approval of -13.9%.  It should mean trouble for him, especially so if everyone who disapproves of Trump will vote for a single Democratic candidate.  You keep hearing pundits saying how unpopular he is.

There is however one problem in looking at it that way.  That is a national number and presidents (or other federally-elected officeholders) aren’t elected based on the nationwide popular vote.  We must remember that the electoral college votes is what elects presidents and a candidate needs 270 of them to win.

As everyone knows, in most states, the candidate who gets more votes wins all of that states electoral votes.  It does not matter whether the margin was 0.5, 5, or 50 points.  In theory it means that Trump can just barely lead by a fraction of a percent but win all of the electoral votes of the state in question.  In our approval numbers scenario, if we can award a state’s electoral votes based on net approval ratings, for as long Trump can just eek out a positive net approval rating, he can receive all of that states electoral votes. Consequently, just like 2000 and 2016 where the electoral vote winner is the popular vote loser, a candidate can have a negative national net approval rating but scrape enough electoral votes to appear otherwise.

To demonstrate the said point, I made a simulation where each state’s electoral votes are indeed awarded to Trump if he earns a positive net approval rating.  To come up with the national net approval rating, each of the states’ net approval rating is weighed against their share of the population, and all the weighted net approval ratings of each state are added together.  Just for the sake of argument, I gave Trump large negative net approval ratings in the states that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 (e.g. -50% in California and New York) and small positive net approval ratings (mostly +5%) in states Trump won back then.  Of course, these are exaggerated to some degree but we are trying to make an argument here.

The result of that is Trump’s national net approval rating stands at -14.9%.  That’s quite close to the Fivethirtyeight tracking average I just mentioned.  However, he still receives 305 electoral votes, more than enough to get him re-elected.

In this scenario, because of the winner-take-all dynamic in the electoral college, all of Trump’s disapproval are concentrated, ‘contained’, and ‘capped’ in the states that typically vote blue anyway.  His disapproval is effectively prevented from spreading to other states that could cause him to lose.  The fact that winner-take-all is used should only tell us how many states Trump is above water (even barely rather than by how much in each of them).  I suspect this is why he can afford to piss off minorities and suburban university-educated whites: there aren’t enough states for them to make a meaningful impact.  This is why I also argued in 2016 that Latinos couldn’t save Clinton: Trump doesn’t need them.

Whenever I read another Tweet coming from Trump, he is not necessarily speaking to those constituencies he is alienating: they are in states that Republicans are alienated from anyway.  Those are intended for his working class base in those states that move the needle.

Whether Democrats like it or not, the electoral maps (and this includes the House and Senate maps) are titled disproportionately towards states where working-class whites have a lock on the demographic.  That’s the reality the need to work with if their party is to ever see the light of day.  Yes their coalition could be more in numbers nationally, but they are concentrated in fewer states, thus ‘handicapping’ their ability to win.

And we are also beginning to see how this disproportionate empowerment of Republican states is obscuring how unpopular POTUS is come the midterms.  An Axios-Survey Monkey Poll shows that five incumbent Democrats who are in red states are poised to lose their seats and two additional Democrats less than five points ahead of a generic Republican.  Trump is in trouble nationally but he is above water in those states where the Democrat is lagging.  If things keep up, we should get ready not just for a filibuster-proof Republican Senate, but for a Trump/Bannon-friendly one too despite Trump’s negative net disapproval nationally.

One final point here: we’ve made the argument here that states matter in electoral maps.  But Democrats should be lucky that right now, counties don’t.  That’s because Clinton won less than 500 counties (despite winning the popular vote) but Trump won over 2,600 of them.  That’s more than a 5-to-1 margin.  If you think Trump can crush opponents using the existing electoral maps despite a sizeable negative net disapproval nationally, wait until the winner is decided based on how many counties a candidate or party has won.  That’s what I really call obscuring the will of the voters.

 

A GOP Supermajority in 2018?

The midterm elections would normally go against the President’s Party.  The sitting president will lose support in either chamber of Congress.  The last time this was not the case was in 2002 – the first election after 9/11 – when the President’s Party has gained a handful of seats in the House and Senate.

There are two extreme possibilities in 2018, each one representing the best case for either party.  One of them represents history (a Democratic House) and the other represents structure and maths (a filibuster-proof Republican Senate).

If you tune in to mainstream media, you will keep hearing how good it is for Democrats when it comes to the House.  Given issues of gerrymandering, that outcome remains to be seen.  So I am a bit sceptical that that will materialise.

The 2018 Senate map however, looks much tougher for Democrats.  Assume Roy Moore, the Republican Senate candidate for Alabama wins the special election on Tuesday.  For one, the party has made net gains in the past three consecutive cycles for the class of senators that will be up for election in 2018 (Class 1).  In fact, more than half of the Democratic caucus (25) is found in Senate Class 1.

To make matters tougher, 10 of these Democrats represent states that Trump won in 2016.  They include Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.  Fivethirtyeight has released an analysis where one’s vote for senate and president have corresponded in recent years.  This means is that if you subscribe to that theory, Republicans should end up with up to 62 seats after the elections on 6th November 2018. Even if Democrats win Nevada and Arizona, the only two states they have a realistic chance to gain, Republicans still have the 60 they need to quash a filibuster.  Take note this does not include what may happen in Minnesota where a special election will be called in 2018 to fill in the vacancy that would be left by Al Franken when he steps down at the end of the year due to allegations of misconduct.  Some analysts worry that a Republican may do well enough to win that seat and that takes Republicans up to a healthy 61.

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

What does this mean? It means that Republicans can ram through virtually any piece of  legislation they want to without fear of Democrats blocking them.  Republicans won’t have to worry about deploying a ‘nuclear option’, something that they used to push through the appointment of controversial Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Goursuch.   Republicans won’t have to rely on a technique called reconciliation to push through major pieces of their agenda.

 

And here is an added bonus: former White House chief strategist and Trump ally Steve Bannon warned Republican incumbents that they may be subject to a primary.  In 2018, Bannon does not need to primary them because there aren’t that many Republican incumbents to primary in the first place.  It means he can handpick as many ‘Roy Moore’-like or ‘Trump’-like candidates directly and they won’t have to worry about beating an incumbent Republican.  They will be then able to  directly challenge their Democratic rivals in the general election.  If they all win, not only do you have a Republican-friendly supermajority in the Senate, but a Bannon/Trump/Moore-friendly supermajority one as well.

 

The president’s ratings may be in the mid-to-upper 30s for now and even if they stay there on 6th November 2018, it’s where the President is popular that counts.  It’s completely useless if the President’s unpopularity is concentrated in California, New York, and Washington state, yet still above water in the 30-something states he won last year.

Unpopular Tax Bill: What Gives?

Despite only a 25% approval rate for the Senate tax plan, as well as warnings from several sectors including a former Reagan adviser, Senators are poised to pass it anyway.  Even Obamacare outs like Susan Collines (R-ME), John McCain (R-AZ) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) are getting on board with it.     One may wonder what could their incentive is for doing something that is normally politically suicide.  Or is it?

Here are what I think are the things that are giving  them such incentives to do such a calculation.

1. Tribalism.  If there is one thing the upcoming special Alabama Senate election tells us, it is that Republicans simply view supporting a Democrat, let along a Democratic agenda, as the gravest mortal sin one could ever commit.  So the party is counting on their own voters to look past the real possibility that Democrats could score points in the long run from this.  To sweeten the pot, analysts say that the bill hits blue (Democratic) states much more, so Republican voters may be able to brush off the bill’s most adverse provisions.
2. Voter suppression and gerrymandering.  I am guessing Congressional Republicans are banking on their friends at state houses to help them win.  They believe that with gerrymandered districts and stricter voter ID laws to discourage Democratic voters, their jobs will be safe.   The Virginia House of Delegates election and the Congressional special elections held so far demonstrate these points.  Despite huge gains for Democrats, subject to recount outcomes, Republicans have retained control of the former and held on to all their House seats.  Moreover, Wisconsin, which was expected to go solidly for Clinton last year, has gone to Trump and analysts say that voter suppression played a big role there.
3. They simply want to lose anyway.  But given that critics say that the bill favours the wealthiest people in the country, Republicans may bank on their friends to give them high-paying jobs in the private sector (e.g. as lobbyists).  Of course, with these high-paying jobs, Republicans will get to enjoy the tax cuts they themselves have passed.  There is just one problem with this: if Republicans will lose, who will continue to advocate for their causes in Congress?
4. Republicans may be playing a longer game.  Republicans are much better at playing the deficit card.  Democrats had a 60-seat majority yet still struggled to pass a stimulus bill, let alone health care bill, which they were eventually forced to pass using the reconciliation manoeuvre they are now accusing Republicans of using to pass the controversial tax bill.  And in 2010, Democrats suffered massive losses up and down the ballot.  Republicans might indeed want to lose in the coming elections timed to coincide with economic catastrophes.  That will naturally mean Democrats will be responsible for it and if they propose economic packages, Republicans will look at its spending provisions and rail loudly at how they bust the deficits.  That would provide them more talking points to reprise a 2010-like outcome.

Once again, the key to seeing what incentivises the Republican Party is to look tactically, structurally, and long-haul.

Bright spot for Democrats: 2018?

In the wake of Donald Trump’s victory as the next President of the United States, Democratic gains in the House and Senate are limited, and they suffered loses governorships and a few more state houses.  It will be the first time in ten years when Democrats will not be controlling at least one branch of government.

No doubt that the party needs to sort itself out and figure out how it can do well now that it lost a reliable constituent of its base – white working class voters in the rustbelt to Trump.  However, IF they play their cards correctly and strategically, their one bright spot is two-years away.  We are talking about the mid-terms.  Under normal circumstances, the party controlling the White House loses seats in down-ballot races.  But there are three hurdles that Democrats will face in 2018 that will limit their ability to make a statement loud enough to hold Trump accountable.

1. Dark Money. – Citizens United has allowed corporations to donate an unlimited amount of money to Super PACs.  These Super PACs normally favour Republicans not least because of their big business-friendly manifestos.  Their spending has been touted as a reason for why, for instance, Scott Walker emerged victorious in efforts to have him recalled in 2012.  You can expect the likes of the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson to be pouring in big money to Republican candidates soon.
2. Gerrymandered House Districts. – Because Democrats suffered large losses up and down the ballot in the 2010 midterms, it meant that Republican state houses controlled the process for drawing US house district maps.  District maps would normally combine small pockets of Democratic areas into larger landmasses with a lot of Republicans in them.  The consequence is that the Republicans will more likely than not win.
3. Large Democratic Senate Class. – 2018 will see the election for the ‘Class 1’ group of senators (each class, which comprises approximately a third of all senators, is elected once every six years).  ‘Class 1’ already has a large number of Democrats.  In fact, more than half of all Senate democrats belong this class.  This means that the opportunities for Democrats to make gains in the upper chamber, let alone regain control of it, will be limited.  They now need to gain a net of three seats to control the Senate.  On the other hand, if the history is a guide, a Clinton loss now would mean that it will be somewhat easier for Democrats to defend the said Senate seats.

Even if Democratic gains in the House and Senate are going to be limited before Trump stands for re-election, the opportunities to defend governorships and statehouses are not.  One governorship can be taken back as early as next year when New Jersey’s next gubernatorial election takes place.  Chris Christie, a well-known Trump ally, is facing disappointing approval numbers in his state.  On top of this, he is still at the centre of the ‘Bridge-gate’ scandal.  If Democrats play their cards correctly on this one, the number of states where they have total control of governor’s mansions and state houses will go up by one.

Do not underestimate the significance of these state and sub-state level races.  For one they provide a footing and network for a party especially in Congressional and Presidential campaigns.  This can be seen in the redistricting process.  Second, in the long run, they can also expand the pool of talent that the national parties can choose from for its leadership.  This is especially critical for 2020 and 2024 presidential campaigns now that Clinton has been defeated and the pool of Democratic hopefuls is shallow.  Third, they  can decide to pass a higher minimum wage and better labour laws if the right candidates for the governor’s mansion and statehouses are elected.

But as I said, Democrats cannot assume this will come to them as a given feature of the electoral cycle.  They will need to work hard, sort out the problems they encountered in the previous campaigns.  And they also should not be seen as obstructionists for obstructionism’s sake: if they wish to oppose a controversial measure by the Trump administration, they need to be tactful and strategic about how they ought to do this.

Financial Reform Puts Republicans on the Spot – AOL News

Financial Reform Puts Republicans on the Spot – AOL News.

Sure Democrats can play politics with this in saying the Republicans are pro-Wall Street.  But the bottomline out of all of this is this is cold comfort for people angry at the big banks.  They don’t want Dems scoring political points by saying the GOP is pro-Wall Street but not doing anything about it.